Ah, the highlight of my political career. Getting spit at by a Nixon supporter at the polls; I was 13. Keep it classy, GOP.

I'd be interested in the North Americans' take on the New Yorker cover contretemps. It seems like a manufactured controversy to me, but I'm very far away from where it matters.

Turnabout is fair play?

It's one of those things that Obama has to call out, and it's obviously ironic about the lies that are being used against him, but I wish it would've been directed at the scmuck on FUX who called it a "terrorist fist bump" to begin with.

I still think about "terrorist fist bump." I mean how the flying f is something that was used by the Oakland A's in the 80s a "terrorist fist bump" ? Something that's been around since the 80s, since KRS-One was talking about giving the neighborhood drug dealer a pound in Love Is Gonna Getcha a "terrorist fist bump" ?

Slate has an article today tracing where it came from: http://www.slate.com/id/2195347/

Still dumb and dumber really.

The New Yorker cover needs a caption: "If this scares you, then you are a fucking idiot."

As for the McCain cover option, it should really be him eating babies while being buggered by some corporate fat cat, right?

I thought the cover was hilarious, as it happens...

I thought the fist pound began in baseball as an alternative to the high-five because batters wanted to avoid getting pine tar on each other.

This is a little bit like the Jesse Jackson incident, it's probably more positive than not for Obama because it reinforces the idea that the terrorist-helper label is preposterous. It also paints him as a victim which will get him some sympathy.

The Wright incident had a good side effect too, the fact that it was centered around his church underlines the fact that he does attend church regularly, which most American voters also do. The element that will be turned off by his blackness will not vote for him anyway, so those incidents will not affect him deeply in the polls.

QUOTE:
"There might be an indication that people are willing to give him a pass [on Iraq]," Karty said. "He seems to be an extremely credible figure ... and he's trustworthy."

LOL etc.

Well, he would be trustworthy if he could prove that there were actually wires from the ceiling that were operating his hands and lips.

QUOTE:
"The lesson of history is that too many specifics at this point polarize the debate, that is the argument Carly was trying to make," Taylor Griffin said. "However, John McCain does believe that we can fix Social Security without raising taxes. As president, John McCain will call on Congress to develop a bi-partisan solution to Social Security — and if they won't, he will."

It's hard to imagine someone running a worse general election campaign than Al Gore, but McCain's having a damn good go.

Step 1: Propose policy that has already been rejected by both parties.

Step 2: ?????

Step 3: Fixed social security!

I saw McCain making a speech yesterday in which he said (and I quote exactly) "I know how to win wars". This was reported as him trying to cash in on his experience as a veteran. Was he not in service in Vietnam? So in what way does he "know how to win wars"? What wars has he actually won?

Maybe he means that he saw how the Vietnamese won...

"Shut up! We did not lose Vietnam! It was a tie!"

This is very encouraging, and not just because of the headline numbers.

QUOTE:
But their priorities were entirely different as Obama began building what his campaign says will be an unprecedented, nationwide ground operation.

McCain in June spent $16 million on advertising, compared to Obama’s reported $5 million. Meanwhile, Obama’s payroll expenses amounted to $2.3 million while McCain’s hovered around $724,000.

For all his flaws, Obama really does seem to be learning from the errors of recent Democratic campaigns. Building a good ground operation is going to be crucial, and in the past Democrats have been too reliant on volunteers and too willing to give up on some states (despite at the same time doing everything they can policy-wise to run away from the base - way to go Dems!).

So, for all the hype about how Obama would change the electoral map, and killing the Clinton strategy of just going after a couple of marginal states, the electoral map riht now is...strangely familiar.

I mean, apart from Colorado, Iowa and Ohio moving into the Dem column, this is the same map we've seen for the last two election cycles. yeah, Obama might be doing better than Kerry and Gore in some western states that barely matter (Montana, ND, Nevada, Alaska) and in Indiana and Virginia, but he still doesn't like winning them. Not that HRC would be running much better (if any), but this is still the fight she was contemplating and building her campaign around.

I don't have the inclination to consult the wayback machine, but wasn't Kerry up on Bush by more than two points at this stage in '04?

Should we be worried?