West, Donavon West

Barack Obama defeated John McCain by a count of 15 to 6 in Dixville Notch, NH. The polls open in at midnight. Nearby Hart's Location reported 17 votes for Obama, 10 for McCain and two for write-in Ron Paul. Ralph Nader was on both towns' ballots but got no votes.

Read more

After a mess of forwards, I received this email that I was disturbed to see originated from a good friend.

Having tossed and turned most of the night (not pretty at 7 1/2 months pregnant) grappling with disappointment, I finally drafted this response:

Tell me you are voting for McCain because you think his tax policy is better or because you agree with the direction he wants to take health care. Or maybe you really do believe in less diplomacy and more military involvement around the world. That is a line of reasoning on which we can respectfully talk and disagree because it is the heart of what we need to decide about where our country is going. But to get this email below through a bunch of forwards and see that you are persuaded by and are perpetuating this line of base campaign ugliness that stokes the fires of ignorant fears and suspicions is disappointing.

Think about it. You can come up with a bunch of random associations and facts to create a story about anyone. Haven't there been people in your life who made judgments and assumptions about you based on specious facts that they were all too happy to whip up into an ugly picture of you? It is how slander and suspicion work and you know that. We could do the same about McCain. In his case, his close friendship with Charles Keating actually did influence him and how he legislated. However, there is absolutely no evidence in Obama's record that he has ever been influenced as a legislator, as a constitutional law professor, as president of the Harvard Law Review, as a Christian father and husband, or even as a candidate (he has run a campaign WITHOUT lobbyist money, he has not proposed a radical left wing agenda, he has never once attacked Republicans in general - only very specifically does he address the mistakes that Bush has made and how McCain has been complicit in those mistakes, and by the way, where are all of the scary Palestinian or Muslim groups or staff that should be funding and advising him if he were on some radical track?) There is no evidence in his record that he has actually been influenced to pursue some agenda that correlates in the least with the scary picture that this set of “facts” is trying to paint. Everything points to him as quite a level headed moderate who likes to seek consensus. Leading conservatives have been the first to point this out and, in fact, they seem to think Obama will be a disappointment to the more left leaning Democrats. Not since McCarthyism and the black list has it been a crime to 'know' people. Maybe, MAYBE, as I said, it would have some legs if he were more of a Sharpton or Farrakhan figure in general and we could find some relevance to how he has approached public service. But, it is irresponsible to go down this line of thinking when the man in question has lead nothing but a pretty honest life, particularly in public service and the kind of agenda he has pursued. Has any other candidate written himself about all of his own dirty laundry in two autobiographies? What could he possibly be hiding and why aren't you similarly worried about McCain, especially after his close ties to Keating and Liddy? And McCain actually has on staff a SLEW of lobbyists with agendas who actually DO advise him and will influence policy in ways we can only spin suspicious tales about. Which brings me back to the fact that anyone, ANYONE can be made into a suspicious or unsavory character if you try hard enough. Perpetuating this set of supposedly hard facts only serves to support the ugly and suspicious reasons people probably already won't support Obama. You call these facts as though it gives them some gravitas, but the reality is that you are using the facts to foster suspicions that have no basis in reality. There is a big difference there. And suspicions are a pretty thin way to make a decision about a president.  It is truly base behavior and just appeals to the ugly side of people. Again, I'm disappointed. I've respected your political opinions because I assumed your basic ideology just falls more in line with what McCain wants to do with our country. But I have no respect for this kind of suspiciousness. It sounds a bit like Oliver Stone or Michael Moore. Do you honestly believe that MANY conservatives who are much smarter and informed than either of us would embrace someone who has even the slightest hint of introducing Sharia law? Or of turning America into a Socialist state? In contrast, stop and think for a second about the fact that Gov Palin is ACTUALLY campaigning from an extreme, incendiary place, with comments about “pro-American” parts of the country and appealing to the right wing cultural conservatives regarding guns and abortion. No one denies that her role is to appeal to cultural conservatives and rally the hard right. Who is ACTUALLY more likely to push for radical cultural change? Which candidate seems to actually have an agenda that is at the far end of the political spectrum? It is suspect that you are more worried that Obama MAY be extreme when Gov Palin is ACTUALLY openly for a highly partisan agenda. Did you hear her say that she and McCain support the Republican platform? (This isn't true, as McCain himself does not...oops.) Have you read the Republican platform? It is pretty extreme and calls for a lot more radical changes to our country than you have ever heard from Obama. Point is, this ugly scary picture of Obama just doesn't bear out with reality. It is for people who want a reason not to support him and it leaves me thinking that you aren't basing your vote on policy but on something in your gut that is suspicious and primitive, not fair or rational. And that is the disappointing part.

I also have to remark about this Socialist nonsense. Please educate yourself on the progressive tax system and the fact that we have had it in our country for a very long time. It was advocated by McCain's hero, Teddy Roosevelt. McCain himself has defended it. Again, the fact that you are being influenced by this stuff concerns me because it is simplistic and appeals to the “let’s label people with scary words” instead of engaging in conversations that are a little more difficult and less dramatic. In fact, when pushed, none of McCain's surrogates will actually call him a Socialist - they say Liberal instead - because they know it just isn't true. By the way, is any state more “Socialist” than Gov Palin's? The reason she is/was so popular is because she wrangled another $1200 check for every Alaskan citizen from the oil companies, above and beyond the $2100 they already get. That is quite literally the definition of the most extreme, Marxist form of socialism. She actually took money from the rich and gave it directly to the masses. It wasn't invested in infrastructure or common development the way that taxes are supposed to be used. (She actually bonded that out, borrowing to fund infrastructure, putting her state in debt, like the rest of the fiscal conservatives seem to be doing these days.) Do I think she is a Socialist? Of course not, but that pesky "fact" about how she has actually governed (not how she MIGHT govern without any basis in reality) can be used to make her sound like one if I were so inclined. The progressive tax system doesn't take from the rich and give to the poor. The progressive tax system takes from everyone and uses that money to HELP everyone, particularly the rich. Don't the rich benefit equally if not more from bridges and roads and airports and beaches and parks and education and all of the wonderful things we decide as a country that we want for everyone? And don't the rich benefit most from ensuring a healthy and educated and productive middle class to work in their companies and buy their goods? No one, NO ONE is taking from the rich and giving to the poor (ok, except Gov Palin). Again, it is irresponsible to just throw this Socialist label around to make him sound radical - it bears no relationship to the reality of the tax system Obama proposes which is fundamentally in keeping with what we have done for decades. So don't worry, you can vote for him without worrying he is a Socialist.

If you want a president who tells the truth, I'm not entirely sure how the McCain-Palin ticket fits that definition. It doesn't take much fact checking to find various ways they have tortured the truth in order to rally the base. I'm not saying Obama hasn't tweaked a few facts either. The line between spin and lying can become fuzzy. But enough people have actually said that McCain is capital "L" lying that if "speaking the truth" is really your measuring stick, you haven't exactly gotten it from McCain or Palin, either.

I do believe people from both sides of the aisle can be friends and even talk politics, when it is responsible, respectful and rational. But I have no idea what to do with this email and how you believe it is part of responsible discourse. And it would be irresponsible of me not to call you out on it.

The election is almost over and the McCain supporters can read the writing on the wall. Just read some of the comments that people are leaving online:

GOD FORBID OBAMA IS ELECTED TOMORROW!!! WITHIN 2 WEEKS THE COUNTRY WILL FALL INTO A PANIC. YOU WILL HAVE ONLY YOURSELF TO BLAME AS YOU VOTED FOR A PHONY AND SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE ENEMY!!! HE IS ALREADY TELLING HIS ADVISORS TO DUMB DOWN HIS PROMISES SO HIS JIM-JONES KOOL AID DRINKING BLIND ROBOT LIKE SUPPORTERS DONT GET UPSET AFTER THE ELECTIONS. FOR SOME IT WILL ONLY TAKE DISASTER TO OPEN THEIR EYES!!! AVERT DISASTER NOW!!!!

Seriously?

Obama doesn't even care about his brother living in proverty and an Aunt and a Mother that he rarely sees. But he wrote abut all of them in a book along with Rev Wright the man that was his inspiration.

Are you a complete idiot? Obama's mother is dead and his half brother chooses to live in Kenya.

Obama wants the middle class to be the new POOR.

Do you actually think he wants the middle class to be poor? Who would want hard to become a group of people, besides the evil character from a Bond movie or perhaps Dick Cheney? :)

My family is very close. McCains tax plan will help the middle class more than Obama. Now tell me what has Obama done, not talked about doing but has actually done

Have you actually looked at Obama or McCain's tax plan? If so, how can you say that McCain's tax plan will help the middle class. It won't. Plug in your data at http://taxcut.barackobama.com and see for yourself.

Hillary supporters NOW it is pay back time. Pay this radical and his racist hate filled wife and preacher back with a vote for McCain and Palin in 2008 and then Hillary in 2012 !!! Its the right thing to do for your country and its payback to the MEDIA for shoving this Pied Piper down our throats. MSNBC needs to be shut down after this and that psycho Keith Olbermann committed to an asylum !!! Vote AGAINST No-BAMA and lets make Michelle REALLY MAD and push her back to her crime ridden city of Chicago !!! Say NO to OBAMA PELOSI REID AND BRAZILE!!!!

That just doesn't make sense. If you are a Hillary supporter, then you probably have nothing against Pelosi or Reid. The country is excited about Obama and the media is reporting this excitement.

I am sad to report that only two people "got" my Halloween costume. I went as the crazy McCain supporter that faked an attack my a 6'4" back man and carved a backwards "B" in her face. Lucky for me, of the two people who got it, one was dressed as Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz (complete with ruby slippers and a very short shirt).

I guess I watch too much MSNBC.

Sarah Palin obviously didn't get the memo from the McCain campaign, or chose to ignore it as she already starts her run for 2012.

Watch as they contradict each other on cutting defense spending:

It turns out that I am responsible for Barack Obama's loss to John McCain by one vote. Watch this video that was sent to me by a friend:

Create a video and send it to your friends at cnnbcvideo.com.

Lately McCain has been blasting Obama with his pathetic finger quoted "spread the wealth around" comment and calling him a socialist. But back in 2000, while appearing on Hardball, he defended the progressive tax system.

Everyone who knows anything about government will tell you that's what government does. Do you know those "Got Milk?" commercials? They are paid for my government subsidies. What are government subsidies? They "spreading the wealth around".

And what about Obama wanting to "raise taxes"? He is simply reversing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy 2% of Americans when Bush "spread the wealth around" to rich people. Obama is simple, putting the wealth back where is was in the first place.

Is the average person reading this blog going to see a tax increase under President Obama? No. But you would never know that listing to a John McCain commercial or stump speech.

I guess desperate times call for desperate actions.

Sarah Palin's own Anchorage Daily News yesterday came out in support of Barack Obama.

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

Read more

The McCain campaign is on the ropes. With less than 10 days left until the general election, John McCain is down in the all of the polls and in the state-by-state electoral map.  In a last ditch effort to grab the presidency from Barack Obama (the all but certain victor), John McCain recently played the only card left to him: the "put a dead hooker in Obama's trunk" card.

Obama is airing this 2 minute commercial "Will our country be better off four years from now?". In it Barack Obama looks straight into the camera and explains how he would solve the issues that face the country.

At the same time, John McCain is airing his 30 second “vote for me or you will die” commercial. It features Joe Biden (in his own words) stating that a new president will be tested. The McCain campaign took no time to turn those words against Obama.

But wait... Didn’t Joe Lieberman (a McCain supporter) make the same statement back in June on Face the Nation? Why didn’t the Obama campaign jump all over this? Because they aren’t desperate like the McCain campaign. Democrats have certain moral standards, unlike the Republicans.

Inspire or fear and hate? Hmmm. You decide.

Watch Obama’s commercial:

McCain’s "vote for me or die" commercial:

And watch Joe Lieberman make the same statement as Biden:

Though not a ringing endorsement, conservative Ken Adelman explains why he is voting for Barack Obama. He gives a truthful and honest assessment of Obama vs. McCain for President.

Adelman was a key part of George Bush's defense agency and has held senior policy positions under Presidents Reagan, Ford and even Nixon. He's a staunch conservative, though he has broken with Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the handling of the Iraq war.

He recently wrote an article for Huffington Post titled "Why a Staunch Conservative Like Me Endorsed Obama". Here are a few quotes:

Granted, McCain's views are closer to mine than Obama's. But I've learned over this Bush era to value competence along with ideology. Otherwise, our ideology gets discredited, as it has so disastrously over the past eight years.

McCain's temperament -- leading him to bizarre behavior during the week the economic crisis broke -- and his judgment -- leading him to Wasilla (Palin) -- depressed me into thinking that "our guy" would be a(nother) lousy conservative president. Been there, done that.

Nonetheless, I concluded that McCain would not -- could not -- be a good president. Obama just might be.

Read more

I thought that I would just go ahead and get this blog posting out of the way now. I mean why wait until November 4th? With just 14 days until the 2008 elections, all metrics point to an Obama victory or possibly even an Obama landslide victory. After a few drinks, even those inside the McCain camp will tell you that it's all but over for John McCain.

Pollster.com shows Obama with 313 electoral votes, McCain with 157 (you need 270 to win). The Gallup daily tracking poll has Obama with 52%, McCain with 41%. Intrade betting has Obama with 364, McCain with 174.

In the weeks following an Obama victory, when we look back and ponder "What was the pivotal moment that lead to an Obama win?", I think we will find that it came down to seven words: "The fundamentals of the economy are strong".

During the opening stages of the recent economic meltdown, and even after it was painstakingly obvious that things were looking pretty bad, McCain blindly repeated these words over and over. After a while, he then tried to put a spin on it saying that by "fundamentals", he was referring to "the American workers". No one with half a brain bought that lame story (except of course Palin).

BTW, picking Sarah Palin didn't help either. She has turned out to be nothing more than comic relief and caused many, many, many, many, many people to question McCain's judgment.

On January 21st, President Barack Obama with the help of Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Treasury Secretary Mike Bloomberg will set out to steer this country back on course after eight long years of disastrous policies.

Politics is everywhere. McCain and Palin are even included in Family Guy Season 7. In a scene, Stewie and others stole the uniforms of 3 Nazis and wore them. Stewie noticed the button on his new jacket, a McCain/Palin button.

I've included stills of the key frames:

Or watch the entire clip on Hulu:

With only three Sunday papers between now and election day, many newspapers are endorsing this weekend.

For most people, home town newspaper endorsements really don't matter.  But, for those undecided voters out there (I know, it's hard to believe that anyone can still be undecided), an endorsement from a local paper that they trust will help in the following ways:

1. A voter may say "if [candidate name here] is good enough for [paper name here], then [he or she] is good enough for me".
2. The endorsement article can act like a crib sheet; a one page pros and cons list from a trusted source.

There are a number of newspapers that have already endorsed Barack Obama. Here are a few quotes.

The Salt Lake Tribune (yes, a Utah newspaper) is endorsing Obama:

Out of nowhere, and without proper vetting, the impetuous McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She quickly proved grievously under-equipped to step into the presidency should McCain, at 72 and with a history of health problems, die in office. More than any single factor, McCain's bad judgment in choosing the inarticulate, insular and ethically challenged Palin disqualifies him [McCain] for the presidency.

The Kansas City Star endorses Obama saying:

Palin is gloriously, fabulously unfit for duty

The Miami Herald endorses Obama:

Sen. Obama represents the best chance for America to make a clean break with the culture wars and failed policies of the past, and begin to restore the hope and promise of America as the world's greatest democracy.

The Chicago Tribune is the largest daily in Obama's hometown, however, it hasn't backed a Democrat in its 161-year history:

On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose. The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.

The Los Angeles Times hasn't endorsed a presidential candidate since 1972, when it backed Richard Nixon:

The next president must make the United States a force for good again. The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.

The Washington Post says:

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race.

The Denver Post says:

He's the right man to lead America back to prosperity

First McCain. He started out very funny, but crossed the line I feel (think Colbert at the Pres Club roast of Dubbya). He did bring it back with some kind words about Obama (however he did lift the line "I can't wish him luck, but I do wish him well" from George Bush at the 2000 Al Smith dinner).

Then it was Obama's turn. Not quite as funny, but he gave a very Presidential segment on helping people hurting from the current economic crisis.

Wow! This is why I live in the city.

Huh?

Note that this is NOT a re-touched photo, but an actual picture taken after the third and final debate. Rather representative of how the race is going, don't you think?

A CBS/New York Times poll has Obama with 53% and McCain at 39% (up 14%). Is this the beginning of the end?

Read More

This is old, but still interesting. it's from CNN's "McCain Revealed" and talks about the McCain/Keating relationship, something that we are all still paying for.

This needs to be reported:

In 1986 John McCain wrote a political note, on official House of Representatives stationary, apologizing to Charles H. Keating Jr. for his campaign having listed his good friend and supporter as part of McCain's Senate campaign finance committee.

Keating responded with a handwritten note (addressed to "senator," seven months before McCain won his Senate seat) telling him not to sweat it, "I'm yours till death do us part."

Read more