For the better part of the last month, I have been simply stunned by the change that the American electorate brought into being. I have been beyond commentary. I’ve just been admiring.

America, there is no overstating how profound the choice of Obama was. It means so much in terms of civil rights, meritocracy and decency in political discourse. But most significantly are two changes that will be taking place with such rapidity and intensity, we will soon hardly recognize our world.

One is the impact on America’s body politic – an impact that will, after generations of division, bring us together. This may sound simplistic, but you can see it happening already: Obama has, through his choices of advisors and vision for legislation, begun to dispel the notion of an opposition party. Now there are two parties, cooperating, and the fringe that clings bitterly to the politics of the past.

A recent NPR interview with a Republican strategist spoke directly to this phenomenon: The strategist talked about how Obama has co-opted many of the issues of the Right. Among them are reducing wasteful spending in government, defending gun rights, reducing abortions and taking a new, effective stance against terrorism and greater threats to American security. The strategist lamented this, given that these priorities of policy demands that Republicans either hold to their values and work with the administration, or take a more “conservative” stance socially in order to distinguish themselves.

We’ve seen it happening over the last month. Moderate conservatives such as those I’ve identified here on the blog are speaking with cautious favorability of the promise of Obama’s leadership. Meanwhile, staunch conservatives such as Norquist and Dobson are retrenching, trying to drum their flagging base into a more fervent condition with the old, campaign tropes of Obama being some manner of nebulous, foreign threat. The latter perception will not last long, and the former will find leaner numbers as people are clearly put off by the militant social conservatism of the far Right.

Perhaps the most corrosive element to the efforts of the Right to distinguish themselves as a firm opposition is the fact that Obama has seized upon some of the best talent of the middle. On the middle-right, we see figures like General Brent Scowcroft, Bush I’s NSA, and men like Paul Volker and General James Jones being brought in to be principal advisors to Obama. Secretary of Defense Gates being a holdover underscores this prevailing attitude of the Obama administration – that pragmatism and merit trumps political alignment.

So the statement is clearer now than ever: Obama wants the people of quality, the people with ideas, not political hacks. Even his appointment of various Clinton operatives suggests this – he wants the people, like Rahm Emmanuel, who can produce results.  Above all, 

Politics as we knew it in the spin-heavy, partisan, mercenary ways of the last twenty years is over.

Secondly, the major change will be in the globe. And unlike the post-partisan attitudes of the administration’s public veneer, this is a change that only the select that voted for Obama will be able to take credit for.

For yes, Obama’s politics will be one of unity, but it was the moment of his election – and that alone – that inspires the rest of the globe’s change.

That instant proved to the rest of the globe that America will no longer be taking a turn for the regressive. In the moment of electing Obama, a vast percentage of the electorate declared that America is still a nation of firsts in civil liberties.

We are now first in a man of color leading a major Western Empire. We stood for a first when it came to embracing a multi-cultural man. And we were first to confront the greatest ill of our past – slavery – by appointing a black man as our President.

This is no mean achievement: For the last eight years, the world has been waiting for us to seize the reins of progressiveness that we had led the charge with for the last century. Recognize, America, that in the era of World War II, we stood for grand values that inspired populations across the globe:

We stood for being prudent while still supporting the unfortunates in our society, as with the New Deal. We stood for placing the protection of the minority over the demagoguery of the majority, as with the civil rights movement. We led the globe in international organizations that helped the needy and could intervene if necessary in a crisis, as with the UN and NATO. And above all, we stood for the ideal that all men were created equal.

Now, electing the colored child of a single mother from the lower middle class, those that cast a vote for Obama have reminded the globe that we are still the champions of those values – those values that, above our prosperity and our custodianship, the world held dear.

We declared the era of state-sanctioned torture is over. The era of profligate corporate welfare at the expense of the masses is over. Isolationism and adherence to regressive international ideas, is over.

But this message was spoken only by those who voted for Obama – that is the honor that his supporters alone bear. For even though the opposition can support or curtail the events of the future, they cannot claim to be party to the awesome statement in favor of civil rights and global liberty that Obama represents.

They fought it; some hard, some casually and some tacitly, but all of them were opposition to it. They are numbered among those that fought the best of history – the judges who voted for segregation on the Supreme Court during Brown v. Board of Education; among the supporters of poor Goldwater who stood for separate facilities being allowed as States Rights; among those who passed Constitutional reforms against interracial marriage.

In light of this separation, I will be changing the title and mission of this blog. With an administration that I clearly favor in power, there is no playing the moderate. I chose my side in this election, and though I chose it because it was biparistan – even post-partisan – I will not pretend to not be aligned. I made my choice and chose to stand for liberty and progress.

I welcome those that stood against it, against the greatest values to ever inspire the globe, to work with me in this new time of unity.

I was ardent for change. I fought ardently against those who fought against it. I will be ardent to enact it the only way we can – together.

This is neither the crest of the wave, its source or its break, but the view from here is glorious all the same:

Unnoticed under the fireworks and fanfare of the election, a significant military development lit up the Middle East desert in a brief, surgically-shaped flash: The United States military attacked Syria.

Official media in Damascus reported earlier that the helicopter-borne troops from Iraq launched an assault on a building site in Al-Sukkiraya village, which lies just eight kilometres (five miles) from the border on the Euphrates river and close to the Iraqi town of Al-Qaim, a stronghold of Al-Qaeda and other insurgents.

Despite the hundreds of civilians who turned out for funereal processions and anti-American chanting the day after the assault, I see this assault into Syria as a good thing. The Global War on Terror demands a certain fluidity when borders are concerned, with one crucial caveat: We can’t use so much force that the nation whose sovereignty we violated actually begins to go into war mode against us. As strapped for cash, grunts and allies as we are, we can’t afford Syria beginning to shift into a massive anti-American paramilitary campaign, let alone slapping down a declaration of capital-W “War.”

But just as war is defined as “diplomacy by other means,” diplomacy is an important instrument of war. And so, just as we have to recognize the permeability of borders in a global war against a non-state actor like Al-Qaeda, we have to recognize that there are too legitimate militaries on either side of each border.

This operation underscores the unilateralism - the go-it-alone approach - of the Bush administration. Duplicitous as they are distrustful, they pour billions of our tax dollars into military aid for nations like Pakistan and Egypt, while using the other hand to slip SpecFor in through the back door for off-the-books strikes like the one on October 27th. This has to change.

Fortunately for America’s future as a military hegemon, we have a powerful change agent: General Petraeus.

…Petraeus proposed visiting Syria shortly after taking over as the top U.S. commander for the Middle East.

The idea was swiftly rejected by Bush administration officials at the White House, State Department and the Pentagon.

Petraeus is, as I’ve mentioned, the Pompey Magnus of our times - a cunning general, as superb in organizing as in personal glory, who realizes that war doesn’t mean an end to the “carrot and stick” approach of diplomacy; just bigger sticks and carrots. He bought off the Big Bad in Iraq - the Sunni militias - and so won them to our side; he out-manuevered the pro-Ayatollah Iraqi regime and swept their Iran-backed security forces out of power; he’s seen to the isolation of al-Q in Iraq.

Now he has his sights set on getting the Syrians on the right team and playing hard for our “big win,” looking to get Syria policing its own borders along with us, rather than against us. And with a man as persistent as Petraeus, there’s hope for the future despite the lock-down of the present Administration.

Petraeus would likely find a more receptive audience for his approach in an Obama administration, given Barack Obama’s views on the need to engage America’s enemies.

So keep those fingers crossed even tighter for an Obama victory three days from now, dear reader. Not only would it mean the views of most prudent economists and strategists will be vindicated, rather than quashed as under a McCain-Palin rule.  It would mean that our best General, our best hope to untangle the gory agonies we trod into overseas, would be listened to rather than used as a showpiece.

I was intending to write on the US raids in Syria today, exploring the implications and extolling the boldness of American armed forces.  Then Christmas came early.  My favorite center-right magazine, the aptly named The Economist, endorsed Obama.

I was a bit surprised, I admit.  The flagship issue of The Economist is globalization, and they worried about the potential protectionism of an Obama presidency.  But as the article indicates, the qualities of competency and integrity trumped any one issue in this race.  I post it here, in entirety, for your benefit:

It’s time

Oct 30th 2008
From The Economist print edition

America should take a chance and make Barack Obama the next leader of the free world

AP

IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

Thinking about 2009 and 2017

The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed, though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country. Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.

At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.

If only the real John McCain had been running

That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.

Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia—to warn Russia off immediately—was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).

The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

So Mr Obama’s star quality will be useful to him as president. But that alone is not enough to earn him the job. Charisma will not fix Medicare nor deal with Iran. Can he govern well? Two doubts present themselves: his lack of executive experience; and the suspicion that he is too far to the left.

There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.

He has earned it

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

As a political junkie, I’ve been put into the equivalent of a K-hole by this last week of politics. Between the high hopes and the dire stakes, my veins are pumping pure, pixelated China White.

On the off chance you’re feeling the same, I thought I’d share this soothing session between Obama and Charlie Gibson. It displays the earnest, visionary bi-partisanship and prudence that drew me to Obama’s campaign nearly two years ago.

Looking at the factors going into this election, Obama supporters find themselves in a curious position:

We have every proven reason to worry, and every theoretical reason to be optimistic.

What I mean by this, is that every factor Obama depends on for success has, in the past, been proven to fail: The youth vote, the minority vote, new Democrat registrants - they dropped the ball in 2000 and downright fumbled in 2004. No matter the grassroots organizing, the celebrity endorsements, Democrats have failed by relying on those on the margins of the establishment. The elite knows how to get out Rove’s vaunted “base.”

But this year, we’re promised by polling data and registrations, that a flood of activity in the key Democratic Party constituencies has been seen: Perception of the candidates aligns for Obama. Registration aligns for Obama. Public fundraising - meaning from private individuals, rather than Political Action Committees or lobbyists; a gauge of general support - is vastly for Obama. Key demographics, especially youth and minorities, are strong for Obama.

All the pieces are set up, but will they all come into play like they need to when need be? Or will they fail to appear, like before?

Over the last few days, that question has been put into play. Astoundingly, the omens for strong Obama support have been tested and triumphed. Those tests have been in early voting.

Early voting is traditionally dominated by Republicans, by a lean but consistent margin. This year, however, Democrats have been taking over this crucial voting population. By a ratios ranging from a 6-point spread to a whopping 3 to 2 in places like Florida, and even higher in Nevada, early voters are going Democratic. In short, the early vote is turning out to be a battleground landslide for Obama.

This is an even bigger boost than the theories above might have hoped for. Why? Because no one had predicted that the early voter bloc - a largely older, whiter population - would be going so powerfully for Obama. The very demographics he is thought to be weakest in, he is pulling remarkable levels of proven support from.

Obama supporters should, of course, run this race as if we need to sprint just to secure a photo finish. In order for this momentum to continue, let alone be consummated, everyone will have to sign up for phone trees, write e-mails to friends and donate - not just the engaged; everyone.

Still, there is now some amazing developments suggesting that all that hard work might not, for the first time in eight years, be in vain.

A lot of funny people aren’t finding a lot funny about these last, venomous throes of the election. Fortunately for the viewing public, they have excellent senses of humor about it.

John Stewart, for instance, doesn’t find it very funny at all that the McCain campaign decided to divide America into the “real,” “pro-Americans” of the small towns, and the rest of us. He devoted a show to the subject; one of his better ones.

And older comedians - from Danny DeVito to Carl Reiner - have put together a spot urging voters to get serious and embrace Obama.

On a yet more serious note, I offer another scaled-down installment of my study of the tectonic shift by GOP mainstays away from the deranged direction of the Party and toward Obama:

No less than 26 of the papers that endorsed Bush in 2004, have endorsed Obama this year - many of them conservative.

One of my favorite “Old Soldiers,” Colin Powell, gave a full-hearted endorsement of Obama today.

His subsequent comments put a finer point on his insights and convictions:

I hope conservative minds that value prudence, intelligence and decency give weight to his opinions.

The campaign drags on - episodes like McCain accusing Obama of hating on Joe the Plumber merging with episodes like a reporter being kicked at a Palin rally, into a single tarry mass - bringing to mind the image from Yeats’ “Second Coming” of a “rough beast” “slouching” toward The End.

And as things veer increasingly toward the violent, the terrified, the siege mentality, another line from the poem echoes fearfully loud:

” The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

Indeed, there is too much passionate intensity among the racists, brutes and bullies. But do the best lack all conviction?

No. In fact, if anything, this fierce reaping has cast the best into relief, as they’re the ones the worst are pointing fingers at. Nowhere is this more evident than on the Right.

First it was Kathleen Parker, conservative columnist for the flagship of conservative publications, The National Review. Parker made waves recently by roundly criticizing Sarah Palin after the Couric interviews, and being reamed by an alleged “12,000 e-mails” and counting - ranging from declarations that she should have been aborted to denunciations of her as not a “true conservative,” and those are the nice ones, according to her.

So it was with a bit more discretion that libertarian leading light and heir to National Review founder William F. Buckley’s estate, Christopher Buckley, endorsed Obama. In his article, “Sorry, Dad, I’m Voting for Obama,” Buckley writes:

“Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.”

For any unconvinced conservatives out there who’ve soured on Obama, this sage, caustic man’s revolutionary appraisal of the candidate is an indispensable read.

The same can be said for the article about his subsequent denunciation by the right-wing and tense resignation from the magazine his father founded: “Sorry, Dad, I Was Fired”

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance.

Has the modern “conservative” GOP abandoned its conservative roots, and with them, scholarship and intellect? Increasingly this seems so to me. And at the very least, Kathleen Parker argues in her article supporting Buckley’s self-sacrificing stance for his principles, it is separating those who suppress thought from those who champion it even in difficult times:

Radical conservatives are still having an interesting time of it, though these days they are being mutilated by fellow “conservatives.” The well-fed Right now cultivates ignorance as a political strategy and humiliates itself when its brightest sons seek sanctuary in the solitude of personal honor. … Republicans are not short on brainpower — or pride — but they have strayed off course.

How many brightest sons languish in self-exile, or after being swept to the margins? Certainly Frank Schaeffer, pro-life activist, and Douglas Kmiec, conservative legal eminence and acclaimed scholar, come to mind. Both have endorsed Obama as the sole, best hope of reducing abortions available to us, and both have been denounced by the rabble for it - Kmiec even being denied communion one occasion on the basis of that endorsement.

If we can put aside the divisions that old-time partisans have stoked for so long to our disadvantage, more people might see abortion as a product of societal indifference and individual callousness: the former exemplified by economic conditions ranging from inadequate wages to evictions traceable to the subprime fraud; the latter typified by a self-centeredness that sees children as competitors or enemies to personal fulfillment.

And certainly there are the others I have referenced in past posts.

No brightest son better embodies this phenomenon than the man who many expect will, come the end of next week or the week after, capture the news cycle with his endorsement of Obama: Collin Powell.

For many, Powell represents the wise, humble voice that tried to steer the Bush administration away from war and was instead shouted down by the arrogant, self-interested apparatchiks like Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz. He sullied his reputation for many at the UN, was ignominiously cashiered come the end of Bush’s first time, and as since been out of sight - like an old trophy commemorating the intellectual prudence and moral involvement of the Republican party, now gathering dust.

If all indications are correct, that trophy will soon come crashing down to seal the fate of bullying, gut-based conservatism. I eagerly await that.

The brightest sons and daughters want their party back. With voices like Parker, Buckley and Kmeic, they deserve it.

And all of us deserve a better President than the man who, once as fierce a critic of those “worst” among the right, now fights for them with the “passionate intensity” of desperation.

* UPDATE * The conservative Chicago Tribune just endorsed Obama, their first Democratic Party candidate endorsement in the 161 year history of the paper.

* UPDATE II * In Philadelphia, conservative Talk Radio host Michael Smerconish endorsed Obama on his show today, “for the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago … voting for a Democrat.”

The vitriol has hit a high boil on the Wrong Side of this election.

Palin’s continuing rhetoric about Obama “palling around with terrorists” lances right into the cyst of racial, religious, anti-intellectual contempt harbored by many, especially those on the Right wing. It goads the suspicion such people have of those who look and believe different. It skewers together the idea that America’s enemies are a uniform bloc, hippies and Taliban one in the same in hating this country and wishing it harm. And it hits dead-center the notion that to listen to someone with different opinions, even radical or violent opinions, or to share a professional association with them, makes one no different morally or psychologically - the notion that is at the heart of hating and fearing ideas, banning books.

And the people who are vulnerable to such a message have, understandably, become violently angry. They were told Obama is associated with terrorism - and this keys in perfectly with the flocks of e-mails being dispatched, swollen with poison, from concerned local GOP offices, church communities and grandmothers like poor, earnest, ignorant Gayle “He’s An Arab” Quinnell.

It makes sense to them; they knew all along that the dark, calm, smart man numbered among the ranks of the America-hating enemy party was a terrorist.

It enthuses them; they don’t have to doubt the outcome of the Bush years, or fret about whether GOP orthodoxy about de-regulation led to this hideous crisis, or question the qualifications of their spasmodic, ailing candidate and his unschooled second-in-command and likely successor: They have more important things to worry about, like defeating that socialist terrorist.

More than anything, it angers them. It angers them that the media doesn’t repeat the facts as they understand them. It angers them that this “other” - this scholarly man, exotically named man, black man - might assume the post before now reserved for serious old white men. It angers them that despite how loud they yell, the wars their party conceived and executed, and the economic schemes they held as nigh-Biblical truth, might have led to as bad a disaster as America has ever faced - that they might be wrong.

So, angry and afraid, they call, literally, to kill Obama. This is no longer an election in their hearts. It is a war.

To some, a race war against “Arab” or “Black.” To others, against “socialist” or “elitist.” But in any case, they believe Palin and McCain - it is a “fight” as McCain says, against someone who is a liar, a masquerade, a closet terrorist.

And in a fight, we must realize, one doesn’t hold back.

That’s why, though surely you know a McCain supporter or two who is doesn’t call for Obama’s blood, we have heard the exceptions becoming more frequent, more vile.

Today, someone mailed a threatening letter with faux anthrax to shut down Obama’s Philadelphia office.

Rush Limbaugh casts Obama with a “movement” of “militant” America-hating, anti-capitalists, talking about the man’s campaign as if it was a racial-Communist war on the country. Listen below.

And the GOP Chairman of Sacramento, the California state capitol, proudly papers his party’s Web site with bumperstickers suggesting, “Waterboard Obama” and that Obama is the same as Osama bin Ladin, save that he’s a liar, and then blithely dismisses the notion that anyone would find that offensive.

This is not just “lowering the tone.” It is raising people’s emotions to a fever pitch and getting them angry.

And to say McCain is not a responsible party is ludicrous - though he kicked some dirt over this mess last week by suggesting Obama was decent, he still vows to bring these issues up in the debate tonight, he still has Palin yelling as stridently as ever, he still has yet to issue any firm condemnation and he still pours campaign funding into ads, talking points and operatives that foster it.

That is the real vileness of this end of the campaign season: That as bad as those who call Obama a monkey or claim we should set off a bomb and kill his daughters’ father are, worse are those McCain supporters who let that talk go without criticism.

That is how we get here - not only because of those who provoke it, but because of those on that side who tolerate it.

Those who don’t speak up when they hear a racist jibe, further the racism. Those who do not call for a reality check when Obama is called a Marxist, are friends to ignorance.

And to not speak up - to not do something - when Obama, a United States Senator with many, many good public works he struggled for, is called a “terrorist” or an “Arab,” as if that meant the same thing, is to give those who would believe this election to be a war, a killing time, license for their ideas and deeds.

John McCain is not going to stop this Frankenstein monster. Tonight, he has promised, he will “take the gloves off” about Obama’s “associations.” The criticism of the media, of the left, will not stop it.

Not even the election will stop this outrage. For the declining, hardening margin of Americans who believe the hate and fear in themselves first and their love of brother second, the “war” against the “terrorist” Obama will not end November 4th. Not until some bold action ends it.

Only those who stand right there next to them, listening to them yell, can end it. Only those who will break the silence and talk the monster down.

Lies.

It’s said every politician commits them. Its said that’s to be expected. It is, therefore, assumed that it balances out.

I reject this at least in part - the part that finds a moral equivalence between all untruths. The term “little white lie” can be dismissed by a truth-stickler as just an excuse, but the premise that there are degrees of dishonesty is no excuse.

If someone lies about whether they returned your call, it’s one thing. If they lie about you having molested or murdered children, it’s another.

If your President lies about his sex life, it’s one thing. If they lie about an imminent nuclear threat that needs to be countered by vast, heart-wrenching sacrifice by hundreds of thousands, it’s another.

So here I have decided to do a thorough vetting of lies told by both sides - all four candidates on the major tickets. I do this in the interest of research - so that you can tell your friends that you are abreast of the issues; you know what’s going on.

So that you can decide which lies matter most to you, and which suggest a sin of omission as opposed to deliberate and cynical treachery.

And so that you can do an audit of your own feelings about honesty, about how much of a premium you put on it, and why. Mind you, I will not be including accusations of “lies” that were exposed as lies themselves. I will, however, be noting blatant flip-flops. If you say your position is something, then specifically oppose it three hours later without noting that you changed your position, that is a lie.

You can review them in alphabetical order, below or in linked articles, by last name.

Biden

McCain

Obama

Palin

Conclusion

Joe Biden

* The Veep Lie: Joe Biden said a few days before he was announced as Obama’s running mate that, “I’m not the guy.” He is the guy.

I mention this given that a huge number of “conservative” commentary on the internet is devoted to how this “malicious lie” shows you can’t trust Biden about anything.

* The Accident: Biden has made the claim that alcohol was allegedly involved in the truck collision that killed his family. He admits to having not looked into the involvement of alcohol. Legal investigations do not support the involvement of alcohol.

* The Kinnock Plagiarism: In the 1988 Presidential race, Biden often quoted British Labor leader Neil Kinnock’s speeches in his speeches, giving him credit. One time, he didn’t credit him. His Democratic colleague-opponents dismembered him for it.

That’s all for Biden. Good show, Joe.

Barack Obama:

* McCain Hates Education Lie: Obama ran an ad that claimed McCain voted to cut educational funding, when in truth McCain voted against additional funding for education that had been requested. So it wasn’t really a cut, rather than a limitation of the needed growth - the same goes for his proposed education funding in his plan. McCain has favored abolishing the Department of Education, though.

* Auto Loan Lie: McCain refused to support loan guarantees for the auto industry, as an Obama ad notes. However, he since changed his position in the last months, and so the ad cited his old position, not his new one.

* Ohio Job Loss Lie: Obama claimed in a limited Ohio ad that McCain and his campaign manager played instrumental roles in a DHL deal that cost Ohio 8,200 jobs. In truth, it was more like 6,000. And in all honesty, McCain and Teamsters interests thought the deal would lead to jobs.

* Nuke Waste Lie: John McCain supports Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as a dump site, and an Obama ad in limited markets suggested he didn’t want such a thing for Arizona. In full truth, McCain did go on to say that transportation of the waste through Arizona could, potentially, and should be made safe.

* Big Oil Lie: John McCain didn’t get $2 million from the oil industry, as the widely played Obama ad claimed. Yet. He got $1.3 million at the time of the ad.

* Working Hard For The Money Lie: Obama, in an ad, said he worked his way through college. He only worked through college - summer jobs and selling subscriptions.

That does it through to June.

And yes, I am aware of the Ralph Reed ad “lie” - that Reed, an Abramoff pal, is raising money from McCain - but I didn’t include the “debunk” given that Reed is raising money from McCain; McCain just said he doesn’t want Reed’s money, even though he takes it and spends it.

If you say you don’t want someone’s help, and then you take it, that’s a lie.

I was going to write something nasty.

Topical, yes. Pithy, doubtless. But nasty.

Obama, in the following ad, inspired me to a better post. In this post, we specify the solutions of today. We focus on the future. We work together, rather than stagnate in a process of corruption, divided.

I post this, with any more comment. Obama says enough in two minutes.

No attacks on Palin’s family; no attacks on his opponent’s patriotism; no mention of shady business dealings, insane preachers, criminal associations. Just a simple, inferred choice:

Do you want more Bush-era solutions, or do you want better than how things have been heading?

He sticks to the solutions. Lists each. Reaches out.

Next article, we’ll cover how the other campaign has been handling their message.

Not more than a month after The Economist wrote of an American rebound for the dollar and investments, the economy has suffered another severe shock.

Goldman-Sachs, lauded in that very aforementioned issue, is taking a beating that would make Rocky Balboa tap out, with 71% losses. Lehman Brothers has exploded and is being scraped off the floor. And this all follows on the heels - not coincidentally, I should note - of the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac collapse.

In the midst of this, McCain has acted with characteristic integrity, which is to say like a spastic chameleon.

First, in order to slop some gravy to his high finance friends and throw cake from Versailles to the unwashed masses, he stood in the whirlwind of Black Monday and said “the fundamentals of the economy are strong.”

In the same breath, he condemned the “fat cats” of Wall Street. Only in the drive-thru intellect of the modern American era could such an argument be other than laughable and repulsive.

Both counts are due to the fact that McCain will adopt any stance, spew any platitude, to win the brass ring of power. If that isn’t the very incarnation of cynical self-interest, I don’t know what is. The lack of integrity, of course, comes from the fact that according to McCain’s own Web site, the “fat cats” have in store for them a cleansing of the regulations that might have them on a leash:

Corporate tax cut by 10%. Dividends and estate taxes vanishing. McCain’s plan throws table scraps to small businesses and the little guy, but feeds any creature in the high six figures as if it were a goose destined for pate’.

It is that very perversion of the conservative party’s platform that has turned the mess of the mortgage crisis into a debacle: Corporate socialism. For contrary to McCain’s patriotic pap, the “fundamentals” of the American economy are anything but strong - they are on the life-support of massive infusions of cash straight out of the pockets of the tax payer.

Conservatives of the old school rail, and rightly so, about the incompetence of some social programs - be they school boards, welfare programs or the IRS. Yet we have heard nary a peep from the custodians of the “conservative” legacy about the fact that we are dumping far, far more billions into the mismanaged, disastrously inept financial industries.

Just today, the sole thing that saved Wall Street from disemboweling itself and the ailing Euro and Japanese markets with it, was a shot of no less than $70 billion dollars. Allow me to put this in perspective, as perhaps someone like Goldwater - a conservative of principle, rather than the Corporate-Commies like McCain, would say:

$70 billion could buy an education for every child in the system for two years. It could pay for the senior prescription drug entitlement nearly twice over. It nearly pays for the entire Veterans’ Affairs for a year.

What it bought us today was time.

It did not, in any way, cure our problem. At word that the federal reserve would not be cutting interest rates below 2% for now - most likely to keep the euro area from collapsing under the combined weight of its inflating economy and useless American debt - the market plummeted again. The second safety net was deployed when the government intimated it might bail out the teetering insurance giant, AIG - another example of the public sector propping up the private.

More obstacles lie ahead. Goldman-Sachs will perish if Japan and the euro area don’t get their act together soon and start moving the investment group’s sluggish ducats. The next big black eye will land when the global economic growth reports are released, an indicator that most expect will be at only half of what people had hoped.

In short, the whole of the globe is ailing because Americans were allowed to rack up massive debt and then turn their pockets inside out when the chips began to be cashed. Japan and Europe are wringing their hands over diminishing American buying power, while China and India to keep their boom running full tilt on American debt that’s drying up. Now is /not/ the time for supply side, debt-based economics.

Without cutting federal spending substantially, all one does is swell and increasingly depraved and worthless American debt. Without giving the American middle class more buying power, all it does is demand that American corporations go to China and India for cheaper goods. The combination of these two factors can be a disastrous - essentially like drinking more so that you forget how drunk you are.

The press piddles away with its “he said, she said,” nonsense while Rome begins to smolder. We get the standard talking points that are no more than a boxing match in cheap ties anyway, and each channel tries to paint this like Armageddon. It isn’t Armageddon. It was just another Black Monday, and we survived it.

But we need to realize that we’re having too many Black Mondays, and too often. We need to get the simple fact that there is a relation between the economic choices we make and the results that occur. There is no more important economic choice in the entire world this season than the American vote:

We can no more vote for the guy we “feel” like voting for, than we can spend money like we “feel” and expect that we can just get more debt. Eventually the bill comes due. Corporate Communism is not the answer.

We must make the intelligent choice to get the intelligent result.

And so we are faced with the critical decision: Do we vote for the man who will say anything to make us feel good about electing him, or the man who is smart enough to make the right decisions - according to 66% of economists - now and in office?

Increasingly, we see the former having more appeal. All indications are that this campaign is now propelled by personality, not by policy: The crucial question is not “who do the experts support?” but rather “are you with Palin, or against her?”

Let us hope that the country wakes from its strange, self-indulgent, masturbatory dream about tanning beds and bridges to nowhere, and starts trying to put its house in order: Not by speeding up along the wrong path that it’s on, but by making a change.