Sarah Palin was met with a couple new chants from the crowd at a Belmont, Ohio rally yesterday: "Mine, Baby, Mine!" and "Coal! Coal! Coal!" (Hey, I guess it beats "Terrorist!")

Palin was in coal country so it makes some sense but it's pretty messed up that the only thing that can get the right wing crowds riled up is either extreme anger or the prospect of increasing our dependence on fossil fuels.

So, it's an interesting contrast to hear Hillary Clinton's latest crowd-pleasing line at a Pennsylvania rally today on behalf of the Obama/Biden ticket:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a Democratic rejoinder to the Republican chant of "drill, baby, drill." Said the one-time presidential candidate: "Jobs, baby, jobs." [...]

At the Republican National Convention and various GOP rallies, an oft-repeated chant was "drill, baby, drill," a plea for more oil drilling. McCain and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin back more offshore oil drilling; Palin favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Clinton said Democrats have a better answer: "Jobs, baby, jobs."

Part of the whole "Drill, Baby, Drill" ethic is a twisted sense of nationalism, as though the most important part of the phrase "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" is the word "foreign." You know, cuz whatever fossil fuels we get out of the ground are just fine as long as they come from American groud! So it's smart for Clinton to turn the chant on its head, into an economic call to action, not that it's divorced entirely from energy, of course. One of both Clinton's and Obama's plans for returning jobs to America has been to create a whole green economy where people will be put to work developing/installing/maintaining/repairing, etc. renewable alternative energy sources. As both Bill and Hillary Clinton have often said on the stump this year, solar panel installer is one job that can not be outsourced.

Update [2008-10-13 19:25:31 by Todd Beeton]:And it should be noted that it's no coincidence that Hillary's chant tracked with Barack's message of the day (and, no doubt, the next 23 22 days):

We can't wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now -- who don't know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don't know if next week's paycheck will cover this month's bills. We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class and we need to do it now. Today I'm proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities, and help struggling homeowners. It's a plan that begins with one word that's on everyone's mind, and it's spelled J-O-B-S.

So, call me crazy but if the number one criticism about you is that you act erratically and it's sticking because, well, you're undeniably acting erratically, wouldn't it be wise to stop? To start acting with purpose, with some modicum of discipline? Wouldn't that just be Politics 101?

Not so much for the McCain campaign. Here's TPM's rundown over the past couple days:

Despite a top surrogate's suggestion over the weekend that McCain would be unveiling new economic proposals, we  learned this morning  that in fact John McCain wasn't planning to announce anything of this kind today.

Now it turns out the whole plan all along was for McCain to offer new proposals. Tomorrow, that is.

That's what the McCain campaign just announced on a conference call with reporters moments ago, a few hours -- coincidentally, we're sure -- after Obama made headlines with proposals of his own.

It was just yesterday, mind you, that McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds insisted that no new plans were forthcoming.

No wonder then that the right wing is in full meltdown mode over the inept handling of John McCain's campaign.

This is your schadenfreude break for the day:

Public Policy Polling has an excellent analysis of Barack Obama's rising support in the South. Central to their report is a debunking of the conventional wisdom that it's mostly a function of higher than normal expected turnout among African-American voters. On the contrary, Obama's growing support among whites is making the most difference in his newfound strength in the South.

PPP looked at their own polling in Virginia (O+8), North Carolina (O+6) and Florida (O+3) for data. For the purposes of this post, I'm going to focus just on North Carolina.

First let's look at the increased turnout among black voters. In 2004, African-American turnout in North Carolina was 19% and Kerry won them 85-14; this year, PPP projects turnout will rise slightly to 21% and that Obama will win them 92-4. That gives Obama a net overall gain of 5% over Kerry's performance in 2004. But George Bush won the state by 12% 4 years ago, so for Obama to be ahead in North Carolina by 6% he has to have swung North Carolina a full 18 points over how Kerry performed. So where does that 13 extra points come from?

White voters. While PPP projects the white vote in NC will decrease as a percentage of the overall electorate from 78% in 2004 to 76% this year, Obama is doing 16 points better among this demographic than Kerry did (McCain is winning white NC voters 56-38 vs. Bush's 67-33 win in 2004.) PPP calculates this 16 point increase equates to a 13 point overall net gain for Obama.

PPP sums it up:

That's a 13 point reduction of the deficit for the Democrat among white voters compared to 2004. So while Obama's 5% increase from black voters is important, 2/3rds of his improved standing can be attributed to shifts in voting preferences among whites in North Carolina at this point.

It will probably come as little surprise to you what PPP finds is the reason for Obama's surge among the white vote in the South:

-Economy, Economy, Economy. Among white voters in North Carolina who list it as their top issue Obama is actually up 48-46. In Florida Obama has the same 48-46 lead with whites most concerned about the economy. In Virginia it's a 49-46 advantage. Even as Obama continues to trail by a good amount with whites overall in these states, he's winning with them on the issue foremost on voters' minds this year. There's not much doubt the economy is the main factor causing whites who voted Republican for President in 2004 to go Democratic this year. That is the single biggest factor driving his lead in the polls across the country right now.

I highly recommend reading the entire report, which has charts and detailed explorations of all three states.

As we've documented, the right-wing noise machine is shamelessly using ACORN's work registering low-income voters as both a character attack on Obama, and as a means to justify acts of voter suppression in swing states.

But not only are the accusations a lie, they're flatly hypocritical coming from McCain.

Observe the Republican nominee back in March of 2006, attending an ACORN co-sponsored event that McCain himself headlined. He's sitting right next to Rep. Meek:

ACORN's Bertha Lewis on the photo (via Politico):

"We are sure that the extremists he is trying to get into a froth will be even more excited to learn that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN, at an ACORN co-sponsored event, to promote immigration reform."

So make no mistake: the right-wing efforts to demonize ACORN is pure political desperation. Don't let rumors of an indictment in Ohio fool you. It's bull.

Here are today's numbers:

Today's Battleground tracker (.pdf) shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by a 51 percent to 43 percent margin, not too far off from the four daily tracking polls above. In other polling released today or over the weekend, a Fox News poll (.pdf) of registered voters gives Obama a 46 percent to 39 percent lead, a Newsweek poll of registered voters puts Obama up 52 percent to 41 percent, and Washington Post-ABC News polling has Obama ahead 53 percent to 43 percent among likely voters.

Again, looking at individual surveys, there are some indications that the race is moving in one direction or another. However, when you throw all the data into one pot and try to digest as much information as possible, it sure looks like there hasn't been much movement in either direction in nearly two and a half weeks, with Obama holding firm at 50.25 percent, give or take a point, and McCain holding steady at 42.25-42.50 percent, give or take a half point. At some point, presumably, McCain will have to start making a move if he wants to get back in this race, no?

John McCain pushed the "reset button" on his campaign today with a speech designed to portray himself as a quintessentially American fighter who has Obama "right where we want him." The speech focuses more on McCain and is notable for what it lacks -- any overt character attack on Obama, just as Bill Kristol advises in his column this morning:

The bad news, of course, is that right now Obama's approval/disapproval rating is better than McCain's. Indeed, Obama's is a bit higher than it was a month ago. That suggests the failure of the McCain campaign's attacks on Obama.

So drop them. [...]

...for whatever reason -- the public mood, campaign ineptness, McCain's alternation between hesitancy and harshness, which reflects the fact that he's uncomfortable in the attack role -- the other attacks on Obama just aren't working. There's no reason to think they're suddenly going to.

Certainly McCain seemed to prime us for such a reversal with his dramatic upbraiding of supporters at his rallies on Friday; in the wake of those events, McCain's taking a more positive tone, one that focused more on building himself up rather than than tearing Obama down, might have seemed both politically wise AND genuine. Sometimes the smart thing and the right thing are the same. But alas, the John McCain who seemed regretful at the turn his own campaign had taken was nowhere to be found yesterday in an interview in which he appeared to be more vocal than he's ever been on the topic of Obama's association with Ayers, using Sean Hannity's talking points and calling Obama, essentially, a liar.

Watch it:

In his column, Kristol strongly suggests that McCain fire his entire campaign, but more and more it appears that the problem is more the candidate than those surrounding him. I mean, time and time again, when his own campaign zigs, John McCain zags. We may even need to come up with a new word other than "erratic" as he seems to have worn that one out.

Yesterday I noted that the McCain campaign appeared intent on selling out the Republican Party, or at least the party's efforts at stemming its losses in Congress. Now it looks like at least one GOP Congressman from a fairly Republican district -- R+9, according to the Cook Political Report, or about 9 points more Republican than the nation as a whole in presidential elections -- is returning the favor. Ben Smith has the story, fleshing out a graf from a New York Times report:

Nagourney and Bumiller mention in passing in tomorrow's Times that the Republican congressman representing Nebraska's second district, Lee Terry, has taken out ads to appeal to "Obama-Terry" voters. (The Obama campaign promptly sent the image over.)

I'm not sure if that's really a bellwether. I haven't seen a lot of other Republicans putting Obama next to their names, though that could change. And Terry has stuck by an early endorsement of McCain.

But that Nebraska district matters beyond any symbolic meaning. It's the Omaha district where Obama's hoping to steal an electoral vote. And the ad is a sign of the broader Democratic strength that runs up and down the ballot, and threatens to reinforce itself. Terry is favored, but faces a real challenge from from a Iraq vet serious candidate whose prospects are bolstered by Obama's turnout operation, which is presumably why Terry's aiming to pick up some of those Obama voters.

The reelection Lee Terry, the Republican Congressman at the center of this story, isn't a foregone conclusion -- Research 2000 polling for Daily Kos shows him leading his challenger, Jim Esch, by a 49 percent to 39 percent margin, and Cook rates his race as competitive, though leaning in the Republicans' direction -- though as mentioned above this his is a very Republican district. So the fact that Terry is running paid media trying to link himself to Barack Obama rather than John McCain is remarkable, if not stunning.

We're not talking about Gordon Smith here, running an uphill battle for reelection in a fairly blue state like Oregon, which has backed the Democrats in each of the last five presidential elections. It's not overwhelmingly surprising to see Smith run ads tying himself to Obama. But Terry? No Democrat has won his district in 16 years, and no Democrat has carried his state on the presidential level in 44 years. Yes, the Obama campaign and even the McCain campaign are making a play for the electoral vote associated with Terry's district, suggesting that it could go either way. Still, when a conservative Republican Congressman in a conservative Republican district of a conservative Republican state starts aligning himself with the Democratic presidential nominee, it's telling. And if it is at all an omen of what's to come, we may be on the verge of a major civil war within the GOP just three weeks from election day.

According to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, which overal shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by a 53 percent to 43 percent margin among likely voters, the McCain's tactic of trying to make Obama seem risky not only isn't working, it's apparently backfiring:

McCain's efforts to portray Obama as a risky choice do not appear to have worked, either. In fact, voters are likelier to describe the Republican candidate that way, and although 29 percent said they consider Obama a "very safe" choice for president, 18 percent said the same for McCain. Voters were evenly divided on the question of whether McCain is safe or risky; 55 percent said Obama is safe, while 45 percent described the Democrat as risky.

Take a look at the trend among registered voters for the two candidates, which says even more than the most recent data alone:

McCain

	10/08	9/08	6/08
Safe	50	51	57
Risky	50	48	41

Obama

	10/08	9/08	6/08
Safe	55	55	50
Risky	45	44	48

Four months ago, before McCain started to ramp up the all-mudslinging review that is his campaign, he led Obama in the safe/risky metric by a net 14 points (+16 to +2). Today, in the heat of McCain's negative efforts -- as well as the tanking of the Bush economy and Obama's two strong debate performances -- Obama has taken a net 10 point lead on the question (+10 to +0). So much for making Obama an unacceptable alternative to the voting public.