You know, given the position of the McCain/Palin ticket in the polls, and given that the country is about to elect its first African-American president, I know the right is going to go bonkers here in the last nine days of the campaign. Still, it’s a bit breathtaking to see the meltdown, which makes the craziest tinfoil hat musings of the DFHs look like bouquets for Dubya. I misdoubt that Obama Derangement Syndrome is going to make Bush Derangement Syndrome look like Cute Puppy Derangement Syndrome.

A few items for your perusal tonight. First, from Pennsylvania, where the Pennsylvania GOP, fresh off of trying to sell the Ashley Todd hoax, has sent a letter out to Jews in the state, warning them that Barack Obama is Hitler. No, really:

“Jewish Americans cannot afford to make the wrong decision on Tuesday, November 4th, 2008,” the e-mail reads. “Many of our ancestors ignored the warning signs in the 1930s and 1940s and made a tragic mistake. Let’s not make a similar one this year!”

A copy of the e-mail, provided by Democratic officials, says it was “Paid for by the Republican Federal Committee of PA - Victory 2008.”

It warns “Fellow Jewish Voters” of the danger of a second Holocaust due to the threats to Israel from its neighbors and touts Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s qualifications over those of Obama.

Because nobody is more likely to be the next Adolf Hitler than a biracial liberal Democrat.

There’s so much hilarity here, and it’s hard to say what the best part is. Is it the fact that the Pennsylvania GOP’s disavowal boils down to saying yeah, we sent it, but we really didn’t mean to, and besides, it’s this contractor who did it? Or is it the fact that the contractor says he was told to send it by the GOP? Or is it that McCain Pennsylvania spokesperson Peter Feldman — the same Peter Feldman who was telling reporters that the “B” on Ashley Todd’s face stood for “Barack” — has parachuted in to note that the McCain campaign “rejects politics that degrade our civics”? All I know is that it’s lucky for the McCain campaign that they haven’t pinned all their hopes for the election on winning Pennsylvania. What? They have? Well, that sucks for them.

The second meltdown comes from the Corner, where Mark Levin’s brain has disconnected:

I’ve been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we’d see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what’s occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. I can’t help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can’t explain themselves in an intelligent way.

Yep, all those smart people endorsing Obama for completely irrational reasons, like Obama having shown himself to be steady during the economic crisis, or John McCain having picked an unqualified fool to be his vice president, thus showing he was unserious about the presidency. Who can understand such gibberish? I mean, it’s like they picked a guy to vote for based on who they’d like to have a beer with — the insanity!

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama’s name on it, which adorns everything from Obama’s plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama’s name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

I mean, can you imagine — a campaign that tries to get the word out about their candidate! John McCain, in contrast, doesn’t even mention that he’s running for president. He just sorta ambles into the room, mutters, “Maverick!” and moves on, like a decent American.

Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I’ve never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama’s past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources.

Yeah, remember in March, when CNN did nothing but talk about Jeremiah Wright for a month? Never happened.

[...]

But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama’s entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The “change” he peddles is not new. We’ve seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama’s appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the “the proletariat,” as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created.

You know what? I’m just going to back away slowly now, nodding and smiling, until I can make a run for it. While I’m escaping, enjoy these words from our sponsors.

Is he gone? Phew.

It’s only going to get crazier from here, my friends. I’m not sure what’s going to happen to the right after Barack Obama wins; I suspect there will be a battle for the soul of the party between the heirs of the Rockefeller wing and the True Believers. The Rockefeller wing could build the GOP back into a respectible party inside of a decade — one that is truly conservative, and thus a good foil for the Democrats. But I suspect the True Believers — the people for whom a modest marginal tax increase on people making $250,000 a year is tantamount to Stalinism — I think they’ll win the day. If so, the GOP will be lost for a generation. They’ll come back, some day — the pendulum always swings back in the end. But it will be a long, bitter struggle for them. And it will lead to more insanity before it gets better.

Six years ago today, Sen. Paul Wellstone, DFL-Minn., died, along with his wife, daughter, three campaign staffers, and two pilots, when his airplane crashed en route to Eveleth, Minn., for the funeral of Martin Rukavina, father of State Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Eveleth.

Wellstone was in the middle of a difficult re-election campaign against a formidable opponent, former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman. Wellstone had made himself vulnerable earlier in the month by choosing to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq. His statement against the war was his last statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Wellstone was never afraid to be a liberal. He was truly willing to sacrifice his seat in the Senate to do what was right — indeed, on the eve of the vote, he told his friend, Rep. Jim Ramstad, R-Minn., that he thought his vote would cost him the election. But he was unwilling to send American troops to die to save his seat, and in his speech, he expressed more concern for his staff than he did himself.

I wish that I was voting to re-elect Paul Wellstone in ten days; our country would be the better for it. And I think Paul would be proud to see his once-lonely vigil vindicated. In the darkest hours for progressives, when everyone — myself included — was writing off liberalism, Paul Wellstone stood proudly for those themes liberals are supposed to. He fought for those who needed help, fought for equality, for human decency, fought for peace and justice. He was among the finest public servants ever to represent my state, and he is sorely missed.

I wanted to wait on the Ashley Todd story until a bit more information came out — while there was some reason to be skeptical initially, that didn’t mean that it wasn’t true.

For those few of you unfamilliar with the story, Ashley Todd is a College Republican, working for McCain in Pennsylvania. Todd claimed she had been mugged by an African American who, seeing she was a McCain supporter, added insult to injury by carving a “B” into her cheek. The story was pushed by the usual suspects — the McCain camp, Matt Drudge, and Fox News, whose senior VP, John Moody, said:

Part of the appeal of, and the unspoken tension behind, Senator Obama’s campaign is his transformational status as the first African-American to win a major party’s presidential nomination.

That does not mean that he has erased the mutual distrust between black and white Americans, and this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election.

If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator  Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

This was at the base of the story — the hope by the GOP that this story would exacerbate racial tensions, and allow the GOP to play up the story of scary black people rising up and attacking whites.

Moody also noted, “If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.” If so, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over:

A campaign worker who claimed she was the victim of a politically-motivated attack in which she was beaten, kicked and cut, now admits that she made the whole story up.

According to Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard, Ashley Todd, 20, told investigators today that she “was not robbed and there was no 6′4″ black male attacker.”

Todd initially told police that she was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield Wednesday night and that the suspect began beating her after seeing a John McCain bumper sticker on her car.

Todd claimed that the mugger even cut a backwards letter “B” in her check.

But today investigators say Todd confessed that the attack never happened.

Now, I don’t think the McCain campaign can be blamed for the actions of Ashley Todd, any more than the Obama campaign would have been at fault if this story had been true. But I do think that hard questions need to be asked about who was pushing this story.  As Pam notes, this is redolent of made-up crimes of the past, in which white people blamed African-Americans for crimes they themselves had committed. Why? Because we all know that those people are criminals. And the media is all too ready to believe that evil, feral African-American men lurk in every corner, waiting to attack decent white folk.

I suspect Todd was counting on that lack of skepticism to sell her story. She expected that a white woman saying she’d been attacked by a black man would simply be believed, and no matter how ridiculous some of the flourishes — like a backwards “B” — were, people would assume that a nice white girl from Texas wouldn’t lie about such things.

Fortunately, the Pittsburgh police were not as credulous as Todd expected them to be. Even Michelle Malkin, to her credit, found the story odd before it was blown up. And the stunt was exposed before it became part of the long wingnut list of grievances. Todd failed in her effort to drive a wedge between whites and blacks in this country — for that, clearly, was her aim. Maybe that means we’re making progress. Or maybe it just means that Todd was incompetent. Either way, her actions were despicable, and we can be grateful she failed.

I don’t blame the few remaining Republicans for cherry-picking the few outliers that show a close race at this point. Sure, it’s a little silly to latch on to the one poll that shows just a 1-point lead for Obama and ignore the several that show a near-double-digit lead. But the righties are just trying to cling to a thin reed of hope in a year that offers little; if I were in their shoes, I’d be doing the same thing.

Still, barring some unforseen calamity, the race appears to be all but over. Obama’s lead in the poll of polls is near its all-time high, and FiveThirtyEight.com currently gives him a 96.3% chance of winning. At this point, an Obama landslide is significantly more likely than a McCain victory, and a McCain victory basically requires a sweep of every close state — and every close state is at least tilting Obama’s way. Yes, McCain might pick off Florida or Ohio, but he also must win Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Colorado…his route to victory right now is treacherous and unlikely.

If you doubt the polls, just take a look at the mood inside the McCain campaign:

With despair rising even among many of John McCain’s own advisors, influential Republicans inside and outside his campaign are engaged in an intense round of blame-casting and rear-covering—-much of it virtually conceding that an Election Day rout is likely.

[...]

Top Republican officials have let it be known they are distressed about McCain’s organization. Coordination between the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee, always uneven, is now nearly dysfunctional, with little high-level contact and intelligence-sharing between the two.

“There is no communication,” lamented one top Republican. “It drives you crazy.”

At his Northern Virginia headquarters, some McCain aides are already speaking of the campaign in the past tense. Morale, even among some of the heartiest and most loyal staffers, has plummeted. And many past and current McCain advisors are warring with each other over who led the candidate astray.

One well-connected Republican in the private sector was shocked to get calls and resumes in the past few days from what he said were senior McCain aides – a breach of custom for even the worst-off campaigns.

“It’s not an extraordinarily happy place to be right now,” said one senior McCain aide. “I’m not gonna lie. It’s just unfortunate.”

The McCain campaign is in a bad spot, and I don’t envy them. It’s one thing to be Fritz Mondale in 1984 and know you don’t have a prayer — it makes it easy to throw in the towel. And it’s another to be John Kerry in 2004, and fight to the finish in a race too close to call — it’s easy to fight when you think you can win.

But the McCain campaign is just close enough to see how maybe, if everything fell just right, then possibly it could happen for them. Sure, it’s a one-in-a-million shot, but it’s the presidency; you don’t give up on that unless it’s lost. Still…there’s a 999,999 in a million chance that you’re screwed. And that makes it hard to get up in the morning and fight hard for glory, knowing that you’re probably going to lose, but not being so certain that you can be liberated from the fear of losing.

I don’t envy them at all. Still, I do enjoy the Schadenfreude of it. No doubt, there will be losing days for the Democrats in future years — the pendulum always swings back, folks — but for now, let’s enjoy the sweet tears of unfathomable sadness.

Under Oregon’s vote-by-mail system, I received my ballot in the mail a few days ago, and I have until November 4th to turn it in. I’m filling it out now, since I’m told that early voting means fewer robocalls (and one less likely Dem voter for Jeff Merkley’s volunteers to have to contact). I’ll update this post as I fill out my ballot.

First item: United States President

There are six candidates listed, but the only ones I’m considering voting for are Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, and Barack Obama. The reasons to vote for McKinney: I like her policy positions better than Obama’s, I like voting for the Greens when I can, and Oregon’s a safe state for Obama.

The reason to vote for Obama: It’s not just about the delegates. The more overwhelming Obama’s victory is, the more convincingly the 2008 election can be painted as a repudiation of the childish, irresponsible, ignorant and war-loving policies of George Bush and the Republican party.

Hmmn. When I started typing, I intended to vote for McKinney, but I think I just talked myself into voting Obama.

Second item: US Senator

There’s no Green Party option here, and even if there were, I wouldn’t vote for ‘em — this race is too close, and the possibility of getting Gordon Smith knocked out of the senate too sweet. Plus, Merkley seems pretty good as Democrats go.

Third Item: Representative in Congress: 3rd District.

Democrat Earl Blumenauer is a good, liberal representative, but the Republicans have no more chance of winning his seat than I do. Plus — as Michael Meo of the Pacific Green Party argues — the Democratic Party has been more accomplice to Bush than opposition, especially when it comes to the Iraq war. So, even though it’s a little unfair to Blumenauer, I’m voting for Meo and against the Democratic Party.

Much more below the fold….

Read the rest of this entry »

Steve Benen, among others, is excited by the news that former Gov. Arne Carlson, R-Minn., has endorsed Barack Obama. And sure, Arne’s endorsement is better than a sharp stick in the eye. But when Benen says Carlson’s endorsement is “tougher to ignore” than some other GOPers…well, no, not really, if you’re a Republican.

Arne Carlson was never a darling of the right. He was part of the old guard, ’70s “Independent-Republican” era of the GOP, not the new wave, Gov. Timmy/Rep. Pro-American era. Carlson was fiscally pragmatic, and not a great friend of the teacher’s unions, but he was also pro-choice, tolerant of homosexuality, and much more a pragmatist than an ideologue. Philosophically, he was much closer to Jesse Ventura than Tim Pawlenty, and the GOP knew it, which is why, in 1990, they denied him the endorsement and the primary win for governor.

Arne’s 1990 victory was, like all gubernatorial races in Minnesota over the past quarter-century, an accident of history. The GOP endorsed Jon Grunseth, a hardcore righty who was acceptably anti-gay and anti-choice, and while Carlson ran against Grunseth in the primary, Grunseth won. Unfortunately, Grunseth had some skeletons in the closet, like the time he went skinny-dipping with his adopted teenage daughter and her friends. Carlson had been readying a write-in challenge to Grunseth and then-Gov. Rudy Perpich, DFL-Minn., who was himself anti-choice and who had been erratic enough to earn the sobriquet “Governor Goofy.” But with the implosion of the Grunseth campaign, Carlson, as the runner-up in the primary, found himself on the ballot. Arguably the more liberal candidate in 1990, Carlson edged Perpich in what would have been the most bizarre gubernatorial election in state history if not for 1962, 1998, 2002, and of course, 1994, the year Carlson won re-election.

One might think by ‘94 that the GOP would let bygones be bygones; sure, Arne had been a sort of random win in 1990, but he was popular, and the DFL standard-bearer, the earnest and charisma-challenged John Marty, was no threat to Carlson. So the GOP did the obvious thing: they denied Carlson their endorsement again, instead turning to insane Palin-wing former Rep. Allen Quist, who ran ads comparing Arne Carlson to then-President Bill Clinton. Quist and the “Quistians” ultimately lost to Carlson in the primary, but won the larger war for the soul of the Minnesota GOP. In 1998, when Norm Coleman ran for governor, he’d sell his soul to Allen Quist for the endorsement of the Christian Right, a move that opened the door for Jesse Ventura. By 2002, Tim Pawlenty was the more moderate GOP candidate seeking endorsement. And of course, the GOP loves Michele Bachmann.

Arne Carlson was not welcome in the Minnesota GOP before this announcement, and it won’t change anything for the GOPers now. They’ve thrown out the pragmatic, thoughtful conservatives like Carlson, in favor of rabble-rousers. For moderates in this state, independents, still-sane Republicans, Carlson’s endorsement will carry weight — he’s still respected by people across the political spectrum, from the moderate right to the progressive left. But for the hardcore Republicans, this will just underline that they were right to try to excorcise Arne in ‘94. He’s not one of them. That’s why I supported him twice for Governor, and why I respect him to this day.

Over at Broadsheet, Judy Berman takes a look at a pro-bama poster with a theme that goes back approximately forever: boys, vote like the girls want you to, and you’re totally gonna get laid:

As is obvious, the print is an update of a 1960’s Joan Baez anti-war poster, but the theme predates Lysistrata, which is itself 2397 years old.

Berman has a collection of quotes from smarter people than me explaining why this is full of fail (including my favorite, from Kate Harding, who in noting that the poster is anti-woman also notes that, “if they had to do it anyway, ‘Girls say “Yes, we can” to boys who vote Obama’ would have been funnier.”)

The ad’s problematic, because it’s clearly reducing women’s ability to convince men to their facility with what’s between their legs, not what’s between their ears. A reasoned explanation of why Johnny Maverick would be a disaster for women? Men won’t listen to something like that, especially from a girl. But a blow job might get you your way, sweet cheeks. As such, it devalues women. This much is obvious.

But it also devalues men, as these things often do. After all, the ad implies that men would put their views of what’s good for the country second behind the prospect of sex. They won’t be persuaded by discussion or thoughtful consideration of ideas, but they’ll be more than willing to vote for a candidate they disagree with if they can just get a bit of nookie, because really, that’s all men care about anyhow.

Just as the poster reduces women to a form of currency, it reduces men to easily bribed fools. And this is from liberal women. We have a lot of work to do, my friends.

In a post about racism among Obama voters, Joe Feagin at Racism Review writes:

[...]unlike veteran Black civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al. Sharpton, Senator Obama has been very careful (with the exception of his one Philadelphia speech) not to talk openly about the racial hostility and discrimination, the systemic racism, perpetrated by a great many white Americans.

In working on our book on “race” and the Obama campaign, Adia and I have discussed why Senator Obama has carefully avoided discussing civil rights issues and the venerable Black civil rights agenda, which includes getting the government to vigorously enforce U.S. civil rights laws—which it has not done. Presumably, he must do this to be elected.

A society founded in and still grounded in white racism means, among other things, that a Black candidate running in a predominantly white district or area (the entire nation in this case) cannot talk candidly about the continuing and deep impacts of racial hostility and discrimination against African Americans and other Americans of color—that is, he or she must still act in ways that please whites, at least a significant enough group of whites to be elected. He or she cannot talk about what may be the nation’s most serious problem.

I think that’s exactly right.

There is one thing Joe says that I would disagree with; at the end of his post, he implies that McCain’s lead in the polls among white voters is a sign of racism. Well, maybe it is, in a “southern strategy” sort of way; but it’s worth noting that Obama is not unusual in this regard. The majority of white voters always vote for the Republican, at least when it comes to the Presidency.

The problem is, too many people seem to think that’s a problem. Ezra Klein:

One of the realities that’s a bit too treacherous to get into before the election but will surely feature into a lot of post-election analyses is the fact that John McCain is probably going to win whites and lose the presidency. Even now, 10 points down in the polls, McCain has a seven point lead among white voters. But white voters are not the only voters. Rather, they’re 68 percent or so of the populace (though probably somewhat more of the electorate).You can lose them by a couple points and still win the election handily. The question will be how that win is understood. I’ve been struggling for awhile to put this into words, but there’s definitely a odd demographic weighting among DC pundit types wherein white voters — particularly white working class voters, and even more particularly older white working class voters, and even more particularly older white working class voters who live in between California and New York and in sparsely populated cities — are somehow a more “authentic” foundation on which to build an electoral majority. And this is true among liberals as surely as among conservatives.

Postscript: Sarah Palin’s America seems to be a touch whiter and less Hispanic than America as a whole is.

My husband is a phone banking coach for the local No on 8 campaign. Tonight, at an update meeting, they confirmed a rumor that was circulating around the phone banking session last week: Yes on 8 supporters are calling members of gay and lesbian communities and telling them that if they support same-sex marriage, they should vote yes.

Again, for people in the back - anti-same-sex marriage people are telling people in same-sex couples to vote yes on 8. Their case is so weak that their strategy is now to just confuse people. Now, we don’t know how widespread it is, and obviously the Yes on 8 campaign would deny it if asked. But our campaign has received multiple reports from people saying they’ve been called.

The bad news is that now we have to divide our efforts between calling undecided voters and calling our own supporters to undo the damage. The good news is that we’ve raised enough money to expand our efforts.

Still, please, donate donate donate and volunteer volunteer volunteer. Have we mentioned yet that prop 8 is a constitutional amendment? Meaning that if it passes, it’s virtually impossible to reverse it?

And for California residents who may have gotten here through Google - if you support same-sex marriage, VOTE NO ON 8.

(Cross-posted on Modern Mitzvot.)

Hiya everyone! Remember me? I haven’t been blogging much in past months — just rather random posts at my own blog — but I’m hoping to get back to writing and participating here again. Starting with this latest, crossposted.

About a month ago ABC news’ correspondent Jake Tapper reported on John McCain’s choice to not use computers. Barack Obama’s campaign had just released an ad criticizing McCain for being out of touch in a number of ways, including his self-confessed computer “illiteracy.”

Tapper explains for us, though:

Assuredly McCain isn’t comfortable talking about this — and the McCain campaign discouraged me from writing about this — but the reason the aged Arizonan doesn’t use a computer or send e-mail is because of his war wounds.

I realize some of the nastier liberals in the blogosphere will see this as McCain once again “playing the POW card,” but it’s simply a fact: typing on a regular keyboard for any sustained period of time bothers McCain physically.

He can type, he occasionally does type, but in general, the injuries he sustained as a POW — ones that make it impossible for him to raise his arms high enough to comb his hair — mean that small tasks make his shoulders ache, so he tries to avoid any repetitive exercise.

Again, it’s not that he can’t type, he just by habit, avoids when he can, repetitive exercise involving his arms. He does if he has to, as with handshaking or autographs.

Now, I have no doubt it’s true that McCain’s injuries affect him enough that typing causes chronic pain that the man would rather avoid. And I’ve also no doubt he has minions who can and should do many of the computer-related tasks of a busy U.S. Senator and presidential candidate.

But Tapper explicitly claims McCains lack of computer use is not a choice and is because of physical impairment:

It’s certainly possible that the Obama campaign did not know this, since McCain makes it sound in interviews as if this is a matter of choice, not discomfort because of his war wounds.

So, McCain is not computer illiterate, though he did once say he was. (That’s okay. I know a few septuagenarians on a steep computer learning curve.) And he can type, he knows how and can physically do so, Tapper says. It’s just so uncomfortable that he chooses not– no, wait. It’s not a matter of choice. His discomfort means he cannot.

Except that is total crap.

Plenty of us on the intertubes manage to tap something out now and then without full use (or any use) of our fingers, hands or arms. There’s voice recognition software and even free software that allows the somewhat tedious-but-effective typing with a mouse instead of a QWERTY board. I used the latter for a while last year and didn’t even need to sell one of my many cars or houses to make it happen.

Here’s my point: October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month. One of our presidential candidates has significant physical impairments that, according to Tapper, his own campaign claims are the reason he cannot readily use a computer. Of the 56 million Americans with disabilities, about 65% of disabled adults are unemployed.

Let me say that again. 65% of disabled Americans. Conservatively, that’s 6 out of 10 disabled adults without a job. Compare that to the national rate of unemployment, currently freaking everyone out at a whopping 6.1%.

The rate of unemployed disabled Americans has remained virtually unchanged since WWII, so you might say that it’s an issue needing knowledgeable and committed public officials addressing it. And McCain either does not know that physical disability is not an excuse for not using a computer, or he does not care if he is perpetuating the stereotype that disability makes a person incapable of a basic skill needed for employment in today’s workforce.

Here’s a one-minute YouTube video, with in-screen captioning and open audio description, on the topic:

Brief description of video: Karl Rove, McCain campaign advisor, states for a FOX News interview that McCain can’t use a computer because of his war injuries. His voice and the audio description continue as a number of disabled people, with prosthetic limbs, amputated stumps, and mouth pointers type at computer keyboards. A final collage of these computer users includes an image of FDR in his wheelchair, then fades into a photo of Obama and chants of “Yes, we can!”

Jesse Taylor’s return to the blogosphere has been full of win, but this is his thing de résistance:

I don’t think John McCain is running the sleaziest campaign in recent memory.  I think he’s just running one of the most prominently stupid.

[…]

It’s not so much that McCain’s campaign has been purposefully sleazy as they’ve been meanderingly, pointlessly sleazy.  It’s the “fuck it, whatever” guide to Republican politics, with no particular focus except putting anything out there to win a daily news cycle.  Obama was a conspirator in voter fraud for a weekend, a terrorist for about three days, until he was a socialist because some plumber in Ohio said so.  Before that he was a celebrity and presumptuous, a race-baiter, a shady community organizer, sexist, inexperienced, a baby killer, a sex predator and a dozen other things.  You wonder why McCain/Palin supporters feel like they can go to rallies and talk about Obama being a Jew-bought Islamic radical cokehead forced abortionist communist?  Because it’s the standard that the campaign’s set by having ridiculously drawn out public conversations designed to draw full attention to the charges while laboring under the pretense that they’re “debating” over using the smear.

Am I going to call McCain a Neo-Nazi?  Don’t know - maybe I will, maybe I won’t.  It might reflect poorly on me, but it might also be a useful strategy.  I’m going to go call up Mike Allen at Politico.com and talk to him about it on the record…you know, just to have a sounding board.

Spot on, and a big part of the reason McCain is going to lose this election.¹ It’s not just with regard to Obama, either — he’s never had a coherent message this entire campaign. His “Country First” slogan rings hollow when he picks Sarah Palin to be his veep; he proclaimed that the fundamentals of the economy were strong just before declaring that the economy was such a disaster that he had to suspend his campaign. His campaign has bounced from theme to theme, sometimes in the same day, as it desperately tries to find something, anything, that will work to make today better. Right now McCain is all Joe the Plumber, all the time, but that doesn’t seem to be working;Palin is rolling out Tito the Builder², and no doubt we’ll here about Stu the Electrical Contractor soon enough. (It goes without saying we won’t be hearing from Jane the Senior Vice President for Human Resources, of course.) And the McCain camp is threatening to pull out Jeremiah Wright, maybe, because we all weren’t sick of that six months ago. And there will be other crazy crap thrown out, because that’s how McCain rolls.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama continues to push the same theme he’s pushed the whole campaign — Change You Can Believe In. Obama hasn’t veered in any direction at any point, even when things were tough a month or so a go. He’s kept his head down, and just kept advancing his message, relentlessly. He’s built up a solid lead that’s allowing him the luxury of taking two days off from campaigning to visit his sick grandmother in Hawai’i — and even that is being done deliberately and calmly, and with an absence of surrogates going on television to explain how this ties into Obama’s brand new plan to give everyone a $500 tax credit so they can visit their grandma.

Presidential campaigns are a dumb way to pick a candidate, but they can be illuminating. In this race, we’ve had one candidate maintain a steady, consistent tone, a man who can keep his focus when times get tough, who reacts to crises with calm, measured, and level-headed actions. We’ve had another candidate who has been in full panic mode for over a year, one who bounces from idea to idea without pausing to consider the long-term ramifications. One of those men has demonstrated qualities that would be good in a leader — the ability to stay calm, to not panic, to work not just for short-term gain, but for long-term stability. And the other is John McCain.

1. As always, the fact that this election is almost certain to go Obama’s way is no reason to get complacent. After all, at this point, I think most Democrats don’t want just a win, we want to tap-dance on the GOP’s hopes and dreams. (back)
2. Can we fix it? ¡Sí se puede! (back)

Last week’s New Yorker included a fabulously entertaining article by Harvard historian Jill Lepore, describing the history of voting in the USA. Here’s just a small sample, but it’s worth it to read the whole thing.

Americans used to vote with their voices—viva voce—or with their hands or with their feet. Yea or nay. Raise your hand. All in favor of Jones, stand on this side of the town common; if you support Smith, line up over there. In the colonies, as in the mother country, casting a vote rarely required paper and pen. The word “ballot” comes from the Italian ballotta, or little ball, and a ballot often was a ball, or at least something ballish, like a pea or a pebble, or, not uncommonly, a bullet. Colonial Pennsylvanians commonly voted by tossing beans into a hat. Paper voting wasn’t meant to conceal anyone’s vote; it was just easier than counting beans. Our forebears considered casting a “secret ballot” cowardly, underhanded, and despicable; as one South Carolinian put it, voting secretly would “destroy that noble generous openness that is characteristick of an Englishman.”

Lepore also describes an “original intent vs. spirit of the Constitution” argument that in its outlines feels familiar today, even though the specifics have changed:

Political parties, whose rise to power was made possible by the rise of the paper ballot, stepped in. Party leaders began to print ballots, often in newspapers: either long strips, listing an entire slate, or pages meant to be cut in pieces, one for each candidate. At first, this looked to be illegal. In 1829, a Boston man named David Henshaw tried to cast as his ballot a sheet of paper on which were printed the names of fifty-five candidates. Election officials refused to accept it. Henshaw sued, arguing that he had been disenfranchised. When the case was heard before the state’s Supreme Court, the decision turned on whether casting a printed ballot violated a clause in the state’s 1780 constitution, requiring a written one. “It probably did not occur to the framers of the constitution,” the Court observed, in a landmark ruling in Henshaw’s favor, “that many of the towns might become so populous as to make it convenient to use printed votes.” The Massachusetts constitution, only fifty years old, had already been outpaced by the times.

The big innovation — government printing uniform ballots — was still years away at that point, of course.

Colin Powell — who might be the most popular Republican in the country — has endorsed Obama for President. His entire statement — seven minutes of talking, uninterrupted by questions — is worth the watch, and can be viewed here at Ta-Nehisi’s place.

But I want to highlight one particular thing Powell said, which quite frankly rocked.

And the transcript, courtesy of Kate Orman:

I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American.

So, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., did what she does best yesterday. What Michele does best, of course, is say something completely insane, with absolute conviction. To wit:

The full transcript is available here, but here are the most relevant sections:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: If you have liberal views, does that mean you have anti-American views? What’s the connection? I don’t get the connection. What’s the connection between liberal and leftist and anti-American? If you’re liberal, are you anti-American?

REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE MICHELE BACHMANN (MN-06): Well, the liberals that are Jeremiah Wright and that are Bill Ayers, they’re over the top anti-American, and that’s the question that Americans have. Remember it was Michelle Obama who said she’s only recently proud of her country. And so these are very anti-American views.

[...]

MATTHEWS: So you think Barack Obama may have anti-American views?

BACHMANN: Absolutely. I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views.

[...]

MATTHEWS: How many Congresspeople, members of Congress, are in that anti-American crowd you describe? How many Congresspeople that you serve with?

BACHMANN: Right now —

MATTHEWS: How many are anti-American in the Congress right now that you serve with?

BACHMANN: You’d have to ask them, Chris. I’m focusing on Barack Obama and the people that he’s been associated with and I’m very worried about their anti-American nature.

MATTHEWS: But do you suspect there are a lot of people you serve with — well, he’s the United States senator from Illinois, he’s one of the people you suspect as being anti-American. How many people in Congress of the United States do you believe are ant-American? Is he alone or are there others? How many do you suspect of your colleagues of being anti-American.

BACHMANN: What I would say what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating exposé and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would be — would love to see an expose like that.

But that’s dodging the question, Michele! If the newsmedia is going to determine who is pro- and who is anti-American, they’re gonna need a good working definition. So it’s time to name names. Who do you think is anti-American, Rep. Bachmann? Certainly, the gentleman from Minnesota’s Fifth. And the gentleman from Indiana’s Seventh, too. I mean, those are just gimmes. But who else? Is Nancy Pelosi anti-American? Probably. Harry Reid? Of course. Barack Hussein Super-Allah Obama? Duh. But does it stop there? Or is Colin Peterson anti-American too? Is it really just a matter of noting the “D” before a legislator’s state? Or are there pro-American Democrats — you know, other than Joe Lieberman? And — dare I wonder — are there vipers in the nest of the GOP? Is Chuck Hagel anti-American? Jim Ramstad? Norm Coleman?

We need to know, Michele, and right quick. You need to spearhead this, take up the cause, get HUAC reconstituted. You need to be out front on this, Michele. America needs you to save it from the dread specter of evil, duly-elected members of Congress.

And don’t be dissuaded by the fact that your DFL challenger, former MnDOT Commissioner El Tinklenberg, has thus far raised over $50,000 since you went on Hardball — and people are still going to the ActBlue site and donating. Don’t worry that there’s already a “Censure Michele Bachmann” site set up. After all, nothing is more un-American than opposing a candidate like you for political office, right?

No, Rep. Bachmann, this is the fight you were born to lead. I urge you to embrace it wholeheartedly. Don’t back down. Don’t give an inch. Tell El Tinklenberg to his face that he’s un-American. Tell every DFLer in Minnesota that we’re un-American. Own it, Michele. Because if we’re really anti-American, that’s your duty. And if we’re not — and we’re not — it will destroy your political career. If it hasn’t already.

If you live in California, you’ve probably heard about Prop 4, which would require parental notification for teenagers seeking abortion care. What’s scary about this proposition is that, unlike more extreme anti-choice laws, it actually looks pretty innocuous on paper. Supporters claim that it’ll foster communication between pregnant teens and their parents by having doctors contact the parents if said teen terminates a pregnancy. And abusive families? Oh, don’t worry about that - teens can just have the clinic contact a trusted relative, or they can go before a judge and obtain a waiver. Everyone wins!

Despite what your voter registration guide says, however, this is not what will actually happen.

Before I address the “exceptions” for abusive families, let me go through the ethical and practical reasons why parental notification is not a good idea. First off, a law can’t force families to communicate. If a teenager has gotten to the point where she’d rather pay for and go through an abortion alone than ask her parents for help, her family most likely has problems that a form letter isn’t going to solve. Yes, that’s what parental notification is: it’s not a visit from a counselor, it’s not a kindly intervention, it’s a form letter that either is hand-delivered or comes in the mail. And what is the teen supposed to do when it arrives? Stand there sheepishly as her parents open it?

A lot of people oppose consent, but are okay with the idea of notification. However, since there’s a mandatory 48 hour waiting period between notification and the procedure, requiring notification effectively equals requiring consent. If you don’t want your daughter to terminate, are you really going to sit on your hands while she goes ahead and does it? Especially if you’re already angry that you found out from a form letter?

Here’s one myth about parental notification: that it has lowered teen pregnancy rates in other states. This is a blatant lie. There is no connection between parental notification and lowered teen pregnancy rates. The cause of reductions in teen pregnancy is comprehensive sex education and accessible contraception, not parental notification. (Big thanks to Petitpoussin for the info.) Also, supporters like to claim that no teen has ever been harmed by parental notification. However, issues like abuse and teen pregnancy are complex and interconnected, so while it may be difficult to pin down one single cause of harm - for example, “If she had terminated the pregnancy, her father wouldn’t have hit her” - that doesn’t mean parental notification laws aren’t playing a part.

Here’s another myth: that parental notification protects teens from sexual predators. If you look at the argument in your voter registration guide, you’ll see that supporters don’t even attempt to explain how this would work. They’re using buzzwords to scare people into voting anti-choice.

And, hey, you know how they’re calling it “Sarah’s law?” Because of Sarah, who was killed when a sexual predator forced her to get an abortion, which was botched? Well, turns out there is no Sarah. The woman on whom the law is based was an adult; her situation had nothing to do with parental notification.

All this and more at the No on Prop 4 website.

Finally, one common argument is that if teens need their parents’ permission to take a Tylenol, then surely their parents should be notified if they’re undergoing a surgical procedure. Yeah, about that. All my life, I’ve suffered from severe menstrual cramps. Unless I’m already taking large doses of pain medication before the cramps start, I find myself in excruciating pain, completely unable to function. One day, when I was 16, the cramps hit me by surprise in 4th period English. By the time I got to the nurse’s office, I was sweating, shaking, and close to throwing up from the pain. I had to sit there for a full hour while the nurse contacted my mother and my mother finished an appointment and drove across town to plunk three pills in my hand. If I’d known I was going to get my period that day, I would have just broken the rules and brought my own.

So you know what? Maybe we should allow teens to make choices about their own bodies.

Now, these exceptions. I could sit here and tell you about why they don’t actually protect teens in abusive homes, but why take my word for it? Let’s play Choose Your Own Adventure: Your Prop 4 Saga!

A quick note before you start off on your adventure - while researching for this post, I found out that this is such a great idea that the No on 4 Campaign already had it. For a more detailed version of this story, see Jane’s Journey: Jane Goes to the Doctor.

YOUR PROP FOUR SAGA!

No, the test’s not lying: you’re pregnant. And fifteen. Maybe your boyfriend pressured you into sex; maybe the condom failed; maybe your abstinence program taught you that contraception’s useless anyway. Or maybe you’re just a normal human being who made a bad call. Anyway, looks like it’s time to go to the clinic. Your boyfriend expresses his condolences and stops returning your phone calls - after all, it’s not like he had anything to do with this. You don’t have a car, so you spend forty minutes on the bus. But at least it’ll be over soon.

“I need an abortion,” you say at the clinic.

“No problem,” says the nurse. “We’ve got those. Now, since you’re underage, we do need to notify your parents that you’re seeking care.”

Crap. That’s exactly what you were trying to avoid.

If you feel comfortable notifying your parents, click here. If you don’t, click here.

**

“Darn it,” you say. “I was afraid that I’d get grounded if my mom found out I was pregnant… but you know what? Now that I think about it, I guess that deep down I do kind of want to tell them. Okay, never mind - I’ll go home and do it myself.”

CONGRATULATIONS! You have a loving and respectful relationship with your parents. After you return home and tell them what’s going on, they give you a big hug and a cup of cocoa and then drive you back to the clinic the next day. After the procedure, you go on with your life, graduating from high school and college and starting a family when you’re thirty-two and firmly established in your career. You call your parents every week - just to talk!

THE END!

**

What would happen if your parents found out you were pregnant - and even worse, that you sought an abortion? You shudder to think. They might kick you out of the house. They might physically abuse you. You can’t say for sure, but you’re really, seriously scared.

“No,” you say. “No, no, no. You don’t understand. My parents can’t know about this. Trust me, they can’t know.”

“Well,” the nurse says, “you could always notify another relative. Do you have an aunt? A sister? A grandmother?”

You’re flooded with relief. “My cousin,” you say. “Could you notify my cousin? Here, I’ll call her right now.”

“Wait a minute,” the nurse says as you pull out your cell phone. “Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on. We’ll send her the letter after you fill out and sign this affidavit stating that your parents abuse you.”

If you personally have been abused by your parents, click here. If you haven’t been abused, but have witnessed abuse in your household and/or know that your parents would react violently if they found out what you’re doing, click here.

**

You look at the form. “So I have to write down all of the things my parents have done to me? And then you’ll notify my cousin instead? This is all confidential, right?”

“Oh, no,” the nurse says. “We’re required to report it to the police.”

“What!?” you cry. “What’ll happen then!?”

“Well, they’ll open an investigation,” the nurse says, “and either a social worker or the police will come talk to you.”

The thought of the police showing up at your doorstep is too frightening to even consider. What would happen? Would you be put into foster care somewhere? Would the police leave you with your parents, who’d be angry at you for getting them into trouble? No one seems to get that if it were as simple as calling the police, you would have done that a long time ago. “Come on,” you plead. “That’s so stupid! That’ll make things even worse! And if the police come then my parents’ll find out about the abortion anyway!”

“You could do judicial bypass,” the nurse says. “Do you know about that?”

Click here.

**

“Well,” you say, “my sister has been abused - does that count?”

The nurse shakes her head. “Sorry, it has to have been abuse against you.”

“But I know it will happen if my parents find out I’m pregnant,” you say.

The nurse winces understandingly, but is firm. “That’s not enough,” she says. “If you yourself haven’t been abused, we have to notify your parents.”

You’re about ready to cry. “That doesn’t make sense,” you say. “I am one hundred percent positive that bad things will happen if they know. Isn’t there any other way?”

“Do you know about judicial bypass?” she asks.

Click here.

**

“You mean like go in front of a judge?” you ask. “How long will that take? Because I think I’ve been pregnant for a few weeks already and I don’t have enough money for a second trimester abortion.”

“Then you need to work fast,” the nurse says. A volunteer comes in to explain, briefly, how to go about it - and you leave the clinic feeling like you’re drowning in details.

If you have the time, transportation, and savviness to navigate your way through the California court system by yourself, click here. If you are most fifteen-year-olds, click here.

**

A week later, you stand in a court room full of people waiting for their cases to be heard, along with your lawyer, your guardian ad litem, and perhaps a translator. You wish you didn’t have to broadcast your story to the entire world. “…and that’s why I can’t notify my parents,” you finish.

The judge sighs.

Flip a coin. If it comes up HEADS, hot diggity dog! The judge waives your parental notification requirement. Click here. If it comes up TAILS, sorry! Your judge happens to be anti-choice. Click here.

**

Oops! Looks like a safe abortion in a professional setting isn’t an option for you. God bless America!

So what are you going to do?

If you resign yourself to teen motherhood, click here. If you decide to self-induce or seek a back-alley abortion, click here.

**

CONGRATULATIONS! You return to the clinic and they perform the procedure. Just in time, too - another week or so and you would have hit your second trimester, making all of your efforts for naught. You breathe a sigh of relief and go on with your life, eventually escaping your abusive household.

THE END!

**

Well, it’s been five months, the baby has turned, and now you’re really starting to show. Maybe you’re looking into adoption, or maybe you’ve given up on college. The most pressing concern right now, though, is how your parents are taking the news.

Maybe they’re hitting you. Maybe they threw you out. Maybe you even fear for your life. Who knows? Who cares? You brought it on yourself, slut! Now love that baby!

THE END!

**

You decide to take matters into your own hands. Going to another state isn’t an option, but you know there are people who perform abortions illegally. You know there are herbs or medication you can take. Hell, you’ve heard of people miscarrying from getting punched in the stomach. There has to be a way to do this.

Flip a coin. If it comes up HEADS, you either couldn’t find any options or tried something that didn’t work. Click here. If it comes up TAILS, you’ve done something extremely dangerous to your body. Click here.

**

You’re dead.

That’s what you get for having sex.

THE END!

**

When in doubt, just remember that the people who drafted prop 4 aren’t concerned with protecting teens; they’re concerned with limiting access to safe abortion. And despite its “exceptions,” this law will do just that.

So. If you live in California, please volunteer to help with the No on 4 campaign. If you live outside of California, or don’t have time in your schedule (I know a lot of people are already involved in multiple campaigns), please donate.

(Cross-posted at Modern Mitzvot.)

My daughter was named before my ex-wife and I got engaged and long before she was conceived; we both liked the name “Katherine,” and the middle name was a tradition for daughters in my ex’s family — and one that worked well with Katie. Had my daughter been instead a son, we might have had more trouble deciding. But we would have decided together, with the same focus we did with our daughter’s name — focusing on a meaningful name that would also be a good name, one that our child could bear happily through life.I cannot imagine instead choosing to name my child as a publicity stunt. And I sure as hell can’t imagine doing so over her mother’s objection:

A new father has named his baby girl Sarah McCain Palin as an endorsement for Republican ticket…and without his wife’s consent. Mark Ciptak of Tennessee says he picked the name to “get the word out” for McCain-Palin because he can’t give a lot of money to the campaign. “I took one for the cause,” he said. He wrote the name on the documents for his daughter’s birth certificate, ignoring the name his wife picked, Ava Grace.

You took one for the cause? You took one for the cause? Seriously? Dude, you chose to ignore your wife’s wishes and name your child for a sputtering campaign. Your daughter took one for the cause. Your wife took one for the cause. You are a douchebag nonpareil, one who views your wife as a subordinate and a daughter as property to do with as you please. Which does explain why you’re a McCain-Palin supporter.

Seriously, I’m not sure who’s most aggrieved here. Sarah is a perfectly cromulent name (at least daddy didn’t name her “McCain”), but her middle names are “McCain Palin,” which is going to be almost as popular a middle name pair as “Dukakis Bentsen” when she’s five. One suspects at some point she’ll want to change those to something more normal, like, say, “Grace.”

And his daughter will also know from press clippings that her name was a cheap stunt, not a name picked for her to bear through life, but a name designed to throw support to a campaign. She’ll also know that her dad did so of his own accord — and did so without consulting her mom. Which will tell her exactly how much she’s valued, and how much her dad values women.

And of course, mom now knows that even after going through one of the most arduous tasks a human can endure, her husband will ignore her wishes and do as he pleases.

Amanda is surprised that a father can sign off on a name without input from a mother; having been through it, I’m not — the form for the birth certificate is presented after a long and stressful day, and while I vaguely remember signing it and turning it in, I think it’s just assumed that a family wouldn’t name a child without talking it over. (IIRC, my ex could have signed and turned it in too, but at the time she was on a morphine drip after an emergency ceasarean. It seemed only fair that I could walk down the hall to the nurse’s station.)

Maybe that should change, or maybe the cure would be worse than the disease; regardless, the real solution is that men learn to respect their wives and daughters — and sons, for that matter. If you view your child as property, you can name them however you want, treat them however you want, and do with them as you please. If your view your children as people, you realize that your responsibilities to them far outweigh anything you can possibly imagine, and that you owe it to them, from the first day of their life, to treat them as a human who will grow up to some day be an adult. I never forget that I’m not caring for a child; I’m raising a future woman. And as such, I know damn well that my daughter is better off growing up as Katherine Marie Fecke than Obama Biden Fecke.

Barack Obama’s going to win this election.

That is not going down well with this guy.

Nor with the Freepers, who have a suggestion for a role that Barack Obama could play in a McCain administration:

Ha! You see, it’s funny because it’s horribly racist.

Is this stuff appalling? Disheartening? Sickening? Yep. Surprising? Not so much. The racists — and there are a lot of them — can’t be dealing well with the notion that their president is going to be a man who they’d rather see shining their shoes…or dangling from a tree. And while they’ve done a good job of keeping the masks in place so far, referring to Obama as a “celebrity” instead of “uppity,” for example — we’re three weeks and a day away from their belief in white superiority being destroyed for all time, and they’re bitter about it.

The McCain campaign isn’t responsible for this stuff directly, of course, but they’re playing their part, telling Virginia supporters to tie Obama to al Qaeda via Bill Ayers, because “both bombed the Pentagon,” and running the aforementioned celebrity ads, which were long on racial subtext and short on sanity.

Unfortunately for the racists, it won’t work. Most Americans can accept an African-American leader. That doesn’t mean racism is cured in those Americans — everyone in this country harbors internalized racism (and sexism, and homophobia), and we all need to be aware of that, and we need to work to eliminate it. But there are still a lot of people who harbor more than internalized racism, who are active racists, even if they try not to view themselves that way. And those people are only going to get more vicious, more ugly, and more frightening as the election draws near.

As many of you heard, Connecticut’s supreme court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage today. Awesome.

However, next month Californians will be voting on prop 8, which seeks to eliminate same-sex marriage here. For the last couple of months, polls have been looking good, but earlier this week support for the proposition jumped by ten points. 47% of Californians are now in favor of eliminating same-sex marriage rights, with 42% opposing. If this proposition passes, it’ll reverse the supreme court’s decision and once again make same-sex marriage illegal. Now, the numbers are inexact, and pollsters are saying it’s still too close to call. But we need to pay attention to this.

A couple of quick notes: contrary to the lies supporters are spreading, the existence of same-sex marriage does not mean that officiants are now forced to perform these marriages. One thin