Some good lines from Hillary Clinton in her campaigning in Florida for Barack Obama. The NYTimes reports:

In Orlando, Mrs. Clinton appeared at a convention of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which was one of the first unions to endorse her for president and which has yet to endorse a candidate in the general election. Drawing cheers and applause from the 1,600 people in the room, Mrs. Clinton said that “we must work as hard as we possibly can” to elect Mr. Obama, and suggested that her supporters needed to put aside personal loyalty to her former candidacy and embrace him as the best hope for their interests.

“Who are you for?” Mrs. Clinton said. “That’s the wrong question. It should be: Who is for you? Who will fight for you?” Shortly afterward, the union workers made Mrs. Clinton an honorary member, and she replied by asking them for an endorsement of Mr. Obama. “Aye!” they cheered.

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

When Barack Obama decided to forego the public finance system in the general election, it was with the expectation that his campaign's fundraising prowess would give Obama a decided advantage over the McCain campaign, which opted in to the public finance system. McCain received $84 million this month from the public finance system, while continuing to raise funds for the RNC and state GOP parties. And the NYTimes reports Obama's campaign is dissatisfied with its fundraising:

[T]he [Obama] campaign is struggling to meet ambitious fund-raising goals it set for the campaign and the party. It collected in June and July far less from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s donors than originally projected. Moreover, Mr. McCain, unlike Mr. Obama, will have the luxury of concentrating almost entirely on campaigning instead of raising money, as Mr. Obama must do.

More . . .

At a campaign rally Monday night, Sen. Barack Obama explained his views on why we need habeas corpus for everyone, even those suspected of terrorism:

"Habeas corpus ... is the foundation of Anglo-American law, which says very simply, if the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, `Why was I grabbed?' and say, `Maybe, you've got the wrong person.'

"The reason we have that safeguard is we don't always have the right person. We don't always catch the right person. "We may think this is Muhammad the terrorist. It might be Muhammad the cab driver. You may think it's Barack the bomb-thrower. But it might be Barack, the guy running for president."

As to Gov. Sarah Palin's "reading their rights" slam of him during her acceptance speech, he responded: [More...]

More information showing Ethics Reformer and Cost Cutter may be misnomers when applied to Gov. Sarah Palin -- The Washington Post reports:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.

It's all seems legal, although there are some questionable items, but it doesn't fit too well with the image of her as one who is focused on cost cutting and savings to Alaskans: [More...]

I'm working on my latest theory, that the only thing that still matters in this election is whether there are more evangelicals and right wing extremists in the big swing states or more of everyone else.

Did anyone else see Weeds? It was intense, to say the least.

This is an open thread.

The California Prison Guards Union is seeking to recall Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

It sounds like the guards want a pay raise. Gov. Arnie isn't fazed:

"I'm not going to get intimidated by those guys," Schwarzenegger told reporters in the Capitol on Monday after a ceremony honoring California's Olympic medalists. "The state should not spend more money than we take in, and their intimidation tactics will not make me change my mind whatsoever, because I happen to not represent the CCPOA. I represent the people of California."

The guards need a million signatures to get the recall on the ballot.

Another segment of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Sen. Barack Obama will air tonight on Fox. Over at MSNBC, Keith Olbermann will interview Obama.

If you watch either one, let us know what you think, not just of Obama, but of the questions and interviewing techniques of O'Reilly and Olbermann.

Did either interview give you any new insights?

I have a transcript of the Obama-Olbermann interview but it's embargoed until 8:30 pm ET and I always honor embargoes.

The media headlines are all about Bush reducing troops in Iraq. Of course troop reduction in Iraq is a good thing.

But, he also announced that he's increasing troops to Afghanistan due to "renewed resistance from the Taliban."

....the president says that a Marine battalion will be on its way there in November -- instead of going to Iraq. And an Army combat brigade will follow in January.

....Bush's plan to instead shift forces to Afghanistan may give ammunition to the argument of his critics: that while focusing on Iraq, the president paid too little attention to the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

Moving troops from one country to another is neither an end to war nor a success. Bringing all our troops home is what's needed.

In line with other polls released today (see, e.g, today's CBS poll, which has McCain 46-44), the ABC/WaPo poll shows a tight race, McCain 49-47. The highlight however is the big move among white women:

White women have moved from 50-42 percent in Obama's favor before the conventions to 53-41 percent for McCain now, a 20-point shift in the margin that's one of the single biggest post-convention changes in voter preferences. The other, also to McCain's advantage, is in the battleground Midwest, where he's moved from a 19-point deficit to a 7-point edge.

In essence, Obama opened the door by not picking Hillary Clinton and McCain walked through it. McCain's Palin gamble clearly has worked. He is in the game. And he would not have been if he had not chosen Palin. And McCain would not have chosen Palin if Obama had picked Clinton.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

You may have to turn the volume up or double click on the video to get to You Tube where you can click the "watch in high quality" button. It's Don Henley singing "Dirty Laundry" at the 1993 MTV Inaugural Ball which he most appropriately dedicates to "President and Mrs. Clinton." I made the video from the VHS tape I recorded of the gala in 1993.

Media bias against the Clintons is nothing new.

This is an open thread as I'm still at work.

Sarah Palin said:

[T]he Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, as McClatchy reported, "aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization."

(Emphasis supplied.) Palin issued standard issue Republican nonsensical cant (See Curve, Laffer) on matters economic - which, as usual, is utter nonsense. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will NOW become "too expensive for taxpayers" because the government is going to bail them out. That said, the bailout plan is probably a good idea, as Krugman explains.

Is this the great gaffe of the century? Not really. To me it is standard issue GOP BS. Which seems the stronger political point to me. McCain-Palin = Bush's Third Term.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

What a surprise for me to log on this morning and see all the venom directed at MSNBC and Keith Olbermann. And, for the second time in a week, liberals at odds with liberals in the blogosphere.

I will make one attempt to redirect the conversation and then I'm going back to work.

I do not think Keith Olbermann is a "hack," partisan or otherwise. I do not think MSNBC relieved him and Chris Matthews of anchoring duties at upcoming debates and election night due to pressure from conservatives or politicians.

I think the removal action was the result of pressure from journalists, other media professionals and quite possibly advertisers who convinced MSNBC that the partisan coverage of live news events was tarnishing not just MSNBC's, but also NBC's reputation as a credible news organization. The issue, as I said in my earlier post, is the distinction between anchoring of live news events and talk shows. [More...]