In the week following Senator Barack Obama’s election as the first African-American President of the United States, countless images have flooded televisions, newspapers and websites worldwide. Images of jubilation, celebration, tears and smiles. The above picture, however, is my personal favorite. A cynic would likely label the above photos “staged” or “sappy” (my friend who sent it to me called it “the most beautiful thing [he'd] ever seen.” I beg to differ). Regardless, it encapsulates everything that happened on election night and in the days since in one simple series of images. It’s an immensely powerful set of images any way you slice it, no matter if you’re black, white, Democrat, Republican, whatever. One of Obama’s talking points throughout his political career has been that his story is a “uniquely American story” due to his self-made success and his mixed heritage. In that same vein, these are distinctly American images. It’s impossible to predict whether America really will change based on this election. But if it does, perhaps we can look back upon pictures like this as the moment where truly anything became possible in America.

Well, almost anything.

If you’ve been watching TV the past couple days, you likely saw this, whether it was on the news or in a political ad. But for those who need a recap, Dick Cheney was campaigning in Wyoming this weekend for Republican candidates, and he offered up his endorsement of John McCain for president. 

Lest we forget, Dick Cheney is not just part of one of the most unpopular administrations in American history – he’s also even more unpopular than George W. Bush. He’s viewed almost universally as some kind of evil genius who hides in the shadows (or a bunker, or the Death Star, or what have you), emerging every now and then to scare the shit out of everybody, get something he wants, or shoot somebody in the face.

Well, I think that with this endorsement over the weekend, he did all three. First, he scared the shit out of America by showing up in public and reminding us that he’s been essentially pulling the strings for the past eight years. Second, an endorsement from someone so unpopular pretty much shoots McCain in the face. And lastly, Cheney got something he wanted by endorsing McCain.

Namely, he fucked McCain over.

I’m 100% convinced that Cheney’s endorsement of McCain was a calculated move by Cheney to screw over one of his enemies. Disagree? Here are a few reasons why I think this.

1. Cheney hates everybody, but he has a particular scorn for “maverick McCain.” After all, McCain had the audacity to run against Bush and Cheney once in 2000 and planned to do it again in 2004 had 9/11 not happened. Even though McCain sold his soul to the Bush administration leading up to the 2004 election, he was a thorn in their side for much of Bush’s first term, even flirting with the idea of switching parties and being John Kerry’s running mate. He’s been at odds with Cheney over energy, torture, and the competency of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, just to name a few things. In short, Cheney has a bunch of reasons to dislike John McCain.
2. If there’s one thing we’ve seen about Cheney in his eight years in the White House, it’s that he’s a CEO first and a politician second. Not only is fundraising his big forte, but the Bush administration’s entire foreign policy has basically served to line the pockets of Cheney’s friends in business, big oil and defense contracting. In other words, Dick Cheney doesn’t give a fuck who the next President is – he and his buddies are already rich.
3. Cheney knew exactly what he was doing with this endorsement. For one thing, the party has done everything it can to keep George Bush away from the campaign trail. I mean, good God, one of the few serendipitous moments of the entire campaign for the GOP was when Bush had to give his speech via satellite to the Republican convention due to Hurricane Gustav. Bush isn’t on the campaign trail, he’s barely spoken (or even been seen in public) about the election, and he’s been attacked by both sides. Then, all of a sudden, Cheney not only shows up to endorse McCain, but he does it in public and on video. A couple things are odd about this. First, Cheney waited this long to endorse McCain – November 1st, to be exact, three days before the election. Bush endorsed McCain months ago. If Cheney had done the same, this would have likely been forgotten by now. But to get to the second point, he didn’t just endorse him three days election, but he did it on tape in front of a podium. And wouldn’t you know, the Obama-Biden campaign jumped on this like flies on shit and it was in a commercial less than 24 hours later. It would have been less damaging if Cheney had just told a newspaper in an interview. But no – he did it on tape and even delivered a bizarre cough after saying McCain’s name. Hoo boy.

In short, Cheney knew exactly what he was doing every step of the way. He waited until close to the election and then delivered his endorsement in a public way just because he wanted to get back at John McCain for what he perceived as personally wronging him. Ladies and gentlemen, if you needed any further proof of how backstabbing, corrupt, dishonest and shady this administration has been over the past eight years, you don’t need to look any further than Cheney’s endorsement of McCain.

And not for the obvious reasons.

It’s kind of incredible how increasingly desperate the McCain campaign gets day after day. Whether they’re seizing on hoaxes about staffers being attacked by scary black men or throwing their own Vice Presidential candidate under the bus, this campaign, both in the polls and in the public eye, just seems to be circling the drain before ultimately being pulled under on Tuesday.

And then we get this. Michael Goldfarb, a McCain campaign spokesman, was on CNN with Rick Sanchez (who LOVES Twitter, by the way), talking about the manufactured Khalidi controversy. What you don’t see in the above video is a wonderful moment where Rick Sanchez lectures Goldfarb on journalistic ethics (i.e., if you tell someone you’ll keep something confidential, you honor that promise or lose all credibility), but the real meat came after that when Goldfarb made the assertion that Obama has a history of hanging around with anti-semites…and then couldn’t name one. Sanchez kept asking, and Goldfarb just kept repeating “I think you know who we’re talking about.” Sanchez, as you can imagine, was baffled.

Really? These are the people the McCain campaign is going to put on the air? Who the hell is this guy? They send him on a nationally televised show to talk about an issue, but he displays little to no understanding of said issue beyond some campaign-issued talking points. I mean, for God’s sake, he got lectured by the anchor and was unable to say anything in response! Beyond that, he made a blanket statement and was then unable to back himself up beyond an incredible juvenile retort that he repeated ad infinitum.

This would be like if Obama responded to accusations that he’s a socialist by standing in front of a mic and repeating “I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I” endlessly. It’s stupid, and it doesn’t make sense.

And who was Goldfarb talking about? Who is this mystery anti-semite? If you ask me, it sounded like yet another thinly-veiled attempt to portray Obama as a muslim. “You know [what anti-semites] I’m talking about.” Who, Michael? Osama bin Laden? Even if you had made some outrageous assertion, it would have been less embarrassing than doing your best Pee-Wee Herman impression on national television.

Right after the interview, a comment from a viewer scrolled along the bottom of the screen that said “Michael Goldfarb just made up my mind for me. He looked so juvenile.” I wouldn’t be surprised if a bunch of people watching thought the same thing. If Michael Goldfarb is the best this campaign can do, they may be in for a very, very long election night.

Because having a full color flag costs too much

As you’ve likely noticed, I’ve been a bit off my game lately in the update department. While this is due in part to some laziness on my part (it happens to the best of us), it was also because I had to make an impromptu trip to Pittsburgh last week and ended up out of commission for the better part of five days. On the bright side, the trip didn’t come without inspiration.

The reason for the trip was that I found out last Wednesday that my grandmother had passed away early that morning. As you can imagine, this necessitated a trip to the wake and funeral, which were both in Pittsburgh where she lived (along with much of my extended family).

Immediately after hearing this, my mom set about getting us a couple tickets to Pittsburgh, setting up a hotel room, and all that jazz. If you’ve flown into Pittsburgh recently, I think you know what’s coming next.

David Grossman of the USA Today wrote about the Pittsburgh airport’s woes last year, and it really is quite sad to see. To make a long story short, Pittsburgh has a very nice airport. It’s efficient, fairly new, is never ridiculously busy, and is generally a great place to spend a layover (there’s a mall with over 100 shops). Yet in the past 10 years, the airport has seen its traffic greatly decline, to the point where entire wings of the airport have been shut down and are not currently in use. The reason for this lies in the continuing financial woes of US Airways. For many years, Pittsburgh has been a “hub” for the airline, or rather a common airport for connections. As the airline has encountered more financial trouble over the years, it has cut back flights into Pittsburgh, choosing to use Philadelphia and Charlotte (which is one damned good airport also) as primary hubs on the east coast instead. The problem is, now you can’t get a direct flight into Pittsburgh from cities like San Diego and Seattle, and cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco only offer one non-stop flight per day. Therefore, if you’re coming in from the west coast, have fun getting a non-stop flight. Grossman explains it in more detail than I do, but hopefully you get the basic gist.

One thing he talks about, however, is that as a result of this decrease in service and traffic, airfare to Pittsburgh has gotten cheaper. Well, you wouldn’t know it based on what happened to me and my mom.

Working quickly, she found a round trip package to Pittsburgh that would leave the next morning. The trip consisted of a flight from Los Angeles to Phoenix, a one hour layover, and then Phoenix to Pittsburgh. The return trip was Pittsburgh to Charlotte, a three hour layover, and Charlotte to LA. Not optimal, but we didn’t exactly have a lot of options. Well, guess how much this round trip was going to cost?

$2400 for the two of us, or about $1200 each. My mom argued with them on the phone for a bit (my mother is a holy terror when she feels she’s been slighted), asking them for a bereavement fare. Well, that cut things down to $1858…PER PERSON!!! Explain to me how that works. After some more hand-wringing, she got them to give us both tickets for $1858. Still highway robbery, but not quite grand larceny.

I’m guessing one of the reasons they charge so damned much for tickets (even for the bereaved!) is that US Airways has been bleeding money for over 10 years now. Whenever talk turns to socialism these days (and boy, the word sure has been getting a lot of play in this election), I always bring up the airline industry. After all, it’s the most heavily subsidized industry in America next to farming (well, until the Wall Street fiasco), and there’s no better example of this than US Airways. Despite the subsidies, US Airways still loses a shitload of money, which leads to some genuinely hilarious examples of cutting corners and doing more with less. I mean, honestly, when you hear some of these, you’ll wonder if you’ve somehow stumbled into the filming of Airplane 3.

Like many other airlines now, US Airways charges you to check a bag. Ho hum. The only major airline I know of that doesn’t do this is Southwest (AKA The Slingshot Express). Hence, I tend to travel on Southwest whenever I can. In addition, US Airways also charges you for in-flight food. I hadn’t seen this until I flew United to and from New York a couple months ago (for $450, thank you very much), and it frankly kind of baffles me. Not the fact that they need money; I get that. But Jesus Christ, you’re going to charge over $1000 for a ticket and food isn’t even fucking included? Seriously? If you would have told me five years ago I’d be paying 10 bucks for airline food I would have thought the world had ended and we were being forced to scavenge plane wreckage for sustenance. Such is not the case, it seems.

But this is where US Airways takes things one step further and just becomes all-out mockery. Most airlines charge for alcoholic drinks. However, soft drinks and juice tend to be free, along with peanuts and/or pretzels. Well, not so on US Airways! Not only do they charge you for soda and juice, but they charge you for water. Yes, you read that right. US Airways charges you for a fucking glass of water. Two dollars, I might add! Clearly they’re desperate for money, right?

That’s an understatement. On the return flight from Charlotte, I also discovered that there were ads for Kinko’s on the tray tables. Actually, I don’t really have a problem with that – put more ads on the planes. I’m sure they could make a killing off that. Hell, look at buses and subways. They’re covered in ads. Then again, they’re also government-run…but I mean really, so are the fucking airlines, for God’s sake.

But just when things couldn’t get any more comical, when my flight from Charlotte to LA began its final descent, a flight attendant came on the intercom. I figured she was going to tell us to adjust our seats and tray tables, but no. Instead, she proceeded to shill some crappy Visa card to us. Seriously. She got on the fucking intercom and spent the entire descent hawking a credit card to us. I was frankly speechless. They’re resorting to selling credit cards to score some cash? In this economy? I feel like this airline is run by Carl Weathers playing a penny-pinching version of himself in Arrested Development.

This would all be enough if it weren’t for the last whopper I discovered during my most recent travels with US Airways. During one of the flights, my mom sat next to a guy who was actually a US Airways pilot. Due to the cuts in flights in and out of Pittsburgh, this poor guy had to commute to Philadelphia whenever he worked, then fly into other northeastern airports, simply because of Pittsburgh’s lack of direct flights. Ugh. Anyway, he told my mom about US Airways’ latest penny-pinching idea. Apparently, they want to stop showing in-flight movies. I figured this was because it was too expensive to show them, and that’s half-true. The real reason? The equipment to show the movies is too heavy, and they want to save fuel costs.

…

I mean…shit.

What’s next? Are they going to convert the lavatories into seats? Charge people for carry-ons? Charge for pillows and blankets (still free, but water isn’t)? Eliminate non-stop flights altogether? Have flight attendants hawk products during the safety instructions?

You laugh now, but judging by what I’ve seen from US Airways lately, those are all distinct possibilities.

Maybe it’s just me, but this next one just seems like such an obvious no-no that it’s practically slapping me in the face. Jeffrey Spanierman, a high school english teacher in Connecticut, didn’t have his contract renewed a few years back, after a school guidance counselor discovered he had created a MySpace account and started friending students. After some time, he had posted some pictures on his profile that apparently had naked men in them (?!) and “inappropriate comments” like the following:

Spanierman: “Repko and Ashley sittin in a tree. K I S S I N G. 1st comes love then comes marriage. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL”

Student: “dont be jealous cuase you cant get any lol “

Spanierman: “What makes you think I want any? I’m not jealous. I just like to have fun and goof on you guys. If you don’t like it. Kiss my brass! LMAO”

There’s an argument to be made about what this means for future teacher-student relationships as technology progresses, as ars technica points out. But I just think it’s a no-brainer. Social networking sites lead to very, very casual contact and conversations. And if teachers and students (especially when they sometimes aren’t too far apart in age) are talking on the internet and forming closer relationships, inappropriate stuff can and does happen. I’m all for teachers having close relationships with their students, and I’m not saying teachers shouldn’t have contact with students outside of class. But come on, man…use your head here. At the end of the day, you’re still the teacher, and they’re still the students. And not only that, this is on the internet for all to see; it’s not exactly discreet. 

However, my favorite part of all this comes in the lawsuit that Spanierman filed against the school. In it, the judge gave a downright hilarious, professorial description of internet speak:

The judge notes in a footnote to his ruling that “spelling and grammatical rules are not always closely followed in such casual or informal online exchanges, and that oftentimes certain phrases are abbreviated or expressed in a form of shorthand [e.g., 'LOL' can mean 'laughing out loud,' and 'LMAO' can mean 'laughing my ass off'].”

Tee hee. But in all seriousness, this was bound to happen at some point. It leads me to wonder, to some degree, to what extent teachers will be able to take advantage of advancing internet technology with their students. Some of this could really benefit classroom discussion and interaction…but it can also lead to inappropriate contact. And bad poetry about the Iraq war.

The damage is done. No Where [sic] to run. 
The sand and sun aren’t any fun. 
They rain down all day in the fields where soldiers lay [sic]. 
Their firearms held tightly. 
Their steps fall lightly. 
They watch for the enemy. 
A man, woman or child they see. 
He could be any of the three. 
In houses they go hoping bombs won’t explode. 
For war of revenge that has no end.

If you ask me, the quality of that poetry is enough to convince the school district not to renew the guy’s contract. Yikes. But in any case, with new technology comes new rules. We’re going to be wading through the ramifications for a while, but some things are just plainly obvious. After all, if you were a teacher, do you think saying any of the above things would be appropriate? Hell no. And MySpace doesn’t make it so.

MySpace profiles send teacher to unemployment line, court [ars technica]

One of the most tried and true Republican arguments against a Barack Obama presidency is that the Senator lacks the relevant political experience to be the President of the United States, particularly during a time of economic crisis while the War on Terror is going on. They love to make the argument that he’s the least experienced person ever nominated to the office of president. Let’s take a look at Barack Obama’s political experience for a moment.

Barack Obama spent eight years as an Illinois State Senator (1997-2005). He’s been the junior Senator from Illinois for nearly four years now (2005-present). From a purely political standpoint, Obama has nearly 12 years of experience. Obama also was the editor of the Harvard Law Review and worked as a law professor at the University of Chicago in the early to mid-90s. It’s not political experience, sure, but it’s certainly relevant to being a politician.

You might look at that and say, “Wow, that looks like a paper-thin resume.” Fair enough. But have you ever looked at Abraham Lincoln’s resume when he was running for President in 1860? Well, here’s your chance.

Lincoln spent eight years in the Illinois House of Representatives, then two years as a member of the US House of Representatives. So, Lincoln served 10 years as an elected official before running for president. Lincoln didn’t serve in political office during the 1850s, and while he did help organize what became the Republican party, he spent much of the decade as…a lawyer. Hm.

I’m not saying Barack Obama is another Abraham Lincoln (though if he is, this country should be fucking thrilled considering what’s going on now). But this is the most telling evidence that judgment and intelligence can compensate for a lack of experience. Lincoln didn’t have any “executive experience,” but pretty much the second he was elected, he faced one of the greatest crises in American history when the south seceded – and he handled it spectacularly. 

Now yes, the world is a different place now. It is more complex. But if you ask me, that’s only more of an argument to weigh intelligence, judgment and intellectual curiosity on the same level as experience. Sarah Palin may have more “executive experience” than any of the other candidates, but would you honestly consider her qualified to be President when she didn’t even have a passport until 2006? I would feel far less comfortable giving someone the keys to the White House who displays no intellectual curiosity about the world than someone who lacks executive experience.

You can’t use experience alone to judge how a person will handle the office of the Presidency. Other factors must be considered, like intelligence, intellectual curiosity, judgment and leadership ability. You can use experience to get an idea of how someone operates, but to use the argument that someone lacks experience as the sole reason to disqualify them from something is a flawed argument. 

So go ahead and vote against Obama because of his perceived lack of experience. Just know that Lincoln wasn’t exactly an elder statesman when he got elected either.

We’re two weeks from Election Day, but already the madness has begun. Many states, North Carolina among them, have begun early voting procedures, which is exactly what it sounds like: you get a chance to cast your ballot early. The Obama campaign has been pushing this hard, as it’s hoping to get all of its newly registered voters, as well as traditionally apathetic voters, to cast their votes. Plus, with the very real possibility that there could be problems on election day, including long lines, broken machines and ballot shortages, the campaign wants to make sure everybody gets a chance to vote.

Naturally, this plays right into the traditional Republican fear about too many people voting, so they want to do everything they can to stop it. This includes, it seems, protesting right outside of polling places in North Carolina. Yelling out various epithets about Obama (his cocaine use as a teenager and “terrorist”), as well as caling the early voters “cheaters” (particularly funny because some of the McCain supporters are voting early as well), these protestors are essentially intimidating early voters, many of whom happen to be black.

In California, that’s called electioneering and it’s illegal. Most electioneering laws prohibit any sort of campaigning within the immediate vicinity of polling places. The problem is, electioneering laws get interpreted many different ways, and in North Carolina that interpretation appears to be loose, to say the least.

This illustrates a larger problem that my roommate and I discussed the other day. Specifically, there are multiple different voting methods in the United States, which lead to all sorts of problems come election day (and sometimes after). To give a few examples:

• Different styles of ballot, like the much maligned butterfly ballot used in Florida.
• Different methods of input. In California, we mark our choice with a marker-like tool that makes an ink mark next to our choice. In many other states, there are punch-card systems which lead to questions of intent and chad madness. It’s far more difficult to question intent with ink than it is with half-punched chads.
• Electronic voting machines. These are used in multiple states, and all you seem to ever hear about them are problems. For one thing, computers crash. A lot. And these are some shitty, poorly kept-up computers. For another thing, there are fears that these things are very easy to hack…since they’re, you know, computers. Most of all, though, the biggest problems with electronic voting machines are sometimes caused by outside forces. For instance, in North Carolina, the state only offers machines; there are no paper ballots at polling places (there’s currently a push to get “emergency paper ballots,” but each polling place likely won’t get more than a 100). So, theoretically, if a polling place has its voting machines crash, then voters are up shit creek – they simply can’t vote. And if there are only 100 emergency paper ballots, a huge number of people still won’t get to vote. Electronic voting machines also can lead to stories like this one.

Today, I’d like to rant about something that’s been pissing me off ever since the Republican Convention in 2004, but that I hadn’t really been able to truly quantify until now. In short, as an electorate, we’ve become dangerously critical of politicians “flip-flopping” on the issues.

Now look, I’m just as guilty of going off this as anyone else. A few weeks ago, I ripped John McCain for flip-flopping on earmark spending when he supported the revised bailout bill. I’m not saying now that it’s always okay for a candidate to change positions (lest I be accused of, well, flip-flopping on flip-flopping). In fact, there are times when it’s completely within reason to slam a politician for flip-flopping. For instance, John Kerry in 2004. The main reason Kerry was ripe for criticism was because of his mind-numbing, poorly worded soundbite: “I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” – not because he changed his mind on supporting the war. That quote made him sound wishy-washy and indecisive, and he was rightly attacked for it.

Worse than that, though, is when a politician changes positions and then denies ever having done so. That is true flip-flopping, and it’s what John McCain is doing with earmarks. He’s made earmarks a huge issue of his campaign, but then he supported a bill full of pork while still railing against out-of-control spending. He’s essentially at odds with himself, and can be attacked on the grounds that he has an inconsistent platform.

And of course, flip-flopping can be used to impugn a candidate’s judgment – to show that they’re incapable of making a firm decision. Some would argue that Obama’s quandary with the troop surge in iraq falls into this category. So, in short, flip-flopping is certainly something that a politician can be criticized for, provided that he or she appears wishy-washy or inconsistent with his or her own views or platform. 

However, by the same measure, I find it completely within reason for someone to admit they were wrong on something and change their mind later – the problem is, that’s not acceptable in America, because the President is expected to be absolutely right on everything at all times. But here’s the thing: every President makes mistakes. It happens. Some are bigger than others, sure, but no President is perfect.

Now, if you want to argue that guys like Lincoln and Washington were perfect and never erred, that’s fine – but the fact is, the world today is far more complex than anything those guys had to deal with. For instance, Lincoln was dealt one of the most difficult hands in American history with the Civil War – but imagine if he had to deal with a modern, globalized economy at the same time. Don’t you think he would’ve changed a few positions every now and then?

I mean come on, this idea that a president, or really any politician, must be absolutely steadfast and unwavering? That any time he or she makes a decision, they must see it through to the end, even if the ship has hit the iceberg and is sinking into the ocean depths? Seriously? Haven’t we been paying attention for the past eight years? We’ve just been through two terms of one of the most stubborn presidents in history, one who didn’t even admit he had made any mistakes whatsoever until his final year in office (and I’d argue that he hasn’t actually gone that far). When you have someone unwilling to admit flaws and mistakes, you get an administration with no oversight filled with yes-men. Moreover, changing one’s opinions and views is a sign of true growth and change as a person – what does it say that we seem to expect our leaders to be absolutely static and unchanging?

We may not like it when politicians change their minds. And I’m not saying I want to see the president make a bunch of “whoopsy-daisy” mistakes and be forced to change his tune every five minutes. But we need to give them some latitude. Being able to change course if something isn’t working is a huge part of finding eventual success. 

Think about it this way. When the United States first came into existence after the Revolutionary War, the first United States government was not bound by the Constitution, but by the Articles of Confederation – a weak, loosely connected association of states with little central power. It was so weak, in fact, that it was nearly destroyed by Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1787. Since the government didn’t have the power or ability to raise a standing army, the United States was almost over before it began. Clearly, the Articles of Confederation was a flawed document and government. But imagine if you sent the expectations of our pundits and our electorate back to 1787. Imagine if the Founding Fathers were forced to “stay the course” with a flawed system for fear of being pilloried if they didn’t. If that were the case, America likely wouldn’t exist today – certainly not in its current form. I know it’s hard for some to believe, but it’s possible for an unwillingness to change course to become more damaging than making a mistake in the first place.

If anything, our expectations of elected officials have gotten too high – and I find this strangely at odds with our society being so crushingly cynical about just about everything. As I said before, a big part of growing and changing is being able to admit when you’re wrong – and at a time when America needs to grow and change more than at any time since the Depression, we need to let our President admit that.

Well, if he’s willing to, that is.

You couldn’t choreograph this. It’s just too much. If you needed any more evidence that the internet and technology have upped the unintentional comedy scale in politics to cosmic proportions, then this is it.

I only wish we had one more debate, only it wouldn’t be an actual debate. It’d be more of a re-enactment of Night of the Living Dead with Obama in the Duane Jones role and McCain and the uh…well…you know.

Coincidentally, I now have a strange urge to pre-order Left 4 Dead.

Truly, this was a case of saving the best for last. Whether it was because McCain desperately needed to come out swinging or because Bob Schieffer was far and away the best moderator of any of this election cycle’s debates, the final presidential debate of the 2008 election proved much more interesting and informative than the previous two. After the downright clusterfuck that was last week’s town hall debate, this debate’s more confrontational format finally gave us what we’ve been asking for: a chance for these guys to go toe to toe and see how they react under fire in a constantly changing setting. So, did John McCain do what he needed to get back into this election, at a time when many polls show him at a double digit disadvantage and losing ground in numerous traditionally Republican states? In the end, no. Here are some of my thoughts:

• As numerous pundits have said, John McCain got off to his best start in this debate, while Barack Obama came out looking flat. McCain was on the attack from the start, hammering Obama on his economic plan and on repeated charges that he’ll raise taxes (he won’t for 95% of America). He also got in a few great jabs early on, particularly his line about not being President Bush and how Obama should have run four years ago if he wanted to run against him. McCain’s other good zinger (in my opinion) was when he responded to Obama’s claim that nobody likes taxes with “then why raise anybody’s?” I don’t agree with McCain, but for the first time in basically this entire election, he was dishing out the comebacks and one-liners like I would expect a Republican to. That was the thing about his start to the debate – he came out like a typical conservative, and I mean that as a compliment. He was very effective early on in showing a clear contrast with Obama in such a way that would appeal not just to the base, but independent voters. His refrain of “taxes, taxes taxes” and accusations that Obama is an irresponsible spender are things his campaign should be stressing right now, and really should have been the entire time.