It looks like McCain got a version of his $400,000 limit on executive pay, the limit the blogs and Politico were deriding:

   · Firms taking advantage of the bailout would be required to limit compensation for senior executives, with especially severe limits on "golden parachutes" at failing firms. The compensation limits will be enacted primarily, but not solely, through the tax code by reducing tax deductions for firms that pay executives more than $400,000 a year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/09/28/AR2008092800064_ 2.html?hpid=topnews

The Post has a good summary of the verbal agreement.

I still believe no bailout was necessary, and I do not believe it had to be enacted this fast.  I agree with Newt Gingrich that Paulson is not to be trusted -- he and Bush adviser Bolten are Goldman Sachs alumni.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-an d-money/2008/2/21/rape-victims-can-be-hu rt-financially-too.html

US News did a report on this, and how widespread it is.

Turns out experts on sexual assault are all too familiar with the issue. "It's been a problem for a long time," says Ilse Knecht, deputy director of public policy at the National Center for Victims of Crime. "We've heard so many stories of victims paying for their exams, or not being able to and then creditors coming after them." In order to qualify for federal grants under the Violence Against Women Act, states have to assume the full out-of-pocket costs for forensic medical exams, as the rape kits are called. But according to a 2004 bulletin published by the NCVC, "[F]eedback from the field indicates that sexual assault victims are still being billed." Knecht says she's recently heard from caseworkers in Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas reporting that rape victims continue to be charged for their forensic exams.

I don't know how widespread it is in IL, but someone needs to tell the Democratic legislature, the Democratic Governor and the two Democratic Senators to get on the stick about this.  There's no excuse for a Democratically-controlled state to be doing this.

I have read that both McCain's admiral ancestors finished in the bottom quarter, and both made four star admiral.  Is that the case?  Have other poorly performing academy students ever risen that high?  Grant was 21st out of 39.  Patton had to redo his plebe year after he screwed up mathematics, but was thereafter a good student. Carter finished 59th out of his Academy class of 820 -- but he was not a very good President. There must be some military historian out there who knows if there is a student performance/accomplishments correlation.

New Zogby poll out there.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?I D=1548

The GOP team is ahead 50-46%.  

McCain's favorability rating increased from 50% favorable last week to 57% favorable now, a significant jump that indicates the GOP convention was a success. Among independent voters, 61% now have a favorable impression of him, compared to just 49% who said the same a week ago.

Nearly half - 49% - said they had a favorable opinion of Barack Obama, while 50% they had a negative impression of him. Among independent voters, 47% gave him favorable marks, compared to 46% who said the same thing last week.

Among the vice presidential candidates, 54% said they now hold a favorable view of Palin, while 42% hold an unfavorable view. While 49% have a favorable opinion of Joe Biden, 47% hold an unfavorable view of him.

Interestingly, Palin seems to be drawing men, and not independent women:

"Clearly, Palin is helping the McCain ticket. She has high favorability numbers, and has unified the Republican Party. The striking thing here in this poll is that McCain has pulled ahead among Catholics by double-digits. On the other hand, Palin is not helping with likely voting women who are not aligned with either political party. The undecided independent women voters decreased this week from 15% to 7%, but those women went to Obama. Palin is also helping among men, conservatives, notably with suburban and rural voters, and with frequent Wal-Mart shoppers, who tend to be "values" voters who like a good value for their money."

Does this mean Biden is not helping with the Catholic vote?  Also, does this also mean independent women will go with the pro-choice duo, but men find something appealing in Palin?  I don't mean this in a sexist way -- but a lot of men find tough, athletic women very appealing -- women they view as having strength.  I thought all along that Biden was one of the poorer choices Obama could make.

One might add that Obama's experience running the Annenberg Challenge has been criticized for lack of accomplishment.  (However, the same can be said of just about education initiative.)

I also think that "Troopergate" may have a salutary effect on her reputation.  Being an old guy, I thought it was likely a domestic abuse situation, and I've seen some things that suggest it was.  You can read the articles I cite, but here's some stuff I found interesting.  Yes, Sarah Palin was concerned about the trooper (Wooten) once married to her sister.  (We'll find out if her steps to rectify the situation were legal in time.)

A h/t to http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/29/p alins-troopergate-beating-msm-distortion s-to-the-truth/  which has a very long version of this, with other citations.

The husband (Wooten, who was Sarah Palin's brother-in-law)

1. tased his 10 year old stepson (doing it for "training")
   
2. allegedly threatened to shoot his wife's father (also Sarah Palin's father) if the father hired an attorney to represent the wife in the divorce

(tr. of Sarah Palin's testimony at http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/07/18/1 3/071607-palin-monegue-050205-interview- transcript.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf)

3) drank while on duty in his patrol car  (two independent witnesses)

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/0728 08/sta_310532640.shtml

A few other notes.  The state police internal investigation against the brother-in-law had started a year before Palin became governor, in fact before she had even started her campaign.

The trooper at 35 has been married and divorced four times.  http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/jul/2 8/scrutiny-wooten-raises-conduct-questio ns/  Apart from the allegation regarding Palin's sister, the "trooper commanders saw cause to discipline or give written instructions to correct Wooten seven times since he [had] joined the force."  Id.

Now there are two sides to every story, especially in a divorce . . . but to this 50+ male it smacks of an abusive husband situation, exacerbated because the husband drank and carried a gun (as part of his job).

I'm sure we'll hear a lot more about this, but it is important to know this minimal amount about the case.

I would hope everyone on this blog is sensitive to the issues of domestic abuse.

As a native of Scranton, I take offense.

Also, while I think Obama will win Pa. (unless McCain chooses Tom Ridge) in the primary Obama won in three places -- Philly, the State College area, and Harrisburg (heavy AA pop.).  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/state/#PA  The rest of the state was solidly Clinton.

Having lived in Scranton and having visited throughout the state, Scranton is much more like the rest of Pennsylvania than SE PA is.  Scranton is a mini Pittsburgh.  Hillary carried Allegheny county (Pittsburgh) by 8%.

Biden will help marginally -- but Scrantonians I know never associated Biden with the area.  Hillary had family there that she visited.

The big downside-- Biden has said nasty things about Obama. Here's what Biden said about Obama's foreign policy experience, from a press release Biden sent out during the primary:

Sen. Biden has been talking about this for over 6 months. Dating back to January 5th, Sen. Biden said America Should Surge Troops in Afghanistan. He told the Washington Post, "If we're surging troops anywhere, it should be in Afghanistan," Biden said. Adding troops there would give the United States "the moral high ground" in its quest for more forces from NATO allies. [Washington Post, 1/5/07]

"We find it a little disingenuous that Sen. Obama is hailing this as a new bold initiative when he has neglected to join his colleagues in the Senate when the opportunities have been there to redirect our forces into Afghanistan" said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. "It's good to see Sen. Obama has finally arrived at the right position, but this can hardly be considered bold leadership."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 807/Biden_Obama_stole_my_ideas.html

And then there's Biden's plagiarism problems:

Then in September 1987, the campaign ran into serious trouble when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party.[27] Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video.[28] Within days, it was also discovered that, while a first year law student at Syracuse Law School, Biden had plagiarized a law review article in a class paper he wrote. Though the then-dean of the law school, as well as Biden's former professor, played down the incident of plagiarism, they did find that Biden drew "chunks of heavy legal prose directly from" the article in question. Biden said the act was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and Biden was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record. Biden also released at the same time the record of his grades as an undergraduate which were C's and D's with the exception of two A's in physical education, one B in a course on English writers and an F in ROTC during his first three semesters.[29] His grades improved later in his undergraduate career but were not exceptional.[29] Further, when questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school Biden had claimed falsely to have graduated in the "top half" of his class, (when he actually graduated 76th in a class of 85) that he had attended on a full scholarship, and had received three degrees.[30] In fact he had received two majors, History and Political Science, and a single B.A., as well as a half scholarship based on financial need.[30]

Faced with these revelations, Biden withdrew from the nomination race on September 23, 1987, saying his candidacy had been overrun by "the exaggerated shadow" of his mistakes.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden

You can be sure the right wingers will attack Biden for flunking ROTC.  I am sorry I do not share the heady enthusiasm of others, but Biden is a secondary figure in the Senate.  Jim Webb (who didn't want the VP slot) and Wesley Clark would have been better picks.  And so too would have been Jack Reed from RI, who taught at West Point.  Biden's state has only 3 EVS and Kerry carried it easily anyway.

There are intelligent, nuanced ways to attack McCain.  Russ Feingold did it in this Milwaukee Sentinel article:  http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx ?id=781576  He tells all the ways he admires McCain, but why he disagrees with his policies.  To a thinking person, such an argument makes sense.  Grown up, mature adults do not see people as devils versus angels.  There are few in each category.  They see all the shades of gray that exist in people and circumstances.  Feingold says McCain is a true maverick.  That happens to be correct.  McCain has not won accolades from the right wing on his immigration stance -- it almost cost him the nomination.  And he has railed against pork barrel spending for years, offending both parties. McCain is wrong on many things -- income tax rates, abortion, gays, American militarism -- but this kind of attack detracts from a true progressive message.  This diary should not be headlined.  Sophomoric attacks persuade no one but the already persuaded.

Picking up on the "how many houses" meme, a John Kerry pick eliminates that attack.  Mrs. Kerry is worth far more than Cindy McCain.

from Wikipedia:

To date, Teresa Heinz has declined to disclose her personal tax returns, citing family trusts and privacy. She is estimated to be worth between $750 million and $1.2 billion. According to her most recently released income tax of 2003, Kerry and Heinz paid an effective federal income tax rate of 12%.

Heinz/Kerry owned lots of houses, too.

It's a much better tactic to run any argument through a simple test -- how will this play in, say, mid-state North Carolina or Pennsylvania?  I still use the test of how my father (late) would react to the line of argument.

Also remember that America loves people who have made it.  JFK and Jackie were our rich king and queen.  Everyone knew the Kennedys were rolling in money.  Same for the Bush family.

And read this is from the NYT obituary of FDR, probably our greatest president:

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/ onthisday/bday/0130.html

The early life of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was typical of a member of a family of wealth and assured social position--an aristocratic family, as aristocracy is measured on this side of the Atlantic.

His birthplace was a stately mansion on the Roosevelt estate, overlooking the Hudson River and set in the midst of broad acres near Hyde Park. The property had been in the possession of his family for a hundred years.

So forget the Cindy McCain angle.

And for what it's worth, John Kerry makes Joe Biden look exciting.

I'm also not sure that, aside from the punditry, Obama is making the expected impact.  Here's what the Washington Post editorial said today (I've picked out excerpts but I urge you to read it all):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202462_ pf.html

Mr. Obama in Iraq
Did he really find support for his withdrawal plan?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008; A14

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. [snip]
Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.[snip]

Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months. He also pointed out that he had "deliberately avoided providing a particular number" for the residual force of Americans he says would be left behind.
Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

   Obama just told Katie Couric, regarding Afghanistan:

Because ... it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan.

Okay.  Then why did he vote against supplemental funding for Afghanistan, on the $120 billion spending package that was passed May 24, 2007, by the Senate?

And can you explain this, from Rasmussen?

While Obama has been on an overseas tour, 45% of voters say the Democratic hopeful is too inexperienced to be President. That's up four percentage points from a week ago.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/daily_presidential_trackin g_poll

Now go back a week in the Rasmussen poll.  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/general_election_match _up_history  Do you see any uptick for Obama?

No, there is none.

ABC's Jake Tapper asked Obama if he had learned anything on the trip that would change his mind, and the answer basically was "no."

But listen to this stunner:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/07/so-what-did-he.html

"In terms of -- look, there are all kinds of things that I learned," Obama said. "I think one of the things that was most eye-opening was the extent to which the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan makes it very difficult for our troops, as good as they are, to decisively defeat the Taliban and the terrorist operations in Afghanistan.

My gawd, he didn't know the border was porous?

And how does he know the "x amount" of troops he'll send will solve that.

While I think McCain is pathetic, fair is fair.  Here are ten questions on geography, with a bonus.  I give the historic name and you give the current name.  Answers below.  No peeking.

1/ Yugoslavia is now  --- (name at least five)

2/ The Soviet Union is now -  (name at least 12)

3/ Burma is now

4/ Ceylon is now    

5/ Dutch East Indies (Netherlands East Indies) is now   

6/ East Pakistan, a former province of Pakistan from 1955 and 1971, is now

7/ British Honduras is now

8/ French West Indies is now

9/ British Guiana is now

10/ Dutch Guiana (Netherlands Guiana)  is now

11/ Historically, Bohemia was its name; it is now

I won't even try Africa - see more at

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/hi st_country_names.htm#Asia

duh dee duh

scroll, scroll

[whistle]

ANSWERS

1/ Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia

2/ Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russian Federation (Russia), Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

3/Myanmar

4/ Sri Lanka

5/ Indonesia

6/ Bangladesh

7/ Belize

8/ Guadeloupe and Martinique,

9/ Guyana

10/ Suriname

11/  Czech Republic

Keep cheering each other up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072200801_ 2.html?hpid=topnews

AMMAN, Jordan, July 22 -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Tuesday defended his proposal to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq over a 16-month period and send more troops to Afghanistan, despite what he acknowledged was the opposition to any pullout timeline from the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. [skip]

In Ramadi, Obama saw firsthand Iraq's bitter political rivalries. Ali Hatem Suleiman, a top Awakening tribal leader who was at the meeting, said they asked Obama to support the tribes -- and not the Sunni Islamic parties that rejoined Iraq's government over the weekend. They also told him that a security pact with the United States, currently being negotiated, should wait until a new U.S. administration "because the Iraqi parliament does not represent Iraqis well."

Obama asked the tribal leaders whether Iraq's security forces were ready to take over security, said Suleiman. They informed him that while Iraq's forces had improved, the province was still fragile and faced threats from al-Qaeda in Iraq.

"You can pull out and withdraw all the forces in Iraq, but you have to keep the Marines in our province because we still have problems with the Islamic parties and we can face a bad situation at any moment," Suleiman said they told Obama.

They also warned Obama to be cautious with his plan to withdraw U.S. combat forces. "You have think carefully about the area," they told Obama, according to Suleiman. The tribal leaders expressed concern about neighboring Iran gaining influence in Iraq.

"We told him that if your party wins the elections, you have to keep the promise that the United States gave to us, which is to rebuild a new Iraq and to fix the mistakes done by the politicians," Suleiman said.

Will he listen to the tribal leaders?  To the generals?

Or to the Daily Kos gang?

By the way, there is no sign in the polls that this is making an impression here.  He went down 3 in Gallup today, and he's tied with the pathetic McCain on Rasmussen (except McCain favorables remain higher).

And it will not help him that Andrea Mitchell accused him of running fake interviews today.  http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=136003  You can see the video there.

If you guys keep telling yourselves that Obama is perfect, you'll sleep better at night, but it does not mean you're right.

Here's what Ana Marie Cox had to see at Time's Swampland:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/ 07/obama_explains_it_all.html

[this is the quote she was commenting on]

   "Here is what I will say," Obama said, "I think that, I did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii'a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."

   [snip]

   "Well, you were saying that it would not make a significant dent in the violence," Moran said.

   "In the violence in Iraq overall, right," Obama acknowledged. "So the point that I was making at the time was that the political dynamic was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamic continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that in fact those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work."

Ms. Cox's response:

So... it's not that the surge was successful, it's just that violence decreased and the political dynamic became more manageable. Sure.

Of course, what the relative success of the surge (or whatever) really means is that Obama won't have to talk about Iraq pretty much ever again. McCain has often said he'd rather "lose an election than lose a war," but I don't think he thought he'd be on the winning side of a war and lose the election anyway.

ok, it was made before the trip, but it's relevant:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/07/illinois-obama.html

I

In the evening Obama will meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Weeks ago, speaking in Washington, DC, before the pro-Israel Jewish group AIPAC, Obama said that "any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
It now seems clear that at the time Obama didn't understand what the notion of an "undivided Jerusalem" meant to the AIPAC members in the room, or to President Abbas, or to most people with a depth of knowledge about the conflict. The term connotes an unwillingness to accept a future peace agreement that allows Palestinians control over East Jerusalem, which became part of Israel after the Six Day War in 1967.
Obama has since backtracked from that declaration and the spin to explain what he meant was repeated today by one of his senior policy advisers, who said, "He's repeatedly said that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be negotiated by the parties, that Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital but it should not again be divided with barbed wire and check points like it was from 1948-1967."
The adviser acknowledged Obama's AIPAC speech did not have "optimal phrasing" and should have included the notion of "barbed wire and check points."