Two-faced & shameless? or just the status quo?

So the tide has turned in the last few days in the presidential election, and more-so on the Republican side of the debate. The McCain-Palin ticket has once again shifted its discussion to talk of "character". And in discussing character, they say words like 'judgement', 'associations', 'terrorist', 'radical', 'decisions', 'unknown', etc., and they always end with a long winded, doubt-provoking rant about who the "real" Barack Obama is...

If you haven't caught it on TPM, there has also been some clearly-microphoned instances of "crowd members" shouting slights in the midst of McCain or Palin speeches being broadcast on national TV.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign, appearing in polls across the board to be sitting on a comfortable electoral lead, is still on a hardcourt press regarding the economy, and his opponent's positions regarding it.

Notice a difference in approach?

And that's not all. Not only is the McCain campaign going all-out on "character", but so are the surrogates, on all the channels.

Some in the media and elsewhere have been quick enough to give us the "straight talk" that the Republican machine is doing nothing other than fear-mongering. And I whole-heartedly agree.

After several days of continued economic instability, and decreasing market performance, and countless amounts of "flip-flopping" on the notion of running a positive, constructive campaign, the best thing the McCain camp can come up with is to bring up doubt about Obama and what some radical guy did 40 years ago? Instead of speaking in detail about what John Sydney McCain would do for the American people if he were elected, and what his policies would do to improve this country in times of trouble, he's talking about the '60s, and terrorists? He's talking about a time when Obama & Palin were learning their times-tables? Talk about making yourself look old...

But what I also find SO hypocritical, is that Sarah Palin has the gaul to steop up to a podium, and tell the American people, that we need to question who Barack Obama really is...

Really? REALLY? For someone who is such a secretly devout supporter of the faith, I'm surprised you're worried about the splinter in Obama's eye, when there is apparently a much larger rail-road tie thrust through those $500 specs of yours (and don't worry, those glasses aren't elitist in any way). I think it takes such an extreme lack of foresight and humility to be able to criticize someone for being unknown, when you are just as much an enigma. Oh, except for the fact that Obama has been thoroughly vetted for at least 2 years, and can apparently answer questions off the cuff...

And if you are going to question "character" and 'association', 'judgement', and all that other bolonga, I think then you are going beyond politics, policy, and what the American people need to hear to elect you. At that point, I think yes, "all gloves are off" as Palin says.

And I wonder why the following hasn't been raised:

If Obama is the elitist, why is John McCain jet-setting to "Shangri-La" in the Bahamas with his wife, kid, and nanny ( what is more elitist than a nanny?!?!), and to the mediterranean, to spend time on fancy yachts with rich donors?

The Palins have reported incomes less than $150,000/yr in their released income taxes filings (oh, and if I'm not mistaken, that's below the tax level for breaks on Obama's plan), have they amassed so many investments? And why would Todd Palin, who was making ~ $150,000/yr (FROM AN OIL COMPANY) the year before his wife became governer, all of a sudden stop working, to become a shadow Chief of Staff off the payroll? What is that "association" all about? I'm sure there was some campaign activity in Todd Palin's living room. I'd say we'd have to worry about a VP who is like Bush who has a Cheney-like husband...

Why are we talking about experience? The McCain camp themselves, after the selection of Palin said multiple times that the "experience" element is no longer relevant. So instead, we should be speaking about policies. Yet no one speaks about policies. And I think there should be an independent group out there that labels any discussion by a candidate as Anti-American if it does not relate to how well they will govern through the application of policies, and their clear and informed justification of the expected success of their policies based on historical evidence or data and not on rhetoric or campaign talking points....

With every debate, news report, and day that passes by, I get more disappointed in the system as it is. You better believe I will be voting. But it's an ineffectual vote that I will cast. Because the process to choose someone to occupy a position in a fundamentally corrupt and distorted structure has become a disturbingly pre-packaged, and disengaged discourse.