Is the race close?

The McCain camp keeps claiming that the polls are close and even people I've spoken with keep saying the polls are tight. Other than Matt Drudge and Rick Davis, who still thinks this? On the state level--which is the one that counts--Obama has been ahead in both the polls and the electoral count for quite some time. Unless the McCain campaign has some internals that somehow contradict the bulk of the public polls, this simply isn't true.

The question isn't whether the polls are close but whether the polls are an accurate sample of the electorate. This is where any uncertainty lies. The main problem I see? Polls are undersampling certain demographics. Pollsters rely on past turnout counts to create their samples for this election cycle. But as we know, this election looks and feels different on a number of fronts. Here are just a few:

1. Youth vote. The 18-24 demographics has traditionally low turnout numbers but this year may be different given Obama's tremendous appeal to this age group. If pollsters use 2004 figures, they may be undersampling this age group and thus undersampling Obama supporters.
2. African American vote. Although traditionally a demographic with high turnout, this year the numbers should be off the scale. Some are going as far as predicting 100% African American turnout in some precincts. This may be an overstatement but even a 10% increase would help tip the scales in Obama's direction.
3. Democratic vote. Of all the demographics, isn't this one something we're pretty sure about? Not really. Not all states require registration by party and we're finding more self-declared Democrats than in past years (likely due to the record of the current Republican administration). Again though, a good pollster will try and weight a sample to reflect the current R/D breakdown. Using 2004 party i.d. will undersample Democrats.
4. Cell phone users. A perennial question since most pollsters don't call cell phones. The assumption would be that these would be younger voters but that's not always accurate (and probably less so in the last 4 years.) And in 2004, waiting for these cell voter users to turn up at the poll was like waiting for Godot for the Dems.
5. GOTV efforts. Republicans have had strong get out the vote efforts in the past few years, particularly among the value-voters. Will the Palin pick get these troops motivated to knock on doors or has McCain failed to tap into these core volunteers? And what about Obama's grassroots organizations, buoyed by the long primary? It's untested but worked for him once. Will it work again?

Most of these factors would seem to favor Obama but if or how much will only become clear after the 4th. Perhaps that's why the Obama camp is trying to run up the numbers--if they're ahead and some of these factors don't break their way, they have plenty of cushion.

Rick Davis' Take

Rick Davis' read on the polls, at least according to an email to supporters:

All the major polls have shown a tightening in the race and a significant narrowing of the numbers. In John McCain's typical pattern, he is closing strong and surprising the pundits. We believe this race is winnable, and if the trajectory continues, we will surpass the 270 Electoral votes needed on Election Night.

Iowa - Our numbers in Iowa have seen a tremendous surge in the past 10 days. We took Obama's lead from the double digits to a very close race. That is why you see Barack Obama visiting the state in the final days, trying to stem his losses. It is too little, too late. Like many other Midwestern states, Iowa is moving swiftly into McCain's column.

The Southwest - It is no secret that Republican candidates in the Southwest have to focus on winning over enough Latino and Hispanic voters in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado to carry them to victory. John McCain has overcome challenges Republicans face, and has made up tremendous ground in these states with these voters. For these voters, the choice has become clear, and you have seen a big change in the numbers. John McCain is now winning enough voters to perform within the margin of error - putting these states within reach.

Colorado - Barack Obama tried to outspend our campaign in Colorado during the early weeks of October and finish off our candidate in Colorado. However, after our visit early this week, we saw a tremendous rebound in our poll position, and Colorado is back on the map.

Ohio and Pennsylvania - Everyone knows that vote rich Ohio and Pennsylvania will be key battlegrounds for this election. Between the two: 41 electoral votes and no candidate has gotten to the White House without Ohio. Senator McCain and Governor Palin have been campaigning non-stop in these key battleground states and tonight Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has pumped up our campaign at a rally in Columbus. Our position in these states is strong and undecided voters continue to have a very favorable impression of our candidate.

More English only.

Amendment # 1 on 11/4/08 ballot:
“Section 34. That English shall be the language of all official proceedings in this state. Official proceedings shall be limited to any meeting of a public governmental body at which any public business is discussed, decided, or public policy formulated, whether such meeting is conducted in person or by means of communication equipment, including, but not limited to, conference call, video conference, Internet chat, or Internet message board. The term "official proceeding" shall not include an informal gathering of members of a public governmental body for ministerial or social purposes, but the term shall include a public vote of all or a majority of the members of a public governmental body, by electronic communication or any other means, conducted in lieu of holding an official proceeding with the members of the public governmental body gathered at one location in order to conduct public business.”

Law – Section 1.028 from 1999:
“1.028. The general assembly recognizes that English is the common language used in Missouri and recognizes that fluency in English is necessary for full integration into our common American culture for reading readiness.”

English only.

Two questions on English only:

1. Don't we already have an English only law?
2. Exactly what problem are they trying to solve?

MO ballot issues.

With all the focus on presidential and gubernatorial elections, just a reminder that there are some ballot initiatives including an English only amendment and a mandatory clean fuels initiative. I'm not pleased with any mandatory law that has the potential to harm consumers. What if these clean fuels end up costing more than coal, nuclear, etc? Are the price caps written into the law strong enough?

Rally photos.

If you haven't seen it yet, check out the Tribune slide show.

Obama rally.

Wow. How to begin to explain the scene last night. This is a political candidate with a crowd larger than a rock concert. And I had the sense the crowd was serious--college students, parents with small children, seniors--all wanting to see history in the making. Will they vote? They stood in line for 6 hours, voting is easy compared to that.

It's encouraging but also baffling. His message certainly appeals to me--as did his admonition to the crowd last night that we all have a responsibility not just to our selves but to the world around us. But what exactly is it that's fueling the newer, younger voters? Or re-energizing the older, cynical ones? Does Obama speak their language, share their world views, touch something inside them that a Kerry or a pre-Emmy Gore never could?

I'd like to think that this could be a turning point in American politics. I'd like to hope that this level of optimism and commitment isn't dependent on just one man.

Tough times, tough decisions

I tend to agree, during tough economic times when families are struggling to meet their own needs, it's hard to be compassionate. It's also hard when there are people out there obviously gaming the system, taking advantage of government programs.

Democrats, in particular, speak often about a "hand up" and in many cases, a government hand up is just that. When I was working my way through college, my state's version of the EITC was a godsend. I would never occur to me though to take advantage of that for the rest of my life.

Maybe politicians need to be better at enforcing the short term nature of certain programs, rather than creating programs and simply letting them grow.

Where our money goes.

To take a closer look at our spending, the following is from a great article that appeared in the Columbia Daily Tribune last April 15:

This year, the federal government spent $25,117 per household, the highest total since World War II, and an inflation-adjusted $4,300 more than in 2001. Of that, $21,604 is actual taxes while $3513 is put on the government credit card for our children to pay.

The details:

● Social Security/Medicare: $8,668.

● Defense: $5,204.

● Antipoverty programs: $3,752.

● Interest on the federal debt: $2,090.

● Federal employee retirement benefits: $935.

● Veterans’ benefits: $742.

● Health research/regulation: $692.

● Education: $578.

● Highways/mass transit: $455.

● Justice administration: $396.

● Unemployment benefits: $320.

● Natural resources/environment: $305.

● International affairs: $298.

● Remaining $682 is allocated to all other federal programs, including regional development, farm subsidies, social services, space exploration, air transportation and energy.

Socialism?

Both McCain and Palin continue to accuse Obama of being a socialist, and his response about being accused of Communism because he shared his toys is great.

But, all misrepresentations about what socialism actually is aside, what are the implications of the Obama tax plan? He seems to have a long list of programs he'd like to spend money on but in the current economy, where is that money coming from? I work hard and would hardly consider myself wealthy but is it right to ask me to forgo my family's needs in order to better take care of someone elses' family? Do I give less to my children's college education fund? My own charitable contributions? My payments to my health or life insurance? This may sound cold but shouldn't we first make sure that people can take care of themselves and their own families before expecting them to take care of everyone else? In these ecomonic times, I imagine many families are struggling just to take care of their own needs.

McCain seems to have a better understanding of the need to cut spending but how realistic is his proposed spending freeze, especially given there are so many entitlement programs that no one--Republicans or Democrats--seem willing to cut?

When I sit down to pay bills each month, I have a budget. If we can't afford something, we don't get it. Or, we save to pay for it. I need to make sure the money coming in more than covers the money going out. Why can't government do the same?

Obama rally setup.

To be honest, it looks like an outdoor rock concert. There are 4 or 5 huge cranes surrounding the quad with speakers on top, just to make sure everyone will be able to hear. Wonder when they start setting up the jumbo screen?

Robb's plan.

At the forum last night, Robb explained his plan for increasing support for MU in the legislature:

Use free food and adult beverages to lure legislators onto a bus headed for campus.

You can't say the guy hasn't learned anything in the past few years.

Angry mob in Florida

Sean Quinn of Fivethirtyeight.com reports:

After the rally, we witnessed a near-street riot involving the exiting McCain crowd and two Cuban-American Obama supporters. Tony Garcia, 63, and Raul Sorando, 31, were suddenly surrounded by an angry mob. There is a moment in a crowd when something goes from mere yelling to a feeling of danger, and that's what we witnessed. As photographers and police raced to the scene, the crowd elevated from stable to fast-moving scrum, and the two men were surrounded on all sides as we raced to the circle.

The event maybe lasted a minute, two at the most, before police competently managed to hustle the two away from the scene and out of the danger zone. Only FiveThirtyEight tracked the two men down for comment, a quarter mile down the street.

"People were screaming 'Terrorist!' 'Communist!' 'Socialist!'" Sorando said when we caught up with him. "I had a guy tell me he was gonna kill me."

Asked what had precipitated the event, "We were just chanting 'Obama!' and holding our signs. That was it. And the crowd suddenly got crazy."

Question: What is the responsibility of a speaker? How responsible are they for the actions of their listeners?

Are McCain and Palin (or their surrogates) saying something to incite these crowds or are the crowds who choose to come already predisposed to this type of anger? Is it possible that their anger is increasing as the final outcome looks more certain?

Is it possible to hand out a bunch of arrows and suggest where to point them and not be responsible for what they hit?

Obama going negative?

Why are the Obama folks going after Palin? For that matter, why are they doing negative ads at all? Obama should be running out the clock and leaving the voters with a positive impression of his campaign, not going on the attack.

Single party governing.

The Republicans are starting to push the benefits of a divided government, claiming that liberals will run amok if the Democrats control the House, Senate and the White House. Frontline is running a great two-hour bio on both Obama and McCain (The Choice 2008) that suggests it may be otherwise.

Frontline describes how Obama came to be president of the Harvard Law Review. There was a liberal-conservative split among the students (which was also, to some extent, a black-white split). Some of the conservatives, for instance, went on to become the core staff in the Bush White House. After hours of debate, the head of the conservative students stood up and endorsed Barack Obama, stating that he was the only person who could bridge the gap between the two factions. It seemed that in the past, Obama had taken pains to work with people on both sides of the conflict.

After Obama won, he began selecting staff and much to the anger and dismay of the liberal students, he ended up appointing more conservatives to positions with the magazine. He did so saying that his number one responsibility was to the publication, not to either of the factions.

President of the United States isn't necessarily the same as president of the Law Review but it gives us some interesting insight into how he might handle a Democratic Congress.

(By the way, the entire show is available on You Tube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEpg12kEnc.)

Al Franken hates puppies.

By far the best campaign ad I've seen in years:

More problems with polls.

A week out and the main question we're all asking is "which way will the undecideds break?"

A recent article by Sam Wang and Joshua Gold in the New York Times has a fascinating explanation of how the minds of undecided voters actually work.

For voters who commit early:

...after there is enough evidence to reach a person’s decision threshold, his brain can ignore further input even when it might improve accuracy. The brain goes ahead and decides, freeing up mental resources to deal with other problems.

However, uncommitted voters:

...might simply require a higher degree of confidence before they commit. Pollsters know this, and so push “uncommitted” voters to state a preference. Although this approach may seem heavy-handed, it gives a fairly accurate reading of a candidate’s support. In psychological studies, people who describe themselves as undecided often reveal a pronounced preference when they are forced to choose. When someone reports being only “moderately sure” of a decision like whether to accept a new job, his eventual choice is all but certain.

What impact does this have on polling methodology? Basically, it makes it tough to compare different polls without knowing whether the pollster requires a "forced choice." (And each pollster makes an individual determination on if and when they force the choice.)

For characteristically undecided voters, as long as you offer the option to remain undecided, they will, even if they are leaning towards a specific candidate. The question for pollsters becomes one of timing--at what point in the election cycle do you stop offering an undecided option and force the respondents to choose? According to Wang and Gold, it may be that pollsters can start forcing choice far earlier in the cycle than they once thought.

The problem with polls.

This election is one that should have pollsters everywhere thinking long and hard about their methodology. The large numbers of newly registered voters--many of them young--signed up by the Obama campaign present not one but two problems.

The first is actually reaching these voters. The 18 to 24 demographic relies largely on cell phones, untapped by most pollsters. Some of the better ones adjust their sampling to try and compensate but one never knows. Remember all the Kerry supporters trying to explain away bad poll numbers with the cell phone argument? These cell phone users never materialized on election day.

The second problem is that most pollsters develop sample percentages based on voter turnout in the last presidential election. However, it's expected that significantly more 18 to 24 year old voters will be turning out this year compared to 2004. Given that, pollsters may be under sampling this particular demographic.

Nixon up by 14 points.

According to a recent poll by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Nixon has a significant lead in the gubernatorial race:

Nixon, the attorney general, is leading Republican Kenny Hulshof, the 9th District congressman, 55 percent to 41 percent, based on a survey of 800 likely voters last Monday through Thursday.

Interestingly, it appear that while Nixon is picking up more independents than Hulshof, that's not translating over to the presidential race where independents are breaking to McCain.

The question here is whether a combination of a Democratic blow out in the governor's race and a strong get out the vote effort from the Obama campaign will have any effect on down ballot Democrats. Judy Baker, running for Hulshof's open seat, is one instance of a candidate who needs a strong Democratic ticket to put her over the top. Internal polls have her trailing by upwards of 7% but a strong Obama GOTV effort in Columbia--one that pulls in new, unpolled voters--may get her a little closer.

The McCain narrative.

Reading Robert Draper's article on McCain in the New York Times. In it, he describes the McCain campaign attempting to create a narrative that would counter Obama's highly effective change storyline. Obama was hitting home that Bush was the problem and McCain would represent another 8 years of Bush.

Their response? Draper quotes staffer Matt McDonald saying:

Our story line, I argued, had to be that it’s not about Bush — it’s Congress, it’s Washington. And Obama would be more about partisanship, while John McCain would buck the party line and bring people together.

At first glance, the strategy makes good sense. The Obama campaign would obviously prefer to make the election a referendum on Bush--a choice between Bush and Obama rather than McCain and Obama. By denying the Obama camp this argument, the McCain camp evens the playing field. Neither is an incumbent, both represent change.

Unfortunately, the McCain campaign's plan was to shift the conversation away from Bush to Congress itself. This was an amazing mistake. After all, if there was any Republican out there who had tried to prevent a Bush presidency, it was McCain. On the other hand, McCain was himself a member of Congress, a Washington insider. By trying to shift the narrative away from Bush, he pointed it squarely at himself.

If this contradiction weren't enough, McCain then opens himself up to another big question. If he's so willing and eager to buck his own party to work with the Democrats, how can he expect to get the Republicans on board with his agenda? The fact that that the bailout bill was scuttled by House Republicans hit this message home.

What narrative would have been better? The exact opposite of the one they chose. The problem was Bush, and McCain (as he said so forcefully in the third debate) is not George Bush. McCain should have made his independence from Bush the narrative. He ran against him in 2000, he bucked him on taxes, called him out on torture, and so on. These are the things that the voters actually remember and it would have been a natural narrative for him. In fact, McCain had to work at convincing people he supported Bush and his policies.

A narrative is not cut out of whole cloth; a successful narrative is something that is based on a candidate's character and actions. Unfortunately for McCain, his staff doesn't seem to appreciate this fact.

A better media approach to problems.

On Fox New Sunday, Bill Kristol made an excellent point on how the campaign has been mishandling the Palin "shopping spree" incident. Says Kristol:

Why wasn't a staffer out there saying, 'you know what, I made the mistake'? Since when do the staffers go into hiding and let Governor Palin be the one who has to explain it?

It's been reported that staffers shopped on Palin's behalf and simply presented her with the new wardrobe but even if it isn't that clear cut, staff should be stepping up to apologize and take responsibility for misjudgments like this. It's not a policy issue, it's not a public position the candidate took--it's a campaign decision that was made without thinking about the possible consequences.

This campaign season has been renown for "throwing people under the bus." Why isn't this happening here? One possible answer is that staffers are seeing the writing on the wall and are unwilling to take the fall for the candidate. Another is that the primarily McCain staffers simply don't have that level of loyalty towards Palin. Either way, it has lead to a poor media strategy and created a multi-day story from something that could have been handled and dismissed quite quickly. Imagine--a staffer takes responsibility for a bad decision and apologizes while Palin, remaining above the fray, immediately donates the clothing to a non-profit that helps women get back into the job world by providing them with appropriate professional clothing.

Joplin Voters

NPR has a Joplin voter explaining his reasons for voting for McCain:

I think Missouri is for McCain. Abortion and gay marriage. Those are the issues that matter. We can all go broke but if we have the moral issues on our side then God will be with us.

(Paraphrased - here's the full audio and a link to the story)

9th Congressional

Congressional Republicans are pretty confident about the 9th Congressional race so it's possible that big RNC buy is targeting the 9th for a number of reasons.

Does anyone expect McCain to follow Bob Dole's lead? When Dole realized the numbers were not in his favor on the national level, he moved resources out of the few battlegrounds left and into areas where his presence could help motivate the base to support Republican Congressional candidates.

Big RNC TV buys.

An insider reports that the RNC just made a huge television buy (in Mid-Missouri at least) so look for some balance to those constant Obama ads we've been seeing.

The voice of moderation.

After two presidential election cycles where it seems as if the extremes were controlling the dialogue, A Slate piece by John Dickerson points out very clearly why this might be changing. He writes:

In that June 2007 GOP debate at St. Anselm's, McCain and his rivals debated which of them was the genuine Republican. At the time, McCain was in trouble, because, while he had support among independents, he was weak with his party base. Now the opposite is true: In the recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, McCain does well among the GOP base, but independents have abandoned him. Obama is now up by 12 points among that group. In September, McCain was up by 13 with independents—a 25-point swing. Looking at the blank patches in the crowd standing over the ice, it was tempting to think, "That's where the independents once stood."

Dickerson seems to think that McCain simply can't win without the backing of the majority of moderate voters. And he's certainly not alone in this belief.

At one time there was hope that these two candidates would create a new way of campaigning--a way that was reasonable, moderate and respectful. Now it seems as if that change is coming directly from the electorate. An attack ad creates a boomerang effort that we never saw in 2004.

The McCain campaign is still using value-based issues to convince people to vote against their economic interests--even Joe the Plumber would do better under Obama's plan than McCain's--but it's much less successful than it was in the past for George Bush.

And as far as Obama is concerned, remember all the accusations of flip flopping immediately after the Democratic primary. That may have been the smartest move he made because no candidate can win while they are appealing only to the extremes of their party. Some may now accuse Obama of being completely snooze-worthy but he's rewarded in the polls every time he refuses to take off the gloves.

If this holds out the winner of this election will be the voters.

McCain's Missouri Strategy

Of all the bellwether states, Missouri has the best record when it comes to predicting the outcome of the presidential election. And, Missouri went with Bush in 2000 and 2004 so it's pretty reliably red, at least when it comes to recent presidential race.

McCain's been in the state only 5 times and Palin only 3 times (and one of those was the debate). They're hitting the right areas--Belton, Independence,Springfield, O’Fallon,St. Charles and Lee's Summit--but they're still trailing the Obama campaign on total visits by 15 to 9. In fact, Palin--who would be a great person to send to some of the outstate areas--is instead spending much of her time in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, mainly in the "Hillary areas."

The cash strapped campaign has opened 15 offices across the state with only one in the St. Louis area (perhaps already yielding to Obama's "win St. Louis big" strategy?

Conventional wisdom a month or so ago had about 10 states on McCain's watch list, one of which was Missouri. However, a combination of factors appears to have changed the overall strategy to one narrowly focused on a few key states. First, the Couric interviews the last week of September started a downward slide in his Missouri poll numbers and by Black Monday, McCain's numbers finally dropped below Obama's. Second, the campaign is being buried by the sheer number of Obama ads and field workers. McCain needed to direct all his available resources--time, money and volunteers--to the few states he absolutely needs to carry.

Looking at the map, the traditionally red states (and Arizona neighbors) of Colorado (9) and Nevada (5) probably seem like easier targets and combined would give McCain more than Missouri's 11 electoral votes. The Bush 2004 states of Ohio (20) and Virginia (13) also seem like an easier hill to climb with more of an incentive. And of course, Florida (27) is another high-vote state that McCain needs. Given the narrow path the campaign has to an electoral win, why focus on 11 electoral votes in a state where you're behind anywhere from 3 to 8 points?

Smart decision?

Senator Brad Lager, Republican candidate for State Treasurer, "declined to be interviewed" on NPR affiliate KBIA this morning. Democrat Clint Zweifel, on the the hand, enjoyed a fairly long interview that consisted mainly of softball questions that allowed him to promote his own agenda while attacking (mildly) Lager.

What was the rationale for this decision? Columbia may not be the most fertile ground for a Republican candidate but it's certainly not that liberal an area. And, KBIA's reach travels up into the more conservative areas of northern Missouri. Even in the interests of keeping the margins tight, Lager should have jumped at this chance. At the very least, he could have presented a rebuttal to Zweifel's arguments and prevented any lingering questions among voters regarding the "real reason" for his decision.

Doing their part for the economy.

According to Jake Wagman over at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a nice chunk of the $150,000 the RNC spent to “clothe and accessorize” the Palin family was spent right here in Missouri. According to Wagman:

A look at RNC spending reports filed this month with the Federal Election Commission indicate that the committee spent a slice of that cash — $7575.02 — at the Saks Fifth Avenue in Frontenac.

Obama's Missouri Strategy

This year Missouri seems to be living up to its reputation as a political swing state. The state itself is a interesting mix of urban and rural, north and south and even east and west. As a result, it's often a mixed bag when it comes to elections. Both our federal delegation and our statewide officials are an interesting jumble of Democrats and Republicans. (Almost as if party affiliation is less important when choosing a candidate.)

For years, Democrats running statewide in Missouri had a tried and true strategy for winning--take St. Louis and Kansas City and then pick up enough outstate to put the campaign over the top. Claire McCaskill's Senate win shows the worth of this strategy. Realizing that wins in the urban area aren't enough to counterbalance the votes you lose in the rural areas, the campaign invested a lot of money outstate to narrow the margins as much as possible. It takes a cool-headed campaign to dump resources into an area you know you will lose. It also takes a strong candidate to reach out to areas where the majority of folks are voting against you.

The Obama campaign appears to have adopted the McCaskill strategy. They've opened an incredible 42 offices in Missouri, 30 of which are located in outstate areas. Their travel schedules reflect this as well. Obama and Biden have made a combined 14 appearances in the state since June--including the requisite stops in KC and St. Louis but also stops in St. Joseph, Liberty, Rolla, Union, Independence, Springfield (3 times), Columbia and Jefferson City.

However, the Obama campaign has added a new element to this strategy: win huge in St. Louis. The campaign has opened 10 offices in the greater St. Louis area, clearly in the hopes of pulling every last vote out of the area. The combination of a strong Democratic tradition, a large African American community and a high number of newly registered voters is making St. Louis a very attractive area for Obama. Another campaign (perhaps one with fewer resources) would have chosen one or the other: either narrow the margins outstate or pull a record number of votes out of St. Louis. Obama--flush with cash and volunteers--can afford to do both.

Will this strategy work? Obama did start pulling ahead in some polls in early October but that's likely the result of national issues rather than statewide ones. Aside from a couple obvious outliers, most polls have the race fairly close. It may be that the success of the Obama campaign's strategy won't be obvious until the polls close on the 4th.

Stayed tuned for McCain's Missouri strategy.

Time for loyalty oaths?

First Read is reporting this morning that the comments made by Congresswoman Bachmann are not be received too well by some. They report:

After GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann suggested on Friday’s Hardball that Obama and perhaps other Democrats of being anti-America, Bachmann’s Dem opponent in Minnesota has raised $810,000 (as of early last night), and the Cook Political Report moved the race from Likely Republican to Toss-Up.

Was she serious or are her words being taken out of context? Is this merely a political battle heating up in the final days of the campaign or is she recommending we take a page from the Truman Administration requiring loyalty oaths for all government workers?

Have some BBQ with me!

Senator McCain stops by Columbia for lunch at Buckingham's BBQ with Senator Bond.

By the people, for the people?

The Obama Campaign just released their September fundraising totals--a staggering $150 million and change. According to the campaign, 632,000 people donated for the first time this past month, bringing the number of total donors to more than 3.1 million. Total raised during the primaries and the general? More than $575 million. According to the Springfield News-Leader, Obama has raised $2.9 million in Missouri to McCain's $1.9 million.

Numbers like these would normally indicate a campaign funded by the big dogs -- wealthy donors, lobbyists, bundlers and other political insiders. Why then is it that we tend to see Barack Obama's campaign as more inclusive, more diverse and more grass-roots? Is it that the average donation of these 632,000 people was around $100? Or is it the fact that I receive about a a week from a local, volunteer campaign organizer reminding me to vote?

Or is it that the Obama campaign has simply crafted a message that sounds more like it's coming straight from the grass-roots? In other words,is this campaign truly of the people, for the people, and by the people?

Sunday in the Park

Matt Hoye of CNN's version of Sunday in the Park.