An early bonus to having media credentials was using the media entrance rather than standing in the lines that wrapped around the Arena. After being checked by Secret Service we found our spots at some of the long tables set up for computers and camera gear.

I brought my camera and video camera and, as you’ll see below, the results of the still shots were fair at best. The lighting was awful because of the extra bright lights on Obama as compared to the lower ambient light around him. I felt disappointed in my lack of skill in properly using the settings on my camera until watching CNN just now–their video also looked really bad. Maybe the lighting in the new arena will be more camera friendly (or I will become a better photographer).

Speaking of CNN…on the way to the event I told Alex that I hoped to see one of my favorite reporters, Candy Crowley from CNN, who I watch each evening for her reports from the campaign trail. I did see her and have the chance to talk with her a bit, and she was very friendly. (See a photo of us below.)

Obama was introduced by Dan Rooney, owner and chairman of the Steelers, which drew chants of “Here we go, Steelers.” The roar for Obama was impressive, and he delivered the “Closing Argument” speech that he debuted earlier in the day in Canton, Ohio. The speech ends with his call to action to work hard in the coming days until the election, and reminds people to not think that the election is already won just because Obama is leading in the polls. (See final lines of the speech below.)

One highlight of the event for me was when I got my brief time near the stage. A group of local photographers were allowed to take one two-minute shift close to the stage, between Obama and the crowd. I took a some photos (again, none of them very good, unfortunately) and wanted to take a moment just to watch up close, but I was supposed to be working only.

Click here to see 26 of my best pics

Me & Alex

Me & CNN's Candy Crowley

Taken near the stage

In the crowd

The closing lines of Sen. Obama’s speech:

“Don’t believe for a second this election is over.  Don’t think for a minute that power concedes.  We have to work like our future depends on it in this last week, because it does. In one week, we can choose an economy that rewards work and creates new jobs and fuels prosperity from the bottom-up. In one week, we can choose to invest in health care for our families, and education for our kids, and renewable energy for our future. In one week, we can choose hope over fear, unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo. In one week, we can come together as one nation, and one people, and once more choose our better history.

That’s what’s at stake.  That’s what we’re fighting for.  And if in this last week, you will knock on some doors for me, and make some calls for me, and talk to your neighbors, and convince your friends; if you will stand with me, and fight with me, and give me your vote, then I promise you this – we will not just win Ohio, we will not just win this election, but together, we will change this country and we will change the world.  Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.”

Here are three endorsements, each remarkable for a different reason:

The New Yorker magazine
Remarkable because: While it’s not a surprising endorsement, this column is remarkable because it is so well written and hits so many issues right on the money.

The first five paragraphs focus on the Bush administration, then the endorsement really gets rolling. It goes issue-by-issue: the economy, national security, the Supreme Court, and, finally, each candidate’s character. It’s a bit longer than an average endorsement, but well worth the time. If you read just one endorsement of a presidential candidate, this thoughtful, detailed account is the one:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors

The Record

Remarkable because: This conservative newspaper endorses its first democrat in 72 years.
Since 1895 The Record has served the conservative area of Stockton, California, in the central part of the state. For the first time in 72 years the paper is endorsing a democrat for president (the last was FDR in 1936).

The story behind the endorsement, “Obama turns tide of Record endorsements,” saying it was “a unanimous decision made by our editorial board.” Includes recaps of all previous Record endorsements, which makes for an interesting historical perspective:
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/A_NEWS0801/809280302/-1/A_NEWS13

The actual endorsement, titled “Choice is clear: Obama for president”:
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/A_OPINION01/809280301/0/A_NEWS13

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Remarkable because: A brief endorsement that, again, is extremely well written.

This column addresses experience, judgement, choices of advisors and other factors often overlooked in other comparisons of the candidates.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/campaign-2008/2008/10/sunday-editorial-barack-obama-for-president/

So here’s an antidote. Want to see a true blue collar, white voter give his passionate perspective? Watch the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka speaking at a United Steel Workers convention this past July. (You can’t get much more blue collar than that.) It’s a heartfelt few minutes about the role of race in the election, and his own experience in his hometown of Nemacolin, Pa. The spontaneous reaction from the large, mostly white audience helps make this stirring video well worth seeing.

Length: 7:40

Please watch these three brief, and very well done videos, each with a completely different mood and style.

Video #1, titled “Israelis for Obama” is is a beautifully produced video featuring Amos Schoken, publisher of Ha’aretz newspaper; Lt-General Amnon Lipkin Shahak, Former Chief of Staff, Israel Defense Forces; Nathan Diament, Director of Public Affairs for the Orthodox Union; Naomi Chazan, Former Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee, and others.

Length: 3:25

Video #2, titled “One Jewish Mom for Obama,” is the personal story of Janette Hillis-Jaffe, an Orthodox Jew living in Cambridge, Massachusetts who lived in Jerusalem for four years during the second intifadah. It includes a quote from Rabbi Yosef Blau of Yeshiva University and President of the Religious Zionists of America but is more about her personal take as a Jew and a mother.

Length: 2:49

Video #3 begins with Barack Obama’s meeting with Shimon Peres, and interviews prominent Jews in the private sector who have known Obama and his work for many years, including Ab Mikva, Lester Crown, and Penny Pritzker. It also shows highlights from his trip to Israel and his work in the Illinois and U.S. Senate (this work includes co-sponsoring the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act and urging the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist groups).

Length: 8:06

Open Letter published by the ADL

Finally, I’m hearing from a few Jewish friends that they are “afraid of Obama.” (The exact word used in each case is “afraid.”) This would make the fear merchants smile with delight. The fear machine is in full gear with email and internet rumors (unbelievable after all this time) that Obama is a Muslim, etc.

I remind people that making Jews afraid is exactly what propagandists are trying to achieve and, as Jews, we know very well what it is like to be the subject of smear-and-fear campaigns. You may remember that we Jews all have horns, control the world’s money, killed Jesus, etc. For a little taste of this, check out hate sites like www.jewwatch.com. Scary. Remember, fear is an extraordinary motivator, and if you can make someone fearful you can control them.

My request to you is that you not fall victim to those who spread lies, and instead heed the words in an open letter published by the Anti-Defamation League.

Here is a link to the letter, and the text follows. Pay particular attention to those who have signed the letter.
http://www.adl.org/internet/letter_obama.asp
_______________________

An Open Letter to the Jewish Community:

As leaders of the Jewish community, none of whose organizations will endorse or oppose any candidate for President, we feel compelled to speak out against certain rhetoric and tactics in the current campaign that we find particularly abhorrent. Of particular concern, over the past several weeks, many in our community have received hateful emails that use falsehood and innuendo to mischaracterize Senator Barack Obama’s religious beliefs and who he is as a person.

These tactics attempt to drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion. We reject these efforts to manipulate members of our community into supporting or opposing candidates.

Attempts of this sort to mislead and inflame voters should not be part of our political discourse and should be rebuffed by all who believe in our democracy. Jewish voters, like all voters, should support whichever candidate they believe would make the best president. We urge everyone to make that decision based on the factual records of these candidates, and nothing less.

Sincerely,

William Daroff, Vice President, United Jewish Communities
Nathan J. Diament, Director, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Abraham Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League
Richard S. Gordon, President, American Jewish Congress
David Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee
Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Phyllis Snyder, President, National Council of Jewish Women
Hadar Susskind, Washington Director, Jewish Council for Public Affairs

With the McCain campaign folding up its tents in Michigan, and the polls showing Obama making significant gains in the few remaining battleground states, including Florida, the McCain campaign has decided that it’s last, best remaining hope of winning is to go negative. How do we know? The McCain campaign is saying so. (See the links to news stories in following paragraphs.)

The New York Times said Saturday, “Senator John McCain is entering the final month of the presidential campaign with his prospects weakened by the nation’s deepening financial crisis and persistent doubts about his choice of running mate, but his game plan is clear: sow doubts about Senator Barack Obama by portraying him as liberal and unready to lead.” The Washington Post reported, “McCain’s only positive commercial, called “Original Mavericks,” has largely been taken off the air, according to Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads.”

Apparently, McCain is expected to hit pretty hard, and pretty low, in the Tuesday night’s debate. After that, the campaign plans to unleash a barrage of negative ads designed to create a massive dose of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in voters from “middle America.”

A Preview from Palin
Here’s a preview of things to come from Sarah Palin yesterday. CNN reported that Palin made a reference to Obama’s supposed connection to William Ayers:
“This [Obama] is not a man who sees America as you and I do: as the greatest force for good in the world,” Palin said at a fundraising event in Colorado, according to a statement released by the McCain-Palin campaign. “This is someone who sees American as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country.” The CNN story continues, “Several other publications [in addition to the New York Times], including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The National Review, have debunked the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship.”
(trackback: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/04/palin.obama/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

What will we see from the McCain side?
We all know. Commercials with plenty of pictures of Obama looking like a scary, angry black man; loosely formed connections to criminals and unsavory characters (like Ayers), lies about his tax plan and health care plan, and more and more mentions of his middle name–Hussein. (Don’t laugh this one off. An intelligent woman who I’ve known and liked for many years told me she “absolutely could not vote for a man with the middle name “Hussein.’”) Everything will be from the Karl Rove playbook of filthy fighting.

Many ads will come from the McCain campaign, some will come from the Republican National Committee, but others will come from well-funded outside sources, including the same group that did the infamous (and effective) “swiftboat” campaign against Kerry. Those kinds of sources will provide the ugliest, and most headline-grabbing, ads. For every minute of airtime that groups like that can purchase to run smear ads, they’ll get much more airtime in news coverage of the spots.

If you’re like me and you shook your head, clenched your teeth, and got heartburn every time you saw commercials like the one saying Obama supported “teaching comprehensive sex education to kindergartners,” well, you’d better reach for the industrial strength Rolaids now because you ain’t seen nothing yet. Remember, by law Crest can’t say Colgate puts arsenic in its toothpaste because of truth-in-advertising laws, but these rules don’t apply to political ads. And both campaigns know (and take advantage of the fact) that most voters don’t bother to check the veracity of what candidates say in debates or in ads. They say they “don’t trust politicians” but they pretty much follow the line of, “well, if it’s on TV it must be true.” (Witness “professional wrestling.)

How will the Obama team react?
They’ve handled this quite well before. During the height of the Rev. Wright controversy Obama encouraged people not to fall for distractions, to focus on the issues, and, of course, he rose above the dirt with his speech on race relations. They’ll probably fight fire with fire with some negativity of their own (a response that Kerry and Gore never did right). The one thing we can be sure of is that the Obama team knows, and has known since the beginning, that the ugly would be coming in full force, and they have a strategy ready.

Here’s a link to an Obama campaign ad, released just this morning, announcing that McCain attacks are coming:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1836680040

How to tell truth from fiction?

Visit the sites specifically set up to combat smears with fact-based answers to lies and misleading claims:

www.fightthesmears.com
If you need proof that the Obama campaign uses technology more effectively than any previous campaign, or that they are expecting, and quickly responding to, smears of all sorts, this site is it. This official campaign site is clear, concise, and an easy-to-use source for the facts. The format is perfect: They present the smear, the facts, and even an email forms to quickly send a ‘set the record straight” response to undecided voters who are concerned about an ad or claim they are hearing. There are videos, articles, all the tools needed.

www.factcheck.barackobama.com
A site for detailed fact checking about claims made by the McCain campaign in debates, interviews, etc.

watchdog@barackobama.com
An email address to forward smear emails received.

Two articles about the impending negativity:
“With a Month to Rally, McCain Hones His Attacks”
New York Times; October 4, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04campaign.html

“McCain Plans Fiercer Strategy Against Obama”
Washington Post;  October 4, 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738_pf.html
One quote: “McCain’s only positive commercial, called “Original Mavericks,” has largely been taken off the air, according to Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads.”

Here are some interesting (and sometimes entertaining) links:
CNN commentator Jack Cafferty gets angry after presenting a clip from Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric. His exchange with Wolf Blitzer is classic.

Length: 2:26.

Gov. Palin explains to Katie Couric why Russia’s proximity to Alaska gives her foreign policy experience.

Length: 1:29

Katie Couric asks Palin to name what newspapers and magazines she read before being picked as VP candidate that helped shape her worldview. Palin can’t name any. Among the responses, “Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.”

Length: 0:45.

A strong, pull-no-punches commentary by Fareed Zakaria on CNN. Sept. 29, 2008 after the market dropped almost 778 points. Zakaria has been editor of the Newsweek International edition since 2000, is an award-winning author and expert on government.

Length: 3:15

Here is a link to the article referenced in the video (it ran in Newsweek and Washington Post). Length: 11 paragraphs.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/161204

“The Palin Pick — The Devolution of McCain”
By Carl Bernstein (of the legendary pairing of Woodward and Bernstein, the reporters who broke the Watergate story)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/the-palin-pick—-the-dev_b_129373.html
A thoughtful column in which Bernstein compares the McCain of today to the one he wrote about, and traveled extensively with, in 2000.
Highlights:
Bernstein said that the McCain he knew in 2000 was “a potentially heroic politician who seems far removed from the man running for president today…” and “it is time to confront an awkward but profound question: whether in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has committed — by his own professed standards of duty and honor — a singularly unpatriotic act.” He adds, “Indeed, no presidential nominee of either party in the last century has seemed so willing to endanger the country’s security as McCain in his reckless choice of a running mate.”

Republican commentator Kathleen Parker writes an editorial in the ultra-conservative National Review calling for Palin to withdraw from the race to “save” the Republican party.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=

And now, the swimsuit competition:

Sarah (Heath) Palin’s swimsuit competition in the Miss Alaska pageant. Check out the groovy music.
Length: 0:44

Some basic background:
Joe Biden
Sen. Joe Biden’s record is well known. He is the senior senator from Delaware, assumed office in 1973, and is a long-time member, and current chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Previously he was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee where he led creation of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and Violence Against Women Act.

Sarah Palin
As a country, we are still getting to know Gov. Palin. She was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, which had a population of approximately 6,300 during her tenure. She has been governor of Alaska since December, 2006. Her positions and history have garnered a lot of attention, positive or negative depending on your perspective. She does not believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion; even in cases of rape or incest; she sued the federal government to fight the listing of polar bears and beluga whales as endangered species; she has questioned whether “man-made” activities have contributed to global warming; she opposes same-sex marriage and supported an Alaskan constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. She is currently the subject of a bi-partisan investigation for potential “abuse of power” in her firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan (a controversy the Alaskan media has dubbed “troopergate”).

With the Jewish High Holidays of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur here, many Jews reflect upon their Judaism, and the State of Israel, more now than at any other time of year. It’s a time of introspection and commitment to the year ahead. And with the election almost here, it’s a time when many Jews will be asking, “Which of these candidates would be best for Israel?”

What follows is…

• A brief recap of a presentation I attended the other night by Dr. Anthony Lake, Senior Foreign Policy Adviser to Barack Obama
• A summary of a pre-Rosh Hashana conference call Obama held recently with 900 rabbis
• A perspective on Obama from AIPAC
• A note about the Vice Presidential candidates
• Links/resources for more information

Pittsburgh presentation by Dr. Anthony Lake, Senior Foreign Policy Adviser to Barack Obama
Tony Lake (as he is more commonly known) appeared at Rodef Shalom Congregation Thursday evening, September 25, the night before the Presidential debate that was to focus on foreign policy. (The scheduling itself shows the importance the Obama campaign places on western Pennsylvania’s Jewish vote.)  Lake was the United States National Security Adviser to President Clinton from 1993 to 1997 and has a long list of foreign policy achievements dating back to 1962, especially in the Middle East. His Wikipedia page lists his alma mater as Harvard and Princeton and his profession as “academician, diplomat, negotiator and political adviser.” It also lists his religion as Jewish.

Interestingly, Lake, one of several influential Jews with high-ranking positions in the Obama campaign, is a “Jew by choice,” a convert to Judaism. At the presentation Lake spoke of his personal history, the role that Judaism plays in his life, his time with the Clinton administration, and, most importantly, what attracted him to Barack Obama, why he sought him out, and why he joined the campaign.

In the presentation Lake said he is often asked, “Which candidate loves Israel more?” He said he couldn’t answer that. He said that if he didn’t truly feel, 100%, that Obama was deeply and unequivocally committed to the security of Israel that he could not have joined his campaign. He said that he also feels that John McCain is equally committed to Israel. He said the critical question is not, “Which candidate loves Israel more?” but “Which America is best for Israel?” He said that because of the horrible missteps of the Bush administration, particularly the ill-advised Iraq war, that hatred towards Israel and the U.S. has grown tremendously in the region. This has placed Israel in far more danger than before. His message was that the healthier, more economically sound, more respected America that an Obama presidency would bring is best for Israel.

He spoke about the value of Obama already being so respected and popular around the world. He asked the audience to raise their hands if they had been overseas in recent years, and mentioned how the feelings towards America, and Americans, had soured during the Bush administration. He specifically mentioned Obama’s trip to Europe over the summer, saying that seeing 200,000 people in Berlin coming to see him, waving American flags, was amazing, and that he would have been deeply impressed to see any candidate elicit such a response. Electing Obama would be seen worldwide as a clear, positive change from the destructive Bush policies, he said, and that will enable Obama to garner more international support for American positions, and American allies like Israel.

Lake also spoke about false accusations being spread on the internet about Obama (including the false claim that he is a Muslim), and warned that the smears will probably continue as a tactic to frighten voters.

Finally he spoke about the contrast between the temperament and judgement of the two candidates. McCain tends to be quick-tempered, inflammatory (singing about bombing Iran), and someone with a history of acting rashly. On the other hand, Obama is known for keeping his cool, gathering information, then acting decisively without panic. Lake pointed to both candidates’ behaviors during the Wall St. meltdown over the past two weeks as an example of how each man handles a crisis.

(See the end of this email for link to the Moment magazine article about Lake, which includes more info about Obama’s positions and Jewish members of his campaign.)

Obama and 900 rabbis on a recent conference call
On Wednesday, Sept. 17, Sen. Obama held a pre-Rosh Hashana conference call with 900 rabbis from around the country. During the call, four rabbis, one representing each of four major denominations–Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist–were given the opportunity to ask questions. (One of the rabbis said it was “unprecedented” for a presidential candidate to hold such a call.) A friend of mine had the opportunity to listen in, and told me it was quite interesting…and exciting. According to her, Obama spoke at length and with ease and intelligence about a variety of subjects, especially Israel. Obama was highly regarded as a friend of the Jewish community during his years in the Illinois State senate, and his comfort with, and fondness for, the community showed in the phone call, she said. Two elements that struck a chord with her were his resolve towards protecting Israel from the threat from Iran, that he was very forceful on the subject, and second was something that was not addressed in the conference call but that she heard later in a program about Israel. The program spoke about the effect of the U.S. economy on Israel. The quote was, “When America gets a cold, Israel gets the flu.” Obama’s clear strength on economic issues (just ask supporters like Warren Buffett), therefore, is significant to Israel’s economic health and security.

(See the end for links to stories I found online about the conference call.)

The way AIPAC sees Obama
From an article in Moment magazine (link below): “Obama’s public record on Israel is as unblemished as that of Clinton and presumptive Republican nominee McCain, according to Harold Friedman, the president of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the influential American Jewish lobby. In its analysis of Obama, the National Jewish Democratic Council, which remained neutral in the primary race, reports that Obama co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act and signed several letters urging actions on behalf of Israel. One called on the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist groups; another urged President George W. Bush to press Palestinian leadership to bar terrorist groups from Palestinian elections; and a third expressed solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. The Council also reported that Obama voted multiple times in favor of aid to Israel and has led in the push for divestment from Iran by investors and state and local governments.”

The Vice Presidential candidates
Sen. Joe Biden
Sen. Biden, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has a long track record of being a staunch supporter of Israel. No one, Democrat or Republican, questions his commitment or record.

I found this online:
“Remarks by Ambassador of Israel to the United States, David Ivry, at the Jewish National Fund 100th Anniversary Dinner honoring Sen. Joe Biden.”
http://www.israelemb.org/bios/Speeches/ivry/di02-03-11-2.html

Gov. Sarah Palin
Well, who knows? But here’s one perspective:
“Kissing the Jewish vote goodbye: Sarah Palin’s evangelical Christianity and perfunctory support for Israel are likely to turn off Jewish McCain supporters”
By Richard Silverstein
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/04/uselections2008.sarahpalin3

Links & Resources
A wealth of information is on the “Jewish Americans” section of the Obama-Biden campaign website including a printable Israel fact sheet, a recent video of former U.S. Special Coordinator on the Middle East, Dennis Ross, speaking to Jewish community members in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and an official statement by Obama regarding recent remarks by the Iranian president at the U.N.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/jahome

Jews4Obama.com
An independent site, some of which addresses “smear” campaigns against Obama.
www.jews4obama.com

“Obama is a strong friend of Israel” by Florida Congressman Robert Wexler in the Jersusalem Post.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203847477582&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

An official campaign site designed to combat and correct lies and smears about Obama. Very well organized, with videos, links, etc.
www.fightthesmears.com

“The Conversions of Anthony Lake: How Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor became an Obama-man—and a Jew.” Moment magazine, May/June 2008:
http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2008/2008-05/200805-Lake.html

“Obama conference call with rabbis covers education, the meaning of the shofar, support for Israel.”  The Jewish Journal, Sept. 17, 2008
http://www.jewishjournal.com/elections/article/obama_confe_20080917/

A personal perspective on the conference call by Rabbi Andy Bachman of Congregation Beth Elohim in Brooklyn.
http://www.andybachman.com/?p=862

With a convention this close, the debates can make a huge difference. Here are a couple of notes I’ve found, followed by two worthwhile links:

The conventional wisdom, as far as each candidate’s debate style, is that McCain is a strong, experienced debater. He has a history of being clear, concise, and is known for occasionally injecting an off-the cuff razor-sharp comment that scores big points. On the weak side, he occasionally has difficulty hiding his disdain for an opponent, and can come off as being rude or sarcastic. Obama’s debating history is decidedly mixed. Supporters and detractors all agree that he gives a great speech, but can be too longwinded in debates, particularly for a culture that thrives on sound bites. Someone I know (me) has been known to yell at the TV, “You’re incredibly smart, but GET TO THE POINT!”

The 2 links:

This is a video prepared by the New York Times comparing the debating styles of both candidates, including clips from their debates in the primaries. Length: 5:45.
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=a2436819abf89ee8d3f4f571e7895c4309265b0d

An interesting inside look at negotiations between the candidates’ teams to agree on the  format and subjects for the debates, the debate format the candidates have agreed on, including the decision of using a lectern vs. not, some back-and-forth interaction that might produce some of the evening’s more dramatic moments
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Ditching David Letterman
As part of suspending his campaign, John McCain cancelled his appearance on David Letterman last night. He called Letterman directly, apologized, and explained that he was on his way to the airport to fly to Washington. Letterman thanked Sen. McCain for the call and wished him well. One problem. McCain wasn’t on his way to the airport. He was in a nearby studio with Katie Couric. Because Letterman and Couric are both on CBS, Letterman was able to tap into a live feed while McCain was at the desk with Katie, having his makeup applied. Letterman’s commentary on McCain lying to him and showing up on another show is pretty entertaining. (Sitting with Letterman is Keith Olbermann, McCain’s last-minute replacement on the show.)
Length: 9:10

Remember the good ol’ days (like, just over a week ago), when the big campaign news was about “lipstick on a pig”? Now that Wall St. had its massive heart attack, and the Feds put on the $700,000,000,000 ($700 billion) defibrillators, the campaigns are back where they should be–on issues.

Over the past few days there’s been a lot of finger pointing, with Dems blaming Repubs and vice versa. Truth is, of course, there’s plenty of blame to go around. And both candidates are calling for greater regulation, as deregulation and reckless lending and investing on Wall St. is accepted as the primary cause for this crisis.

So who could have seen this nightmare coming? Well, Warren Buffett for one. Buffett, currently the world’s richest man, the man Forbes magazine calls “America’s most beloved investor,” saw the potential for this back in December, 2000 when Congress passed a bill that Buffett called at the time “a financial weapon of mass destruction.”

It’s important to learn how we got to this current mess, to learn the players, and to learn the roles they play with Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama. After all, as the adage goes, “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” I was hoping to find a clear, concise article to link to that would explain what I’ve learned in my reading over the past few days. So far I haven’t found one. So instead I’ll share with you some of what I’ve found, with trackback links so you can read the sources for yourself if you like. I know it’s long, but I hope it’s interesting. As always, I appreciate your reading.

Along the way you’ll see who McCain calls his “economic guru” (and why that’s scary) and who some of the top economic people are, both Republican and Democrat, including Buffett, who endorsed Obama for President way back in the spring.

The main player to know in order to understand John McCain and his economic philosophy is former Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas). McCain and Gramm have a long political and personal relationship, and the two became close when they worked together as Senators to defeat Hillary Clinton’s 1993 health care plan. One of the most staunch proponents of deregulation in U.S. history, Gramm has been McCain’s longtime economic adviser (both in official and unofficial capacities) and McCain has referred to him as his “economic guru.” In February of this year Fortune magazine called McCain’s economic policies “vintage Gramm.” Gramm was originally the general co-chairman and chief economic adviser of the McCain campaign, but had to step away in July–at least officially. More about that later.

1980s. The infamous Savings & Loan scandal during which 747 S&Ls collapsed during the Reagan administration. The S&Ls lobbied hard for increased deregulation, got it, and invested heavily in junk bonds and questionable real estate projects, leading to the collapse. The most reckless of all the S&L types was Charles Keating, who was convicted of felony fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy. Along the way, Keating donated heavily to five U.S. Senators who aided his cause towards deregulation and, as the scandal hit, they were dubbed the “Keating Five” and came under intense scrutiny. McCain was one of the Keating Five but, as one article notes, “wasn’t found guilty of anything but bad judgment.”

1996. Sen. John McCain, along with only 4 other Senators, voted against a comprehensive reform of the telecommunications industry saying it didn’t provide “enough deregulation.” Fortunately, the bill overwhelming failed.

1996. Sen. Gramm runs unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for President; hires McCain as the national chairman of his campaign.

1999. Gramm co-authors the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which removed regulations put in place in 1933 during the Great Depression. The regulations were designed to keep banking, investment companies and insurance companies from dipping into each other’s fields. According to economists, the resulting interaction is source of much of the current trouble.

2000. The bill that Buffett called a “financial weapon of mass destruction.” In December, 2000 the Bush-Gore election was still being decided by the Supreme Court as a result of the election-day craziness in Florida (remember “hanging chads,” Katherine Harris, Gov. Jeb Bush, etc.?) Just before Congress was set to break for recess, a 262-page bill called the “Commodities Futures Modernization Act” was slipped into a must-pass 11,000+ page appropriations bill just before Congressional recess. It passed without hearings, created a “shadow banking system,” and created what came to be known as “the Enron Exemption,” (Gramm’s wife, Wendy, was on the board of directors for Enron). The bill allowed companies like AIG and Lehman Brothers to take on enormous sums in bad loans and investments. As an editorial in the Gainesville Sun said this week, “The same banks and investment companies that paid Gramm millions to free them from government regulation are now asking the government, using our money, to bail them out.”

2002. Gramm retires from the U.S. Senate to become a vice chairman and lobbyist for Swiss bank UBS.

2005/2006. On behalf of UBS Gramm lobbies Congress, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues. The goal–to roll back rules implemented to fight predatory tactics that were being used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages.

Feb., 2006. Barack Obama proposes, along with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) a bill in the Senate to (S.1222) “combat mortgage fraud, ratcheting up enforcement and creating a national database of brokers who have been disciplined.” He writes the bill in consultation with the Treasury Department.

2007. McCain hires Gramm to be the general co-chairman and chief economic adviser of his presidential campaign. In March, 2008 Paul Krugman of the NY Times notes, “the Gramm connection tells you all you need to know about where a McCain administration would stand on financial issues: squarely against any significant reform.”

March, 2007. Obama sends a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson urging them to “immediately convene a homeownership preservation summit with key stakeholders to fight foreclosures driven by growth in the subprime mortgage market.” He says, “We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes” and suggests six specific points to be addressed in the summit.

December, 2007. McCain tells reporters in New Hampshire, “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should. I’ve got Greenspan’s book.”

January, 2008. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, during the height of the primary season, endorses Obama. He says in his statement, “After 30 years in government, serving under five Presidents of both parties and chairing two non-partisan commissions on the Public Service, I have been reluctant to engage in political campaigns. The time has come to overcome that reluctance. However, it is not the current turmoil in markets or the economic uncertainties that have impelled my decision. Rather, it is the breadth and depth of challenges that face our nation at home and abroad. Those challenges demand a new leadership and a fresh approach. It is only Barack Obama, in his person, in his ideas, in his ability to understand and to articulate both our needs and our hopes that provide the potential for strong and fresh leadership. That leadership must begin here in America but it can also restore needed confidence in our vision, our strength, and our purposes right around the world.”

March, 2008. In an interview with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal McCain says, “I’m always for less regulation.” In fairness he adds the he does see the need for government oversight, but concludes, “I’d like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated.”

March 26, 2008. Obama gives a major economic address in front of a “Wall St. crowd” at Cooper Union in New York. The speech has received more attention now than it did back then because much of what Obama said is turning out to be true–unfortunately. The video and full transcript are easily available online but highlights include, “We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth, a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street but ends up hurting both. When all is said and done, losses will be in the many hundreds of billions.” In the address Obama outlined six principles that he said, “should guide the legal reforms needed to establish a 21st century regulatory system.”

March 26, 2008. On the same day as Obama’s Cooper Union speech McCain delivers a speech saying that the appropriate response to the mortgage crisis is…further deregulation. The speech is written with help from Phil Gramm who, at the same time, is still lobbying on behalf of UBS. David Wyss, chief economist at Standard and Poor’s, says, “I think [McCain’s] attitude is the market can basically handle this and government doesn’t need to be heavily involved.”

May, 2008. Three Former Chairmen of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) officially endorse Obama, joining Paul Volcker and one of the most highly respected men on Wall St., John Bogle, founder of Vanguard Funds. The former SEC chairs William Donaldson (appointed by G.W. Bush), Arthur Levitt (Clinton) and David Ruder (Reagan) issued a joint statement saying, “Each of us has been committed to prudent economic policy and effective financial regulation for many years. We believe Senator Obama can provide the positive leadership and judgment needed to take us to a stronger and more secure economic future.” They go on to praise Obama’s “reasoned approach” to “the current financial crisis and the need for balanced regulatory reform.” It’s interesting (and almost chilling, in hindsight) that in the May 18 Reuters article about the endorsement it says, “On Tuesday, he (Obama) compared conditions during the Great Depression to the current U.S. housing crisis, blaming both in part on poor financial regulation. He has promised better regulation of mortgage lenders and other financial institutions.”

July, 2008. In an interview with the Washington Times, Phil Gramm is asked if he thinks America is in a recession. He says, “You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession. We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline.” As a result of the gaffe (in other words, saying out loud what you really mean but is really horrifying to the millions who are in deep financial trouble or who realize the severity of the problem), Gramm steps down from his official role in the McCain campaign, though he is widely reported to still act in an unofficial role as economic adviser and has recently resumed attending McCain events.

September 15, 2008. Two Wall Street giants, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, collapse. Alan Greenspan calls it “the worst economy I’ve ever seen” and warns of more failures of banks and investment companies. At 11:15 in Florida McCain says in a speech, “The fundamentals of the economy are strong.” The media, the Democrats, aliens from outer space–everyone goes crazy in reaction to the comment, yelling one giant, “What???” Two hours later, after “it” hits the fan, McCain says what he really meant to say is “the American workers and their innovation, their entrepreneurship, the small business” are strong. Oh. Okay.

September 18, 2008. An angry McCain says to a crowd about Christopher Cox, chairman of the SEC, “If I were President today, I would fire him.”

September 19, 2008. The editors of the super conservative Wall Street Journal pounce on McCain for his comment saying, “this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It’s also un-Presidential.” They call McCain’s speech “a tirade,” and saying he used “wholly unsupported assertions.” The column concludes, “In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution.

September 19, 2008. Obama meets with his economic advisers and holds a press conference and Q&A to address the financial situation. In the press conference he says, “This is not a time for fear, it’s not a time for panic. This is a time for resolve and it is a time for leadership.” He said he would call for a Homeowner and Financial Support Act “that would establish a more stable and permanent solution than the daily improvisations that have characterized policy-making over the past year.” He said his measures would provide capital to the financial system, insure liquidity to allow the financial markets to function and “get serious about helping struggling families to restructure their mortgages on affordable terms so they can stay in their homes.”

September 21, 2008. On ABC’s Sunday news program “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” the panel pulls no punches about McCain’s reactions. Even conservative George Will said, “I suppose the McCain campaign’s hope is that when there’s a big crisis, people will go for age and experience. The question is, who in this crisis looked more presidential, calm and un-flustered? It wasn’t John McCain who, as usual, substituting vehemence for coherence, said ‘let’s fire somebody.’ And picked one of the most experienced and conservative people in the administration, Chris Cox, and for no apparent reason… It was un-presidential behavior by a presidential candidate.” He then concluded with what many Republican and Democratic colleagues have expressed concern about for quite awhile–McCain’s tendency towards rash judgement: “John McCain showed his personality this week, and made some of us fearful.”

In summary: Those who think the economy is going well should vote for McCain, a man who has always supported the policies, and the architects like Gramm, who have brought the economy to where it is today. Those who think the economy is in fundamental trouble should vote for Obama, the man who the former SEC chairs, former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, Warren Buffett and others have praised for his approach to the economy, including his years of calling for “reasonable regulation.”

So, that’s what I’ve learned. I’d be curious to know what you think, if this was helpful, interesting, boring, etc. So let me know if you can.

Thanks for reading!
Jonathan
Now, here are the trackbacks on this entry:
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080915/NEWS/809150221/-1/opinion&title=John_Ward__John_McCain_and_Phil_Gramm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178318884054675.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/379476_teepenonline18.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080917/cm_thenation/45361590
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/the-gramm-connection/
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/15/1401952.aspx
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/379476_teepenonline18.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/01/31/volcker-joins-list-of-obama-backers/
http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN1448591420080514
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating

George Will, well-known for his conservative Republican views, said “John McCain who, as usual, substituting vehemence for coherence, said ‘let’s fire somebody.’ And picked one of the most experienced and conservative people in the administration, Chris Cox, and for no apparent reason… It was un-Presidential behavior by a presidential candidate.” Sam Donaldson, picking up on the “coherence” theme, which is becoming something more and more people are talking about, said, “It was two days after he said the fundamentals of the economy were strong. His talking points have gotten all mixed up. And I think the question of age is back on the table.”

George Will then concluded with what many Republican and Democratic colleagues of Sen. McCain have privately expressed concern about for several months–McCain’s tendency towards poor judgment and rash actions: “John McCain showed his personality this week, and made some of us fearful.”

It’s an interesting exchange. Length: 4:40.