John McCain has been commended for that one day last week when he defended Barack Obama twice against claims that the Democratic candidate is scary, not-to-be trusted, and, of course, Arab. But missing in that defense that McCain so generously offered — after being attacked from all sides for his previous failure to do so — was that, in addition to the fact that Obama is neither Muslim nor Arab, Muslims and Arabs should not be feared and shunned.

CONTINUED »

If there's a man in Congress today who knows a bit about racism and scary mobs it's John Lewis, civil rights leader and representative from Georgia. Lewis, who John McCain once referred to as one of the "wisest" men he knew, recognized a little something from his past in the angry crowds at McCain's rallies and wasn't afraid to release a statement saying just that this weekend.

CONTINUED »

Question: Will John McCain step up and do anything about the vitriolic and increasingly dangerous tone of his rallies?

Answer (from the horse's mouth):

"Barack Obama's attacks on Americans who support John McCain reveal far more about him than they do about John McCain. It is clear that Barack Obama just doesn't understand regular people and the issues they care about. He dismisses hardworking middle class Americans as clinging to guns and religion, while at the same time attacking average Americans at McCain rallies who are angry at Washington, Wall Street and the status quo," reads a statement from spokesman Brian Rogers. "Even worse, he attacks anyone who dares to question his readiness to serve as their commander in chief in chief. Raising legitimate questions about record, character and judgment are a vital part of the Democratic process, and Barack Obama's effort to silence and shame those who seek answers should make everyone wonder exactly what he is hiding."

Update: Around the same time McCain's campaign was releasing the above statement, John McCain was getting a clue and attempting to nip some of the anti-Obama sentiment in the bud at a rally today. He was booed.

File this away under "Stuff That Will Never Happen:" It's November 5th, and angry mobs across the country are wreaking havoc because this historic election didn't go their way. They're filling the streets, pulling innocent bystanders out of their cars, beating pedestrians, smashing store-front windows and looting…

As crazy as it sounds, there are people — mostly on the far right but some on the left, too — who have subtly suggested that blacks who have so much riding on this election will riot if Barack Obama loses. This is a preposterous and incredibly offensive notion. During this election the black community has shown a tremendous amount of civic engagement and positivity. I am filled with pride, not only because a black man is a major party candidate for president, but also because of the way this man has inspired so many formerly-complacent citizens to get involved or, at the very least, vote. To suggest that a loss, as crushing and demoralizing as it could be, will automatically take this positivity and hope and turn it into violence is an insult to the highest degree.

But here's the hard truth: As we get closer to the end of this long, bumpy political road, the possibility of post-election rioting has become less and less preposterous to me. However, it's not black people that scare me. The Republican candidate is down in the polls, his favorability ratings are poor, and he and his running mate have lost three debates in a row. This begs the question: Will white folks riot if John McCain loses?

CONTINUED »

McCain-Palin rally attendees are now so furious about the possibility of tremendous power being placed into the hands of a terrorist black Muslin that they've taken to shouting down the very people they've come to see.

Yesterday's rally in Milwaukee, dubbed by Radar as "the angriest McPalin rally ever," found Senator McCain berated not once but twice by people ostensibly supporting him.

CONTINUED »

Oliver Clark, the young black man who asked a question about how the government's bailout package would help the average American during Tuesday's debate, had long known about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Still, John McCain told him (and America) that he “probably never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac before this.” Many pundits and commentators remembered McCain's peculiar assumption and brought it — and the fact that he forgot Clark's name mid-answer — into the after-debate discussion. Reporters found the exchange so fascinating that they've been hounding Clark through his Facebook page. Instead of responding to each inquiry, Clark posted this message:

CONTINUED »

It certainly looks that way, but perhaps we're just saying that because us "that one"s stick together.

At the next debate, Obama should do the thing where, after holding out his hand long enough that McCain gives in and goes to grab it, he yanks it up real quick and slicks back his hair. Gotcha maturity!

Click through to watch the footage and see what you think.

CONTINUED »

After last night's second Presidential Debate, the pundits briefly touched on the substance before they launched into their new favorite subject: what John McCain was going for when he referred to Barack Obama as "that one" instead of by his name, or, at the very least, "him."

Some thought it was racial, some thought it was just a general sign of disrespect, and others thought it was a display of McCain's storied temper. Or all three! They hated it. The pundit discussion doesn't always mirror public opinion, and there's no telling how much the average voter watching at home cared about or even noticed "that one." They did, according to a CNN poll, think that Barack Obama was more intelligent, clearer in his views, less negative, more direct, and better suited to handle the economy and Iraq. He won that poll 54 to 30. He won the CBS, FOX, and MSNBC polls as well, but by different margins. With John McCain losing the coveted swing states and about 8 points behind in national polls, he needed to win this one big, obviously. The fact that he didn't means there's a lot more Ayer-ing of dirty laundry ahead.

It's one thing to encourage your supporters not to like your opponent, it's another thing entirely to incite a mob. John McCain looked only momentarily befuddled yesterday when he asked the question, "Who is Barack Obama?" and someone in his audience yelled back, "Terrorist!" Yes, he looked perplexed for a moment, but just like when a supporter referred to Hillary Clinton as "the bitch" while asking him a question during a town hall, he said nothing in response. In the absence of any real foothold on the hot-button economy issue, John McCain is desperately trying to move the campaign narrative to "character." Is that topic any safer for him?

CONTINUED »

John McCain's campaign, for obvious reasons, want the election narrative to steer away from the economic crisis, which has widened Barack Obama's lead in the polls. Most of McCain's ads will be negative from here on out, with a focus on Obama's association with William Ayers. Over the weekend, the AP accused Sarah Palin of wading through racially murky water when she accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists" at a rally. She's also bringing Rev. Wright back into the mix, despite McCain's previous assertion that the pastor was off limits. In a counter attack, the Obama campaign launched KeatingEconomics.com, a Web site dedicated to McCain's involvement in the 1989 Keating 5 savings and loan scandal.

Wherein you, the readers, talk amongst yourselves.

With disastrous quote after disastrous quote coming from the lips of Sarah Palin, the Vice-Presidential Debate coming up, John McCain's plummet in the polls, and conservatives calling for Palin to step down, what are the odds that John McCain boots her from his campaign?

Despite threats of cancellation, the first presidential debate went off without a hitch — technically speaking — Friday night. When it was all said and done, I came away thinking the debate was a draw. Sure, Barack Obama got in some good jabs, but John McCain did, too. It seemed inevitable that his many "Sen. Obama doesn't understand"s and allegations of naivete would resonate with voters who already felt iffy about the younger senator's foreign policy resume. The pundits pretty much agreed. It turned out not to be so, at least among independent voters. Poll after poll showed that after the debate, favorable views of Obama increased, and most uncommitted voters were more impressed with his performance than McCain's. It turns out the undecideds don't respond well to negativity, and the 40 minutes spent on the economy hurt McCain more than the foreign policy portion hurt Obama.