Still No Apology From McCain... Drudge?

Another not well thought out McCain campaign gimmick

So this is all that's left of the McCain campaign and the McCain legacy-- the blood libel against black men concerning the defilement of caucasian womanhood. Did someone in the McCain campaign put her up to this or did typical Republican trash nutcase Ashley Todd think this racist stunt up herself?



Matt Grimm of Red Smear brings up a good point:

SOMETIMES WHEN WE CALL YOU 'RACIST' IT'S BECAUSE YOU ARE

"If Barak [sic] loses his supporters will riot in the streets and kill many including white Obama supporters. If he wins we will see the turn of racism (what we tern reverse racism) and all races but black races will be treated as scum of the earth by the new socialist black majority. not only that we will see a collapse of the free market enterprise and the socialization of our Nation completed in the first 24 months of his presidency."

So sayeth some guy named Chet who posted this today over at Newbusters, the right-wing paranoiac site dedicated to proving that right-leaning mainstream media are left-leaning mainstream media. The post, as you can see, is in reference to the Ashley Todd story, the young Texan volunteer for the McCain campaign who claimed a big scary black man attacked her in Pittsburgh, mugged her, noticed the McCain sticker on her car, then went further to take a knife out and cut a B (for "Barack" according to several higher-up McCain campaign officials) on her cheek to teach her a lesson about being a pinched little white Republican. He happened to carve the B backward, as if in a mirror. The only problem was he didn't do any of that stuff because he didn't exist; she made it all up, which she has now admitted.

Of course, she admitted it after fear-fueled psychotics like Sean Hannity and the Fox News gang had raised holy hell out of it and after Sarah Palin and John McCain milked it for all it was worth publicity-wise. Sure, it turns out, the McCain campaign took the story and ran with it like a football, 
actively pimping it to its Republican mouthpiece media before most local news sources and cops even had a sense of what happened.
 
According to TPM, "John McCain's Pennsylvania communications director told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established -- and even told reporters outright that the 'B' carved into the victim's cheek stood for 'Barack,' according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions."

The Republican PR assets at Fox and on talk radio dutifully leveraged Ashley's fake story exactly as she and they had intended, as the spark that allowed them to rage about the fire they genuinely see coming, an America taken over by savage, amorphously different infidels. And this time there is no Little Colonel and his intrepid Klansmen to ride to the rescue, as they had in Birth of a Nation. Well, there are, and plenty of self-rationalizing little '38'-ers, it's just that most of us-- you know, the non-twelve percenters-- don't fucking like Klansmen and are getting ever more sick of self-righteous Michele Bachmanesque reactionary base they represent.



As appalling as anything about the whole incident is the fact that JOHN McCAIN, the presidential candidate of the Republican Party, phoned Ashley Todd to console her. What I would like to know of the McCain campaign is this: how many other mugging victims has the candidate taken time out of his busy schedule to place a personal call to? Three-to-seven? 50-75? Is there, like, a police-band radio on the StraightTalk Express by which they track muggings in major metros around the country?

Or did John McCain phone the girl whom he heard was the victim of some Rastus gettin' uppity? We fuckwell know that's why Hannity and Fox, et al., the mouthpieces of the lily-white fucking elite and their lily-white bible-thumping footsoldiers, jumped on the story, even though it never happened, because one Rastus gettin' uppity, whether as a presidential candidate or on a Pittsburgh street, portends a nationwide epidemic of "certain types" forgetting their place, enabled by those of us non-real-Americans here in the scary un-American cities where we sip scary non-American beverages, burn flags like tiki torches, teach our children science and compete to see who can be least American. 

Courtesy of Driftglass

Even some of the douchebags over at Newsbusters have admitted they fucked up, but, like Chet above, they're still qualifying their state of heightened wariness. It's justified, they say, because it could be true, and soon. That is, the wholesale fiction they just swallowed like a glory-hole load, spun by a racist Texan crazywoman they so desperately wanted to be their Ivory Girl martyr, just faithfully approximates the white-knuckled fearscape they tread every day of their sad fucking lives.

McCain Blames Bush For His Campaign's Collapse But Is He Being Honest With Himself?

Almost daily we're hearing how McCain "blames" Palin for his death march to political oblivion. I doubt it. Blaming Palin means buying in to what every serious McCain detractor from both sides of the aisle has been saying: McCain's poor judgment and cynicism-- for selecting her in the first place-- make him unfit for the presidency. So who does he blame for his sinking poll numbers and what is shaping up to be the biggest disaster for the Republican Party since the last time a senator from Arizona headed the national ticket? Bush, of course, his old nemesis.

Yesterday on the Double Talk Express, he granted an interview to a couple of friendly reporters from the Moonie Times. He "lashed out at a litany of Bush policies and issues that he said he would have handled differently as president," neglecting to mention he supported almost every single one of them in the Senate. Consistently refusing to take any responsibility for his own rejection by the voters, McCain "blasted President Bush for building a mountain of debt for future generations, failing to pay for expanding Medicare and abusing executive powers, leveling his strongest criticism to date of an administration whose unpopularity may be dragging the Republican Party to the brink of a massive electoral defeat." None of the crowing about how he voted for 90% of Bush's agenda.



No, McCain wasn't talking about how he turned himself into a virtual rubber stamp for Bush-Cheney, especially in the most recent years, when he racked up a disgraceful and shockingly extremist voting record to the right of lunatic fringe senators like Larry Craig (R-ID), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). The handful of senators to the right of McCain are the bizarre extremists and neo-Confederate obstructionists like David Vitter (R-LA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Miss McConnell (R-KY), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), John Cornyn (R-TX), James Inhofe (R-OK)... mostly the worst trash in Congress several of whom are in jeopardy of losing their seats in two weeks. Instead, it was all Bush's fault.

"Spending, the conduct of the war in Iraq for years, growth in the size of government, larger than any time since the Great Society, laying a $10 trillion debt on future generations of America, owing $500 billion to China, obviously, failure to both enforce and modernize the [financial] regulatory agencies that were designed for the 1930s and certainly not for the 21st century, failure to address the issue of climate change seriously."

Were the lobbyists who run the campaign not certain that the Moonies would let it all pass without reminding the brittle and nasty senator that he voted for every one of these things he's now blaming on his political demise, they would never have been granted the interview. He also took the opportunity to blame the GOP in general for his woes and to lash out on the one person in America who is even less liked than Bush: Cheney. "I don't agree with Dick Cheney's allegation that he's part of both the legislative and the executive branch." (Perhaps he should explain that to ignorant and unqualified his running mate.)

"I think, frankly, the problem was, with a Republican Congress, that the president was told by the speaker and majority leaders and others, 'Don't veto these bills, we need this pork, we need this excess spending, we need to grow these bureaucracies.' They all sponsor certain ones. And he didn't do what Ronald Reagan used to and say, 'No'; say, 'No. We're not going to do this.'"

Presumably he had a little memory thing about what he's been doing for the last few decades. Most voters, on the other hand, know full well that the problems caused by the corporately-dominated Republican Congress can all be blamed on McCain as easily as on Bush and any other Republican in Congress. And this morning's CongressDaily has some of the worst news about voter retribution for Republicans so far. Even Inside the Beltway, an awareness is building that a political tsunami is headed right towards the Capitol. Looking two and a half weeks into the future, one Republican strategist declared flatly that "It's going to be a bad night." How bad?

Republicans are desperately trying to cling to red districts where Republican incumbents are resigning but almost every single one of them is trending towards Democratic challengers. Worse yet, Republican incumbents trying to stay in Congress-- a toxic mixture of extremists and rubber stamps like Marilyn Musgrave, Ric Keller, Robin Hayes, Sam Graves, Tim Walberg, Steve Chabot, the Diaz-Balart Brothers, Joe Knollenberg, Dave Reichert, Randy Kuhl, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mean Jean Schmidt, Dana Rohrabacher, Michele Bachmann-- are polling poorly and sinking rapidly.

"It's hard to change the dynamic of a race in the last 14 days," said one Republican strategist, who criticized the NRCC for not moving earlier to funnel more money to less expensive media markets where Republican incumbents are in unexpectedly difficult races. "It's just baffling the way they're spending this," the strategist said last week.

As evidence of the souring GOP fortunes, The Cook Political Report recently changed ratings for 25 districts, all indicating Democratic momentum. Republicans have suffered a toxic combination of a financial market meltdown, a referendum on the unpopular Bush, anemic fundraising and an increasing number of candidates enduring self-inflicted wounds.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee plans to spend $1 million against Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who said on MSNBC's "Hardball" late last week that the Democratic presidential candidate, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, "may have anti-American views" and suggested that "the news media should do a penetrating exposé" to determine whether some members of Congress are "anti-America."

The Cook Political Report changed Bachmann's race from leaning in her favor to being a toss-up and now rates six Democratic seats and 25 Republican seats in the toss-up category. Cook now projects Democrats will gain 20 to 25 seats in the House.

Cook is the most notorious lagging indicator of all the out-of-touch Inside-the-Beltway prognosticators. If they're saying the Democrats will gain 20-25 seats, it means that with a strong effort the DCCC could confidently expect over 30, possibly 40 seats. As of September 30 the NRCC had $17.4 million in the bank to the DCCC's $41.3 million. If the DCCC doesn't waste it chasing nominal Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- as Emanuel did in 2006 and is demanding they do again-- they will win close races for real Democrats who will support Obama's agenda for change, instead of supporting GOP-Blue Dog agenda for obstruction (of which Emanuel is expected to be an integral component).

I was glad to read in today's Miami Herald that instead of wasting her time and energy trying to save Republican-in-Democrat's-clothing Tim Mahoney from certain defeat, Nancy Pelosi is working to elect progressives Annette Taddeo, Alan Grayson and Joe Garcia and some moderates.

Congressional Republicans are blaming McCain for their impending doom and McCain is blaming congressional Republicans. It's funny because there is no difference between any of them. And appalled Republicans from across the country are experiencing unparalleled waves of disgust for McCain, Palin and the whole party. Just this morning Arne Carlson a much-respected former governor of Minnesota-- and a lifelong Republican and a real maverick-- endorsed Obama.

Carlson said Thursday that the Illinois senator's stances on the Iraq war, the economy and green energy goals won him over. Carlson, who served from 1991 to 1998, also cited recent comments by GOP Congresswoman Michele Bachmann questioning whether politicians have "pro-America or anti-America views."

"Regardless of our party, regardless of our partisan inclinations, there is no interest more compelling than the interest in the well-being of the United States," Carlson said at a gathering of Obama supporters at the state Capitol.

And, of course, it isn't just the rantings and ravings of far right lunatic extremists Michele Bachmann and Robin Hayes who are turning independents and moderate Republicans off. All across the country right-wing extremists and bigots are being forced to step down from the McCain campaign and from the Republican Party apparatus for... well, for basically following Palin crackpot themes, but just going a step or two over the line. One maniac GOP leader in California's Inland Empire, Diane Fedele, was forced to resign today after the viciously racist campaign she was leading against Obama was exposed to the public.

Earlier this week, Barbara Lorman, the first woman ever elected to the Wisconsin state Senate and another lifelong Republican, said that McCain's negative campaign had so disgusted her that she has decided to vote for Obama. No, she isn't eshewing McCain because of George Bush; she's endorsing Obama because he is clearly a better candidate and because McCain is running a disgraceful and dishonest campaign. Like all serious-minded Republicans, she is also horrified at the prospect of Sarah Palin becoming president. "I certainly would not put my trust in Sarah Palin. She is a terrible choice because she is not qualified, and the vice president is a heartbeat away. She may be a fast learner, but that is not enough to be president of the United States."

McCain Campaign Collapsing-- What Will Be Tomorrow's Hail Mary Pass?

McCain is getting desperate as polls show state after state slipping from his grasp. How soon before Utah is a battleground state? A friend of mine in Phoenix told me that if Obama decided to challenge him in Arizona he could probably win there too. McCain's biggest ally in the Arizona congressional delegation, the corrupt and contemptible rubber stamp John Shadegg, just saw his own race downgraded, as Democrat Bob Lord beat him in two consecutive televised debates.

The conventional battleground states are all rejecting McCain's unsteady hand, his extremism, his erratic approach to problems and, most of all, the cynicism and bad judgment he used in picking Sarah Palin. The latest from Quinnipiac:

Colorado: Obama 52%, McCain 43%

Michigan: Obama 54%, McCain 38%

Minnesota: Obama 51%, McCain 40%

Wisconsin: Obama 54%, McCain 37%

McCain is under intense pressure to DO SOMETHING. In each of those states-- and all over the country-- the hopes and dreams and careers of Republican politicians are circling the bowl. McCain is dragging down his whole party with him. They are hysterical. And the "brains" behind his operation, Steve Schmidt, a far right extremist who fancied himself "the new Rove," sees his own career ending. So what McCain do? If nothing else, John McCain is erratic. He can say or try anything tomorrow. Obama has as much as challenged him to say to his face what he says behind his back.

His campaign veers back and forth in a way obviously not under any kind of control. One day they decide to run on Bill Ayers and making the connection between Obama's name and Osama's name and the next day they pull back and decide to dish out another hodge podge of poorly thought out economic gimmicks. And while McCain is trying to pull the campaign out of the gutter one day, the next day he's encouraging the base in their bigotry and stoking their fears and their hatred. And Palin... she doesn't seem to even understand what's going on and her role in it. When someone asked her about the descent into dangerous territory her breezy, uncomprehending attitude was frightening: "It's not negativity; it's truthfulness." Watch

McCain's Mortgage Plan: Another Desperate, Dangerous Gimmick

Other than one by the United Lobbyists' Collective of K Street, every poll, survey and focus group showed that Obama handily beat McCain in the debate on Tuesday. The only other "news" from that event was that McCain, desperately groping for a "game-changer," threw out a proposal for the federal government to buy every badly performing mortgage from the banks. While his far right extremist base screamed bloody murder, mainstream Americans scratched their collective heads and asked what the hell is McCain talking about.

This morning the editors of Republican Party propaganda tabloid, National Review, echoed what their columnists have been writing all week, that McCain's proposal is unacceptable to conservatives. They prefer the bill written by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, because under their bill the borrower must live in his house (i.e., no investment properties); the borrower must show that he has been spending at least a third of his income on mortgage payments since March of this year; and the borrower must also show that he can afford to make lower payments if his lender agrees to a write-down. They estimate that these rules narrow the mortgages covered to 400,000 and "excludes people who borrowed to buy investment properties in order to flip them for a profit... excludes people who are hopelessly in over their heads and simply cannot afford the homes they’re in and... excludes people who could afford to pay their mortgages if they wanted to but have instead decided to mail the keys to the bank rather than continue making payments on a house that is worth less today than when they bought it."

We never thought we would defend the Frank-Dodd legislation, which we bitterly opposed last summer. But it looks downright prudent compared to what McCain has proposed. McCain’s plan is a full bailout for lenders, and it cannot do much more than the Frank-Dodd bill without letting “ruthless borrowers” and other reckless types off the hook. It is time to acknowledge that the government has gone as far as it can without creating a level of moral hazard that is unacceptable. Give Frank-Dodd-- and the Paulson plan-- time to work.

And that's from McCain's base! Economists and editorial boards around the country looked at it and decided it was just another McCain Hail Mary pass or cynical gimmick, like picking Sarah Palin, like making believe he was suspending his campaign to "rush" to Washington and save the day, like shortening the Republican Convention by making believe he was needed in New Orleans, etc. Robert Farley looked it over for the St Petersburg Times and explained why people are calling it "a desperate campaign stunt by a candidate who's popularity in polls is dropping largely due to people concerned about the economy. The plan is likely to be a tough sell to McCain's conservative base, many of whom are uncomfortable with the whole bailout plan to begin with. "It creates a big moral hazard," said Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "If I thought McCain was going to be elected, I'd stop paying my mortgage now and stick my nose in the trough."

The Concord Monitor points out that McCain is once again helping all his campaign contributors but not American taxpayers: "McCain's plan would bail out homeowners who can't meet their payments and foundering lenders, who bet that home values would continue inflating forever. But it would saddle taxpayers, many of whom struggle to pay their own bills, with an enormous burden."

Even McCain's cronies on the editorial board of the aggressively reactionary Wall Street Journal say there's no upside for taxpayers in his proposal: "McCain's obvious political intention is to show struggling homeowners that he cares. Perhaps the best argument for the McCain idea is that it is likely to be far less expensive than the Second New Deal that Barack Obama is likely to propose on January 20 if he wins. But Mr. McCain's plan to transform Treasury into a major mortgage lender, and running the operation at a potential $300 billion loss, raises more questions than it answers... And unlike the Paulson plan, the McCain proposal appears to offer no upside for taxpayers. They take all the losses up front and don't participate in any rebound in house prices, so borrowers who overextended and lenders who made reckless loans are made whole, and taxpayers get the bill."

Even more discerning analysis comes from Paul Krugman who pointed out that "McCain's bailout plan manages to take everything that's wrong with the Paulson plan and make it worse" and CNNMoney.com has an analysis that McCain's crooked lobbyist cadre isn't going to embrace:

McCain Mortgage Plan Shifts Costs To Taxpayers: Under McCain's newly announced plan, the government would take the hit for writing down mortgage balances for at risk borrowers: Under a mortgage rescue plan announced at the debate Tuesday night by Senator John McCain, much of the burden of paying to keep troubled borrowers in their homes will shift to taxpayers… "[McCain's] original plan relied on lenders taking the hit," said Holtz-Eakin. "This bypasses that step." Instead, taxpayers pay for it, with the funding already provided by the $700 billion bailout bill. That could prove to be very unpopular with homeowners who aren't in trouble, as well as ordinary Americans who objected to the Hope for Homeowners plan as a bailout for delinquent borrowers and irresponsible lenders. Christopher Mayer, Paul Milstein Professor of Real Estate at Columbia Business School, isn't convinced that the McCain proposal makes sense. "As the plan stands now, it helps the people who got into the most debt, and it helps the lenders, but it doesn't really help the housing market," he said.

The NY Daily News says it's a giveaway to the banks: "Out of the blue, McCain has just proposed a large, no-strings-attached gift of taxpayer cash to bank executives who failed at their business of risk management, and to bank shareholders who failed at their business of hiring executives. That's simply corrupt." And Victoria McGrane at Politico sums up the mood of everyone who's read it: half-baked. A careful examination was done by the Obama campaign's Economic Policy Director, Jason Furman in you want to really get down into the weeds with this thing which is probably very much DOA.

McCain: "Healthcare? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Healthcare"

Obama goes into tomorrow's debate with McCain, way ahead in the polling-- both nationally and electoral-vote wise-- and with the media willing to discuss the lies and negativity McCain's camp has been getting away with. Even the NY Daily News, referring to the candidate they are likely to endorse as "McNasty," exposed a McCain campaign staffer who told them why the campaign has descended into the gutter: "It's a dangerous road, but we have no choice. If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."

And that was best illustrated today when McCain's devastating health care cuts came out in the Wall Street Journal. It's probably the nail in his political coffin. McCain would pay for his already completely inadequate and outmoded health plan with gigantic reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, cuts that will amount to something like $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

At a time when Americans are craving modern health care insurance similar to the rest of the industrialized world, McCain is basically saying he's all for bailing out his pals on Wall Street but that we can't afford healthcare for our seniors and our working families.

The Republican presidential nominee has said little about the proposed cuts, but they are needed to keep his health-care plan "budget neutral," as he has promised. The McCain campaign hasn't given a specific figure for the cuts, but didn't dispute the analysts' estimate.

In the months since Sen. McCain introduced his health plan, statements made by his campaign have implied that the new tax credits he is proposing to help Americans buy health insurance would be paid for with other tax increases.

But Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain's senior policy adviser, said Sunday that the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid. Those government health-care programs serve seniors, poor families and the disabled. Medicare spending for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30 is estimated at $457.5 billion.

While McCain is hiding behind Holtz-Eakin's deceptive explanations of his plans to actually make Bush's era even worse for average families and behind his lipsticked pitbull's wild gutter attacks on Obama, the Democratic nominee laid out his entire health care plan from top to bottom over the weekend-- and in plain English.

This morning I was talking with L.A.'s most respected and knowledgeable radio talk show host, Johnny Wendell, and he had an interesting perspective on what is being viewed as yet another serious McCain stumble. "As the Dow tumbles to a four figure fumble and McCain embraces a trillion plus in Medicare cuts that would reduce senior health care to the level of over 60's scrounging for dog food in 1932, there is panic in the halls of the hallowed church of Die Partei Republikkkanische-- if William Ayers were a brigade of Weathermen and Jerry Wright a battalion of Black Panthers, it would matter naught-- the salvos from "Wasilla Spice" and her senescent servant may as well be in Sanskrit for all the effect they'll have on 11/4."

McCain Unleashes The Republican Smear Machine-- Obama Talks Health Care For Working Families

The media strategist responsible for Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, Mark McCinnon, isn't exactly shy about negative advertising. And his media campaign for Bush is fondly remembered by Republican partisans as one of the dirtiest, most shameful and nastiest anyone had ever seen. Needless to say, McCain hired him immediately. But after working with McCain for a while-- and after taking a look at the game plan of personal destruction McCain had mapped out for Obama-- McClinton warned that he would resign if Obama was the candidate. And in May, when Obama won the nomination, McKinnon did quit. Mark McKinnon knew that McCain, the sleaziest man to ever run for the presidency, had every intention of running a perverted and racist campaign against Obama and the details started leaking out last spring.

The end will be McCain's claims-- through his arm's length surrogates and the lower end of the GOP media chain (the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Coulters... that kind of garbage-- that Obama is the antichrist. Today's Washington Post reported that McCain's Operation 24/7 Smear, Smear, Smear is going into effect now. Meanwhile, though, he has that wretched piece of pathetic white trash from Alaska shoveling the shit.

The issues that Americans face are all stacked against McCain and his decades of voting wrong on everything has led to dismal poll results that just keep getting worse and worse by the day. Nothing is working out for him and he's falling back on the one thing he knows he can count on: I'M WHITE-- DON'T VOTE FOR THE NIGGER. That, and Sarah Palin, will be John McCain's political legacy.

With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain's team has decided that its emphasis on the senator's biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan's campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.

"We're going to get a little tougher," a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. "We've got to question this guy's associations. Very soon. There's no question that we have to change the subject here," said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Associations? Like this one?



Sometimes I wish Obama would hit back when McCain and his surrogates and the GOP-owned media lets loose with their smears and lies. But the voters seem to appreciate Obama's calm, solid, decisive campaign and his commitment to sticking with the real issues-- you know, the ones Americans care about and McCain runs from. Today one of Obama's spokespersons addressed McCain's threat to drag the campaign into the gutter:

"On a day after we learned that America lost three-quarters of a million jobs this year and a week after our financial system teetered on the brink of collapse, John McCain and his campaign have announced that they want to 'turn the page' on the economic crisis facing working families and spend the last month of this election launching dishonest, dishonorable character attacks against Barack Obama. We understand that it's not easy for John McCain to defend the worst economic record of our lifetime, but he will have to explain to the people struggling to pay their bills and stay in their homes why he would rather spend his time tearing down Barack Obama than laying out a plan to build up our economy."

So today when McCain's brother Joe (along with rubber stamp Republican Congressman Frank Wolf were rushing around Virginia, accusing people in Arlington and Alexandria of being communists, presumably because polls there show that they have turned away from McCain's reactionary campaign of hatred, bigotry and failure, Obama was talking about the issues that are important to Americans, like health care:

With just a month to go until election day, I know you've all been hearing a lot about politics out here in Virginia. I know you've been seeing a lot of ads, and getting a lot of calls, and reading a lot about this election in the newspaper. But being here today to talk with you about health care-- this isn't about politics for me. This is personal. 
 
I'm thinking today about my mother. She died of ovarian cancer at the age of 53. She fought valiantly, and endured the pain and chemotherapy with grace and good humor. But I'll never forget how she spent the final months of her life. At a time when she should have been focused on getting well, at a time when she should have been taking stock of her life and taking comfort in her family, she was lying in a hospital bed, fighting with her insurance company because they didn't want to cover her treatment. They claimed that her cancer was a pre-existing condition. 
 
So I know something about the heartbreak caused by our health care system. 
 
I know something about the anxiety of families hanging on by a thread as premiums have doubled these past eight years, and they're going into debt, and more than half-– half-- of all personal bankruptcies are caused in part by medical bills. 
 
I know about the frustration of the nearly 40% of small business owners who can no longer afford to insure their employees-- folks who work day and night, but have to lay people off, or shut their doors for good, because of rising health care costs.
 
I know the outrage we all feel about the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance-- kids who can't see a doctor when they're sick; parents cutting their pills in half and praying for the best; folks who wind up in the emergency room in the middle of the night because they've got nowhere else to turn. 
 
But I also know that this is not who we are.  
 
We are not a country where a young woman I met should have to work the night shift after a full day of college and still not be able to pay the medical bills for her sister who's ill. That's not right-- and it's not who we are.
 
We are not a country where a man I met should have to file for bankruptcy after he had a stroke, because he faced nearly $200,000 in medical costs that he couldn't afford and his insurance company didn't cover. That's not right-- and it's not who we are. 
 
We are not a country that rewards hard work and perseverance with debt and worry. We've never been a country that lets major challenges go unsolved and unaddressed. And we are tired of watching as year after year, candidates offer up detailed health care plans with great fanfare and promise, only to see them crushed under the weight of Washington politics and drug and insurance lobbying once the campaign is over. 
 
That is not who we are. And that is not who we have to be. 
 
We know change is possible. We've seen it across this country as governors and legislatures move ahead of Washington to pass bold health care initiatives on their own. We see people across the spectrum-- doctors and patients, unions and businesses, Democrats and Republicans-- coming together around this issue, because at a time when rising costs have put too many families and businesses on a collision course with financial ruin and left too many without coverage at all, they know that bandaids and half-measures just won't do. 
 
Now I know that at this moment, when we stand in the midst of a serious economic crisis, some might ask how we can afford to focus on health care. Well, let's be clear: the rescue package we just passed in Congress isn't the end of what we need to do to fix our economy-- it's just the beginning.  Because the fundamentals of our economy are still not strong-- contrary to what Senator McCain says. And we've got to address those fundamentals-- and address them right now. 
 
In other words, the question isn't how we can afford to focus on health care-- but how we can afford not to. Because in order to fix our economic crisis, and rebuild our middle class, we need to fix our health care system too. Let's not forget, it's not just small businesses and families who are struggling. Some of the largest corporations in America-- including major American auto manufacturers-- are struggling to compete in the global marketplace because of high health care costs. They're watching their foreign competitors prosper-- unburdened by these costs-- as they struggle to create the good jobs we need to get our economy back on track. 
 
So it's clear that the time has come-- right now-- to solve this problem: to cut health care costs for families and businesses, and provide affordable, accessible health insurance for every American. 
 
And you'd think that anyone running for president would understand this. You'd think any candidate for the highest office in the land would have a plan to achieve these critically important goals. Well, if you think that, you haven't met my opponent, Senator John McCain.
 
Now, it's not that he doesn't care about what people are going through. I just think he doesn't know.  That's the only reason I can think of that he'd propose a health care plan that is so radical, so out of touch with what you're facing, and so out of line with our basic values.
 
Senator McCain has been eager to share some details of his plan-- but not all.
 
He tells you that he'll give you a tax credit of $2,500 per person-- $5,000 per family-- to help you pay for your insurance and health care costs. But like those ads for prescription drugs, you have to read the fine print to learn the rest of the story. 
 
You see, Senator McCain would pay for his plan, in part, by taxing your health care benefits for the first time in history. And this tax would come out of your paycheck. But the new tax credit he's proposing? That wouldn't go to you. It would go directly to your insurance company-- not your bank account. 
 
So when you read the fine print, it's clear that John McCain is pulling an old Washington bait and switch. It's a shell game. He gives you a tax credit with one hand-- but raises your taxes with the other. And recently, after some forceful questioning on TV, he finally admitted that for some Americans-- those with the very best plans-- his tax increase will be higher than his tax credit, and they'll come out behind. 
 
John McCain calls these plans "Cadillac plans." In some cases, it may be that a corporate CEO is getting too good a deal. But what if you're a line worker making a good American car like Cadillac who's given up wage increases in exchange for better health care? Well, Senator McCain believes you should pay higher taxes too. The bottom line: the better your health care plan-- the harder you've fought for good benefits--the higher the taxes you'll pay under John McCain's plan. 
 
And here's something else Senator McCain won't tell you. When he taxes people's benefits, many younger, healthier workers will decide that it's a better deal to opt out of the insurance they get at work-- and instead, go out into the individual market, where they can buy a cheaper plan. Many employers will be left with an older, sicker pool of workers who they can't afford to cover. As a result, many employers will drop their health care plans altogether. And study after study has shown, that under the McCain plan, at least 20 million Americans will lose the insurance they rely on from their workplace. 
 
It's the same approach George W. Bush floated a few years ago. It was dead on arrival in Congress.  But if Senator McCain were to succeed where George Bush failed, it very well could be the beginning of the end of our employer-based health care system. In fact, some experts have said that that's exactly the point of John McCain's plan-- to drive you out of the insurance you have through your employer-- and out into the marketplace, where your family will be given that $5,000 tax credit and told to buy insurance on your own. 
 
A $5,000 tax credit. That sounds pretty good. But what Senator McCain doesn't tell you is that the average cost of a family health care plan these days is more than twice that much-- $12,680. So where would that leave you?  
 
Senator McCain also doesn't tell you that insurance in the individual market isn't just more expensive than insurance you get through work-- it also includes fewer benefits. For example, many of these plans don't cover prescription drugs or pre-natal care. Many don't cover giving birth, so you'd have to pay out of pocket for that-- roughly $6,000. So when you're out there fending for yourself against the insurance companies, you pay more and get less. 
 
Here's another thing Senator McCain doesn't tell you-- his plan won't do a thing to stop insurance companies from discriminating against you if you have a pre-existing condition like hypertension, asthma, diabetes or cancer… the kind of conditions that 65 million working age Americans suffer from-- people from all backgrounds and walks of life all across this country. Employers don't charge you higher premiums for these conditions, but insurers do-- much higher. So the sicker you've been, the more you'll have to pay, and the harder it'll be to get the care you need. 
 
Finally, what John McCain doesn't tell you is that his plan calls for massive deregulation of the insurance industry that would leave families without the basic protections you rely on. You may have heard about how, in the current issue of a magazine, Senator McCain wrote that we need to open up health care to-- and I quote-- "more vigorous nationwide competition as we have done over the last decade in banking." That's right, he wants to deregulate the insurance industry just like he fought to deregulate the banking industry. And we've all seen how well that worked out.
 
It would be equally catastrophic for your health care. Right now, different states have different rules about what insurance companies have to cover. Senator McCain's plan would create a deregulated national market where companies can cherry pick the state where they're based-- and sell plans anywhere in America. 
 
It's the starting gun for a race to the bottom. Insurance companies will rush to set up shop in states with the fewest protections for patients. States where they don't have to cover things like mammograms and other cancer screenings, vaccinations, maternity care, and mental health care.  States where you don't have a right to appeal when your HMO refuses to cover the treatment you need. These are commonsense protections to make sure that you and your doctor-- not insurance company bureaucrats-- are making decisions about your health. And John McCain wants to give insurance companies free reign to avoid them. 
 
And believe it or not, just to top it all off, Senator McCain plans to give the top ten largest insurance companies $2 billion in new tax cuts. 
 
So, anyone want to guess who's running and funding John McCain's campaign? I'll give you a hint. Remember when we tried to fix health care back in the 1990s, and the insurance companies spent millions running misleading ads to scare people into opposing reform? That's right, John McCain has lobbyists for 69 insurance and drug companies and trade groups advising his campaign, writing his policies, and raising his money. Three of them are his top advisors. 
 
And if you think that Washington lobbyists who are working day and night to elect him are doing it to put themselves out of business, well, I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.
 
So here's John McCain's radical plan in a nutshell: he taxes health care benefits for the first time in history; millions lose the health care they have; millions pay more for the health care they get; drug and insurance companies continue to profit; and middle class families watch the system they rely on begin to unravel before their eyes. Well, I don't think that's right. I don't think we should settle for health care that works better for drug and insurance companies than it does for hard working Americans. I don't think that's the change we need. We can do better than that.
 
In the end, it's not surprising that Senator McCain's plan isn't a vast improvement on the same failed policies of these past eight years.Remember, Senator McCain voted against expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program-- a program that provides health care for millions of children in need. He voted against protecting Medicare 40 times over the course of his career. And he supported a massive cut in Medicare that would have raised premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for seniors while weakening the care they depend on.
 
In other words, Senator McCain's plan reflects the same bankrupt philosophy he's subscribed to for the past three decades in Washington: take care of the healthy and wealthy, and good luck to everyone else. They call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is-- you're on your own. Your job doesn't give you health care? The market will fix it. Pre-existing condition? Tough luck. Insurance company won't pay for your treatment? Too bad, you're on your own.
 
This approach hasn't worked these past eight years, it won't work now, and it's time to turn the page.
 
Let me be clear – I don't think government can solve all our problems. But I reject the radical idea that government has no role to play in protecting ordinary Americans. I reject the thinking that says preserving our free market means letting corporations and special interests do as they please. 
 
I know that nothing is more important than the health and well-being of the people you love. And if you work hard and do everything right, you shouldn't live in fear of losing everything because of a fluke of genetics, or a bad diagnosis, or a stroke of bad luck.
 
That's why I believe that every single American has the right to affordable, accessible health care-- a right that should never be subject to Washington politics or industry profiteering, and that should never be purchased with tax increases on middle class families, because that is the last thing we need in an economy like this.
 
I know we can do this. I know what we can accomplish when we come together. I saw it in Illinois, when as a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation that has expanded coverage to more than 150,000 people, including 70,000 children. I helped expand coverage for routine mammograms for women on Medicaid. And we created hospital report cards, so that every consumer could see things like the ratio of nurses to patients, the number of annual medical errors, and the quality of care they could expect at each hospital. 
 
So I reject the tired old debate that says we have to choose between two extremes: government-run health care with higher taxes… or insurance companies without rules denying people coverage.  That's a false choice. It's the same distracting rhetoric that's kept us gridlocked for decades. And we know that neither of these approaches is the answer to this problem. 
 
The real solution is to take on drug and insurance companies; modernize our health care system for the twenty-first century; reduce costs for families and businesses; and finally provide affordable, accessible health care for every American. And that's what I intend to do as President of the United States.
 
Of course, it's easy to have good ideas and make big promises. You've all heard plenty of that these past 20 months. The hard part is coming up with a concrete, detailed plan, and translating that plan into action. So today, I want to take a few minutes to tell you exactly what I plan to do, how I'll get it done, and how I'm going to pay for it. 
 
We'll start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family-- and we'll do it by taking the following five steps to lower costs throughout our health care system.  
           
First, we'll take on the drug and insurance companies and hold them accountable for the prices they charge and the harm they cause. 
 
We'll start by increasing competition in the insurance industry, and outlawing insurance company discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies spend $50 billion a year on elaborate efforts to cherry pick the healthiest patients and avoid covering everyone else. I intend to save them a whole lot of time and money by putting an end to this practice once and for all. 
 
And we'll tell the pharmaceutical companies, thanks, but no thanks for the overpriced drugs – drugs that cost twice as much here as they do in Europe and Canada. We'll let Medicare negotiate for lower-prices; we'll stop drug companies from blocking generic drugs that are just as effective, and far less expensive; and we'll allow the safe re-importation of low-cost drugs from countries like Canada.
 
Second, we'll focus on prevention-- on promoting wellness rather than just managing sickness.  Today, we spend less than four cents of every health care dollar on prevention and public health, even though 80 percent of risk factors involved in the leading causes of death are behavior-related-- and thus, preventable. Under my plan, we'll make sure insurance companies cover evidence-based, preventive care services-- weight loss programs, smoking-cessation programs, and other efforts to help people avoid costly, debilitating health problems in the first place.
 
Third, we'll reduce waste and inefficiency by moving from a 20th century health care system based on pen and paper to a 21st century system based on the latest technology. According to one study, just by transferring medical records from yellowing pages in file cabinets to electronic records in computers, we can save $77 billion a year. And we can save lives too by reducing deadly medical errors and ensuring that doctors and nurses spend less time with paperwork and more time with patients.
 
Fourth, we'll reduce the cost of our care by improving the quality of our care. It's estimated that poor quality care-- from medical errors that cause complications to poor hygiene practices that cause infections-- costs up to $100 billion a year. So we'll provide you with information about your hospitals' and providers' quality of care. We'll track which drugs and procedures work best. And we'll reward providers not just for the quantity of services they provide, but for the quality of outcomes for their patients. So you'll get better care, and we'll all save money in the long run.
 
Fifth, we'll reduce costs for businesses and their workers by picking up the tab for some of the most expensive illnesses. Right now, the five percent of patients with the most serious illnesses like cancer and heart disease account for nearly fifty percent of health care costs. Insurance companies devote the lion's share of their expenses to these patients, and then pass the cost on to the rest of us in the form of higher premiums. Under my plan, the federal government will pay for part of these catastrophic cases, which means that your premiums will go down.
 
So that's how we'll cut costs. But that's not enough. Because today, in the year 2008, 45 million Americans still don't have any health insurance at all. This is one of the great moral crises of our time. And it's creating a vicious cycle that affects every last one of us. As premiums rise, more people become uninsured. And every time those uninsured folks walk into an emergency room because it's their only option, insurance companies raise premiums to cover the cost-- a hidden tax of $922 per family. That extra cost means even more people can't afford insurance, so the problem just gets worse. We cannot go on like this. This is not who we are, and this is not who we have to be. 
 
That's why my plan will cover all Americans. And unlike Senator McCain, I'll do it by building on and strengthening-- rather than dismantling-- our current, workplace-based system. So if you have insurance you like, you keep that insurance. If you have a doctor you like, you keep that doctor. The only thing that changes for you is that your health care costs will go down. 
 
But if you don't have insurance, or don't like your insurance, you'll be able to choose from the same type of quality private plans as every federal employee-- from a postal worker here in Colorado to a Congressman in Washington. All of these plans will cover essential medical services including prevention, maternity, disease management and mental health care. No one will be turned away because of a pre-existing condition or illness. If you have children, they will be covered too. If you change jobs, this insurance will go with you. And if you can't afford this insurance, you'll receive a tax credit to help pay for it.   
 
...I know that if we come together, and work together, we can do this.  So many people are counting on us.

McCain's response? More vicious smears and lies. The Post: "Moments after the House of Representatives approved a bailout package for Wall Street on Friday afternoon, the McCain campaign released a television ad that challenges Obama's honesty and asks, 'Who is Barack Obama?' The ad alleges that 'Senator Obama voted 94 times for higher taxes. Ninety-four times. He's not truthful on taxes.' The charge that Obama voted 94 times for higher taxes has been called misleading by independent fact-checkers, who have noted that the majority of those votes were on nonbinding budget resolutions."

A senior campaign official called the ad "just the beginning" of commercials that will "strike the new tone" in the campaign's final days. The official said the "aggressive tone" will center on the question of "whether this guy is ready to be president."

McCain's only positive commercial, called "Original Mavericks," has largely been taken off the air, according to Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's performance at Thursday night's debate embodied the new approach, as she used every opportunity to question Obama's honesty and fitness to serve as president. At one point she said, "Barack Obama voted against funding troops [in Iraq] after promising that he would not do so."

Palin kept up the attack yesterday, saying in an interview on Fox News that Obama is "reckless" and that some of what he has said, "in my world, disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief."

McCain hinted Thursday that a change is imminent, perhaps as soon as next week's debate. Asked at a Colorado town hall, "When are you going to take the gloves off?" the candidate grinned and replied, "How about Tuesday night?"

Today, the editors of the NY Times fretted that Palin's idea of a role model is Dick Cheney but they should have thought of what kind of a man-- and what kind of a voting record and what kind of character and what kind of judgment he had-- before they endorsed him earlier this year. For the last two weeks, all the Blue America candidates have been telling me their Republican incumbents are turning even more nasty and negative than usual. It isn't just McCain. His whole party would rather wreck the country than give up power. McCain may be the worst, but James Inhofe's vile campaign of lies against state Senator Andrew Rice has been pretty putrid. Rice has tried to stick to the issues and let Inhofe play in the mud by himself. Today Rice answered him back-- and very effectively: