This chart from a recent Pew report about the youth vote is fascinating. We’ve all seen the numbers on the growing Obama and Democratic edge among voters under 30 repeated ad nauseam. But it’s interesting how closely various subgroups of voters over 30 divided.

2008 would have been a nail biter without 18-29 year olds.

McCain and Obama split independents, college-educated voters and non-college-educated voters almost evenly. McCain also experienced the traditional gender gap--winning men by 4 points and losing women by 6 points. And each candidate drew an overwhelming number of self-identified partisans.

It’s just hard to win an election when you lose 18 percent of the electorate by more than a 2-1 margin (18-29 year-olds split 66 percent-31 percent for Obama)

Research suggests getting some of these young voters back will be difficult but not impossible. Despite all the hype surrounding this election, young voters are still less interested and engaged in politics than older Americans. We also know partisan bonds are weakest at an earlier age. So if you can get younger voters to pay attention long enough to a new GOP message, I suspect that in a post-Bush world and with a lot of hard work, Republicans will be able to trim this deficit. But challenges abound in finding new messengers and crafting a more appealing message. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, it’s not what you say that is important, but what people hear.

Dave Barry's pre-election post-election column is a great way to start your weekend. It's extremely funny - but it's also extremely wise:

You know what I miss? I miss 1960. Not the part about my face turning overnight into the world's most productive zit farm. What I miss is the way the grown-ups acted about the Kennedy-Nixon race. Like the McCain-Obama race, that was a big historic deal that aroused strong feelings in the voters. This included my parents and their friends, who were fairly evenly divided, and very passionate. They'd have these major honking arguments at their cocktail parties. But unlike today, when people wear out their upper lips sneering at those who disagree with them, the 1960s grown-ups of my memory, whoever they voted for, continued to respect each other and remain good friends.

What was their secret? Gin. On any given Saturday night they consumed enough martinis to fuel an assault helicopter. But also they were capable of understanding a concept that we seem to have lost, which is that people who disagree with you politically are not necessarily evil or stupid. My parents and their friends took it for granted that most people were fundamentally decent and wanted the best for the country. So they argued by sincerely (if loudly) trying to persuade each other. They did not argue by calling each other names, which is pointless and childish, and which constitutes I would estimate 97 percent of what passes for political debate today.

What I'm saying is: we, as a nation, need to drink more martinis.

Is political polarization directly related to increased levels of sobriety and caffeinated beverage-consumption among the American body politic? Just asking.

Krauthammer:

With [Obama] we get a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin. (I say this admiringly.) With these qualities, Obama will now bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan.

But before our old soldier fades away, it is worth acknowledging that McCain ran a valiant race against impossible odds. He will be -- he should be -- remembered as the most worthy presidential nominee ever to be denied the prize.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

As President-elect Obama told the world on Election Day, his girls will finally get that puppy they've been wanting for so long. (Even though Obama's daughter Malia has allergies.)

The selection of the presidential pooch is no laughing matter. Obama must demonstrate his commitment to change while also reaching across the aisle. Lucky for him, I have the perfect solution. Let Malia and Sasha pick out the pup they desire. There's your change. But also keep Barney, the Bush family dog. There's your bipartisanship and continuity in a turbulent world.

Barney is, after all, probably the most popular member of the Bush administration right now. He's spunky. And he likes to showboat for the press. America deserves better than to see him go back to Texas.

As Paul Mirengoff points out, Obama's selection of Illinois Democrat Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff is yet another sign that the president-elect intends to govern from the center of the center-left: "I suspect ... that it is Democratic heads Emanuel will be knocking. Republican heads don't count for much on Capitol Hill these days, and the Obama administration won't be in much of a position to knock them, in any case."

Democratic heads like the liberal barons who rule Capitol Hill. They are the subject of today's lead editorial in the Journal:

All of these feudal lords -- and many others -- also come with their own private armies: the interest groups that compose the money and manpower of today's Democratic Party. The American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch and others on the anti-antiterror left want Mr. Obama to limit the surveillance and other tools that have prevented another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense will insist on onerous caps -- that is, taxes -- on coal and other carbon energy. Those won't help Mr. Obama carry Ohio and Indiana again in four years.

Nor North Carolina or Virginia. Obama will want to strengthen his gains in these new blue states, while deepening his support in places like Missouri, Georgia, and Montana.

The Times reports on some potential lower-level officeholders in President-elect Obama's cabinet:

For national security adviser, Mr. Obama might pick between James B. Steinberg, a former deputy national security adviser, and Gregory B. Craig, a former State Department official. Mr. Danzig and Dennis Ross, a longtime Middle East envoy, are also mentioned. Susan E. Rice, a former assistant secretary of state and early Obama adviser, is often described as a possible deputy national security adviser or ambassador to the United Nations.

Democrats said they had heard that Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman, who is a doctor, might be a candidate for secretary of health and human services; Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina may be considered for secretary of housing and urban development; and Penny S. Pritzker, a Chicago business tycoon and Mr. Obama’s national finance chairwoman, could be tapped for commerce secretary.

If Rahm Emanuel accepts Obama's offer to become chief of staff - and why hasn't he already? - the number of Clintonites in the next White House will increase by one (of many to come). We're starting to see how Obama's first term will really be Clinton's third, minus the forty-second president's manifold personal failings. That looks like a recipe for success.

Todd Gitlin on Barack Obama's 2008 victory party in Chicago's Grant Park, where student protests turned violent during the Democratic National Convention 40 years ago:

“He stands on the shoulders of the crowds of four decades ago,” Mr. Gitlin said. “His rebellion takes the form of practicality. He has the audacity of reason.”

The first person to decipher Gitlin gets a pat on the back.

Phoenix, Arizona -- A somber mood here at the Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix, where Republicans, dressed in their best Indian summer cocktail attire, are gathering to hear John McCain concede to Barack Obama. Jim Woolsey was seated below a mounted television in a crowded bar when Fox News projected Obama as the winner of Ohio. The crowd let out an audible gasp and lots of head-shaking ensued.

Fifteen minutes later, after many of those seated on an outside patio had ordered another round of drinks (if you are drinking beer, you are drinking a Budweiser product) an effusive young McCain supporter was watching an outdoor television with strange attentiveness. Someone asked him what he was doing. "I'm waiting for them to reverse Ohio," he said with misplaced optimism.

McCain advisers I've talked to have been matter-of-fact about the situation. They're plainly disappointed, but they're sad about it in much the way that one might expect at the loss of a loved one after a long illness. It was certainly expected.

In the summer of 2007, Jonathan Rauch published an article in The Atlantic making the case for a long presidential campaign. The long campaign would be a test for the candidates, Rauch argued, and would also allow the parties to form U.K.-style "shadow governments" ready to take over on January 20, 2009. Here's Rauch:

“Transition,” as a description of what happens in the 11 weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day, is the most optimistic euphemism in American politics. What really happens is a chaotic scramble to fill dozens of top government jobs. During this bumpiest passage in American governance, the ride would be smoother if a slate of senior officials—secretaries of state, defense, and treasury, the chief economic adviser, and so on—were standing by on the day after the election.

As it turns out, Obama has run an excellent campaign, making very few mistakes. (He's been helped by a press that has not scrutinized him all that thoroughly.) Obama 2008 joins George W. Bush 2000 and 2004 and Jimmy Carter 1976, among others, in the pantheon of well-run campaigns. We know how Bush and Carter turned out. As far as a shadow government, it is true that there are plenty of Democrats standing at the ready to staff an Obama administration. But that would have been true no matter how long the campaign had lasted. Both parties have a more or less permanent class of appointees and bureaucrats who rotate from government positions to roles in think tanks or nonprofits. Yes, if he upsets tonight, McCain probably would have trouble staffing his administration - at least with Republicans. But I have a feeling a McCain administration would be filled mostly with Democrats and independents.

It's worth revisiting why this has been a long campaign. The reason has nothing to do with when the primaries were scheduled. The early primaries were a symptom, not a cause. The cause is Bush. Starting with Hurricane Katrina, a large portion of the country simply wrote off Bush's presidency. That grew worse as the Iraq war worsened and the Democrats took Congress in 2006. As Jeffrey Bell has pointed out, Bush's dismal popularity has driven all politics ever since. It is the country's desire to move beyond Bush, as well as his lack of a successor, that has made this election last so long and propelled Barack Obama to the edge of the presidency. For these reasons alone, George W. Bush is one of the most consequential presidents in history.

No matter who wins today, Bush has only two-and-a-half months left as president. The Bush effect on American politics will vanish. His successor will determine the next debates, issues, controversies, and scandals. And he will likely be far more popular than Bush 43. The next campaign will not be as long as this one.

In 2006, "Maestro" Alan Greenspan leveraged his wildly exaggerated reputation into an $8 million book deal with Penguin Press.

Around this time, Greenspan gave interviews in which he suggested a "well-financed independent presidential candidate" would emerge in time for the 2008 ("or 2012") presidential election.

Greenspan was probably referring to New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire independent who is long rumored to have designs on the presidency. Of course, Bloomberg decided not to run in 2008, opting instead to change the rules so that he can be mayor of New York for as long as he wants. Also, today is Election Day 2008, and Greenspan's prediction stands absolutely no chance of becoming true.

(HT: Gregg Easterbrook.)

You can read Andrew Ferguson's takedown of Greenspan's memoirs here.

Mickey Kaus argues here and here that Democrats ought to be grateful John Kerry lost four years ago.

Kaus: "What would have happened if Kerry had won? 1) He would have presided over a slow motion loss, or continuing stalemate, in Iraq. No way Kerry would ever have approved the "surge." 2) He would also have presided over the current housing and financial collapse that has both broken economic growth and, apparently, destroyed any chances of the incumbent party retaining the White House. Democrats don't bear the main blame for this crisis, but is there any reason to think they would have prevented it? I can't think of one."

Nor can I! Sure, hindsight is twenty-twenty, history is filled with contingencies, blah blah blah. But it's certainly unlikely that the Democrats would have taken Congress in 2006 had Kerry been presiding over a bloodbath in Iraq.

Also, Kerry should be happy with the fact that he lost. Because he was an Obama early adopter, he stands a good chance of becoming the next secretary of state. That's probably not good for America or the world. But it is good for Kerry's resume.

Arrived at the office this morning to find a voicemail waiting for me from the Obama campaign. Their get-out-the-vote effort is so extensive that they had a live person calling me work. Even the volunteer seemed a little surprised. Here's the message she left me:

My name is Caroline, I'm a volunteer with the Obama campaign in DC. I see you work with The Weekly Standard, so you may be covering this election, but if you'd like to volunteer with the campaign to help get out the vote in Virginia, we'd love to have you work with us. Just give us a call at . . .

At first this struck me as a little absurdist. But of course, lots of journalists covering the election have already done their best to work with the Obama campaign.

There are a few liberals who have been mocking the idea that the incoming Democratic Congress, or an Obama FCC, may try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, a Truman-era regulation governing political content on the airwaves that could effectively shut down talk radio. This, despite the fact that Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Richard Durbin (who may make a play for Senate majority leader) have all voiced their support for such a rule.

This morning, New York senator Charles Schumer also made the case for the Fairness Doctrine to Fox News:

Sounds like Schumer takes it pretty seriously, doesn't it?

This is a political fight that the Democrats are likely to lose, however. Talk radio has a huge constituency that was able to kill two immigration bills during the last two Congresses. Couldn't it also be mobilized against the Fairness Doctrine? And don't forget that liberal talk radio, though nowhere near as popular as its conservative cousin, would also be upset if the Democrats try to shut it down. What are the chances that Ed Schulz will be complicit in ending his own career?

(A tip of the homburg to Michelle Malkin.)

The wizards at The Onion are covering the election. Here's today's top headline:

"Voting Machines Elect One of Their Own as President".

And here's the report:

What happens when the machine activates Skynet?

From Andrew B. Wilson's "Five Myths About the Great Depression":

Far from a free-market idealist, Hoover was an ardent believer in government intervention to support incomes and employment. This is critical to understanding the origins of the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt didn't reverse course upon moving into the White House in 1933; he went further down the path that Hoover had blazed over the previous four years. That was the path to disaster.

Hoover, a one-time business whiz and a would-be all-purpose social problem-solver in the Lee Iacocca mold, was a bowling ball looking for pins to scatter. He was a government activist fixated on the idea of running the country as an energetic CEO might run a giant corporation. It was Hoover, not Roosevelt, who initiated the practice of piling up big deficits to support huge public-works projects. After declining or holding steady through most of the 1920s, federal spending soared between 1929 and 1932 - increasing by more than 50 percent, the biggest increase in federal spending ever recorded during peacetime.

Read the whole thing, as they say. For further reading on the Depression, try Amity Shlaes's The Forgotten Man and Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz's Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960.

Eugene Robinson's last two columns have been very good. Here he is today on Obama's - and America's - achievement:

Even if John McCain somehow prevails, that won't change the fact that Obama won all those primaries, or that he won the Democratic Party nomination, or that he raised more money than any candidate in history, or that he rewrote the book on how to run a presidential campaign. Nothing can change the fact that so many white Americans entrusted a black American with their hopes and dreams.

We can all have a new kind of pride in our country.

And here he is last week on Sarah Palin's future:

I thought Palin was a lightweight; she's not. I thought she was an ingenue; she is, but only as long as her claws are sheathed. I thought she was bewildered and star-struck at her sudden elevation to national prominence; if she ever was, she isn't anymore. I thought she was nothing but raw political talent and unrealistic ambition; it turns out that she has impressive political skills. I thought she was destined to become nothing more than a historical footnote; I now think that Democrats underestimate her at their peril.

He's right.

Bret Stephens's excellent column today is worth quoting at length:

The animating impulses of Mr. McCain's life have always revolved around the act of confrontation: against the traditions and methods of the Naval Academy; against his captors in Vietnam; against "special interests," especially those connected to his own party; against Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin and the general threat posed by radical Islam. Most, though not all, of these were fights worth having, and 9/11 is a reminder of what happens when they are avoided.

By contrast, Mr. Obama's candidacy rests on the promise of transcendence, though in practice that often seems like a form of slipperiness. He has campaigned on the theme that the old categories no longer apply: not of race or class, or of blue and red states, or of left and right. And in the matter of race, the transcendence Mr. Obama offers is genuinely wonderful.

But not everything is susceptible to transcendence. Terrorists will not be less dangerous by being contextualized in a matrix of threats that includes climate change and global poverty, or because they will be mollified by Mr. Obama's middle name. Nor will Iran be deterred from developing nuclear weapons because a President Obama will restore faith in "brand America."

Remember, though, that Obama has not ruled out the military option with regard to the Iranian nuclear program. He calls for a broadening and a deepening of American involvement in the Afghanistan-Pakistan war with no clear exit strategy. And I believe he is likely to embrace an agenda of humanitarian intervention, in Darfur and the Congo in particular. If elected, Obama will be less of a dove than his supporters, and his opponents, believe him to be.

Peter Baker:

In 16 of the 17 presidential elections since the Redskins moved to Washington in 1937, the incumbent party has kept the White House if the team won its last home game before the election while the out-of-power party has taken over if the Redskins lost. (The only exception came four years ago, when the Redskins lost to the Green Bay Packers but President Bush won reelection.)

Washington lost last night, 23-6, in a game that was difficult to watch.

However: As Baker notes, the curse of the Redskins didn't keep Bush from winning in 2004. Did he break it permanently? We'll see.

Be sure to check out Robert J. Samuelson's Newsweek cover story on the financial crisis. Warning: It's not a pick-me-upper.

Here's a key quote:

[T]he long-term problem is ... to mediate between all the competing demands on the nation's income and to expand the economy's capacity to produce the output that satisfies those demands. The closer the economy comes to stagnation, the more Americans will succumb to distributional struggles - not just between the rich and the poor, but also between the young and the old and between immigrants and natives.

Down that path lies "affluent deprivation." To use an old but apt cliche: people will fight over pieces of a fairly fixed economic pie rather than sharing ever-larger pieces of an expanding pie. The winners may be pleased, but the losers will feel short-changed - and so the conflicts may intensify, with yesterday's winners possibly becoming tomorrow's losers. Politics, which is often about rewarding some and punishing others, may become more so. Nor is this prospect merely theoretical. Already, Americans face far more claims on their incomes than can be easily met.

This dovetails somewhat with Peter Beinart's analysis that the culture wars are over:

Today, according to a recent Newsweek poll, the economy is up to 44 percent and "issues like abortion, guns and same-sex marriage" down to only 6 percent. It's no coincidence that Palin's popularity has plummeted as the financial crisis has taken center stage. From her championing of small-town America to her efforts to link Barack Obama to former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, Palin is treading a path well-worn by Republicans in recent decades. ...

Palin's attacks are also failing because of generational change. The long-running, internecine baby boomer cultural feud just isn't that relevant to Americans who came of age after the civil rights, gay rights and feminist revolutions. Even many younger evangelicals are broadening their agendas beyond abortion, stem cells, school prayer and gay marriage. And just as younger Protestants found JFK less threatening than their parents had found Al Smith, younger whites - even in bright-red states - don't view the prospect of a black president with great alarm.

A couple of caveats. First, there's always a rush to pronounce this-and-that political era "over" before the results are in. Also, analysts tend to, well, over-analyze. There's a pretty simple explanation for why economic concerns are at the top of voters' priorities. The economy stinks. Voters will be concerned about the economy for as long as it stinks. When it no longer stinks, cultural issues will return to the fore. Or, when a significant national security event occurs - as usually happens when the economy stinks for an extended period - voters are going to start worrying about national security. This isn't rocket science.

Second, Palin is not exactly the culture warrior liberal analysts make her out to be. She rarely mentions social issues on the stump. If you read this piece in today's Times, you learn that, on the trail, Palin is most passionate about special-needs children. That isn't a divisive issue. Palin, moreover, mentions her faith far less than some pundits do. And during the vice presidential debate, she implied that there was almost no difference between the two tickets on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Palin has not hesitated to go after Obama's associations and his economic policies. But to ask why Obama would associate with Bill Ayers is not necessarily to engage in a high-minded discussion of the "legacy of the sixties." Rather, it is to raise questions about the character of the Democratic nominee. After all, Bill Ayers isn't a fashionable painter or photographer. He's not Jane Fonda. He's a former domestic terrorist. Can we at least agree on that?

The GOP ticket's embrace of Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder also has little to do with the culture war. It is, instead, an embrace of populist economics. It's a signal that the GOP is aligning with tradesmen against professionals, who are overwhelmingly pro-Obama. This type of distributional politics is what Samuelson is talking about in his article and new book.

Values politics may take shelter during this economic storm. But the new politics of class resentment won't be any prettier.

Fishbowl NY has a new online poll: "Both Senator Barack Obama and William Kristol made appearances on the Daily Show this week. Who was better?" As I type, Obama is losing 64 percent to 36 percent.

This is one election I'm sure we can win. Vote here.

John Podhoretz gives 10 reasons why McCain might win.

Krauthammer on the election:

The national security choice in this election is no contest. The domestic policy choice is more equivocal because it is ideological. McCain is the quintessential center-right candidate. Yet the quintessential center-right country is poised to reject him. The hunger for anti-Republican catharsis and the blinding promise of Obamian hope are simply too strong. The reckoning comes in the morning.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

Part one of Krauthammer's case for McCain is here.

I’m sure the thought has crossed your mind: What happens if, just if, Obama loses? It is certainly something that has haunted überfeminist Erica Jong. In an interview in Corriere della Sera, and as noted in the New York Observer, Jong’s fear is that “if Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it's not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets.” Highlights, provided to the Observer’s Jason Horowitz by Christian Rocca of Il Foglio include:

"My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can't cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduces her to a bundle of nerves."

"My back is also suffering from spasms, so much so that I had to see an acupuncturist and get prescriptions for Valium."

"After having stolen the last two elections, the Republican Mafia…"

"Bush has transformed America into a police state, from torture to the imprisonment of reporters, to the Patriot Act."

Jong also fancies herself and Michael Chabon as the intellectual heirs to Susan Sontag and Norman Mailer.

A scary Halloween indeed!

Sitting through the Very Special Episode of Obama for President tonight felt awfully familiar. It's like one of those required assemblies from middle school: hectoring, tedious, and transparently silly. But it did have one unexpected effect on me. Never before have I noticed how wonderful commercials are. It's not until you're forced to go without the Geico cavemen for 30 straight minutes that you realize how much you appreciate them.

The LA Times's Andrew Malcolm reports that the FBI caught Massachusetts Democratic state senator Dianne Wilkerson "on videotape stuffing numerous $100 bills into her bra as alleged bribe payments during a meeting in a fancy Boston restaurant."

You know, it's 2008. Isn't it about time female politicians feel free to carry their bribes in briefcases just like their male counterparts?

The Gormogons point us to this fantastic bit of parody: What it would look like if John Woo, Kevin Smith, and Wes Anderson directed attack ads for McCain. Really top-notch stuff.

As the presidential campaign winds down, an important question toward predicting the outcome is how undecided voters break. For years now, the conventional wisdom has held that these voters are unhappy with the incumbent (or his party) and most will vote for the challenger when they enter the polling booth. In the Democratic primaries however, it seems that undecided voters broke heavily away from Barack Obama and toward Hillary Clinton; they viewed the election as a referendum on him. And when he never 'closed the deal,' most voted against him.

So as this election comes to a close, will Obama be able to assuage the concerns of those who still aren't backing him? It probably depends to a large degree on whether the cycle closes with a series of stories that reassure them that Barack Obama and the Democrats can be trusted with both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

For those who wonder whether it's a good idea to elect a Democratic president who's likely to green-light the liberal agenda of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, it might be alarming to hear that they are considering killing 401k accounts:

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

Given the long-term Social Security insolvency problem, private retirement accounts have become far more important to working Americans. Why would senior Democrats want to confiscate these retirement contributions and replace them with a program that is almost the same is the insolvent Social Security program?

Obama at a press conference yesterday:

In 2002 I said we should focus on finishing the fight against Osama Bin Laden. Throughout this campaign I’ve argued that we need more troops and more resources to win the war in Iraq. But we also need a new strategy that deals with Pakistan that deals with issues of corruption that deals with issues of narco-terrorism. We need a comprehensive strategy and approach to confront the growing threat from al Qaeda along the Pakistani border.

Did Obama forget which war he doesn't mind losing? Obama usually says he wants to "end" the war in Iraq and "win" war in Afghanistan. Throughout the campaign he has argued that more troops and resources would lead to success in Afghanistan, but he said that that same policy would lead to failure in Iraq. He must have meant to say "Afghanistan" instead of "Iraq." That's a pretty big mixup. As far as I can tell, this false impression Obama gave voters about his position on Iraq has gone uncorrected.

Good video--except for this line: "We are close to making that $250,000 mark, and we shouldn't be punished for succeeding." Is the McCain campaign conceding that Obama won't raise taxes on any one making under $250K? What happened to the argument that, based on Obama's record and his spending proposals, he's going to raise taxes on the middle class? Bill Clinton abandoned his middle class tax cut campaign proposal. Why do we expect anything different from Obama?

Even if you take Obama at his word, it might be more effective to point out that McCain's tax proposals, including his health care plan, would leave most middle class people better off.

The World Series starts tonight. Ken Levine's take is extremely enjoyable. He laments the fact that baseball games seem to be growing longer and longer, while network executives schedule them later and later:

"This year’s All-Star Game was a thriller. The American League won in a five hour, 15 innings affair. The dramatic ending was seen in the east by eight 7-11 clerks (five. Three were robbed and tied up in the back)."

And:

"Baseball is a sport that is passed down from generation to generation. It needs to attract kids to ensure its future. Name me one kid who fell in love with the grand old game by watching Jeannie Zelasko’s pre-game show with in-studio analysts Kevin Kennedy and Mark Grace. Children have bedtimes and they’re usually not 1:37 AM."

Levine is always worth checking out.

Politico reports that the RNC has spent $150,000 on clothing, accessories, hair care, and makeup for Sarah Palin. McCain-Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt responded to the story, writing in a statement: "With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."

According to Marc Ambinder, Republicans are "disgusted" with the expenditures:

There is already an attempt to blame the media -- as in, the liberal media would have looked askance at Palin if she wasn't clad in Neiman Marcus, but this won't wash. Republicans, RNC donors and at least one RNC staff member have e-mailed me tonight to share their utter (and not-for-attribution) disgust at the expenditures.

This sort of spending is without precedent -- the closest approximation for any campaign I've ever covered is make-up expenses for television interviews and commercial shoots -- , and Schmitt's weakly defensive response tonight indicates that the campaign is deeply embarrassed by it and has nothing to say in their defense.

Is attacking Palin or the RNC going to have the kind of punch that, say, mocking John Edwards's haircut did? I don't think so. As the breadwinner of a family of seven, Palin is the only one on either ticket who isn't wealthy. Obviously she hadn't built up the kind of wardrobe that a woman in the national spotlight has. What's a reasonable cost for a woman on TV almost everyday? I have no idea, but it would be helpful to know how much Hillary Clinton's entire wardrobe is worth as a point of reference.

At any rate, if RNC donors are upset that the clothes are going to charity, here's an alternative suggestion: Sell the clothes on eBay, and turn a nice little profit. If copies of Obama's the first edition of book are going for $12,000, I'm sure that the jacket Palin wore at the RNC could be sold to a collector for a lot more than the original price.

In response to Republican demands that Congress investigate how Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae imploded, Barney Frank said today:

“In an unusual event, even by this year’s standards, House Republicans appear to be demanding a criminal investigation of their failure to legislate,” said Frank in a statement.

“The Republican demand that their legislative record of non-action be investigated appears to be the political equivalent of the note left to the police by serial offenders: stop me before I do not legislate again.”

This is the same Barney Frank who said in 2003:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'

Perhaps it would have been reasonable for Frank to argue that the GOP-controlled House should have been able to pass reform legislation with or without Democratic support if congressional Democrats hadn't just blamed Republicans for scuttling the first bailout bill vote.

Exit question: Wouldn't it be nice if the congressional Republicans had money to run this ad?

A statement from McCain-Palin spokesman Michael Goldfarb:

"Joe Biden's commented on Sunday that Barack Obama's election as President would, within six months, result in 'an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.' Biden further added that the American people would not perceive Barack Obama's response to this crisis as correct. 'It's not gonna be apparent that we're right,' he said. Biden's remarks capture perfectly the message of this campaign: Barack Obama is too risky, too inexperienced, to serve as commander in chief--that his election by itself will provoke our enemies, and that his brief record raises serious questions as to how an Obama administration would respond to such a challenge.

"This campaign highlighted Biden's remarks throughout the day yesterday. We held a conference call with Mayor Giuliani who asked what Joe Biden meant. We released a statement highlighting Biden's remarks and asking what kind of crisis his unconditional meetings with the leaders of rogue states might provoke. Our surrogates and spokesmen also noted the comments in radio and TV appearances. Yet on NBC Nightly News last night, when Andrea Mitchell reported on Biden's remarks, she failed to play the relevant portion--the portion that this campaign and a variety of news outlets had found controversial, or revealing as the case may be. Instead, Ms. Mitchell played a tape of Joe Biden talking about how Barack Obama has 'steel in his spine.'

"This morning, on MSNBC, the network again aired the tape of Biden, and again they aired the segment in which Joe Biden heaps praise on his running mate. But Joe Scarborough noted that the network had played the wrong clip, and that what Joe Biden said directly reflects the central criticism this campaign has made of Barack Obama: that his inexperience, his poor judgment, and his foreign policy proposals will, in Joe Biden's words, 'guarantee' a crisis.

"So how is it that NBC repeatedly failed to play those remarks?"

Here's the video of Scarborough on MSNBC:

I still remember when parents worried their kids watched too much TV. Never mind. The Internet solved that problem.

Pew released an interesting new report this week called “Networked Families,” exploring how technology affects family communications and lifestyles. It looks at how the proliferation of cell phones, computer ownership and broadband access impacts our daily lives.

One of the most fascinating parts of the study focuses on how increased Internet usage decreases television viewership, with the largest drop among adults 18-29 years old:

Most internet users say that the internet has not changed the amount of time they spend with friends, with family, and attending social events or activities. However, 25% of online adults say that the internet has decreased the amount of time they spend watching television. Especially among younger adults the importance of television has diminished while the internet has gained enhanced importance.

You can view the entire Pew report here.

John McCain took note Monday of Joe Biden’s remarks the day before at a Seattle fundraiser (where Biden apparently didn’t realize at first there were media present). But there’s more McCain could say.

Here’s McCain, in Belton, Missouri:

Just last night, Senator Biden guaranteed that if Senator Obama is elected, we will have an international crisis to test America’s new President. We don’t want a President who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars.

What is more troubling is that Senator Biden told their campaign donors that when that crisis hits, they would have to stand with them because it wouldn't be apparent Senator Obama would have the right response.

Forget apparent. Senator Obama won’t have the right response, and we know that because we’ve seen the wrong response from him over and over during this campaign. He opposed the surge strategy that is bringing us victory in Iraq and will bring us victory in Afghanistan. He said he would sit down unconditionally with the world's worst dictators. When Russia invaded Georgia, Sen. Obama said the invaded country should show restraint.

McCain is right that the last part of Biden’s statement is the most troubling--that when Obama is tested, it won’t be apparent that his response is correct. But what does Biden mean by this? What kind of response by Obama is Biden forecasting?

Take another look at what Biden said:

It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking.... Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy....

I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate… And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.

So Biden expects a test of the kind Kennedy faced after his disastrous meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June, 1961, less than five months into Kennedy’s presidency. Biden’s presumably thinking of the Soviet-backed construction of the Berlin Wall a couple of months later. Kennedy did nothing, and was criticized for his weakness back home.

So--leaving aside the merits of what Kennedy did or didn’t do in 1961--Biden is forecasting that Obama will have what seems to be a weak response to a provocation from, say, Iran or Russia, and he’s urging the liberals of Seattle and elsewhere to stand with Obama against the expected domestic criticism.

In other words, Biden is forecasting inaction by Obama in the face of testing by a dictator. I suspect he’s right in this forecast. McCain might want to clarify this point. It’s not just that Obama’s own running mate expects an international crisis early in his presidency. It’s not just that Obama has a weak foreign policy record. It’s that Biden himself expects what will appear to be a weak response from Obama to testing by a dictator.

Now Biden presumaby thinks such an apparently weak response would be in our long-term interest. But McCain needs to force that debate: “Sen. Obama, will you in fact do nothing in response to a Putin provocation against Ukraine or a final push by Ahmadinejad toward nuclear weapons? Isn’t that what your running mate has forecast? Isn’t it awfully dangerous to forecast weakness on the part of an American president?”

After watching Penn State cream the Wisconsin Badgers a couple Saturdays ago, I caught the local DC metro newscast (which covers Northern Virginia) for perhaps the first time ever. In the two minutes the program dedicated to the presidential campaign, the news anchor slipped in the critical facts th