Corn has broken stories on presidents, politicians, and other Washington players. He's written for numerous publications and is a talk show regular. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.
At least, that's what the Obama campaign strategists seem to believe. This morning, the campaign sent out a schedule of Obama's remaining campaign stops. After Obama finishes visiting with his ill grandmother in Hawaii on Friday, he will return to the trail. First up, there are stops in Nevada. Next he will head to New Mexico. Then his final campaign stops will occur in Colorado.
Notice, there's nothing on schedule (as of yet) for Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida, the traditional deciders. Instead, Obama is working hard the new swing states, especially Colorado.
Meanwhile, the McCain campaign's attitude toward Colorado is, eh, erratic. The campaign pulled its money out of the state. But after doing that, it decided to send McCain to campaign rallies there. And Sarah Palin has recently campaigned in the state. So what does that mean? Do the McCain strategists believe he can win that state by turning out the base with personal appearances rather than by courting swing voters with expensive teleivsion ads? It's a theory.
In a historic moment, former Fed chair Alan Greenspan acknowledged he had been wrong for years to assume that government regulation was bad for markets. Whoops—there goes decades of Ayn Rand down the drain.
In a congressional hearing room on Thursday, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, one of the most influential civil servants of the past century, saw his stock plummet—and his entire career lose its moorings. More important, the ideological battle over economic theory and the role of government in markets—a fight that has played out in the current presidential campaign—took a historic turn.
With members of the House oversight and government reform committee blasting Greenspan for his past decisions that helped pave the way for the current financial crisis, he acknowledged that his libertarian view of markets and the financial world had not worked out so well. "You know," he told the legislators, "that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well." While Greenspan did defend his various decisions, he admitted that his faith in the ability of free and loosely-regulated markets to produce the best outcomes had been shaken: "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
Historians and political writers will for years wonder and write about what moved John McCain to select Sarah Palin as his running mate. But perhaps a newspaper clipping from 1988 offers a bit of insight into how McCain thinks about a veep pick.
Two decades ago, another GOP vice presidential nominee was also something of a puzzling choice: Senator Dan Quayle. Many questioned George H.W. Bush's decision to tap a little-known senator as his running-mate. But some observers thought that Quayle's looks (he was compared to Robert Redford) would help the ticket with the ladies--female voters, that is. Was that a sexist? Whether or not it was, McCain accepted this perspective. According to a Newsday article from that time, McCain said, "A guy that good-looking just has to be attractive to women," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Twenty years later, did McCain take a similar view when searching for his ticket partner?
Who's the most socialistic governor in the United States? You betcha--it's Sarah Palin. That's what I said on Hardball (video below). But before we got to a highfalutin' discussion about ideology and the campaign, Chris Matthews, conservative radio talk show host Heidi Harris, and I discussed the troubles of GOP Republican Michele Bachmann, who might lose her seat because she played Hardball last Friday and lost. Bachman calling Democrats "anti-American," Palin spending $150,000 on clothes (which I discussed earlier on MSNBC)--these days, for left-of-center pundits, it's as easy as shooting pit bulls in a barrel
The latest neocon to turn tail on John McCain is Kenneth Adelman, a former foreign policy official in the Reagan administration. Adelman is most famous--or infamous--for having predicted in February 2002, 13 months before the invasion of Iraq, that "demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Explaining his decision to vote for Obama, Adelman recently told The New Yorker:
"When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I've concluded that that's no way a president can act under pressure."
And he said of the Sarah Palin pick:
"That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office -- I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain's main two, and best two, themes for his campaign -- Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick."
He sounds so reasonable, right? But I remember the days when Adelman sounded more like the mad McCainiacs I recently encountered at a McCain rally. In fact, I once wrote about Adelman's use of extremist rhetoric, and that kept him from obtaining a spot on the board of a prominent Washington advocacy group.
From a Nation magazine column (not on-line) I penned in 1988: