Mumbai attacks

Initial reports suggested that the attacks were planned in Pakistan about six months ago. MSNBC reported that there were 40 terrorists including 29 Pakistan and 11 Bangladeshis. There are reports that some of the terrorists had British IDs.

Now, Indian authorities claim that there were just 10, 2 at each location and four at the Taj. Nine have been killed, and one is in custody. It's not clear whether they still believe the people who came by boat were joined by others who were already at the locations. The confusing thing is that the current math would mean only four locations, so unless the terrorists were finishing at one location and going to the next, there would seem to be more locations than there are terrorist pairs.

This and this are some extremely startling audio of a terrorist speaking with Indian media. He is ranting.

A few observations. I don't know whether we should take him seriously, but he seems not to have any idea who his colleagues are, which implies that this was masterminded by someone who must have worked out the logistics, so we have got the minions, not the mastermind. Most of the planning, the Indian media claim, was done in Pakistan, so no hope of the masterminds being brought to justice without Pakistani cooperation.

This terrorist has an interesting view of history, inaccurate and selective, one where history is replete with examples of a concerted effort to suppress and oppress innocent Muslims.

He asserts that they came to be martyrs, to die lion's deaths and to kill as many people as they can. The only time the terrorist, who calls himself Imran, hesitates is when the news reporter asks whether he considered that many of the people they may be killing may be Muslim, but he recovers by asking (I am paraphrasing here) do the authorities that persecute people think about that question?

He seems to suffer from persecution complexes - that Muslims are under siege the world over. Interesting, he didn't notice the ex-Muslim President of India.

Frankly, he sounds crazy.

LHC ... worth it?

In an effort to wake some sleeping bloggers ... let me pose a question.

Yesterday I happened upon a clip of a town-hall style meeting that was apparently held near where the CERN facility (the mega-blaster, earth-consuming blackhole-creating gizmo) just recently came up. The clip was from the year before construction began, to give local residents a voice. This lady stood up and asked why they were spending 100s of millions of dollars to find out whether the Higgs boson exists? Also, what's the value of answering (or starting to answer) the Higgs boson question now vs. in 20 or 50 years?

What's a good answer to that?

Btw - The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project has direct costs of ~£2.6B; that's just the cost of the collider and detectors. Not including the costs of operating it, labor, etc.

Thoughts?

Wall Street, Mukasey, etc.

This is a fascinating article by Michael Lewis where he boldly predicts that the era defined by Investment Banks on Wall Street is over. He uses the story of Meredith Whitney and Steve Eisman to craft his tale. It's a fun read.

In other news, Attorney General Michael Mukasey literally collapsed in the midst of his speech.



If this is familiar, you may be thinking of Alben Barkley.

Alben Barkley was Vice President under Truman. A famously humble man he would refer to himself as the Veep. After Truman refused to run a third time, he returned to the US Senate and sat on the back benches. In his last speech in 1956, he famously declared: "I'm glad to sit on the back row, for I would rather be a servant in the House of the Lord than to sit in the seats of the mighty." before dropping dead. You can hear the dramatic event in this NPR piece.

Dow over time

The chart below shows the Dow Jones Industrial Average since the 1920s.


There are a few fascinating things to note about this chart.

1. Despite comparisons to the great depression, the fall in stock prices is not at all comparable to what happened in the 20s. In fact, they fell so much that it took more than 20 years for the index recovered to the point it had been at in the late 1920s.
2. Secondly, notice how stock prices essentially stabilized in the mid 1960s and then did not start rising again till the mid 1980s - i.e. a nearly 20 year hiatus from real growth. This is why "liberals" are so despised in the US and "conservatives" are so loved. It was only in the Reagan era that this trend changed.
3. Finally, despite claims to the contrary, the DJIA has essentially flat-lined since the late 1990s, with only sporadic bursts of life. Again, the last time this happened it took 20 years to fix. We've had just eight. Will Obama be able to change course?

Both the mid-1960s flat-lining and the mid-2000 flat-lining coincide with periods of war in the US. In the mid-1970s, as the war ended, the US faced a massive oil shock. We just experienced the start of one this time (it's not over folks - when the deflationary trend ends, oil prices will rebound to $150+ unless the promised green revolution delivers in short order). To make matters worse, just as in the mid-1960s and 1970s, the world could be facing a global food crisis as the economy rebounds, which could lead to severe inflation at the other end, especially coupled with the massive deficit that the US government will undoubtedly accumulate.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

Keanu Reaves is remaking one of the all time classics of the Sci Fi genre, The Day the Earth Stood Still. The early rumors of the script is that the story, while updated, is still largely similar to the original 1951 version. The original movie is very dated and looks a little silly now to anyone who is not a a Sci Fi buff. Also, you would be forgiven for seeing suspicious similarities between the original story and the story of Christ - it is rumored to be intentional.

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" is based on the premise that an alien being called Gort, enforces peace and harmony and decimates populations that don't live in harmony. Klaatu, an alien, arrives on Earth to warn us of impending disaster if we don't mend our ways. One of the sub-texts of the film is that humans can be made to unite through an external threat from an alien specie. It is a theme that was echoed by President Reagan, who was reportedly inspired enough by the film to tell the UN "I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."

I bring this up because early next year will see the release of another movie called "Watchmen" based on a comic book series by Alan Moore from the mid 1980s. The comic book, Watchmen, explores whether the conclusion that Reagan reached are likely to be true and reaches very interesting conclusions. It has rather a surprise ending, so I won't spoil it for those who don't already know it by discussing it here, but it is significantly darker.

It is fascinating that in 2008-09, Hollywood has chosen to make/remake two of the most profound and seminal Sci-Fi stories about attempts to end war - both with very different conclusions. It will be interesting to see whether the directors can find any lessons from the intervening years that add to the richness of their moral message, and whether Hollywood can resist the temptation of turning them into the same banal stuff they usually dish out.

Bill Ayers speaking out

This is an interview with Bill Ayers. It is fascinating to hear him essentially echo the same position that Obama expressed in the debates. It is also interesting just how much he is grilled on this.

Humorous take on the crisis

Deep Fried Secrets of the Credit Crunch

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own.

The Credit Crisis according to ...

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: according explain)

Foreign hackers attacked Obama and McCain

Here's a fascinating report from Newsweek on espionage against the candidates:

"The computer systems of both the Obama and McCain campaigns were victims of a sophisticated cyberattack by an unknown "foreign entity," prompting a federal investigation, NEWSWEEK reports today.

At the Obama headquarters in midsummer, technology experts detected what they initially thought was a computer virus—a case of "phishing," a form of hacking often employed to steal passwords or credit-card numbers. But by the next day, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to the campaign with an ominous warning: "You have a problem way bigger than what you understand," an agent told Obama's team. "You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system." The following day, Obama campaign chief David Plouffe heard from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, to the same effect: "You have a real problem ... and you have to deal with it." The Feds told Obama's aides in late August that the McCain campaign's computer system had been similarly compromised. A top McCain official confirmed to NEWSWEEK that the campaign's computer system had been hacked and that the FBI had become involved.

Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps' policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration. The Feds assured the Obama team that it had not been hacked by its political opponents. (Obama technical experts later speculated that the hackers were Russian or Chinese.) A security firm retained by the Obama campaign took steps to secure its computer system and end the intrusion. White House and FBI officials had no comment earlier this week."

Sarah Palin related gossip

OK. It seems Palin was worse than we imagined. It now seems Sarah Palin was more clueless than we imagined. It's being reported that:

• She didn't know that Africa was a continent. She thought it was a single country.
  
• She thought South Africa was just the southern part of the country of Africa.
• She didn't know the countries in NAFTA.
  
• She didn't know the countries in North America.
• She didn't know what "American exceptionalism" meant.
  

Here is Fox News report on her.



Here's the reporton O'Reilly factor. See how the Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron tears her apart while O'Reilly tries to defend her.

This and this are some excerpts from gossip reported by Newsweek (the article portrays McCain in much better light than Palin, citing cases where McCain actually vetoed negative ads). I have reproduced some of the stories on Palin below (verbatim):

• At the GOP convention in St. Paul, Palin was completely unfazed by the boys' club fraternity she had just joined. One night, Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter went to her hotel room to brief her. After a minute, Palin sailed into the room wearing nothing but a towel, with another on her wet hair. She told them to chat with her laconic husband, Todd. "I'll be just a minute," she said.

• McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request.

• Palin launched her attack on Obama's association with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber, before the campaign had finalized a plan to raise the issue. McCain's advisers were working on a strategy that they hoped to unveil the following week, but McCain had not signed off on it, and top adviser Mark Salter was resisting.

• NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family--clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

Meanwhile, Fox reports that Palin apparently refused preparation help for her interview with Katie Couric and then blamed her staff, specifically Nicole Wallace, when the interview was rightly panned as a disaster. After the Couric interview, Palin turned nasty with her staff and began to accuse them of mishandling her.

They also report that Palin would view press clippings of herself in the morning and throw "tantrums" over the negative coverage. There were times when she would be so nasty and angry that her staff was reduced to tears.

The many statistics of the election

Everyone is pointing out that obvious, that the 2008 Presidential election resulted in the first African American President. What is less well known is that this represented a number of other interesting milestones:

• Barack Obama is actually the first colored person to become the head of state of any majority white Western nation. That is extraordinary when you consider that the US was among the last major white nations to abolish slavery and the last nation, bar South Africa, to abolish segregation. It's the first time that the US is ahead of the curve.


• Actually, most whites should be happy too. Before Barack Obama, all Presidents of the US were from just three racial groups: Irish, Anglo-Saxon (England, Wales) or Germanic (Germany, Austria, Switzerland). No one from any other white background has ever won the Presidency before, which includes all Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans and Scandinavians. Of course, no other minority race has won either, although some of the prior US Presidents were rumored to have colored antecedants.


• This is only the second time in US history that a non protestant has won on the ticket - Biden is Catholic. The previous one was Kennedy.


• Barack Obama received more votes than any President in US history.


• This is only the third time since FDR that a Democrat has won the majority of the popular vote (Obama received more than 52% of the vote at last count). The only other presidents to have done so were Carter and Johnson. Kennedy, Truman and Clinton never managed the feat.


• A corollary is that the percentage of votes that Obama received was also the highest percentage of votes cast for any Democrat since FDR, save Lyndon Johnson.


• Obama's number of electoral votes, 340+ is actually the historical norm. The only presidents since FDR who failed to receive 300+ votes were Carter and George W. Bush - both with disastrous regimes. The others who were borderline were Truman, Kennedy and Nixon in his first term.


• Missouri appears to be going for McCain. If it does, its only the second time in history that Missouri didn't vote for the President.


• Obama won at least two states: Virginia and Indiana, that have not been carried by a Democrat since LBJ.


• The total spending on the campaign by all parties and their supporters was a staggering $5.3 BN, 27% higher than the 2004 campaign and the most ever spent in the history of Presidential campaigns. To put it in perspective though, it totals less than what US citizens spend on potato chips every year.


• Obama was the first Presidential candidate to refuse public financing since the laws were revised in the mid seventies.


• Obama spent more than $650 MM on his campaign, more than any other Presidential candidate in history. He also set the fundraising record for a single month, with $150 MM in September.


• Obama's campaign was only the second time in history that the Internet had been used so widely as a fundraising tool for a Presidential candidate (the first being Howard Dean), and the first time it was used as the primary fundraising tool by a major party candidate.


• Obama's campaign has reportedly received donations from over 3.2 MM people, the most small donors for a political campaign ever.

That was some campaign ...

A few useful links here for your perusal

I thought the CNN exit polls were quite interesting - they gathered info on everything from race, gender, religion, income, party affiliations, past electoral experience, etc.

If you didn't already check out the interactive results on nytimes summarizing this election and past ones (back to 1992), take a peek. The bubble view is interesting - gives you a sense for where the weights are. Also moving the timeline slider gives you a sense for how things changed with each successive election.

Also today, nytimes posted a very useful map of electoral shifts between 2004 and 2008. For example, Obama won Indiana thanks to inroads made with the White population.

Redskin's and Elections

Since 1936, if the Redskins win at home on the weekend before Election Day (or the next closest pre-election home game), the incumbant party wins the presidential election.

It has worked for the last 17 times. From last night whopping of the skins, it looks like a 15 point win for obama.

The election's hidden impact

In this article, a white banker writes about his experience canvassing for Obama. It's fascinating because it shows the type of change in perspective that Obama is bringing about. While we do not know who will win yet, we do know that like Sidney Poitier in 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner', Obama has forced Americans of all hues, backgrounds and colors to confront their values and in doing so has changed the face of this country. Should he prove to be as competent a president and he has been a candidate, the US and the world will be a different place indeed.

The impact of this, at least for the GOP, could be very disturbing. In this article, Paul Krugman suggests that the GOP may, in reaction, lurch further right and become the party of racists and bigots. I was in conversation with a person who works for the office of one of the GOP Congressmen, and from what he said, such fears are shared by many in the GOP too. If Obama manages to wrest the taxation ploy away from the GOP by making offering tax cuts for the middle-class and tax hikes for the rich, it's entirely possible that the party will become the party of the Sarah Palin right, rather than the party of the fiscal conservatives and libertarians.

Not everyone agrees. In this article, Peter Beinert suggests that Sarah Palin represents the end of an era, as demographic changes and real economic woes have made these social issues seem trivial. Not sure I agree.

Of course, even otherwise, it would have been premature for fiscal conservatives to despair. Obama's Achilles heel are the members of his own party, who have mastered the art of discord. It's entirely possible that egged on by an increasingly powerful DNC Congress, he will overreach on spending in a way that puts fiscal issues squarely back in the center.

Should Obama defy his party's predilections and not go down in flames by being fiscally irresponsible, then the extraordinary power of having so much support in Congress could doom him to becoming a victim of his own success. For instance, Obama should have the votes to successfully address healthcare, taxation, college education, immigration and environment in his first term, if he so chooses. If he does, then what issues will be left for the DNC to rally their populace around in four years?

One quick postscript for those who start worrying about the prospects of an Obama presidency. In this article, Malcolm Gladwell discusses how being an outsider has proved to be so useful for so many in business. In fact, in most countries, outsiders often have disproportionate economic impact. If you follow Gladwell's reasoning, it could be an added advantage that could enable Obama to be more effective than many of his predecessors.

Sarah Palin gets pranked

I can't believe that Sarah Palin fell for this:



For those who didn't get the jokes, here are some of them:

1. The French saying that 'Sarkozy' cites about hunting translated to: 'Maybe we can kill some baby seals, too'

2. The name of the song that 'Sarkozy' says Carla Bruni composed for Sarah Palin translates to: 'Lipstick on a Pig'

3. Here's the exchange between 'Sarkozy' and Palin on the Prime Minister of Canada:

Sarkozy: Some people said in the last days and I thought that was mean that you weren't experienced enough in foreign relations and you know that's completely false. That's the thing that I said to my great friend, the prime minister of Canada Stef Carse.

Palin: Well, he's doing fine, too, and yeah, when you come into a position underestimated it gives you an opportunity to prove the pundits and the critics wrong. You work that much harder.

Palin pretends to know the Canadian Prime Minister. The problem is that the Canadian Prime Minister's name is Stephen Harper.

4. Here's the exchange between 'Sarkozy' and Palin on the Prime Minister of Quebec

Sarkozy: I was wondering because you are so next to him, one of my good friends, the prime minister of Quebec, Mr. Richard Z. Sirois, have you met him recently? Did he come to one of your rallies?

Palin: I haven't seen him at one of the rallies but it's been great working with the Canadian officials. I know as governor we have a great co-operative effort there as we work on all of our resource-development projects. You know, I look forward to working with you and getting to meet you personally and your beautiful wife. Oh my goodness, you've added a lot of energy to your country with that beautiful family of yours.

The problem: Quebec is not a country its a province of Canada. It doesn't have a Prime Minister. It does have a chief minister whose name in French translates roughly to first premier. His name is not Mr. Richard Z. Sirois but Jean Charest. Again, note, Palin claims to know him.

5. At one stage 'Sarkozy' says: 'Yes, you know we have a lot in common also, because except from my house I can see Belgium. That's kind of less interesting than you.' The problem is that to the best of my knowledge Sarkozy does not have a house on the Belgian border.

6. Finally, if you pay close attention to the very soft background conversation at the very end, Palin seems to say to her administrative assistant that its a prank call from France. She doesn't seem to know that Montreal is in Canada.

I realize that most of us would be hard pressed to know all these. However, Palin is the Governor of a state that neighbors Canada and Palin is supposed to have dealt with officials from Canada, so her lack of knowledge of the Canadian Prime Minister is galling.

Guess who's coming to dinner

This is a great analysis comparing the historic 1960s movie with the Obama run for the Presidency. Very good article.

How liberal is Obama?

At its heart, Conservative philosophy is about the belief that sudden drastic change to remake the world is doomed to failure; that it is better to seek the middle ground and move incrementally. So, conservatism opposes military adventurism and generally opposes drastic changes to the status quo. A reading of Obama's books suggests that while liberal on issues, he is temperamentally conservative.

However, conservative-liberal debate has been skewed by some touchstone issues. On these issues, Obama is considered to have one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate. The problem, this sort of scoring system is completely meaningless as it just adds up votes and uses arbitrary allocation of weights. To illustrate one of its shortcomings, if there were 19 votes on the same issue on which a candidate votes the 'liberal' way and one on another issue in which the candidate votes 'conservative', according to this scale person would have voted for the liberal view 95% of the time.

A better way would be to look at their actual positions. OK, so where does Obama stand on the issues?

Abortion: On abortion, the view expressed in many news organizations is that Barack Obama is an extreme liberal as he opposes a ban on late term abortion. This is actually inaccurate. He explains this in his book.

The perception about his liberal record stems from his record in the Illinois senate, where the GOP has tried for years to write laws on late term abortion in ways that weaken the hold of Roe v. Wade. The most consistent strategy by the GOP is to define the foetus as a person and include an exception for women's life, but not women's health. This latter definition means that doctors cannot operate on the mother in ways that could result in abortion in situations where, for instance, there is a breach in the womb that permanently prevents the women from having further children, or somehow damages internal organs in a way that would be debilitating but not life threatening.

The GOP strategy is that if the law pushes the issue enough, it will inevitably be challenged, giving the Supreme Court to reopen the issue for a constitutional challenge that could be a way to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Here is what Obama says on the issue:

'On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.'

This is not the pro-choice position, but it isn't the highly liberal pro-life at all cost position either. What is more, he actually has a very interesting take on where life begins.

'Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?

A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.'

The social conservative movement and the extreme liberals suggest that this is a cut and dry issue. Interestingly, a conservative position would be that it is not. That the issue is so complex that only a slow deliberate incremental change would work. That was the basis of the conservative opposition to Roe v. Wade, as it cut short the debate.

Women's rights: The liberal view is "equal rights". This translates into equal pay for equal work and and equal opportunities in all walks of life. On this, Obama is firmly for equality. You can read his views here.

Gay marriage: On this, Barack Obama believes in: (a) no discrimination based on sexual orientation, (b) a repeal of "don't ask. don't tell" as he suggests that the policy as it currently stands makes sexual orientation a criteria for selection, which is discrimination, and (c) he opposes gay marriage, but supports civil unions. He does support the rights of states to define marriage any way they want, i.e. he opposes a Federal marriage amendment.

Healthcare: Barack Obama's healthcare plan is actually eerily similar to the one that a bi-partisan effort had produced in Congress in the early 1990s, the one that Hillary shot down. Hillary's plan mandated universal healthcare, Barack Obama's plan doesn't. It just provides a government subsidized option. The subsidy is to be provided by a market maker like Fannie Mae, except for health insurance. While Fannie Mae has come in for heavy criticism, its actually been hugely more effective in enabling home ownership than the government housing schemes in Europe.

The GOP has argued that Obama is more liberal because he apparently supports applying the antitrust laws to insurance companies. Currently, insurance companies are allowed to collude, unlike participants in virtually every industry in the US.

Environment: On this, the biggest criticism of Obama has been his historical opposition to further drilling in the US. He has backtracked on that position in the heat of the election, but essentially, Obama's belief is that more investment in oil exploration is a distraction from finding alternatives.

Economy: On the economy, Obama is supposed to be a tax and spend liberal who redistributes wealth. Here's what he actually said to Joe the non-plumber:

I do believe that for folks like me who’ve worked hard but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there. . . . She can barely make the rent. . . . And I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

Worried that this is socialism? Well, here's what Adam Smith had to say about it in his seminal work, "The Wealth of Nations":

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Moreover, the progressive income tax in the US was actually the brainchild of Teddy Roosevelt, who was no liberal.

Underlying Obama's refrain though, is the word "lucky". As George Packer explains:

Obama’s view is not that people deserve everything they have and taxation amounts to confiscation of what’s theirs. That’s been conservative dogma for decades, with a powerful hold over many Americans. But this year it’s grown considerably weaker. Obama allows (as did Joe the Plumber, at least in this moment of their conversation) a role for chance, the blind vagaries of the global market, and the sheer unfairness of human fate. It’s an important insight into Obama’s political economy and moral philosophy.

Just in case you feel this is socialism, Obama cites Warren Buffet in his book, 'Audacity of Hope' as having said of his fellow billionaires:

They have this idea that it’s “their money” and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don’t factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do. Take me as an example. I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I’d been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can’t run very fast. I’m not particularly strong. I’d probably end up as some wild animal’s dinner. But I was lucky enough to be born into a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing—and make a lot of money doing it. The least I can do is help pay for all that.

Judge for yourself how reasonable his positions are.

The most consistent trend in Obama's personal record is that while he leans liberal, he tends to look for middle ground and compromise. The good news for conservatives and the bad news for liberals is that he is likely to prove significantly more conservative and less liberal than his opponents are portraying. It is the liberals who will be disappointed.

Making and remaking of McCain and more

This is a fascinating article on John McCain's campaign. It provides perspective as to why John McCain lurched from issue to issue. It seems, his campaign manager missed one of the most important lessons of Bush/Rove strategy - message consistency, a lesson that Obama took to heart. Also, the selection of Palin was even more shockingly unresearched than I had first imagined. Here is the most telling exchange as recounted in the article:

The following night, after McCain’s speech brought the convention to a close, one of the campaign’s senior advisers stayed up late at the Hilton bar savoring the triumphant narrative arc. I asked him a rather basic question: “Leaving aside her actual experience, do you know how informed Governor Palin is about the issues of the day?”

The senior adviser thought for a moment. Then he looked up from his beer. “No,” he said quietly. “I don’t know.”

This is a fascinating perspective on Barack Obama from David Duke, former Louisiana state lawmaker, grand wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and onetime presidential aspirant. I probably need to make several corrections to David Duke's assertions. Suffice to say facts and statistics were bandied about by David Duke in ways that were often entirely incorrect.