HorsesAss.Org

Calling him a “transformational figure,” and praising his “steadiness,” “substance,” and “style,” former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama for President this morning on NBC’s Meet the Press.

It is important to note that throughout his comments, Powell clearly self-identifies as a Republican, roundly criticizing his own party and the McCain campaign, both for their divisive tactics and their dramatic shift to the right.  Some will trumpet this endorsement as that of a General and Secretary of State.  Some will dismiss it as merely that of a fellow black man.  But above all, this is the endorsement of a Democrat by a high ranking, high profile, widely respected Republican.

In other news, the Obama campaign announced today that it raised a record $150 million in September, averaging less than $100 per contribution, and adding over 632,000 new donors. From a simple fundraising perspective, this has been without a doubt the most small “d” democratic campaign in history, clearly changing the rules of the game from here on out.

Obama	McCain
100.0% probability of winning	0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 370 electoral votes	Mean of 168 electoral votes

Yesterday’s analysis showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 369 to 169 electoral votes. An election held yesterday almost certainly would have gone to Obama.

There were new polls released in Florida, Maine, North Carolina and Wisconsin today. The net result is the gain of another electoral vote for Obama.

Today, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins all 100,000 times. Obama receives (on average) 370 to McCain’s 168 electoral votes. The analytical results suggest that Obama would have a near 100.0% probability of winning an election held today.

Detailed results for this analysis are available at Hominid Views.

Methods are described in the FAQ.The most recent version of this analysis can be found on this page.

Some classy folks at a Palin rally in Johnstown, PA:

100,000 people see Obama in St. Louis:

Last week’s contest was won by Erasmus, who first guessed the correct location of Copenhagen, and wes.in.wa, who found the link. Here’s this week’s contest. Good luck!

Nir Rosen has an amazing account in Rolling Stone of his journey into Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan. Rosen discovers some expected things, for instance, that it’s still a dangerous region where foreigners are not welcome and coalition forces only engage from the air. But he also finds some unexpected things, like that the ranks of the Taliban are not so much the religious fundamentalists that they once were. Their movement is once again driven primarily by nationalism, as was the mujaheddin that drove out the Soviets in the 1980s.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have said they’d send more troops to Afghanistan, but they should also listen to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen:

But Mike Mullen added bluntly that military means alone were no longer sufficient. “We can’t kill our way to victory,” he declared. “Afghanistan doesn’t just need more boots on the ground.” The keys to success, he explained, were “Foreign investment. Alternative crops [to replace poppy cultivation]. Sound governance. The rule of law… No armed force anywhere — no matter how good — can deliver these keys alone.”

This is why I’ve cringed when Afghanistan has come up at the debates. Obama hasn’t even dared to challenge John McCain on whether or not the surge in Iraq worked. The reduction in violence in Iraq came from reaching out to former insurgents, improved tactics on the ground, building walls throughout Baghdad, and the fleeing of millions of Iraqi’s who’ve seen their prospects for a better life dwindle. Having greater numbers of troops was certainly helpful, but it was far from being the main thing that quieted down the insurgency. And Mullen is warning us not to take such a simple-minded approach to Afghanistan, even as John McCain keeps talking about bringing “the surge” there as well. That Obama appears to be the one candidate more willing to listen to Mullen’s advice is just one of the many reason why he’s getting my vote this year.

As part of the new push in Afghanistan, NATO recently authorized coalition forces to target the drug trade more directly by going after traffickers, labs, and drug lords, but leaving the farmers alone. Afghanistan still produces a majority of the world’s heroin which, despite being illegal, accounts for over 50% of the country GDP. And it’s because Taliban forces have provided protection for the industry that they’ve become such a well-funded and well-armed fighting force threatening to topple the coalition-led leadership across the county. Now the coalition will be trying to go after the people who’ve been paying the Taliban:

The alliance is not in the business of crop eradication, [Sec. of Defense Robert] Gates said, “but if we have the opportunity to go after drug lords and … labs — to interrupt this flow of cash to the Taliban — it seems like a legitimate security endeavor.”

Up until now, the only method being used to eliminate the opium crop was to have Afghan-led eradication teams tour the countryside and plow over opium fields. This approach has been totally ineffective. The teams were easily corrupted, often being used by a local drug lord (who would often happen to also be within the government) to eliminate a rival’s crops. Considering that individuals within the Bush Administration and the C.I.A. openly accept that even Hamid Karzai’s brother is involved in the trade, it’s easy to see why trying to enforce this law has been pointless.

Hard-core drug warriors in the Bush Administration and Congress continually pushed for aerial eradication (including Joe Biden, who helped push a bill to allow dangerous toxins to be dumped on Latin American fields). Our NATO allies and the Afghan Government both opposed us. What’s happening now is clearly a different approach, but it’s every bit as pointless. What we’re trying to do is similar to what we’ve been trying to do in Mexico for years. And when you’re dealing with an industry that accounts for half of a nation’s economy, destroying a few labs and killing some of the drug lords is not going to put a dent in the profiteering.

Instead, Taliban forces will shift from guarding the opium fields to guarding both the labs and the drug lords themselves. The more effective the coalition becomes at eliminating the elements of the trade, the more money will be spent for protection. While it seems like a legitimate security endeavor to Bob Gates, it’s actually one that will completely backfire. As with every anti-drug initiative we undertake in our foreign policy, we forget that the source of the money cannot be uprooted by eliminating the supply. As long as the demand for that supply exists, the best we can ever do is move it, as we once moved it in the 1970s from Turkey to Afghanistan (which, it should be noted, was done in part by allowing Turkey to legally grow it).

The foreign policy discussions in the Presidential debates have rarely deviated from the belief that we defeat our enemies across the globe through fear and intimidation. And in Iraq, our attempts in the early stages of the occupation to use the military alone to quell the insurgency just fanned the flames until we got smart and sat down with the leadership in Al-Anbar and other dangerous areas. Human beings tend to react one way or another to overly authoritarian approaches. Some submit, others rebel. How much of each group there ends up being tends to rely on whether the authority is trusted. In Iraq, we’ve gotten to a point where the vast majority of Iraqis are never going to see us as legitimate occupiers in their nation. It’s possible to keep a rebellious population under wraps if you have the resources, but it doesn’t provide security in the way that the proponents of that policy hope for. Israel has been lost in this psychological quagmire for decades when it comes to the West Bank and Gaza.

In Afghanistan, our unwillingness to dial back our air offensives, which even Hamid Karzai has questioned, is only part of why we’re losing ground there. It’s also because we believe that the drug trade is a form of defiance in much the same way that refusing to accept the coalition’s right to be there and rebuild the country is a form of defiance. It’s not.

The case of Bashir Noorzai is a good indication of how this misunderstanding will only make matters worse there. Noorzai was a wealthy drug lord who came to New York in the hopes of working with Americans to improve the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. It was all a ruse. He was arrested and charged with drug trafficking.

Now the strategy is to go after these guys all over Afghanistan. But people like Bashir Noorzai don’t break the law because they hate us or because they support the Taliban. They break the law because it allows them to be rich and powerful. Our decision to go after a heroin trade that we will never be able to stamp out aligns those whose motivation is profit and power with those whose motivation is to get the foreigners out of their country. This will just accelerate the defeat of Karzai’s fragile regime. We are hooked on a bad policy that just gets exponentially worse as we ignore the real roots of the drug trade and blame those trying to profit from it. While I’m eager to vote for Barack Obama in two weeks, I worry that this mess could eventually be his undoing.

Republican congress-critter calls for investigations of “anti-American” activities, Democratic opponent gets darn near close to a half million dollars in donations in 24 hours.

Yes, but what do the netroots actually do? It’s a mystery.

Sen. Haugen is a communist? Really?  That’s the best they can come up with?

Talk about being stuck in 1982.

(Who needs Saturday morning cartoons, when some seventy other media clips from the past week in politics can be found at Hominid Views.)

The Columbian newspaper, which in 2004 endorsed George W. Bush, has endorsed Barack Obama.

But as we examined leadership qualities of both men, we saw Obama’s massive strides in uniting his own Democratic party, even reaching beyond his party to speak to all Americans. McCain, in stark contrast, continues to slog through a fractious Republican Party that often is his worst enemy.

It takes strong leadership skills to enlist record numbers of volunteers and to continually explore new heights in the polls, as Obama methodically demonstrates.

As for judgment, Obama chose a running mate who neither hurt him in the polls nor diverted the spotlight from the main man on the ticket. McCain’s choice has done both. McCain tries to masquerade this recklessness as the virtue of a maverick. Would he use that same recklessness in appointing Supreme Court justices and Cabinet members? Which candidate in recent weeks has shown a presidential demeanor? Which could best restore worldwide respect for the U.S.? Which man has tried to soothe — not stoke — rancor in the homestretch of this campaign? Clearly, that man is Obama.

Wow. This endorsement will make the righties howl, if they have any howling left in them.

It’s been a pretty big day for Obama in newspaper-endorsement land, for what it’s worth. From Editor and Publisher:

The Obama-Biden ticket maintains its strong lead in the race for newspaper endorsements, picking up 16 more papers in the past day, including the giant Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune on Friday afternoon (see separate story), and the Denver Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Salt Lake Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times tonight.

This brings his lead over McCain-Palin by this measure to over 3-1 so far, at 56-16, including most of the major papers that have decided so far. In contrast, John Kerry barely edged George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004, by about 220 to 205.

The readership of the 53 newspapers backing Obama now stands at well over 7 million. He gained two biggies yesterday in The Washington Post and San Francisco Chronicle, and today picked up the Modesto Bee in addition to the larger papers.

An interesting footnote: the Chicago Tribune has never endorsed a Democrat for president. Ever. Something about that Abraham Lincoln guy I think.

Is the political re-alignment of the United States very nearly complete? If you look at the maps Darryl has posted below, it would seem that way. The Republican’s Southern Strategy of 1968 has come to its final and logical conclusion, confining the GOP Party to the South and states that are rather southern in culture. (This isn’t my thinking, it’s put forth by none other than the mastermind of the Southern Strategy, Kevin Phillips, in his book “American Theocracy.”)

It would be nice if we get past our history some day, but the racist incidents and histrionics we are currently enduring in this campaign show we still have a ways to go. I know it’s going out on a limb to try to speak for most Americans, but you have to be pretty tone deaf not to pick up on the genuine longing for a leader who will do a good job and get this country working on the severe challenges we face.

Obama	McCain
100.0% probability of winning	0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 369 electoral votes	Mean of 169 electoral votes

Yesterday’s analysis showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 368 to 170 electoral votes. Obama would have almost certainly won an election held yesterday. With the release of 14 new polls from 12 states today, Obama edges forward in his electoral vote total.

Now, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama still wins them all. Obama takes, on average, 369 of the 538 electoral votes. McCain takes 169. With little doubt, Obama would win an election held now.

Detailed results for this analysis are available at Hominid Views.

Methods are described in the FAQ.The most recent version of this analysis can be found on this page.

Check out Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann on Hardball accusing Obama and other Democrats of potentially being anti-American:

This insane asylum escapee is in a tight re-election contest against Democrat El Tinklenberg, and you can help out him out here.

[UPDATE]: And there’s one other challenger in the Midwest who I’d love to see pull out a win. Michael Montagano is within 5 percentage points of Mark Souder (IN-3), who won 69% of the vote in 2004. Souder is one of the worst members of Congress when it comes to drug policy. Montagano’s ActBlue page is here.

Apparently, the Seattle Times has endorsed Dino Rossi. I haven’t read it yet, but I’m guessing I don’t have to: “Budget deficit, blah, blah, blah… no taxes, blah, blah, blah… fuck Labor, blah, blah, blah… eat the children, blah, blah, blah…”

You know, typical Times ed board stuff.

I’d imagine we’re going to be seeing more stories like this all around the state:

Faced with a dire state budget forecast, Clark College has announced a hiring freeze and asked executive department heads to cut budgets about 3 percent.

That might not be all, for the 12,500-student Vancouver college.

Deeper budget cuts may follow as the state economy continues to slide, Clark President Bob Knight wrote in an e-mail to the college community on Wednesday night.

Our state’s revenue system makes this sort of thing pretty much inevitable. I remember writing stories about such stuff during the George H.W. Bush recession back in the early 1990’s for a community college newspaper.

Sure, it’s easier to play politics than to actually prioritize, but for once I would like to hear Republicans state how much education (and thus our state’s future potential economic growth) they wish to cut. Vague “waste fraud and abuse” accusations don’t count. Where efficiency can really be improved, that’s great, but it takes hard work in boring hearings, not campaign talking points.

I’ll explain later, but you know what I mean.