It's Over

Joe Raedle | Getty Images

 It's over. I can't believe it. I just ... it's over. I can't believe it. It is over.

It's been a very long five years.

Yes, five years. Because this stain has occupied too much space in my mind for much longer than his presidency.

But now it's over. And there are those who would poo-poo this moment because they think "both parties" are bad and neither have anything to offer anyone.

Well, I'm not them and I am celebrating. I'm celebrating quietly, but still celebrating, nonetheless.

Cheers to it being over.

In the Wake of Two Failures

I am sad.

My Kids Have Been Indoctrinated

And that's meant tongue-in-cheek, of course.

I got a message from the school district last week concerning the speech to be given by President Obama this week to students. It stated that teachers in the district had the option of showing the speech in class but that some may not be able to due to scheduling conflicts, etc. As you probably would guess, I had no problem with the kids listening to this speech, no matter what political pundits across the board might say.

As it turns out, neither of the boys' teachers showed the speech and Miriam was at home with me, coughing and sleeping. So we watched the speech at CNN.com tonight. I paused it occasionally to talk to the kids about the points being made. They were really impressed but I wondered how much they really absorbed.

It didn't take long to see what an impact the talk made on Solomon. He immediately went to my desk and wrote out the following statement for himself. He says he's going to keep it forever and read it on his first day of college.

I am promising my country ...
I will work harder in school.
I will make many goals and try to reach them.
I will behave more.
I will be a better leader.
I will focus more in school and I will keep this letter
and read this paper when I need help.

I am so proud. And that is not meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

The #1 Thing I Don't Understand

McCain/Palin bumper stickers with the McCain half cut off. I've seen them quite a lot around here. I just don't get it.

When John McCain was just John McCain, I considered voting for him. John McCain as a political candidate, on his own, was not so bad. By the time he chose his running mate, I was already a staunch Obama supporter and very proud of it. McCain made a terrible mistake in choosing Sarah Palin and I'm glad I didn't have to switch candidates because of it. Also, I was really irked that McCain's people expected women voters to back him just because he chose a woman VP. It's extremely insulting to think that women would support a candidate just because ovaries are involved. But most of that is neither here nor there.

Sarah Palin. Man, that woman irritates me more than anyone I don't personally know has a right to. She's not smart. She's a scary, bigoted, fear-mongering sorry excuse for a politician. And she's a quitter. I do not understand placing so much faith in her. It's like she's seen as the hope of the Republican party; people really want to vote for her in 2012. She has her own grassroots campaign going already amongst these people who cut John McCain off his own bumper sticker.

If anyone has any insight, I'd really love to hear it.

Happy Inauguration Day!

Cheers, all!

I am watching history -- History, with a capital 'H'. I can tell my grandchildren that I watched the inauguration of the first black president of this country. What a moment this is.

Congratulations, President Obama!

Another Political Post

Maybe I've been too caught up in politics lately or maybe it's because this was such an emotional election or maybe I'm just hormonal, but some of these photos are so poignant I tear up when looking at them.

From 52 to 48, with love

The Bigger Picture

I'm still at something of a loss. My words cannot adequately express what this election has meant, and will mean, to me. In the moments after the election was called I posted the entry 2 below this one. I said that it was over. But really, it's just beginning.

President-Elect Obama has a very long, difficult road ahead of him. Our economy is swirling the drain, a long war has looked even longer until now and we're facing an energy crisis of epic proportions. Presidential expectations have never been higher. Add to that the high level of divisiveness that was involved in this campaign and the threats against his life and the result is an extremely unenviable position.

I have every confidence in Barack Obama as a leader. His acceptance speech struck the right balance of hope for the future and humility in the moment. This man had the opportunity to make this election about himself, on a night that was truly momentous; he chose instead to focus on the people of this country. He spoke directly to us, not mincing words about the obstacles that lay ahead. He extended his support to those that opposed him and humbly asked for their support in return. This is a man worthy of our respect, regardless of party affiliation.

No one knows exactly what will happen in the next 4 years. It will be slow going, but progress will be made. Our new leader possesses a self-assurance and a coolness that will make him level-headed when the tough decisions need to be made. We can count on him to make rational decisions, as opposed to emotional decisions. This country desperately needs a large dose of rationality. I am so grateful that we will get it now.

The Nuts & Bolts of My Election Day

I have put off writing about this because I don't know what to say. In the moment, the enormity paralyzed my words. I'm still at a loss but if I don't start writing soon, I'll begin to forget and that is the last thing I want to do. So I will start with the beginning.

I refused to sign up for a mail in ballot and didn't really want to go to early voting, either. I like the ceremony of waiting in line, showing my ID, signing on the dotted line and curtaining myself in a booth. It's both solemn and exhilarating for me. I knew that to avoid waiting in line for hours I'd have to be in line before my polling place opened.

The kids and I left home at 6:30 AM to go to their school, which is my polling place. I took my place in line and there were about 20 people ahead of me already. By the time the required hour of 7:00 AM arrived, the line was beginning to snake around the school building. The kids played on the playground until the line moved inside. Solomon went to choir and the other two went with me to vote.

I knew the ballot would be extensive due the large number of proposed amendments this year. I had prepared a cheat sheet of sorts for myself from the voter's guide so I didn't have to read through all the amendments in the booth. Still, when I stepped into the booth, my stomach flipped at the sight of a page about 2 1/2 feet by 2 feet. I didn't know where to start. I finally recognized an amendment number in the middle of the page and pressed the appropriate button. I breezed through the rest of the amendments and then realized I hadn't voted for a single person yet. So I went back to the top of the page and pressed the buttons for the offices of President, Senate, House of Representatives and a couple of local races. Then I triple-checked all of my lit buttons and finally pressed the submission button.

We left the gym and I dropped off Samuel and Miriam in the cafeteria to eat (another) breakfast. Then I remembered that I hadn't gotten an "I Voted!" sticker. Yes, I'm a voting dork, I like the booth and I want that sticker. So I went back for my sticker.

On my way out of the school I called Jennifer to celebrate voting and got all choked up on the phone. I ran into a guy from the campaign office and he asked me if I was going to help out. I really wanted to be helping at the polls but I had to work. He asked me who I voted for and we both burst out laughing.

I stopped at Starbucks for my free coffee. I told the barista that I had just voted and showed my sticker. She yelled out, "Hey! She just voted!" and everyone cheered. The girl passing out samples of the Peppermint Mocha with a Twist complimented the back of my car. She said that she really liked the stickers, even though "I'm 'technically' neutral. But I really, really like your bumper stickers."

When I got to work another nurse was hooking up a tiny portable television so we could keep up with the news during the day. That turned out not to work so well since we could only tune in to The Price is Right. We ended up leaving the back computer on MSNBC all day to listen to the live feed, which wasn't very interesting.

During the day, it was pretty easy to forget what a monumental day it was. I was too busy to be nervous. But once it got to be 5:00 and polls closed on the East Coast, I started to feel funny. I rushed to pick up the kids and we ate a quick dinner in the car on the way to Ben & Jerry's. I got a free scoop for voting and the kiddos each picked a flavor, too. We sat in the food court and watched the returns on a massive television hanging over our heads.

I tried to explain to the kids what all the figures and calculations meant. Somehow the electoral process with its popular vote versus electoral vote escaped them. All they cared about was that Obama was definitely in the lead. Really, that's all I cared about, too.

When we got home the kids finished their homework and started getting ready for bed. I was pretty useless as a supervisory figure since all I could do was sit on the couch and watch the returns. I did manage to tuck in Miriam and Samuel and get Solomon into the shower. When I made it back to the living room, there was a picture of Barack Obama on the screen and a headline reading, "Barack Obama Elected 44th President of the United States."

I got chills and didn't know whether to laugh or cry. So I did both. I sat on the couch, in shock. Dad sent me a congratulatory text message and Jennifer called 5 seconds later. Solomon came out of the bathroom and asked me what was wrong. I told him that nothing was wrong, that Obama will be our next president. He whooped and ran to their bedroom to tell his siblings. They were already half-asleep and didn't care.

Solomon sat with me on the couch. He said he wanted to stay up and see Obama's victory speech. I wasn't going to tell him no during such an historic moment. So we snuggled together and he fell asleep in my lap half way through the speech.

I finally went to bed, relieved and also half afraid that I'd wake up in the morning to hear that there was a mess of hanging chads and voter disenfranchisment somewhere in the country. It was a great day and I hope I never forget it.

President-Elect Barack Obama

It's over. I am speechless.

The Coolest Thing I've Ever Done

Jennifer and I trekked to Civic Center Park in downtown Denver today for an Obama rally. We figured it would be tough to get in and knew there was little chance we'd get a clear look at Barack Obama. But this is one of those things that I would hate to look back on and regret not doing. So we went.

I have a hard time putting my feelings about this into words. I've never been so invested in anything this big. I feel like our country is at a fork in the road. We can go one way and continue into a downward spiral or we can go another way and begin to dig ourselves back out. And just to clarify, lest you think I am blind behind my rose-colored glasses, I don't think that electing Barack Obama is going to single-handedly revolutionize our country and fix all of our problems. I do think it's a big step in the right direction, though.

I am concerned about the way we are perceived by other nations. Sadly, the Ugly American stereotype is more accurate than ever before. I am worried about the prices of gasoline and groceries, mortgages, education and health care. The average American is stretched so thin, we might begin to split down the middle. I know I feel like that.

I am saddened by the blatant racism I have seen during the last few weeks. You've read my feelings about that before and they have only deepened since then. I am terrified that if Obama isn't elected, those digusting excuses for human beings will feel justified in continuing to spew their hatred on all of us. I want them silenced, or at least brought down a few notches.

It was amazing to have all those feelings solidified this morning. Being in the midst of that crowd of 100,000+ individuals was one of the best moments of my life. The energy and excitement was overwhelming. As schmaltzy as it might sound, it really did give me hope for the future. Going to that rally was, quite simply, the coolest thing I have ever done.

An Actual Conversation

I had this conversation during phone banking tonight. I swear, I am not making it up. Not one single word.

Hello, my name is Jessica and I'm calling on behalf of Senator Obama's Campaign for Change. May I speak with Mr. Smith?

This is Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith, can we count on you to support Senator Barack Obama this fall for President?

No, I'm voting for Ralph Nader.

Okay, well thank you very much for your time.

Wait, will you pay me?

I'm sorry, sir, I didn't quite catch that.

Will you pay me money? Nader is paying me $50.

No, sir I cannot pay you to vote.

I'll vote for Obama if you pay me $60.

I'm sorry, I cannot do that. Thank you for your time.

But wait, I really will vote for Obama. Pay me $60.

Click.

A Disclaimer

As you can see, I've been a busy little blogger this weekend, mostly political stuff. It's an understatement to say that I am quite vociferous in my opinion of who should be the next President of the United States.

I want to make one thing clear, though. I respect and value the right to vote as an individual sees fit. Americans are so fortunate to have this right and I don't want anyone to think I am telling them how to vote. Your vote is yours.

Voting comes with a responsibility and that responsibility is to educate oneself on the issues. Know your candidate and his stance on those issues. If someone has researched the issues and doesn't agree with me, I can respectfully agree to disagree. If one has not done that, well, I'm disappointed.

If you don't know your candidate's stance on the issues, please look it up. And I mean that for anyone, regardless of your choice in candidates.

(Obviously, if you're blindly voting for Obama, I'll be happy that you're voting for him. But once you know more about him, where he comes from and his vision for the future, you can't help but become passionate about your vote.)

And with that, I'm done with political blogging, for a few days anyway.

In Other (Better) Words

McCain and Palin Are Playing With Fire
By Khaled Hosseini
Sunday, October 12, 2008

I prefer to discuss politics through my novels, but I am truly dismayed these days. Twice last week alone, speakers at McCain-Palin rallies have referred to Sen. Barack Obama, with unveiled scorn, as Barack Hussein Obama.

Never mind that this evokes -- and brazenly tries to resurrect -- the unsavory, cruel days of our past that we thought we had left behind. Never mind that such jeers are deeply offensive to millions of peaceful, law-abiding Muslim Americans who must bear the unveiled charge, made by some supporters of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, that Obama's middle name makes him someone to distrust -- and, judging by some of the crowd reactions at these rallies, someone to persecute or even kill. As a secular Muslim, I too was offended. Obama's middle name differs from my last name by only two vowels. Does the McCain-Palin campaign view me as a pariah too? Do McCain and Palin think there's something wrong with my name?

But never mind any of that.

The real affront is the lack of firm response from either McCain or Palin. Neither has had the moral courage, when taking the stage, to grasp the microphone, turn to the presenter and, right then and there, denounce the use of Obama's middle name as an insult. Instead, they have simply delivered their stump speeches, lacing into Obama as if nothing out-of-bounds had just happened. The McCain-Palin ticket has given toxic speeches accusing Obama of being a friend of terrorists, then released short, meek repudiations of some of the rough stuff, including McCain's call Friday to "be respectful." Back in February, the Arizona senator apologized for the "disparaging remarks" from a talk-radio host who sneered repeatedly about "Barack Hussein Obama" before a McCain rally. "We will have a respectful debate," McCain insisted afterward. But pretending to douse flames that you are busy fanning does not qualify as straight talk.

What I find most unconscionable is the refusal of the McCain-Palin tandem to publicly condemn the cries of "traitor," "liar," "terrorist" and (worst of all) "kill him!" that could be heard at recent rallies. McCain is perfectly capable of telling hecklers off. But not once did he or his running mate bother to admonish the people yelling these obscene -- and potentially dangerous -- words. They may not have been able to hear the slurs at the rallies, but surely they have had ample time since to get on camera and warn that this sort of ugliness has no place in an election season. But they have not. Simply calling Obama "a decent person" is not enough.

Is inaction tantamount to consent? The McCain campaign certainly thinks so when it comes to Obama and incendiary remarks from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. By their own inaction, then, are McCain and Palin condoning these slurs? Or worse, are they willfully inciting the angry and venomous response that we have been witnessing at their rallies? If not, then what reaction are they hoping to evoke by their relentless public suggestions that Obama is basically an anti-American liar who won't put "country first" and has an affection for terrorists? Do they not understand the kind of fire they are playing with?

I -- and, I suspect, millions of Americans like me, Republicans and Democrats alike -- couldn't care less about Obama's middle name or the ridiculous six-degrees-of-separation game that is the William Ayers non-issue. The Taliban are clawing their way back in Afghanistan, the country that I hope many of my fellow Americans have come to understand better through my novels. People are losing their homes and their jobs and are watching the future slip away from them. But instead of addressing these problems, the McCain-Palin ticket is doing its best to distract Americans by provoking fear, anxiety and hatred. Country first? Hardly.

And the link, of course: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101002456.html

P.S. I apologize for the lack of click-able links in my recent posts. I'm having trouble getting the code to work. I am looking into it. In the mean time, should you want to follow a link, simply paste the address into your address bar.

Untitled

I started this post Friday morning with a sinking, sickening feeling in my stomach. I was coming here to lament the atrocious comments made about Barack Obama by some John McCain supporters in recent days; comments that are bigoted, racist and, simply put, untrue. Further, they were comments that have been largely ignored by the McCain camp. I was so disheartened that I couldn't gather my thoughts and I saved the post so I could come back and edit it later. I am continuing my post now with a better frame of mind.






For what it's worth, I don't believe for a minute that all of McCain's supporters espouse the beliefs of these few. I wouldn't even purport to believe that John McCain himself believes these things. But his refusal to address these comments is paramount to agreement with them. John McCain has now made a couple of statements to the effect that he does not condone this type of bashing. Whatever his motive, I am pleased that at least something has been said. I fear this is a case of 'too little, too late,' though.




I hope that more of the media pick up on the nastiness coming from people like those in the first two videos. Some have and they have reported on it. I hope they continue to do so. Refusal to condemn actions and words like these is reprehensible.

This country should be better than this. I hate that in the 21st century people can still let race, religion and something as insignificant as a middle name color their perceptions of another human being. It's sickening and I am so sad to be living in the middle of it.

Things like this make me feel more 'glass half-empty' than 'glass half-full'. I don't like feeling that way. My response to this negativity is to volunteer for the Barack Obama campaign. During the two weeks leading up to the presidential election I will be working the phone bank at a local campaign office when I get off work. To those bigoted, uneducated nasties -- congratulations! You've just campaigned for the man you hate.

Media Bias

The following article can be found at this address: http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100015?f=h_top"

I have pasted the article in its entirety for those that don't want to navigate away from my music play list. Ha ha! The article is quite lengthy, but also very enlightening. Please take a few minutes to skim it, at the very least.

Media Matters: The media's enduring pro-McCain double standard
by Jamison Foser

It isn't surprising that the conventional wisdom is that the news media have turned on Sen. John McCain. After all, decades of attacks from conservatives have conditioned reporters to believe that they are biased against Republicans -- even when there is scant evidence in the reporting to support such claims. And the McCain campaign has launched an all-out assault on the media, complaining relentlessly about the coverage its candidate has gotten.

On top of all that, McCain historically has been the recipient of the most favorable media coverage of any politician in modern American history. Reporters spent years all but offering to peel McCain a grape. So, just as the media judge a candidate to have "won" a debate if s/he "exceeds expectations," the fact that McCain's coverage hasn't been as hagiographic as expected has led many to conclude that it has actually been unfairly negative.

The truth is that when John McCain says "jump," the media still ask, "How high?" Think about this: When was the last time McCain or his campaign has wanted the news media to focus on something, and they have refused? From "lipstick on a pig" to Bill Ayers, the media have scampered after whatever mud McCain has flung, like a puppy dog chasing a stick thrown by its master. Sure, sometimes they have pointed out that McCain is lying -- and that's tremendous progress for a profession that has spent a decade flatly asserting McCain's honesty. But -- as I've explained in the past -- even as they've debunked McCain's claims, they've too often privileged the lie by allowing those claims to drive their coverage.

And, increasingly, they uncritically quote McCain campaign attacks on Sen. Barack Obama for things McCain himself has done. When a campaign does something like this, the media often point out the hypocrisy, and the attack backfires. But those rules don't apply to John McCain. So when John and Cindy McCain attack Barack Obama for what they describe as a vote to "cut off the funds for the troops," the news media dutifully repeat the charge -- without noting that, by the same logic, McCain also voted to cut off funds for the troops: Obama voted against a funding bill that did not include a timeline for withdrawal; McCain voted against a bill that did include a timeline for withdrawal.

The funding vote has been the subject of some of McCain's nastiest attacks recently. Cindy McCain, for example, claimed Obama's "vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body" and lectured: "I would suggest that Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day. ... I suggest he take a day and go watch our fine young men and women deploy." You would think, then, that media reporting Cindy McCain's purported indignation would note that John McCain also voted against funding. They haven't. Indeed, some have falsely stated the opposite -- that McCain did not cast such a vote. You might even think reporters would ask the McCain campaign if Cindy McCain got a "cold chill" when her husband voted "to not fund [her] son." But there is no indication that any reporter has done so.

But the best indication that McCain has not yet truly "lost his 'base,' " as The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder put it this week, is the glaring media double standard in covering the two presidential candidates' controversial relationships.

Let's start with Bill Ayers, since the news media have spent much of the week obliging McCain's efforts to make him the focus of the campaign. As an activist in the 1960s -- when Barack Obama was a young child -- Bill Ayers was a member of the Weathermen, a group of radical activists who launched a series of violent demonstrations and bombings in protest of the Vietnam War. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago and a school reform advocate. During Obama's first campaign, Ayers hosted a coffee for him, and the two men have served together on the board of a school reform effort funded by a foundation chaired by Leonore Annenberg, who has endorsed John McCain. The New York Times concluded that Obama and Ayers "do not appear to have been close," and Obama has denounced Ayers' actions as a member of the Weathermen.

A search* of the Nexis database found that more than 4,500 news reports so far this year have mentioned Obama and Ayers -- more than 1,800 this week alone.

Now: G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy served four and a half years in prison for his role in the break-ins at the Watergate and at Daniel Ellsberg's psychologist's office. He has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary." He plotted to kill journalist Jack Anderson. He plotted with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt in order to thwart an investigation. He plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institution. He used Nazi terminology to outline a plan to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 GOP convention. And Liddy's bad acts were not confined to the early 1970s. In the 1990s, he instructed his radio audience on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents ("Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests." In case anyone missed the subtlety of his point, Liddy also insisted: "Kill the sons of bitches.") During Bill Clinton's presidency, Liddy boasted that he named his shooting targets after the Clintons.

What does Liddy have to do with the presidential election? As Media Matters has noted:

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled, "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07," includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."

McCain even backed Liddy's son's congressional bid in 2000 -- a campaign that relied heavily on the elder Liddy's history.

To sum up: John McCain is "proud" of his "old friend" Gordon Liddy -- an old friend who plotted to kill one of the most respected journalists in American history, and who urged listeners to kill federal agents and advised them on how to do so. McCain campaigned for Liddy's son, and Liddy has even hosted a fundraiser for McCain at his home.

So McCain's relationship with Liddy is pretty much a direct parallel to Obama's relationship with Ayers. Except that McCain and Liddy have apparently spent time together more recently than Obama and Ayers. And Liddy's extremist activities continued well into the 1990s, at least. And Liddy says he and McCain are "old friends," while The New York Times says Obama and Ayers aren't close. And Obama has never said Ayers adheres to "the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." Other than all that, it's a direct parallel.

Yet even as they obsess over Barack Obama and Bill Ayers -- just as the McCain campaign tells them to -- the news media have all but ignored John McCain's close ties to Gordon Liddy. A Nexis search** finds fewer than 100 news reports that have mentioned McCain and Liddy this year.

As Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman -- who has criticized Obama's relationship with Ayers -- has noted:

Liddy, now a conservative radio host, has never expressed regret for this attempt to subvert the Constitution. Nor has he developed any respect for the law. ... Yet none of this bothers McCain. Liddy has contributed thousands of dollars to his campaigns, held a fundraiser for McCain at his home and hosted the senator on his radio show, where McCain said, "I'm proud of you." Exactly which part of Liddy's record is McCain proud of?

While Obama has gotten lots of scrutiny for his connection to Ayers, McCain has never had to explain his association with Liddy. If he can't defend it, he should admit as much. And if he thinks he can defend it, let him.

To repeat:

* 2008 news reports that mention Obama and Ayers: more than 4,500.

* 2008 news reports that mention McCain and Liddy: fewer than 100.

Incredibly, The Atlantic's Ambinder today suggests that the media have not covered Ayers: "To truly drive Ayers into the public conversation, to trick what they consider an irredeemably biased press corps into biting, McCain has three vehicles gassed up and ready to go. ... So far, McCain has done none of those things." There are 1,800 Nexis hits for Barack Obama and Bill Ayers in the past week, and yet Marc Ambinder thinks the media have not bitten on the Ayers "story" -- and that McCain, who is running ads about Ayers, isn't "really serious" about pushing it, anyway. Even Steve Schmidt would likely be too embarrassed to try to claim that the media have not covered Bill Ayers.

Incidentally, Ambinder doesn't seem to have ever mentioned McCain's relationship to Liddy.

Not only have the media avoided stand-alone reports on McCain and Liddy, they consistently fail to bring up the connection when reporting on McCain's attacks on Obama's ties to Ayers, or in interviews with McCain staff who bring up Ayers. The McCain/Liddy relationship is such an obvious parallel -- except arguably much worse -- that it's hard to imagine how any evenhanded journalist could possibly justify ignoring it. Yet it happens again and again. And, needless to say, McCain aides do not get badgered about Liddy the way Time's Mark Halperin badgered Obama aide Robert Gibbs about Ayers.

Just this morning, NBC's Chuck Todd said he is "sure" Ayers will come up during the final presidential debate next week, adding that moderator Bob Schieffer "may feel no choice but to bring it up" in light of the "TV ads" the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee are running. Setting aside the absurdity of the suggestion that a debate moderator is compelled to bring up a topic simply because John McCain is running ads about it, if Schieffer does ask about Ayers, basic fairness demands that he ask McCain about Liddy as well.

OK ... moving on. How about controversial religious figures? Earlier this year, Media Matters showed that The New York Times and The Washington Post had published a total of 161 articles, editorials, and opinion pieces that mentioned Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright -- and only 12 that mentioned John McCain and John Hagee. That disparity wasn't unique to the Times and the Post -- and it hasn't evened out over time.

161 to 12.

Land deals? Barack Obama once bought a parcel of land from a controversial donor named Tony Rezko. Obama paid more than the land's assessed value -- but that hasn't stopped the news media from suggesting Obama had an improper relationship with Rezko.

Comparatively little attention has been paid to John McCain's relationship with real estate developer Donald Diamond. Diamond, a co-chair of McCain's campaign finance committee, has raised more than $250,000 for McCain's presidential bid and is a "close personal friend" and longtime political patron. For his part, McCain has sponsored two bills sought by Diamond that helped the developer gain what The New York Times described as "millions of dollars and thousands of acres" of land. And McCain helped Diamond buy another parcel of land from the U.S. Army -- a deal that helped Diamond turn a $20 million profit. The Washington Post and USA Today have identified other land deals McCain has facilitated as senator that have benefited some of his biggest donors and fundraisers.

Yet a Media Matters review last month found that five national newspapers had run a total of 39 articles, editorials, and opinion pieces that mentioned Obama and Rezko -- but only seven that mentioned McCain and his donors' land deals:

[S]ince The New York Times' initial April 22 article [about McCain and Diamond], the land deals have been mentioned in only six additional news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, or The Washington Post, and have yet to be mentioned on any evening network news program. By contrast, during the same time period, 39 news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in those papers have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko; and the evening news broadcasts have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko in five reports.

39 to 7.

And, of course, there's always Charles Keating. The news media have done their best to ignore McCain's involvement in the Keating Five -- and, when they have mentioned it, they've done so by parroting the McCain-friendly storyline that the scandal turned the Arizona senator into the World's Greatest Reformer. Even this week, after the Obama campaign drew attention to McCain's involvement in the Keating Five with a Web page and a 13-minute documentary featuring one of the regulators McCain pressured on behalf of his political benefactor, the media have paid far more attention to Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers than to McCain's relationship with Keating. And when they have mentioned Keating, they have often questioned the propriety of the Obama campaign's decision to bring up the subject.

Remember: Barack Obama didn't have anything to do with Bill Ayers' wrongdoing. He was a young child at the time. McCain did have something to do with Keating's wrongdoing -- without McCain, the scandal would have been called the Keating Four, not the Keating Five.

And yet the media are quick to dismiss the Keating matter. When the topic came up on MSNBC earlier this week, Andrea Mitchell dismissed it as having occurred 20 years ago. Well, sure. But McCain was involved in it 20 years ago, unlike Bill Ayers' controversial activities, which occurred closer to 40 years ago, and which Barack Obama didn't have anything to do with.

The American people have made clear that they think the most important consideration in deciding who to vote for is the economy. An astounding 52 percent of Americans call "the economy and jobs" the "most important" issue to them in this election, according to the latest CBS/New York Times poll. Terrorism and national security came in a distant second, with only 11 percent.

John McCain and his campaign have made clear that they do not want the last few weeks of this campaign to be about the economy, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, the housing crisis, or the Constitution. They want it to be about personal associations.

Incredibly, much of the news media have sided with John McCain in treating Bill Ayers and ACORN as the most important topic facing the nation. Even worse, they are scrutinizing only Obama's relationships, not McCain's. It's bad enough that they're letting McCain, rather than the American people, set the parameters of the debate. The fact that they aren't applying those parameters to both candidates equally is an inexcusable double-standard.

And it's evidence that John McCain retains the support of his "base" -- the media.

* Conducted 10/9/08 using the search terms Barack Obama and ((Bill or William) w/2 Ayers

** Conducted 10/9/08 using the search terms John McCain and Gordon Liddy

I'm Just Sayin'

Voluntary Ignorance

It became obvious soon after I started this job that I disagree with most of my co-workers when it comes to politics. It rarely comes up though, and when it does I tend to keep my mouth shut because I am clearly in the minority. I just don't want to go there with these people.

I had lunch with 3 co-workers today. I've had lunch with them before and we have a good time. They are funny women and, even better, they think I'm funny. Today's lunch wasn't quite as light-hearted as past ones because the issue of the presidential race came up.

When the subject of candidates was broached, one woman said to me, "I know you like Obama, honey, because I saw your bumper sticker, but I just wanted to let you know you should research him a bit."

I was taken aback for a couple of reasons. One, I don't know how or when she saw my car. We park in an enormous hospital parking lot and I don't remember once seeing her in the parking lot, either before or after work. How does she know what I drive? Two, it surprised me that someone would think I'd just stick something to my car without thinking about it first.

However, I recovered and asked what she meant. She replied with, "Oh, you know, where he comes from and all that." I asked her to clarify if she meant where he was born or his family or religion or voting record or if he likes peanuts or pretzels. She said again, "You know, where he comes from," and gave me a knowing little nod. I answered that I have done some research on both Obama and McCain and I'm pretty confident in my choice. She looked surprised but she didn't say anything else.

Now, I have no issue whatsoever with someone who votes differently than I do. Live and let live, right? I do have a problem with people who treat me in a condescending way and assume I have no clue what I'm talking about. It's even worse when that same person can't be bothered to pin down her own meaning and give me a clear picture of her intent. Why push me to research candidates if she doesn't even know what she wants me to research?

I think I'll go back to keeping my mouth shut.