The great Bob Barr, Ralph Nader smackdown (yawn)

The Bob Barr campaign last night sent out a press release that had an unintentional air of sadness about it:

Bob Barr and Ralph Nader to Debate in Ohio

Thursday's Debate Will be First and Last Meeting of the Two Candidates

 CLEVELAND, OH - The City Club of Cleveland is hosting a debate between Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee Bob Barr, consumer activist Ralph Nader and Pastor Chuck Baldwin on Thursday, October 30 at 4:30 p.m. EDT. When: Thursday, October 30, at 4:30 p.m. EDT.

Where: The City Club of Cleveland; 50 Euclid Ave, 2nd Floor, Cleveland, OH

Topic: The Economy: "Where do we go from here?" This will be the first professionally organized debate to include both Bob Barr and Ralph Nader ...

So said the press release. It might as well have said: Two great whales are making waves in a giant ocean before a vast fleet of boats; meanwhile, in a lonely lagoon, a crab, a clam and a sardine are wondering what new level of obscurity they will go on to from here. More people know Babar the elephant.

As usual, there will be those who insist it is all the fault of the media. If only the media would treat all candidates equally, Americans would be able to judge for themselves.

But all candidates are not equal, not in their stature, not in their realistic chances of winning. Only two candidates have a chance of winning and the rest have none - and it's not because this is a chicken-and-egg situation and the media won't feed the chicken to make the egg.

There's no plumping up these chickens. Bob Barr, hypocritical impeacher of Bill Clinton, and Ralph Nader, the egotistical crusader of 2000 who helped deliver America up to George W. Bush, have earned their obscurity the old-fashioned way. (The Rev. Baldwin is the Constitution Party candidate, a group which might do well if it were campaigning in the 18th or 19th centuries but has the disadvantage of finding itself in the 21st).

Voters could be told all about these candidates and they would still lose by great margins thanks to the residual commonsense of the American people.

On drinking the Kool-Aid

It is probably unscientific to draw conclusions from my hate mail but here goes anyway. In reaction to my column this morning, I received at least two notes that accused me of "drinking the Obama Kool-Aid."

Even allowing for the fact that right-wing writers often sound exactly the same, and frequently cite the same obsessions as if getting their instructions directly from the High Altar of Rush Limbaugh, and moreover give the strong impression that if they had an original thought it would rattle around their heads like a stone in a can, it still strikes me as remarkable that "Kool-Aid" should be mentioned by two of these characters on the same morning.

You see, in my experience, the metaphor "Kool-Aid" was until very recently reserved for fighting liberals who criticized conservatives - as in the classic phrase, "He has drunk the Bush Kool-Aid" or the "Rush Limbaugh Kool-Aid" - both of which require a strong stomach.

Until now I have been unfamiliar with the Obama Kool-Aid or any variation thereof concerning Democrats, but perhaps I have lived a sheltered life. The metaphor itself is said to derive from the mass suicide of the deluded faithful in Jonestown in 1978 - so it's not the most tasteful suggestion.

The irony is that both the guys who said I was a Kool-Aid drinker had not only drunk it themselves, but had fallen in the vat and drunk themselves to dry land.

But am I right? Has Kool-Aid become an equal opportunity fruit drink only recently? Has it just penetrated the dense consciousness of the right because those folks are slow on the uptake? Or has it always been imbibed by cranks of all political colorations?

I have questions. I am hoping somebody out there has answers.

One week to go

Election Day is one week from today. It has been so long in coming that it is almost shocking to think that the day of reckoning is almost at hand. Whatever late trend develops, it better develop quickly or it won't make a difference.

My prediction for the presidential race one week out is that Barack Obama will win - but I still don't think it will be a blowout.

Part of this caution may simply be me not daring to believe that Barack is ahead. Still, at the end of the day, I think a lot of people - not a majority but a lot - will revert to form and pick the candidate they know over the one who has been cast (unfairly in my view) as the unknown man of mystery. I have always thought it was going to be close.

Given the challenge of the pollsters to gauge who will turn out to vote and what secret prejudices they will bring to the task, I think it is unwise to count Sen. McCain out. This is one that has to be seen through until the end, no matter how sick and tired everyone is with the process.

Pulling Bush's chain

They have some kind of fun in San Francisco. Voters there will not only be voting for a new president on Nov. 4 - they will also be voting on whether to honor the current president (the word "honor" is this context is not as usually understood).

Proposition R asks whether a sewage plant, the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant, should be renamed the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. I am sure you can understand the reason for this.

If I were a voter, I'd have a good laugh and then vote No. Forgive me for being so stodgy and conservative but my feelings are as follows:

Sewage plants are necessary and useful; George W. Bush isn't.

George W. Bush was a friend of the affluent, not the effluent. Let's not confuse our vowels with our bowels.

Some names should be flushed from the memory of history; memorializing this one could cause widespread constipation among people who never deserved it.

Bathroom humor should be restricted to bathrooms, not extended to municipal facilities.

Hoax city

The Big Black Mutilator story of the 2008 presidential campaign has been revealed as a hoax, surprise, surprise.

The young female John McCain volunteer made it all up, according to Pittsburgh police, who have done a good job in getting to the bottom of this.

We can now add this sorry tale to all the other fraudulent stories involving supposed big black malefactors that have littered American history over the years. (Yes, black men - as with white men - do commit serious crimes, but somehow the central casting office of the national imagination tends to call up black men as bogeymen much more often).

Coming at this tense time, this story was incendiary stuff and it became national news in a heartbeat, fueled by right-wing news and Internet outlets hungry to play one more race card while pretending they weren't.

The young woman had said she had been robbed at an ATM and then had her face mutilated by a 6-foot-4 black man offended that she had a McCain bumper sticker on her car.

But Bloomfield at 9 p.m. on a Wednesday night is not devoid of people, nor is it particularly dangerous. The story stank from the start and the final confirmation was the backwards B scrawled into her face. You had to believe that her attacker was dyslexic.

Obviously, this young woman has serious mental problems and I shrink from condemning her too much. The same cannot be said for those who seized upon this story with glee for their own shady political purposes.

But please spare the Post-Gazette from criticism for soberly reporting the facts as they were known last night. It had no choice. Can you imagine what would have been said had we ignored or down-played a national story in our own backyard? This was a classic-damned-if-you, damned-if you-don't case.

The damning fairly belongs only to those who desperately wanted to believe the worst.

The Powell endorsement

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama was an encouraging development but perhaps more as a morale boost than a practical benefit, a sign to his supporters that respected figures are rallying to Obama's cause, even some from the Republican camp.

My concern is that the symbolism is more important than its possible effect. What person decides to cast his or her vote as the result of such an endorsement? I hope there are many; I wonder whether there are any.

It seems to me that what Colin Powell said in endorsing Obama might be more important than the fact of the endorsement itself. It was better than any newspaper endorsement I have seen so far, an eloquent statement that gracefully and methodically shot down common objections to Obama as president.

That he delivered his endorsement live and on-air made the feat all the more impressive. Unfortunately, as he was appearing on a Sunday morning public affairs show, "Meet the Press," his words were probably not heard or read by nearly enough Americans to make a difference.

If you did not read the transcript of his appearance, I urge you to do so.

Here's a couple of key points that no-one has made better.

Powell: "And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Sen. McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign.

"But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Sen. Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate."

And then there is this, also cited by Maureen Dowd in her column in the PG this morning:

Powell: "I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian.

"But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?"

He goes on to cite as an example of patriotism a 20-year-old Muslim soldier who was killed in Iraq after enlisting to do his bit after 9/11.

Strong stuff. No wonder the usual suspects have been falling over themselves to denigrate the decision of an American general and statesman that until Sunday they thought was great.

Sarah's shopping spree

When John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, it was done with little regard for her qualifications to step in immediately to be president if the need should arise. Instead, she was presented to the American people as a political popsicle - tasty but with little nutritional value - something sweet to excite and distract the kiddies from acting like adults at the polls.

But popsicles need colorful wrappings, an observation which puts the latest news about her RNC-financed shopping spree in the proper perspective.

According to the Associated Press, the Republican National Committee spent about $150,000 on clothing, hair styling, makeup and other "campaign accessories" in September for the McCain campaign after Gov. Palin joined the ticket.

The expenses include $75,062 spent at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis Minn., and $41,850 in St. Louis in early September. The committee also reported spending $4,100 for makeup and hair consulting. The expenses were first reported by Politico.com.

The McCain campaign says the clothing will go to a "charitable purpose" after the campaign, according to the AP. Apparently trickle down theory extends to fancy togs.

What Joe the Plumber thinks about Sarah getting a clothing allowance so huge is not recorded, but other working people may get the point: "Shop till you drop" has been retooled as "Sarah shops till everybody else drops."

W.

I saw W. Saturday night, the film, not the president. Unless you are desperate for a date, I would advise staying home and making your own popcorn.

I was mildly entertained in a Tina-Fey sort of way, enjoying the spectacle of watching actors impersonate real people. In that regard, the film did a good job with the characters of George W. (at least in accent and body language, not so much in looks), George Tenet, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice (except for her voice) and Karl Rove (spot on, I thought). Its actors were un-persuasive in catching the looks of George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush. Laura Bush, while not so dissimilar from the original Mrs. B., never grew old during the film. Faux British PM Tony Blair was pretty bad, although he did sound like him.

One reviewer said that the film couldn't decide whether it was dealing with history or parody and alternated between the two.

I agree, but my main objection was that I didn't learn anything much, and what little I did learn I couldn't trust.

It was the familiar tragedy: A frat-boy goof leads the life of a ne're-do-well drunk but finally becomes sober, gets religion and decides to parlay his famous name into a career in politics because he can. Predictably, bad things happen to the country.

The film does make W. relatively sympathetic but he has always had his empty-headed charm for his undemanding supporters, so no surprise there either. As for the family tensions that animate the drama, anybody who has ever read a Maureen Dowd column knows about that.

Nobody in my group of six really liked the film - the best I can say is that it kept me interested, although it dragged for most of the others in the group.

I was left wondering what audience Oliver Stone made this film for. Not right-wing, see-no-evil monkeys - they will put their paws over their eyes. Not the left-wing true believers either - they wanted to see Bush look evil, whereas he only looked incompetent.

No ordinary Joe

Poor John McCain. No sooner did he seize on a new savior for his campaign, Joe the Plumber, aka Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, than it is revealed (by the PG's sister paper, The Blade of Toledo) that Joe is not licensed to be a plumber in Ohio and is not registered to work there as a plumber. Moreover, the plumbers union says he never did an apprenticeship.

It is another great vetting job done by the McCain campaign in the tradition of Sarah Palin. Next thing we will learn is that Joe Six-Pack is a non-drinker, or worse, likes to order cocktails with little umbrellas in them. Further, it is possible that the Man in the Street spends all his time sitting on his sofa and never ventures into the street.

What an election. Just when you think it couldn't get any better, it does

Plumbing the depths

I confess that I missed about half of the presidential debate last night (I was at rehearsals for a local theatrical production that I have a small part in, which is a story for another day).

What I did see seemed more alive and interesting than previous debates, although in the end it seemed to be about the same result: McCain, old, crotchety and snarky; Obama calm, disciplined and reasonable. Many times Obama had an opening to take a shot and didn't take it, apparently choosing to go for the classy points victory and not the brutal knockout.

Those in the cheap seats with me wanted him to knock McCain on his ancient keister but on reflection his strategy was probably smarter. It was the high road for him. We shall see whether it leads to the White House.

Coming in late, I was confused by the references to what I heard as Joe Plumber. I thought that perhaps this was Joe Six-Pack in his day job, all scrubbed up for the disapproving residents of those non-drinking regions of America where joy has fled. But no.

Only this morning did I find out that it was Joe the Plumber being referred to, a real character whom Obama had met in Ohio and who was now propelled into his 10 minutes of fame. I should have known this. Where have I been? (I know, at rehearsals.)

A couple of other thoughts: I know networks like CNN want to be seen as even-handed but I do not think the presence of party hacks like William Bennett adds anything. What is the point of having chronic partisans - Democrats as well as Republicans - share their predictable thoughts?

McCain could literally have caught fire last night and Bennett would have praised his fiery passion even as the fire department hosed him down. Isn't there a race track where this guy could go to irritate the horses?

Also, who are these Independents who still haven't made up their minds and that every commentator must bow down to? I see these vacillating folk in my mind's eye, stroking their chins, saying gosh, I don't know, I like McCain but on the other hand I like Obama, I just wish we had more time than a three-year-election cycle to make a choice.

I say, round up these undecideds and stick them in asylums where they belong. If you don't know whom you are voting for at this late stage, you have no hope of making up your mind because you are clearly out of it.