As we've documented, the right-wing noise machine is shamelessly using ACORN's work registering low-income voters as both a character attack on Obama, and as a means to justify acts of voter suppression in swing states.

But not only are the accusations a lie, they're flatly hypocritical coming from McCain.

Observe the Republican nominee back in March of 2006, attending an ACORN co-sponsored event that McCain himself headlined. He's sitting right next to Rep. Meek:

ACORN's Bertha Lewis on the photo (via Politico):

"We are sure that the extremists he is trying to get into a froth will be even more excited to learn that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN, at an ACORN co-sponsored event, to promote immigration reform."

So make no mistake: the right-wing efforts to demonize ACORN is pure political desperation. Don't let rumors of an indictment in Ohio fool you. It's bull.

Here are today's numbers:

Today's Battleground tracker (.pdf) shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by a 51 percent to 43 percent margin, not too far off from the four daily tracking polls above. In other polling released today or over the weekend, a Fox News poll (.pdf) of registered voters gives Obama a 46 percent to 39 percent lead, a Newsweek poll of registered voters puts Obama up 52 percent to 41 percent, and Washington Post-ABC News polling has Obama ahead 53 percent to 43 percent among likely voters.

Again, looking at individual surveys, there are some indications that the race is moving in one direction or another. However, when you throw all the data into one pot and try to digest as much information as possible, it sure looks like there hasn't been much movement in either direction in nearly two and a half weeks, with Obama holding firm at 50.25 percent, give or take a point, and McCain holding steady at 42.25-42.50 percent, give or take a half point. At some point, presumably, McCain will have to start making a move if he wants to get back in this race, no?

John McCain pushed the "reset button" on his campaign today with a speech designed to portray himself as a quintessentially American fighter who has Obama "right where we want him." The speech focuses more on McCain and is notable for what it lacks -- any overt character attack on Obama, just as Bill Kristol advises in his column this morning:

The bad news, of course, is that right now Obama's approval/disapproval rating is better than McCain's. Indeed, Obama's is a bit higher than it was a month ago. That suggests the failure of the McCain campaign's attacks on Obama.

So drop them. [...]

...for whatever reason -- the public mood, campaign ineptness, McCain's alternation between hesitancy and harshness, which reflects the fact that he's uncomfortable in the attack role -- the other attacks on Obama just aren't working. There's no reason to think they're suddenly going to.

Certainly McCain seemed to prime us for such a reversal with his dramatic upbraiding of supporters at his rallies on Friday; in the wake of those events, McCain's taking a more positive tone, one that focused more on building himself up rather than than tearing Obama down, might have seemed both politically wise AND genuine. Sometimes the smart thing and the right thing are the same. But alas, the John McCain who seemed regretful at the turn his own campaign had taken was nowhere to be found yesterday in an interview in which he appeared to be more vocal than he's ever been on the topic of Obama's association with Ayers, using Sean Hannity's talking points and calling Obama, essentially, a liar.

Watch it:

In his column, Kristol strongly suggests that McCain fire his entire campaign, but more and more it appears that the problem is more the candidate than those surrounding him. I mean, time and time again, when his own campaign zigs, John McCain zags. We may even need to come up with a new word other than "erratic" as he seems to have worn that one out.

Yesterday I noted that the McCain campaign appeared intent on selling out the Republican Party, or at least the party's efforts at stemming its losses in Congress. Now it looks like at least one GOP Congressman from a fairly Republican district -- R+9, according to the Cook Political Report, or about 9 points more Republican than the nation as a whole in presidential elections -- is returning the favor. Ben Smith has the story, fleshing out a graf from a New York Times report:

Nagourney and Bumiller mention in passing in tomorrow's Times that the Republican congressman representing Nebraska's second district, Lee Terry, has taken out ads to appeal to "Obama-Terry" voters. (The Obama campaign promptly sent the image over.)

I'm not sure if that's really a bellwether. I haven't seen a lot of other Republicans putting Obama next to their names, though that could change. And Terry has stuck by an early endorsement of McCain.

But that Nebraska district matters beyond any symbolic meaning. It's the Omaha district where Obama's hoping to steal an electoral vote. And the ad is a sign of the broader Democratic strength that runs up and down the ballot, and threatens to reinforce itself. Terry is favored, but faces a real challenge from from a Iraq vet serious candidate whose prospects are bolstered by Obama's turnout operation, which is presumably why Terry's aiming to pick up some of those Obama voters.

The reelection Lee Terry, the Republican Congressman at the center of this story, isn't a foregone conclusion -- Research 2000 polling for Daily Kos shows him leading his challenger, Jim Esch, by a 49 percent to 39 percent margin, and Cook rates his race as competitive, though leaning in the Republicans' direction -- though as mentioned above this his is a very Republican district. So the fact that Terry is running paid media trying to link himself to Barack Obama rather than John McCain is remarkable, if not stunning.

We're not talking about Gordon Smith here, running an uphill battle for reelection in a fairly blue state like Oregon, which has backed the Democrats in each of the last five presidential elections. It's not overwhelmingly surprising to see Smith run ads tying himself to Obama. But Terry? No Democrat has won his district in 16 years, and no Democrat has carried his state on the presidential level in 44 years. Yes, the Obama campaign and even the McCain campaign are making a play for the electoral vote associated with Terry's district, suggesting that it could go either way. Still, when a conservative Republican Congressman in a conservative Republican district of a conservative Republican state starts aligning himself with the Democratic presidential nominee, it's telling. And if it is at all an omen of what's to come, we may be on the verge of a major civil war within the GOP just three weeks from election day.

According to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, which overal shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by a 53 percent to 43 percent margin among likely voters, the McCain's tactic of trying to make Obama seem risky not only isn't working, it's apparently backfiring:

McCain's efforts to portray Obama as a risky choice do not appear to have worked, either. In fact, voters are likelier to describe the Republican candidate that way, and although 29 percent said they consider Obama a "very safe" choice for president, 18 percent said the same for McCain. Voters were evenly divided on the question of whether McCain is safe or risky; 55 percent said Obama is safe, while 45 percent described the Democrat as risky.

Take a look at the trend among registered voters for the two candidates, which says even more than the most recent data alone:

McCain

	10/08	9/08	6/08
Safe	50	51	57
Risky	50	48	41

Obama

	10/08	9/08	6/08
Safe	55	55	50
Risky	45	44	48

Four months ago, before McCain started to ramp up the all-mudslinging review that is his campaign, he led Obama in the safe/risky metric by a net 14 points (+16 to +2). Today, in the heat of McCain's negative efforts -- as well as the tanking of the Bush economy and Obama's two strong debate performances -- Obama has taken a net 10 point lead on the question (+10 to +0). So much for making Obama an unacceptable alternative to the voting public.

Paul Krugman, Princeton econ professor and NYT columnist, wins a nobel:

Mr. Krugman received the award for his work on international trade and economic geography. In particular, the prize committee lauded his work for "having shown the effects of economies of scale on trade patterns and on the location of economic activity." He has developed models that explain observed patterns of trade between countries, as well as what goods are produced where and why. Traditional trade theory assumes that countries are different and will exchange different kinds of goods with each other; Mr. Krugman's theories have explained why worldwide trade is dominated by a few countries that are similar to each other, and why some countries might import the same kinds of goods that it exports.
...
"For economists, this is a validation but not news. We know what each other have been up to," Mr. Krugman said. "For readers of the column, maybe they will read a little more carefully when I'm being economistic, or maybe have a little more tolerance when I'm being boring."

Besides his academic work, Krugman also deserves praise and thanks for his analysis of more immediate economic debates. From the fight to save Social Security to his analysis of candidates' health care plans to his foresight into our current crisis, trusting Krugman's perspective has always proved a good bet.

Congratulations to Professor Krugman.

The panic of an impending landslide is beginning to set in with Republicans.

Over at HuffPo, Tom Matzzie posted an important historical primer for what GOP excuses to expect when McCain loses big. Here's Tom's underlying observation (it's worth reading the whole thing):

Imagine an election where one of the participants calls foul. Investigations are launched or at least called for. Prosecutors raise the specter of charges, the U.S. attorney and FBI get involved. No voter fraud is ever actually found. But by the time that conclusion is reached, the myth has been solidified both to soothe the loser's supporters and condemn the winner.

Sound familiar? Sound like the recent ACORN scandal?

Well, actually I'm talking about the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. That Nixon was cheated out of a win is the stuff of legend on the Right. The allegations say that Kennedy loyalists fixed the vote counts in Illinois and Texas--swinging 51 electoral votes and a majority in the Electoral College to Kennedy. In more hyperbolic versions there is alleged involvement by the mob, the Teamsters Union or legendary Chicago mayor Richard Daley.

The story goes on that Nixon, "for the good of the country," conceded honorably and exited the scene. No matter that Nixon was later chased out of the White House for cheating in an election. The myth endures.

This whole story--maybe to be replayed with Obama playing Kennedy and McCain playing Nixon--is a canard. It is a fable. A lie made up by the conservative movement to hold together their fraying coalition.

In 2008 the stakes are bigger than they've ever been before for conservatives and the canard is that much more important to them.

In the case of Obama the conservative movement is lining up a serious of story elements. They are:

   * Obama was a community organizer.
    * ACORN, a group that does community organizing, has committed voter fraud.
    * Obama is from Chicago.
    * You know what happens in elections in Chicago. Remember the 1960 election.

And of course today's ACORN accusations are just as bogus as Nixon's lies were decades ago.

I quickly parsed the lie on Friday, but Tom sums it up succinctly:

The stunning con of this whole thing is the assumption that bad voter registration cards being submitted will lead to vote fraud. If somebody submits a card for Mickey Mouse it isn't like Mr. Mouse is going to show up to vote. There is no voter fraud if nobody votes.

So what's the intended result of this year's lie? It's two-fold.

First, it's used to justify Republican attempts to purge new voter registrations. We're seeing this storyline Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin (the sleeper voter suppression story of the cycle).

Second, in the likely event of a McCain loss, Republicans will use the lie of election fraud to both: a) de-legitimize an Obama administration, and b) deflect blame from rejected conservative ideology.

Matzzie concludes:

The best way to deflate the conservative fable is to win with an overwhelming landslide that guarantees there won't be a dispute of the results.

We also need to confront the Republican vote purging and suppression. Already big efforts by the Obama campaign, the DNC and independent groups are working on this. Progressives and Democrats are united in this effort.

But we also need to make sure the ACORN canard doesn't get to live in daylight. It is time to circle the wagons and make sure John McCain and the Right can't steal the election...even if we win.

For progressives, the ball is in our court.

So the next time a conservative friend repeats the ACORN smear they heard on Fox News, call them out.

Bill and Hillary Clinton went to bat for Barack and Joe today in Scranton, PA. The first video is a mash-up of Hillary's speech introducing Joe and a bit of Joe's. Watch it:

I have to say, I love that here we are in October and the rhetoric is as partisan as though it were primary season. This year the Democrats have learned the virtues of turning out the base, not running for the mushy middle and obscuring the differences between the two parties in hopes they'll be acceptable to the most people.

About freakin time.

This exchange on This Week today addressed this most welcome 2008 election phenomenon:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Both candidates ended up running some version of a turn out the base election. It just so happens that this year the Democratic base is much bigger than the Republican base.

GEORGE WILL: The Republicans do that because it's what they know how to do; the Democrats do it now because it's in their advantage.

PAUL KRUGMAN: I was critical of Obama early on for this notion that we were going to be bi-partisan, it wasn't going to happen...

STEPHANOPOULOS: You wanted a base election...

KRUGMAN: ...and here it is.

This next video is Hillary giving what is becoming the line of her stump speech:

What else is going on?