Since adding my 2 cents will take us to $653080.34.

What my ad would look like:

'Twas the night before Oregon and Kentucky (?!) and all through DKos
Not a creature was stirring, not even a (wireless) mouse...

So, night owls, what does the math look like at the end of the day tomorrow? I'll attempt a preliminary sketch based on the estimates I'm able to amass and everyone can feel to update and correct me, as well as prognosticate how things will turn out tomorrow.

One of the things I respect the most about Barack Obama is the courage he shows in treating the American people like adults, capable of understanding thoughts that can't be summarized in a single phrase. At the same time, campaigns can be won and lost by the narratives attached to a candidate and the shape these narratives take is often dictated precisely by vacuous phrases like "appeaser", "flip-flopper", and "maverick".

I think that McCain's maverick label is his only lifeline. If he can make maverick stick in the minds of voters it will distance him from the Bush administration, make him look like a man of integrity, and give people who are fed up with Republican rule, but hesitant about Democrats the reason they need to vote for him. That's why we need a persistent attack on the maverick image that will destroy it in the eyes of the American voter: we have more than enough ammunition to do it.

File this under Beginning of the End: One of the four superdelegates that pledged their support to Obama today was Virginia DNC member Jennifer McClellan, who flipped, after having been a declared Hillary supporter.

I'm really curious what has happened to the Daily Kos readership over the course of primary season. It's pretty clear that we tipped over to Obama's side pretty heavily, and then there was the "strike". So I was just wondering who's still here -- is it all Obama all the time? Are there Hillary lurkers? How many people are sick of primary season -- and of those, who's still here posting on non-primary topics and who has left?

I've noticed, as I'm sure most people have, that whenever Barack Obama criticizes John McCain, he starts out by saying he respects him and that he's a war hero. Typically something like: "I respect Senator McCain and his heroic service to our country, but we can't afford 4 more years of failed Bush economic policies."

Now, initially, I read this as trying to appear as respectful as possibly to McCain, but now I have a different reading. Obama is trying to marginalize McCain as nothing more than a war hero. Let me explain...

Apologies if this is more of a comment than a diary, but I wanted to make a fairly simple point about this whole deal.

Does being a member of a group force you to subscribe to anything it stands for, or anything it's leaders or members stand for?

No, of course not, that's patently ridiculous. Hell, I support Obama but I reserve the right to distance myself from some of his positions while wholeheartedly supporting him. Wouldn't you?

I want to build on a case made by PsyFighter37 in a diary here.

The case is that the ground is fertile for an Obama presidency, not because he differs substantively from Hillary Clinton on major policy issues, but because his approach is different.

Take just the following:

Dear Kossacks, I've been a (mostly-silent) member of this community for a few years now and I hope I'm not out of line asking for a favor...

I'm a student conducting research in social psychology which I think is not only interesting for its own sake, but also has implications for politics and political discourse. It would enormously helpful to me to have people take about 10-15 to fill out a short anonymous survey on hypothetical investments. It's quick, painless, and maybe even kinda fun.[continued after the jump]

Thanks so much for your help!

Participate in the Study

Ever since George Lakoff's ideas on framing fell into the spotlight of national political discourse, I've been very curious about the contributions of psychology to our ideas and understanding of political issues.

Below the fold, I want to recommend a book that, to me, has important implications for how I look at politics. It's not a political book at all, it's about the way people understand themselves and how that affects their motivations, their beliefs, and their actions. But really, I think it has very interesting implications in how we think about profoundly political questions. I also think it sheds light on why sometimes liberals and conservatives see problems differently, and resolve them differently. The good news is, according to the research presented in the book, we were right again!

There does not seem to be any remotely plausible justification for the government to be circumventing the FISA court to spy on people without a warrant. I know this and you know this, and as georgia10 reports 77% of respondents in a poll of members of the American Bar Association know it too.

There are various theories as to why the administration felt compelled to break the law. Many people suspect that the government is doing data mining which the courts wouldn't allow, and congress wouldn't approve. There are also plausible claims that Cheney and his cabal wanted to go around FISA to show who's boss and extend executive power by marginalizing the legislative and judicial branches of government. I want to consider a much less plausible explanation: they really needed to do what they did.

The Israeli Prime Minister suffers a serious stroke sending a shockwave through the Middle East, profoundly affecting the course of the peace process but here at DKos it barely causes a ripple? Does Iraq completely engulf the field here, leaving no room to pay attention to the rest of the Middle East? I don't think that's what it is... I think, that despite this site's high aspirations which it usually lives up to, people are afraid to discuss Israel vs. Palestine because they think it's too sensitive.

But that's just the thing. It isn't Israel vs. Palestine; at least not in the minds of many on both sides. Lets not delude ourselves, there is quite clearly a conflict that has no easy resolution, but there are plenty of people on both sides who, while in disagreement on many points, come to the discussion in good faith. This discussion should be one we are having here.

More on the flip.

I wanted to open a discussion and review of one of the themes I think it's worth pursuing in a concerted manner. I see this as something that will be built in small subtle pieces and with repetition, evidence, and repetition, will become common knowledge, and weave well into the frames we use to combat right wing spin.

This theme is hypochristianity. The appropriateness of the name itself is open to debate, but the idea is this:

Every one of us knows that many of the preacher/politicians on the right who rant against abortion, seethe about stem cell research and gay marriage have no more beloved mantra than Family Values. Yet there are piles of evidence of these self same sermonizers have been divorced, caught in affairs, cheated on their taxes, employed illegal immigrants and worse.

(more below the fold)

George Lakoff's much talked about book, "Don't Think of an Elephant" has been talked about quite a bit around here recently and I think its advice may be central to the future political success of progressives. I think Lakoff's position has a lot to offer, but I think it also has some limitations that are worth pursuing in order to overcome them. I say this with the caveat that I have not yet read "Moral Politics" which is the longer version of Elephant, and so there may already be an answer to the question I'm asking. (more after the jump)

Now this might be a stretch, but it's at least a little levity for a time that could maybe use some...

For those of you who followed this weekend's Redskins game against the Packers, you will recall that Green Bay got out to an early 17-0 lead, much like Kerry looked great in the early exit polls. Washington then came back to make it 20-14 in the 4th quarter, just as Bush rebounded in the electoral college. Now here's the kicker (no, not Ryan Longwell)...

Apparently, despite the fact that a disproportionately small amount of post-9/11 aid went to New York, and that the emergency responders are under-funded, Bush still got the endorsement of the NYC firefighters.

The Nixon quote on the front page reminded me of an idea that I think could make for an effective series of ads.

Show the quote (play the audio, or have it read if the voice is instantly recognizable):

Let it sit up there for a few seconds, and then show Nixon and give the attribution: President Nixon, 1968 RNC Acceptance Speech.

Coming out of this convention that will be dominated by more moderate Republicans the likes of McCain, Giuliani, and Schwarzenegger, it would be nice to see them be asked specific questions on just how much they support Dubya. At the convention, they will hail Bush on security but they will be doing so in extremely vague terms.