The Campaign Junkie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB1D9wWxd2w

A terrifically horrible 1990’s song leads off the return of thecampaignjunkie mailbag.  I have gotten hundreds of emails over the past couple months but with my total attention being turned to the Presidential campaign - I had little time to answer people or post any questions.  (Man, I wish I could have those videos embed, so that you could be listening to stuff when reading.  Anywhoo, small distraction.

From Jerry in Idaho - There are some rumblings out there that Hillary Clinton could be chosen for Secretary of State.  What are your thoughts?

Great Question Jerry.  Until today, I was unsure that anyone actually lived in Idaho or that they had internet.  Guess someone has to farm the potatoes [sic - thanks Dan Qualye] 

I think this is one of those famous float a name that everyone would be like holy shit no way, so that he can get easier confirmation on his actual nominee.  This makes absolutely no sense - you didn’t want her in the White House as your running mate because of the Bill show and now you are going to take the Bill show anyway and allow him to go overseas with Hillary.  Hum?  Sounds like a potential disaster to me and a total distraction for his Presidency.  He didn’t want Bill overshadowing him, but that is exactly what would happen.  So my two cents - political distraction for a easy confirmation for another nominee.

From T-Mac in Jersey (yes he signed it T-Mac) - There has been some talk about bailing out automakers.  What are your conclusions?

I like that I get to pick and chose these questions and not answer all of them.  That way you all only get to read the good stuff and not my answer to questions like, “Why doesn’t Palin move to Ohio and run for Governor?” - um because we don’t want her.

Anyway, I will restate my positions on ANY bailout.  Bad.  There ya go - a great one word answer. 

J has had some magnificent thoughts on these bailouts which I was hoping he would share with all of us but in a nutshell he contends that these bailouts are the best thing for Republicans right now because it will hamstring an Obama administration from pushing universal health care, 401K into social security (a terrifically bad idea), and additional spending.  He contends that Clinton was not able to pass it with a budget surplus so with this huge of a budget deficit would put it out of reach.  (Is that about right J?)

Now, while I agree with J’s premise that hamstringing an Obama administration is great, it is a toss up for me.  Government controlling the auto industry or Obama pushing universal health care?  Both bad.  Government involved in auto industry has to take the cake though. 

There are two things wrong with the auto industry: 1) Unions 2) Free trade.  By the way, for context I am a pro-union Republican but I am a pragmatist.  You cannot have people making $30 bucks an hour plus the superb benefits making cars. 

I read an article the other day about the United States car industry pre-Union heyday (and don’t quote me on the exact numbers here).  Cars cost around $1,000 a piece to make which included the cost of the salaries, benefits, operating costs etc. but not marketing.  Now, a car costs around $7,000 just to make - once you add in marketing etc. you are looking at $10,000 to produce the car and get it to the lot.  Freaking ridiculous.  Unions need to be pragmatic about these things.  In my experience, Unions would rather cut off their nose than see people take a pay cut/benefit reduction.  They would rather see a plant close than do what is necessary to keep people working. 

That is reason NUMBER ONE why the government just cannot take this over.  It is a ZERO end sum game. No matter what the government does, besides buying and giving away cars to the poor (that just might happen though), the US auto industry is doomed to fail with their current structure.  Plus, can you imagine GM Union leaders renegotiating with the US Government.  They could get whatever the hell they wanted.  You think a Congressman is gonna stick his neck out and say no we cannot pay these people more.  (Next on Fox: US CONGRESSMAN TO LAY OFF 30,000 PEOPLE) - ha ha lmao not gonna happen.  Plus, with Dem leaders in the Union pocketbook - it will only acerbate the problem.

It is time for FAIR TRADE not FREE TRADE.  Japan, Korea, China, India has to open their markets to our goods and services.  Two things about fair trade - number one, just because they open their markets does not mean they will buy the cars but they will have the opportunity to buy the cars which is far different than it is now.  If they even buy a couple thousand, that is a couple thousand more than before.  In other words, something is better than nothing.  Number two - when American workers compete on a world market, American workers will always win. (Thank you Duncan Hunter.  And Congrats to Duncan Hunter Jr. for his impressive win out there in California.  I won that one in the pool.)

That is why I am a pragmatic pro-union Republican.  I don’t think people should make $7 an hour for skilled labor but they shouldn’t make $30 either.  Why can’t anyone discuss these things anymore without people flipping off a handle? 

From John in Chicago - What is next for thecampaignjunkie?

Thanks for all the questions I could not get to today.  That union question took up a lot more space than I thought.  I get so pissed about it though, no one is reasonable anymore.  You cannot discuss issues without someone getting upset.

What is next?  I really, really, really, really want to run the next Ohio Republican Gubernatorial campaign.  I am trying to work all of my contacts and angles on this one.  I have got the plan in my head.  Congressman John Kasich, please call me.  Please.  We can do this.  We can take back this state and conservatism can blossom here again.  I know it. 

Think about this Congressman. You ran for President in 2000.  A win in 2010 puts you in perfect second term position should a Republican fail to win in 2012 and should you govern like I know you would, a perfect segway to get you back to 1600 Penn. Ave. and I want to be there, I want to be a part of it.  Thanks for your time Congressman John Kasich.  Please call me.

If that doesn’t work out, I am going back to school, racking up huge amounts on my credit cards and hoping that Obama bails me out…

And here is another awful 1990’s song to remind us - you guessed it - we get knocked down, but we get up again.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm4iU0yx9GY

thecampaignjunkie out…

An addendum to the previous article.  As most of you know, Republicans no longer control the Ohio House in lines that we drew.  Hum, it sounded vaguely familiar with something…oh that is right…what I said months ago…and on this one…not sorry at all to be right.  I will gloat in this one…

From the campaignjunkie - October 6th - http://www.thecampaignjunkie.com/while-the-gop-gently-weeps

“For the last twelve months, two members of the Ohio Republican House delegation have been waging a quiet war to see who would be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.  I guess quiet is the wrong word, quiet to the general public but not to insiders. 

For the last two days, I have been reading the behind the scenes newsweek articles on the recommendation of Ben Keeler (politics.ohio.com). 

First off, I was eerily quiet when reading them, usually when reading something, I like to spout out loud at some of the bias in the articles or where points they were making just did not hit home.  For my part, I have always said on here, that I would rather win than be right. 

Unfortunately, I was right and we lost.  Trust me.  That bothers me.  I like being right, you all know that.  I like to gloat in my own percieved genius of politics.  It has taken me a week to realize that we lost.  I never lose and I do not remember losing before.  I can recollect 1992 and 1996 but clearly I was not involved in those races. 

I worked hard for Bob Taft in 1998 (my first involvement in any type of race) - making phone calls and knocking doors.  Pounding yard signs.  Lit Boxing to late in the morning.  The main reason I got involved was the beer and free food - two great recipies to get any college freshman involved.  (Please note that I did not invoke my age and that I am pretty sure everyone thought I was at least 30.) 

2000 - George W. Bush.  Worked my ass off on this one - I must have made ten thousand phone calls and knocked countless doors in this effort.  What is funny is that I was looking for a house the other day, and I happened to be in one of the neigborhoods I walked in 2000.  I still wear my 2000 George Bush windbreaker with pride.  It was given to me as a gift for being a kick ass volunteer.  I actually met Bush in 1999 at the home of a prominent Republcian fundraiser - the funny part was I was not even invited.  True story - I was working landscaping across the street - had no idea he was coming that day or even whose house it was.  All of the suddden, a motorcade just showed up.  Right place, right time.

2002- Bob Taft re-election.  Same story, expect I knew we were going to pound Hagan, so I kinda slacked it a little. 

2004 - George Bush second act - What a year!   Another win.

2006 - You know who.  Couldn’t stand our candidate, concentrated on other races - knew we were going to take a beating.  Took solace in the fact that I won all my races.

So that is a quick update that brings us to 2008.  And now we lost and we lost bad.  In my open for the last week and here on this site, I complained about the RNC, the McCain campaign up and downs, the picking of Palin - not picking Lieberman. 

Even though they left me on the bench until last month, I am not sure given the previous 8 years, we deserved to win it.  Sure, letting the most inexperienced candidate ever win, who has major overtones of socialism, wants to give my money to people that do not work - sucks.  My silver lining is that it took 4 years of Jimmy Carter to get Ronald Reagan. Just for posteriaty and my own ego - things I got right…

NOT my electoral map - I put my own credibility on the line with that one but I can never admit we are going to lose. 

FROM NEWSWEEK.COM - (David Axelrod)…he had been surprised by the choice of Palin. He called it an act of “message suicide,” noting that the McCain campaign had spent the month of August trying to persuade voters to choose experience over celebrity, then “in one fell swoop they throw experience out the window, they hitch their wagon to this celebrity they’re creating—and plainly [McCain] didn’t put ‘country first’.”

FROM NEWSWEEK.COM - (On Palin) As the GOP candidate introduced his running mate to the world on the morning of Friday, Aug. 29, from Wright State University’s Nutter Center in Dayton, Ohio, one of his aides, watching from backstage, muttered, “We just threw long.”

FROM THECAMPAIGNJUNKIE - SEPTEMBER 5TH http://www.thecampaignjunkie.com/palin-and-mccain-speech-thoughts

“I still think it was a hail mary because everything was geared towards experience, now we downshifted twice and are running a completely different campaign.  When something is working, you don’t change it midstream”

FROM THECAMPAIGNJUNKIE - September 2nd -

Boy, I hate being right.  Boy, has this Sarah Palin turned out to be a lemon or what?  Hum, who said it was a “hail mary” pick?  Me. And um, boy I was right. - Sucks, because now I have to worry about the ticket being elected.

I said it a dozen times and now I will say it two dozen more - when you are TIED for the lead - why make this pick? Why?  It NULLIFIES the whole experience argument we have been using for the last month to tie in the polls.”

ON JOE LIEBERMAN -

FROM NEWSWEEK.COM -  

McCain had initially wanted Joe Lieberman. The two senators were fellow romantics, deeply imbued with a sense of righteousness and honor….McCain loved to travel with Lieberman, a fellow maverick who had stood fast on Iraq, nearly at the cost of his Senate seat in liberal Connecticut. McCain’s other traveling buddy, Lindsey Graham, urged McCain to pick Lieberman, still a nominal Democrat, as a way to show that McCain put country over party label—and as a way to answer the Democrats’ choice of the first African-American presidential nominee. “We’ve got to match history with history,” Graham declared.

Read that last line carefully.  Lindsey Graham said we would have to match history with history.

Thecampaignjunkie.com - JANUARY 30TH (yes in January) and March 7th -

“Thecampaignjunkie will bring a breaking prognostication today: Sen. Joe Lieberman will be John McCain’s first choice for Vice-President.  Thecampaignjunkie is not saying that the Sen. will accept, but Lieberman will be a top choice.  (This is vastly different than Kerry hinting around that McCain should be his vice-pres because number one McCain had already endorsed Bush at that point, and McCain is a Republican.  On the other hand current Sen. Lieberman is an independent whose own party ran him out of town, and he has the added bonus of already endorsing a McCain Presidency.)Thecampaignjunkie has never been fond of bi-partisan tickets but if Obama continues his (I am paraphrasing greatly) - we are all purple campaign what better way to combat that than with an actual purple ticket.”

Boy, Lindsey Graham agreed with me.  Pretty sage advice Senator and you were Right - just as I was.  There were a coule more on Palin, the campaign lurching from message to message, general incompetance of campaign staff - hell even Meghan McCain pointed it out.  (PS - Should have hired me earlier people!)

Anyways, I would have documented how right I was on all this stuff for the past NINE MONTHS but it makes me sick to my stomach.  Oh, how I was right, but I wish so much I had been wrong and won.

thecampaignjunkie out….

I hope to have a podcast up here this week discussing our prospects for 2010 and beyond.  For the moment though, I am mentally exhausted from the beatings I have been getting from Democrat friends of mine.  There are reveling in their fame and glory right now.

It is important to point a couple things out.  Number one - we got crushed in the electoral math - I cede that but on the national landscape 6 points is not a mandate.  Mandate level is set at 10% and above. 

Secondly, as predicted here last week, the infighting has already begun in the Republican Party about our direction for the future.  The Chairman of the RNC has announced he plans on seeking re-election and as I am no fan of the RNC right now - I can only hope he gets defeated by one of the three people seeking to oust him.  On this subject, I will say that I am no fan of anyone from Texas, South Carolina, or Florida replacing Duncan. It is was the same argument I had in 2007 with the Chairman Bennett fiasco.  You cannot let someone run the party who has never been in the trenches fighting the hard races.  I want battle tested Chairman from Democrat counties who have found ways to win races.  What we get when we put the untested people in these roles are 1) untested staff who are loyal to their boss who get their job based on the nice patronage system 2) Gods, Guns, and Gays.  Two things that certainly do not work in this state as the last two elections are most tangible examples of.

To my mind, and despite some people’s attitude towards him, I still think that Chairman Arshinkoff of Summit County would have made the best vice-chairman/chairman emeritus.  Part of me still wonders why he did not at least attempt a run.  This is the kind of candidate I want to see at the RNC - someone from Ohio/New York/Virginia etc. who wins some tough ones but loses some as well.  Winning is attractive in these posts, but if you haven’t experienced losing, you do not know how to learn from it.

BACK FROM TANGENT ON CHAIRMANSHIPS - In this fight, I think we have to disdain from figuring out what the Republican Party is and go back and figure out what conservatism still means, if it means anything.  As J likes to point out, most people are conservatives first, Republican Party second.  (still waiting for J to write that article about conservatism.)  I know that faith and family will always have a large role in the Republican Party, but haven’t we cowtailed to the social conservatives long enough?   John McCain picked a social conservative - polls show she was a detriment to the ticket. (Sorry J and I cede that I am no fan of polls)  Blackwell ring a bell?  Sandra O’Brien beat Bradley in a Republican primary for Treasurer on her pro-life stance issues.  Really?  That is what we should be concerned about in a treasurer whether or not they have a pro-life stance?  (Whether or not Bradley would have won the general is another argument.)

People often accuse me of looking too much in the past on this site and talking about Blackwell’s failure and the idiocy of Sandy O’Brien’s nomination.  Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.  Politics is all about learning from the past and if you want to win again, you have to learn what you did wrong the last time and tweak it - not necessiarily fix it.

If my candidate X for Governor says to me, I want to run on God, guns, and gays in 2010 - I will point to 2006 and say - here are your numbers.  Faith and family can be a part of the platform but that cannot be the focal focus of any candidate.  We will pick up here tomorrow on defining real conservatism.

For now, some 2012 talk.  My rankings today for the 2012 primary and will one of these candidates please pick Mike Pence as their running mate. Please….

1) Mitt Romney  - his wealth hurts us, but hey after four years of Obama, he may have redistributed all of Romney’s wealth to those Black Panthers in Philadelphia.

2) Bobby Jindal  - I think that Jindal cuts both ways.  I like him.  He showed how a real governor handles adversity.

10) Charlie Christ  - may not pass the age barrier.

25) Tim Pawlenty  - my least favorite of the up and comers.

26) Haley Barbour - his handling of the hurricane was impressive but not sure if he has cross appeal.

125) Mark Sanford - more god, guns, and gays crap.

150) Sarah Palin  - She has to be on here but unless she spends the next couple years readying herself - lipstick and hockey moms are only going to get her so far.  She needs some real policy experience.

29,999) Mike Huckabee - I am writing this here for the first and only time, if Huck gets the nomination - I am voting for Obama. Ok maybe that is too extreme - ok I leave President blank.  Four years of this guy would be worse than getting locked up in one of jigsaw’s mind games (SAW I, II, III, or IV for those that didn’t catch the reference.)

To leave you today, I had a parent teacher conference for my daughter the other day, and I asked her if the children had started to learn the word comrade yet and if we should buy them those little comrade hats.  I also asked her if they had learned the words to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLi_m656tQQ

I pine for Hillary Clinton right now….

thecampaignjunkie out…

Pretty sad state of affairs.  I hate having nothing to do.  Seriously, sitting on my ass writing this blog is not my idea of a hard days work but since I am not getting paid - can this even be considered work?  moving on….

Since I graduated from college, I have pretty much been on full tilt bender of all politics all the time.  I took some time off after my candidate lost in the 2008 primaries and decided to pursue another field, hoping that the time off as well as limitless opportunities, would serve the competitive fire within in.  That did not happen but I did get my first ever PAID week off - cannot tell you how excited I was about that so that was something. 

I crave work.  I like long hours for nothing.  PS - To all you political science students out there - political work sucks.  It has long hours, bare bones pay, usually no health insurance, poor/no 401K plans.  Honestly, I cannot think of anything good expect for the victories and the adherniline rushes on some days.  (Plus, usually plenty of free coffee which may explain the rushes.)  Plus, you may have the opportunity to work in the administration and affect some public policy - usually with much better pay and health benefits as well.

That is why I am casting my net out to you, my readers today, to decide what I do next.  It has to be political and cannot be out of the realm of possibility.  (For instance, despite your insistence, I cannot be President…yet

Plus, I wanted to post twice today, because obviously when you don’t post - you lose readership and I lost a lot.  So now, I have to recapture it….which is why I wrote this.  Email me and I will post some answers after my opus tomorrow.

thecampaignjunkie out…

PS- Comrades in arms - all is well on the Western Front - repeat all is well. 

Well, we lost.  What are you going to do?  McCain was running against the most unfavorable climate since Hoover was beaten down 60 odd years ago and Hovervilles were appearing in front of the White House.  I have so much crammed into my brain about what I should be talking about…let me break it down campaignjunkie style - (so that means a completely incoherent rambling subset of ideas- just the way I like it.) but first….

THE BIG NEWS or the semi-big news or the I guess it is not big news because we lost category - thecampaignjunkie was picked up by the McCain campaign about a month ago.  Way to leave your A players on the bench until it is too late.  I was in the limbo known as “not available to be on the record” - so I was trying to be really careful about what I posted.  Ok - now back to the show. (To borrow from TV Guide these are JEERS and CHEERS - I wouldn’t look for too many cheers until about an inch from the bottom.)  By the way, it still has not hit me yet.

• Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt were the best players on Obama’s team.  Were we ever on any coherent message?  McCain didn’t get it until it was too late and it was this guy that woke him up - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y0ecX6HQMw 
• John McCain was an OK candidate.  He certainly was not Ronald Reagan but is that bench too high for anyone?  My good friend J once called Palin - Reagan in a skirt.  J and I discussed this last night, and we both think Palin had a one year shelf life.  Once again, I am still on the record there were better picks out there.  (However, Palin can be a player but she needs a total image makeover, courtesy of one campaignjunkie.) 
• I think the reason McCain campaign hit Palin so hard just a couple hours after losing was two fold: jealousy and the country club Republican mentality.  When McCain added Palin, John McCain’s events were not well attended, John McCain did not have the support of the conservative media, John McCain was a non-factor.  Immediately, after adding Palin, McCain’s events and press coverage skyrocketed.  Some good, some bad.  (Still on record opposing Palin pick.)  So when you have worked fourteen months navigating a tough Republican primary, positioning yourself as the experienced candidate, then your entire campaign is upended - if it was my candidate, as the consultant, I would be upset - especially if we lost.  Winning makes all wounds feel great!  Palin stole what thunder he had.
• Still perplexed about the entire organizational structure of the campaign.  When you have Matt Damon out there talking about how inexperienced Palin is and others saying she would be the most inexperienced VP ever?  Really?  Really?  You just elected the least qualified President ever!  118 days as a Senator?  Really?  That is qualifications?  He was a Senator for less than a year before embaracking (purposeful barack slip in) on this “journey.”  Republicans did a piss poor job on this which of course brings me too -
• The complete HACK JOB the RNC did on this election.  Really?  Barack says he will bankrupt the coal industry doesn’t warrant a commercial?  How about a viral video?  Something?  RNC straight covered their own asses.  They need to take a introspective look at these last two elections and their operations.  I have run the 72 hour program four times, and it is a great program but you cannot hang your entire operation on just getting out the vote.  Part of me feels like the RNC did not want to win this one.
• JEERS to thecampaignjunkie.  I wrote on this blog that I would give up my two political science degrees should McCain win PENN.  I was right but that is not important, I should never have said it.  I knew, you knew, the whole world knew we couldn’t win PENN.  - still should not have written it.

TROUBLE BREWING

• When did I know we were in trouble?  Indiana.  I was watching some counties in Indiana very closely to see the kind of margins they would be delivering for McCain to offset the counties in the NW close to Chi-town.  The numbers compared to 2004 were not even close or favorable margins. 
• SECOND CLUE - Ashland county Ohio.  (This is also when I called the Schuring race.)  Ashland counties and counties like Ashland county delivered huge margins to President Bush in 2004.  When I see Ashland county only delivering a 5,000 vote margin instead of the 8,000 four years ago - big trouble.  Butler county - 14,000 vote drop off.  These are two of the more conservative counties in Ohio - that big of a drop off there - that 118,000 or so win number starts dissipating quickly. 
• I did call Schuring way early just from the Ashland Presidential numbers.  Schuring needed large margins in Ashland, Medina, and Wayne and 47% in Stark.  When I saw Ashland that low - forget about the rest.  So now, Stark county prepare for the onslaught of the mob from Youngstown and expect the line in 2010 to extend to Youngstown - call it a personal gift from the Governor and Mark Dann.
• To be honest, I didn’t even know until just now that we lost Indiana. 
• Ohio GOP.  We all know there are three pages waiting in the wings here but I will put it simply.  We lost a race where the officeholder LEFT IN DISGRACE and made national headlines.  Seriously?  Really?  We cannot even win ones now where Democrats made asses of themselves.  Does not make me feel great about the 2010 Governors’ race.
• How does Chabot lose and Stivers appear on his way to victory?

ENOUGH JEERS, HOW ABOUT SOME CHEERS?  Seriously, you read down to here and you really think there are going to be cheers? There are no cheers!  There are no freaking victory parties! 

TOMORROW - Where do we go from here? (We being Republicans)

All bets are off.  The following is my final electoral map.  I wish I could have time to revise it Monday but no such luck.  Ladies and gentlemen, it has been my pleasure to blog for you this election season and I look forward to a prosperous 2009. 

Why I picked this way:  I have said all along that these polls were vile and that any slight percentage drop off in minority or youth vote and these polls look ALOT different - ALOT!  Imagine if they are off 2-3% points in both areas. You are talking about a 4-6% swing PER STATE!  Account for the margin of error and McCain could well be winning most of these leaning Obama states as well as being extremely competitive in Penn., Colo., and New Mexico were polls have him 6-9% out.  And I do think they are off AT LEAST 2-3% points.  It is so hard to believe that they would risk their credibility on a guess at turnout.  The poll that uses the traditional model - McCain down by 1% and the states by state give you a lot of hope if you are an Republican.

Look, I could write my doctoral thesis on the statistical inaccuracies in the polling in this election.   Polling is almost entirely based on past trends.  Past trends indicate that no matter how many new voters you register - there is going to be a drop off in their actual voting.  Don’t you remember how many NEW YOUNG PEOPLE were registered by D’s in 2004 and that was supposed to finally put the death knell in President Bush?  REMEMBER HOW THAT WORKED OUT FOR THEM?  So they went out this year, and registered a couple million more people to finally off the Republican Party….but I still do not believe that they are going to vote anywhere close to where these statistical polling numbers have them - so McCain wins.  Period.

DANG.  I HATE THIS BLOG - CANNOT EVEN POST THE PICTURE IN HERE.

PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK AND CHECK OUT MY MAP - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=1&save=3-3-3-3-1-3-1-1-1-3-3-1-3-1-3-1-3-3-3-1-1-1-1-1-3-3-3-3-3-1-1-1-1-3-3-3-3-1-1-1-3-3-3-3-3-1-3-1-3-1-3

..that Obama sees a deep recession.  Amazing.  You mean someone who has been winning in the polls based on his future handling of the economy is now predicting a deep recession?  Hum.  Let me see - up in polls because of economy - scare voters into thinking economy getting worse.  Win. Win for me - The One. PS. Casablanca is like my favorite movie so I quote it alot.

from msnbc.com

Obama predicts ‘significant recession’

SARASOTA, Fla. - Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Thursday that the economy would get worse before it got better no matter who was elected president, telling NBC News that the next administration was likely to inherit a “significant recession.”

In an interview on “NBC Nightly News,” Obama said, “I don’t think there’s any doubt” that the next president will have a tougher job than ever, because it is not possible to forecast how long the economic downturn could last.

“We know that the next president is likely to inherit a significant recession,” Obama told Brian Williams, anchor of “NBC Nightly News.” “We don’t know yet how long and how deep it is, and what actions we take over the next six to nine months could help determine how deep and how long.”

That means the first priority of the administration that takes office Jan. 20 will be to shepherd the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street that President Bush signed into law early this month, Obama said.

“We are going to have to spend a lot of time, whoever the next president is, focused on making sure that the financial rescue plan actually works the way it’s supposed to, that it shores up our housing market, the taxpayers are protected and getting their money back, that it’s not being used to enrich corporate CEOs,” he said.

In the meantime, the federal government could struggle with higher unemployment and greater demand on social services, Obama warned, which would complicate “dealing with our short-term deficit and our long-term debt.”

New financial regulations, support for auto industry
Obama’s use of the word “recession” indicated that he was deeply pessimistic about the state of the economy.

The National Bureau of Economic Research, whose analyses are used by the federal government, has not used the word to describe the downturn, saying the last U.S. recession ran from March to November 2001. But the government announced Thursday that the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation’s economic output, contracted by three-tenths of 1 percent in the third quarter, the biggest drop in seven years, and that consumer spending fell by 3.1 percent, its biggest dive in 28 years.

Obama spoke with NBC News in Sarasota, where he was campaigning a day after he aired a multimillion-dollar 30-minute prime-time ad on seven television networks. The ad featured four families portrayed as being in financial difficulty, setting a theme for Obama’s campaign in the last week of the election.

At his rally Thursday morning in Sarasota, Obama called for imposing new “common-sense regulations” on the financial system “so that Wall Street can’t cause a crisis like this again.”

Obama also told Williams that reviving the auto industry was key to revitalizing Main Street. Noting that autos were “the core of our manufacturing base for decades,” he said his administration would support doubling federal loan guarantees for U.S. automakers, to $50 billion, but only if much of the money was invested in “high-efficiency cars of the future.”

“The government’s not going to help if you continue down a strategy that is entirely relying on building big gas guzzlers,” he said. “Those aren’t the cars of the future.”

Abortion a factor in judicial nominations
Obama, who supports abortion rights, also signaled that while he would not impose a so-called “litmus test” on abortion when considering appointments to the Supreme Court, he would be cognizant of how a nominee’s general beliefs played into the question.

“I think that what you can ask a judge is about their judicial philosophy,” said Obama, who was a constitutional law scholar at the University of Chicago before entering politics in the 1990s and said he “knows a lot of the potential candidates for Supreme Court on the right, as well as on the left, because I’ve taught with them or interacted with them in some way.”

“I can have those kinds of discussions with a justice without getting into the particulars of is Roe versus Wade, as currently outlined, exactly what you believe?” he said, giving the example of a potential nominee who “tells me that they only believe the strict letter of the Constitution.”

“That means that they possibly don’t believe in a right to privacy that may not be perfectly enumerated in the Constitution but, you know, that I think is there,” he said.

Obama’s Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, has criticized Obama’s position on abortion. The issue led to one of the sharpest exchanges of their final debate this month in Hempstead, N.Y., when McCain charged that Obama had aligned himself with “the extreme aspect of the pro-abortion movement in America.”

NBC News aired excerpts of the interview Thursday on “NBC Nightly News.” The network said it would air more of the interview on Friday’s broadcast.

See this story - The One is apparantly attracting help from sources overseas who are cold calling American families asking them to vote for Obama.  I hope this guy indentifies himself from Palestine - it is like handing us votes.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//081028/481/1caabe54532f44d592c6db0934f62302/

Palestinian Ibrahim Abu Jayab, 24, is seen next to his computer, in his family house in Nusayrat refugee camp, central Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008. A young Palestinian in a Gaza refugee camp is doing his part to get out the vote for Barack Obama. With a little help from the Internet, 24-year-old Ibrahim Abu Jayab is cold calling random American families from his parent’s home imploring them to vote Obama.(AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

I found this more hillarious than anything I even attempted to read.  Here is a national online news magazine who is a partner with the Washington Post - and we wonder why Obama has had 73% positive news stories.  Like the dude in Casablanca once said - I am shocked, shocked to find out journalists are supporting the one.   Finally tally from the end - Barack Obama: 55
John McCain: 1
Bob Barr: 1
Not McCain: 1
Noncitizen, can’t vote: 4  Hum, no bias here.   [end]

http://www.slate.com/id/2203151/pagenum/all/

We asked Slate’s staff and contributors to tell us whom they’re voting for on Election Day and why. These are their responses. Click here to read Editor David Plotz’s explanation for why we share this information with you.

Michael Agger, Senior Editor: Obama

Grace under pressure.

I’m excited to cast my vote on Election Day for Barack Obama. His views match up better with my own.

This weekend, while reading the latest polling data on John McCain, Sarah Palin, and their appeal—or growing lack of it—among “independent women voters,” it suddenly dawned on me: I am, in fact, one of these elusive independent woman voters, and I have the credentials to prove it. For the last couple of decades, I’ve sometimes voted Democratic, sometimes Republican. I’m even a registered independent, though I did think of switching to the Republican Party to vote for John McCain in 2000. But because the last political party I truly felt comfortable with was Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party (I lived in England in the 1980s and ’90s), I didn’t actually do it….

read more at http://www.slate.com/id/2203151/pagenum/all/