Oy.

     See Drudge Report, caption VIDEO: Obama Kids Sing for Dear Leader… .

     At least he didn’t say “Obama Youth”.

     Perhaps having read my post yesterday here (?), Obama, as we see today, courtesy of Breitbart/AP, calls on Americans to support rescue plan,

     …Obama told a crowd at the University of Nevada at Reno on Tuesday that if Wall Street fails, ordinary people will be hurt, too.
     The Illinois Democrat warned that if Congress doesn’t take action, people will find it tougher to get a mortgage for a home, a loan for college or a loan to buy a car.
     Obama is proposing that the limit on federal deposit insurance for bank accounts be raised from $100,000 to $250,000. Increasing that limit, he says, would help small-business owners and reassure nervous Americans as well as help shore up the economy.

     Well, it’s not an entirely new plan, maybe, but at least he’s adding the insurance issue. In any case, the perception of leadership is probably not going to hurt his image.

See WaPost, “Media Notes”, Spin Doctors Work Their Voodoo,

…Outside, on a summerlike evening, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs held forth for the likes of NBC’s Chuck Todd and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who was wearing an Elvis T-shirt. (The company may have been more pleasant than that of McCain aides, who have barred Dowd from the candidate’s plane. And the Obama camp seemed to show its media leanings when it texted followers to watch the debate — on CNN.) …

To McCain, it looks like “MoDo” ain’t nothin’ but a hound dog…..

I’m no economist (even if “someone” got the highest grade in his high school economics class, but that’s a little while ago…), but I wonder if a new version of the bailout plan could be proposed, say, by…Barack Obama.

Less than $700 billion (maybe less than $500 billion, or even than $400 billion), and with more stringent caps on executive compensation.  And maybe, as per Kos,

…But for one, how about taxing any number of Wall Street transactions, as well as temporary increasing the tax rate for those at the highest income levels — you know, those who have most benefited from this “party”? Make this thing revenue neutral, and my opposition melts away. …

And I know Obama’s not in the House (being a Senator), where financial things tend to start. I hear he has friends there, though.
Should Obama take some huge leadership role at this time, or just let the chips fall where they may? At least he would look like a leader, and like he’s trying to “slim down” or “cut fat from” the original bailout plan. Your thoughts.

     According to “snap polls”, Barack Obama won the debate on Friday night with John McCain; however, “snap polls” may carry you only so far. Perhaps people were reacting, a la the Kennedy-Nixon debate, to Obama’s appearance and carriage and willingness to look over to McCain’s side of the stage, while McCain on the other hand may have seemed testy, unfriendly, and condescending.
     However, according to many pundits–who can help shape opinion beyond “snap polls”–, the debate was largely a tie; nevertheless, Barack may not have too much to worry about, with the economy sinking like a lead zeppelin balloon and the Republicans being tagged for that. Still, the number of missed opportunities for Obama was astounding, including the first part of the debate:

A. Speaking of “Kennedy”: Obama failed to mention the seizure and hospitalization that day of Ted Kennedy, one of his own mentors!, leaving John McCain to look comparatively gracious by doing it;

B. He didn’t slam McCain vs. the definition of “rich”, which McCain brought up again; and

C. He made no joke about, “John, glad you made it here tonight, we weren’t really expecting you after your pledge to stay away–we’d have missed you at Ole Miss!!”, a joke which could have gotten valuable traction in the audience and at home.

     As well, in the first, “economics” portion of the debate, McCain got him on the earmarks issue repeatedly–and O’s supposed “late conversion” against earmarks–, which Obama should have, somehow, countered better. Cf. Michael Tomasky in the Guardian, The most confusing debate ever: The instant polls suggest Obama won the first debate. But the post-debate debate will be more crucial than ever,

     …I felt Obama missed several opportunities in that segment, roughly the first 40 of the debate’s 96 minutes. Obama let the conversation dwell for too long on earmarks.
     He did make the point, eventually, that earmarks constitute a very small portion of American taxpayers’ money, but I felt he should have shifted the conversation much more quickly and aggressively to the whole host of Bush economic failures – unemployment, pensions and the rest – and tied McCain to them. …

     (The $300 billion tax break for the rich that McCain favors was good for Obama to mention, but Obama still should have had sharper answers, including those on keeping spending and waste down.)

     Obama then started to do better and get in some blows (before he started to falter again…), which we shall discuss in Part II of this essay. Stay tuned!

     See the Guardian, ‘Greed is the problem’: She led a lawsuit against a giant US polluter and her story became a Hollywood movie. Now Erin Brockovich has alarmed fellow greens by praising Sarah Palin.,

     …Which is why she is currently causing a stir in political circles in the US. Although she rates herself as a leading environmentalist, she is extremely keen on Sarah Palin, the huntin’, shootin’ Alaskan governor running for vice president with the Republican candidate John McCain.
     …Palin is also being called the “Erin Brockovich of Alaska” and last week, on her blog, Brockovich came close to endorsing Palin. “Sure, she may be loud. So am I,” she said. “Sometimes you’ve got to scream to get anyone to hear you. So what if her 17-year-old is pregnant? None of us should judge Sarah Palin for anything but her own actions.” …
     “No buts,” says Brockovich. “The fact is that Sarah Palin positively emanates strength. She gives off the aura of being a strong woman who doesn’t back down, and she does it sporting heels and wearing her family like a badge of honour. I am sure there are a million other women out there who are doing the same thing.”
     The blogosphere went wild, with people applauding or accusing. She denies moving to the right, pointing out that she’s a registered Democrat, and says she’d be elated if asked to work with the Democrats. “But it’s not about politics. I don’t pick a person because they are a Republican or a Democrat but for the person. I like Obama. I like McCain. Both have strong points”. …

     Who knew.

     There have been news reports that Barack Obama is going to try precisely to do that, i.e., make McCain lose his temper; see WSJ, Stand-Ins, Naps Help Debate Preparation ,

     …Obama advisers, for example, are considering how to provoke Sen. McCain into anger or showing what they say is how out of touch, or old, he is. …

     Is all of that a good idea? Showing that “IsSame McCain” is out of touch with reality, sure; but openly goading and baiting him, or portraying him as the Senate’s Grandpa Simpson, could easily backfire. It could even play into many Americans’ subconscious racist memes and fears, especially with Obama being far younger and taller than McCain: can Obama afford to look, even momentarily, like he’s being abusive, instead of “rising above the old politics” and being thoroughly decent as we know he can be?
     Of course, Obama should still be assertive and throw plenty of punches–as long as they’re not rabbit punches, and also not perceived as being rabbit punches. And, like Muhammad Ali, he should use wit, grace, and style, “floating like a butterfly” while “stinging like a bee”.
     If you disagree and think Obama SHOULD goad McCain, provoke him openly, let me know in the comments.

     Now as for the Wall Street thing: I wonder if Obama can do some jiu-jitsu on McCain, who is bound to bring up the surge in Iraq and how successful that supposedly was. Possible lines I can think of are, “You were so bold with the surge–so Americans wonder why there’s no surge of positive leadership from you on the Wall Street crisis”, cf. McCain’s reported lack of helpfulness in resolving the crisis. Or, “You say you were all for the surge, but when it comes to doing some surgery on the wounds of Wall Street, you’re not stepping up to the plate, and you didn’t even want to step up to tonight’s debate, Senator. Is that being ready to lead? Does that show experience?”, or words to that effect.

     Cf. Joan Walsh at Salon noting,

     …Now, I trust Obama to be smart enough to tie the current financial crisis to foreign policy — fairly, not as a stretch, given the global dimensions of the turmoil. But it would have also provided McCain with an opportunity to taunt Obama about his opposition to the so-called surge in Iraq, and to change the subject generally — and that could potentially be good news for McCain. …

     But why let McCain profit from mentioning the surge? when it could be turned back on him?
     If McCain bothers to show up to the debate, Obama should be able to do a pretty good job on him, provided that Obama does not lose control or act hubristically himself, and is able to reflect McCain’s attacks back onto McCain. –Unless you have a different opinion, which I look forward to reading.

     See Nedra Pickler, AP via Yahoo, Obama says more work needed for deal ,

     …Obama said he hopes McCain will go ahead with their debate scheduled for Friday night in Mississippi. McCain said Wednesday they should delay the forum to focus on the crisis. But Obama said on CNN: “My sense is that we can do more than one thing at a time.” …

     Nicely put.

     For the past few days, one has been noticing news about the supposed racial deficit which Barack Obama may be facing on election day 2008. See, e.g., “Ragin’” Ron Fournier (maybe not your favorite guy, but oh well), Racial Views May Cost Obama Election,

     Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them “lazy,” “violent” or responsible for their own troubles.
     The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004 — about two and one-half percentage points. …

     Bad news. –Other articles have similar news, e.g., the trenchantly named NY Daily News Poll: Barack Obama could lose six percentage points on election day for being black (which draws on the poll cited by Fournier), and Earl Ofari Hutchison’s White Democrats are Bigger Threat to Obama than McCain,

     …An even bigger hint of Obama’s race problem came in Pennsylvania’s primary. The voter demographics in the state perfectly matched those in Ohio. A huge percent of Pennsylvania voters are blue collar, anti-big government, socially conservative, pro defense, and intently patriotic, and there’s a tormenting history of a racial polarization in the state. Take the state’s two big, racially diverse cities out of the vote equation, and Pennsylvania would be rock solid red state Republican. Clinton, of course, trounced Obama in the state. The same percent of white Democrats as in Ohio told exit poll interviewers that they would not back Obama. Race was the prime reason. Clinton racked up victories in the West Virginia, Kentucky and South Dakota primaries. Again, a significant percent of white Democrats said they would not back Obama, and the reason was race. This time many white Democrats made no effort to hide their racial animus toward Obama. …

     But whites (some of them) are not the only ones who oppose Obama; see this bizarre recent story from CNN, Protesters interrupt Obama,

     Barack Obama’s campaign rally in Coral Gables, Florida Friday was interrupted by a group of about 10 African-American protesters holding signs that called themselves, “Blacks Against Obama.”
     The signs said Obama was for gay marriage and abortion, and said his candidacy was “endorsed by the KKK.” Another sign said, “Jesse Jackson hates Obama.” …
     …the protesters…were escorted out when they would not stop shouting.

     “Blacks Against Obama”?? Maybe they were hired by Karl Rove; but in any case, there are blacks who purportedly dislike Obama, maybe for his liberalish views on social issues, and maybe also for his perceived dissing of Jesse Jackson.
     So there are whites against him…and also blacks! So what is to be done??

     The “what to do about it” part may actually be somewhat difficult, as we shall see. It may be easier for Obama to reach out to the middle (including many white blue-collar workers and “Reagan Democrats”, etc.), since his base, including African Americans, seems reasonably secure, e.g., it is hard to picture a huge tidal wave of “Afri-McCain-mericans” or “Black Panthers for Palin” on Election Day, no matter what happens.
     Then again, if Barack seemed as if he were dissing or ignoring his base (a la “Sister Souljah moments” etc.), it could certainly depress turnout of the base, cf. the “Blacks Against Obama” noted above–and how much turnout can he afford to lose in a close-looking election, and an election where there may be Republican cheating/”caging”/voter intimidation/etc. attempts?
     Obama seems to be aware of this dilemma himself (how to retain the base while reaching out to the “center”), cf. his not quitting Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church…for a good long while. He eventually did it (albeit after some particularly unpleasant new speechery by Wright), but if he had been too quick to do it, that might have screamed to people in his base, “I’m not comfortable with vocal advocates for African Americans!!” or something of the sort. So he waited, which was a prudent thing, likely enough.

     One obvious thing for Obama to do in order to keep both base and not-base is to focus on commonalities, e.g., nearly everyone cares about jobs, the bank meltdown, fighting terrorism, our soldiers in Iraq, etc. There are also some commonalities between the whites against Obama and “Blacks Against Obama” cited above, e.g., social/moral issues on which Obama may want to appear as a moderate, not as a flaming liberal. (Then again, if he seems too conservative, there are pro-choice and pro-gay-rights Democratic constituencies that Obama could anger. Choices, choices…)
     As for “racially-charged” issues which are potentially divisive, there are things he can do on affirmative action, for instance, which would make him look moderate rather than being on the extreme at either end. (I’ll be discussing what Obama can do about affirmative action in a lengthy post, probably tomorrow.)

     Naturally, his charisma and “hope-change-bipartisan-’we’re-all-Americans’” theme should be helpful, too. But helpful enough to keep the base–and generate huge turnout at the polls–while also convincing “blue-collar, white-colored” Dems, and potential cross-over “Obamacans”, at the same time? We’ll see. And of course, any of your recommendations as to how O can keep the base but also expand on it, are quite welcome here. Thank you!

     See AP,  Obama campaign staff pulling out of ND. Not leaving even one office; total shutdown.

     Good idea? Good idea? –What about the “50-state strategy”?