Now this is just plain embarrassing. In 2004, George W. Bush pulled in about 60 percent of the vote in Nebraska's second congressional district, but there have been signs for a while that the districts single electoral vote may be in play. Indeed, just last week the Obama campaign announced that it was adding another office in Omaha to help in the efforts in the second, and news emerged that the Obama campaign had spent $350,000 advertising in the city (the media market of which spills into Iowa as well) while the McCain campaign had not yet made a similar investment.

The McCain campaign, getting skittish about all of these developments, sent Sarah Palin to Omaha this weekend in the hopes of staving off a loss of this single electoral vote. But rather than just let the action stand for itself, or even being forthcoming about the fact that the electoral vote was in play, the McCain campaign trotted out what has to be the lamest excuse I've heard in a while: Palin saying she just wanted to visit Nebraska.

Sarah Palin said at a hastily scheduled Sunday night rally in this solidly red state that the decision to come here was hers alone and was not the defensive move by her campaign to lock up Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District that many pundits have suggested.

[...]

"And you can ask -- and probably the reporters will ask -- the top dogs in our campaign why am I in Nebraska, and it's truly because I asked to come to the heartland of America today," she said.

It's bad enough that the McCain campaign has been forced to defend Nebraska of all places, but to try to spin away this embarrassment by claiming that Palin just wanted to visit Omaha only compounds the problem. With all we have heard about the able press shop of the McCain campaign, you'd think they'd be able to come up with some better spin than that.

Forget the first week of November. Today starts the last week of McCain's campaign.

As the Dow dips below 10,000 and reports warn of reduced consumer spending, we know the economic crisis is still first on voters' mind. And we know it'll likely get worse before it gets better.

But the McCain campaign doesn't want to lead - they're furiously, desperately trying to duck the responsibility of addressing a national crisis. How can voters trust a candidate that won't?

So Republicans are trying to distract with slime (and Bill Kristol loves it).

As Todd noted overnight, the Obama campaign is responding to McCain's Ayers smear with a discussion of the Keating Five. But beware the sin of traditional political media: reporting a false equivalency. McCain's conduct during the Keating scandal is relevant - not only because of his adherence to failed economic policy, but because of his personal conduct and judgment when America faced a financial crisis.

McCain, short on paths to victory and playing defense, is turning to fear for campaign salvation: Obama is scary because he's met Ayers. But it won't work, because there's something more tangible and real to be afraid of: an uncertain economic future with a new President McCain unwilling to lead.

If McCain's past (and his most crushing political scandal) becomes tied to our current crisis this week, he's finished. If he's not already.

John McCain has occasionally spoken about how lucky he feels to still be alive having "survived three plane crashes." The LA Times digs deeper into those crashes and delivers what could be the most brutal takedown of one of the pillars of McCain's candidacy for president, his military experience.

Of McCain's days as a Naval aviator, The Times writes:

Mishaps mark John McCain's record as naval aviator: Three crashes early in his career led Navy officials to question or fault his judgment.

John McCain, welcome to your October surprise.

The LAT documents his crashes.

John McCain was training in his AD-6 Skyraider on an overcast Texas morning in 1960 when he slammed into Corpus Christi Bay and sheared the skin off his plane's wings.

McCain recounted the accident decades later in his autobiography. "The engine quit while I was practicing landings," he wrote. But an investigation board at the Naval Aviation Safety Center found no evidence of engine failure.

D'oh!

More:

In his most serious lapse, McCain was "clowning" around in a Skyraider over southern Spain about December 1961 and flew into electrical wires, causing a blackout, according to McCain's own account as well as those of naval officers and enlistees aboard the carrier Intrepid. In another incident, in 1965, McCain crashed a T-2 trainer jet in Virginia.

And then there were two incidents after he was deployed to Vietnam.

After McCain was sent to Vietnam, his plane was destroyed in an explosion on the deck of an aircraft carrier in 1967. Three months later, he was shot down during a bombing mission over Hanoi and taken prisoner. He was not faulted in either of those cases and was later lauded for his heroism as a prisoner of war.

Not faulted...except that The LA Times actually does imply that McCain might have avoided being shot down had he not been such a reckless pilot.

Three months later, McCain was on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam when a surface-to-air missile struck his A-4 attack jet. He was flying 3,000 feet above Hanoi.

A then-secret report issued in 1967 by McCain's squadron said the aviators had learned to stay at an altitude of 4,000 to 10,000 feet in heavy surface-to-air missile environments and look for approaching missiles.

This portrayal of McCain plays into a narrative that the Obama campaign has become rather fond of lately, which is that McCain's behavior is "erratic." A couple examples from the LAT article about the erratic behavior of young John McCain.  

This examination of his record revealed a pilot who early in his career was cocky, occasionally cavalier and prone to testing limits. [...]

The young McCain has often been described as undisciplined and fearless -- a characterization McCain himself fostered in his autobiography.

The media has been clutching its pearls over the Obama campaign's use of the word "erratic" when describing McCain presumably because of an ageism subtext, but these tales make clear that in the case of John MCCain, erratic behavior is not a function of his advanced years, rather it's simply a quality of his character. From the young McCain's cockpit antics to the last 2 weeks of wacky behavior on the campaign trail, as Claire McCaskill eloquently documented on Fox News Sunday yesterday.

Now, on the other hand, if you look at what Barack Obama's ad says, it's just talking about what John McCain did the last two weeks. He was erratic. One day, no bailout. The next day, a bailout. One day, "I'm suspending my campaign." The next day, "I'm not."

One day, "I'm going to debate." The next day, "I'm not going to debate." The next day, I go ahead and debate. One day, "I'm not going to leave Washington until we have a deal," and then he's on a plane out of Washington after the deal's kind of blown up. So it really -- there has been a lot of erratic behavior.

• Must see video of Bruce Springsteen at a Vote For Change rally in Philadelphia for Barack:

• Our condolences go out to Senator Joe Biden and his family upon the death of his mother-in-law.

  Bonny Jean Jacobs, 78, the mother-in-law of Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic vice presidential nominee, died this afternoon after a long illness, according to a spokesman for the Biden campaign.

  Mr. Biden has canceled all campaign appearances Monday and Tuesday to be with his wife, Jill Jacobs Biden, and their families.

• The Obama campaign has launched KeatingEconomics.com to link the economic crisis of today to McCain's policies going back to the time he was embroiled in the Keating 5 scandal.

  The current economic crisis demands that we understand John McCain's attitudes about economic oversight and corporate influence in federal regulation. Nothing illustrates the danger of his approach more clearly than his central role in the savings and loan scandal of the late '80s and early '90s.

  There is a 30 second "trailer" of a longer documentary on the subject at the link above. The full doc will launch at 12PM EDT. vcalzone has more.

• The mystery of Sarah Palin's "there's a place in hell" comment is solved:

  At a rally on Saturday in California, Sarah Palin offered up a rather jarring argument for supporting the Republican ticket. "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women," the Alaska Governor said, claiming she was quoting former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

  The statement came after Palin had recounted a "providential" moment she experienced on Saturday: "I'm reading on my Starbucks mocha cup, okay? The quote of the day... It was Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State [crowd boos] and UN ambassador. ... Now she said it, I didn't. She said, 'There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women.'"

  The truth, however, is that Albright didn't say that. The actual quote was "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't help other women." Madeline Albright responds:

  "Though I am flattered that Governor Palin has chosen to cite me as a source of wisdom, what I said had nothing to do with politics. This is yet another example of McCain and Palin distorting the truth, and all the more reason to remember that this campaign is not about gender, it is about which candidate has an agenda that will improve the lives of all Americans, including women. The truth is, if you care about the status of women in our society and in our troubled economy, the best choice by far is Obama-Biden."

What else is going on?

[editor's note, by Todd Beeton]I fixed the real Albright quote.

Yesterday, as I returned to my car after the Sarah Palin event, I was relieved to find that all the bumper stickers on my car (I have Kerry/Edwards on there still, Hillary and a few Obama ones) were still in one piece. Even the 'Bush's Last Day' magnet was still affixed to the trunk of my car. I literally had never seen so many McCain/Palin bumper stickers all in one place as I did yesterday, let alone ever in my life, so you can imagine how conspicuous my car was in that parking lot.

But while my car did escape vandalism, the day did not pass without confrontation.

I had just pulled out of the Home Depot Center and was waiting at a red light behind a few cars, my driver side window was open. As I waited, I heard a polite "Excuse me," it had come from a friendly looking guy who'd pulled up to the left of me with his passenger side window open. I thought he was lost and looking for directions. Actually, no. Turns out he had a different question for me entirely. Having seen my decorated bumper, he asked in an oddly friendly but still confrontational tone:

"Can you give me one reason you're a Democrat?"

I was stunned for a second. I was in my car. This is LA, my car is my castle, you can't do that, I thought. But after the shock had worn off from this odd sort of political drive by, I just looked at him and blurted out "Sure, I'm a Democrat because Democrats fight for the common good and fairness and I believe the government has a role in improving people's lives." Talk about a moose in headlights, this guy was just speechless. I guess he hadn't considered that he'd actually get an answer to his question, let alone three. Without even a reply from the guy, I turned back to the road, saw the light had turned green and drove off. I was pretty happy with my answer, not because it was the most eloquent thing I've ever said in my life or because it was even the best case I could have made for the Democratic Party, but because it came out of my mouth with such ease, the way something that you don't even have to think about does -- in a sort of pure unedited way.

So I thought I'd open up the question to you. I'm curious. Why are you a Democrat?

Update [2008-10-5 22:59:23 by Todd Beeton]:By the way, here's the reason the guy knew I was a Democrat and a proud one:

On Thursday, Chris Cilizza reported on a McCain campaign electoral strategy call during which senior McCain advisor Greg Strimple said the following:

"To say we are on defense is not true," insisted Strimple. "We are aggressively using our resources in states where we have to win."

As evidence of this they unveiled their plan to compete for Maine's second congressional seat and revealed that their strategy includes, and indeed depends, on competing on turf that John Kerry won in 2004. Add to that Palin's rally in the bluest county of one of the bluest states yesterday, and you get a picture of a campaign decidedly on offense. But as with so much else about the McCain campaign, that appearance is merely a facade.

Methinks, Mr. Strimple, thou doth protest too much.

Take for example where Sarah Palin is as we speak:

In another sign that Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District is in play in the race for the White House, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin will speak at a public rally tonight in Omaha.

The campaign stop will be at the Civic Auditorium. Doors open at 4 p.m. Palin is expected to take the stage sometime after 6:30 p.m.

Sen. John McCain's running mate will stop in Omaha en route to an event in Florida, said Wendy Riemann, a McCain campaign spokeswoman.

This stop just 2 days after the Obama campaign confirmed it had opened its second field office in Omaha, a sign that he is actively trying to turn that second cd blue.

Contrast where Palin is today with where Obama was today: Asheville, NC. Which campaign is on offense and which is on defense again?

As even Karl Rove conceded on Fox News Sunday today:

Obama has forced this more onto the Republican turf and off the Democratic turf and that's where you want to be at this point.

Nate Silver elaborated on the significance of Palin's appearance in Omaha:

Berge told us that we'd know if the Nebraska 2d congressional district internals had the McCain camp worried if we started seeing Republican surrogates in the area. With every day's time so precious for each candidate -- an issue of resource allocation -- campaigns have to prioritize where the smartest expenditure of time will be. The nominee or VP nominee going to an area is a big deal. [...]

"Oh c'mon, do we have to?" aside, if the McCain campaign is defending Omaha rather than spending time in Michigan, there is no bluffing going on -- McCain is holding on for dear life at this stage.

Yesterday Sarah Palin launched the first of what is sure to be many attacks against Obama as anti-American by virtue of his association with William Ayers. "Palling around with terrorists" is how she put it. It is the sign of a candidate and campaign with nothing substantive to run on, and only a desperate final hail Mary as a last resort. As Nate Silver puts it:

...they're going to drive their campaign into a ditch -- and hope they can find a way to take Obama along for the ride.

Too bad for McCain, no one seems to be buying it.

In her speech yesterday, Palin referenced a New York Times article about Ayers, which concluded "Little Influence Seen" between the two men and that:

"...the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers."

And that's the article that Palin is citing to bolster her case?

Over at CNN, their Fact Check concludes the same thing:

The Statement: Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin said Saturday, October 4, that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is "someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." [...]

Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.

And none other than The AP thinks this may actually backfire on McCain:

By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists" and doesn't see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.

And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.

As does conservative pundit George Will, who announced on This Week this morning:

STEPHANOUPOLOS: Is the attack that Governor Palin took yesterday the right one?

WILL: No. The attack she took yesterday is saying not that Barack Obama has bad ideas that would be bad for the country, but Barack Obama is a bad person. And I don't think people want to do that. We don't elect angry presidents and John McCain looks very angry at the moment.

But just because the attack doesn't appear to be sticking, doesn't mean it should go unanswered. Indeed, having learned the lessons of Democratic nominees past, the Obama campaign hit back fast with the charge that the McCain campaign is so desperate that all they will do from now to election day is attack Obama rather than address the problems of ordinary Americans:

The Obama campaign responded by noting that McCain officials had been quoted as saying that they hoped to “turn the page” on the fiscal crisis, which has hurt Mr. McCain’s standing in the polls, and to devote more time to attacking Mr. Obama.

“Governor Palin’s comments, while offensive, are not surprising, given the McCain campaign’s statement this morning that they would be launching Swift-boat-like attacks in hopes of deflecting attention from the nation’s economic ills,” said Hari Sevugan, an Obama spokesman. “What’s clear is that John McCain and Sarah Palin would rather spend their time tearing down Barack Obama than laying out a plan to build up our economy.”

They also released this ad:

So far throughout this entire election cycle, remarkably, we've seen facts and rationality win out over fear. Will that continue over the next 30 days? It's clear that Palin's reference to plural "terrorists" (no comment, of course, from the McCain campaign on who these other terrorists Obama is "palling around with" are) and her evocation of racial cues in her speech yesterday are intended to make people fear Barack Obama, to portray him as "the other" but for that strategy to work, they need the nation to be its old 2004 self. Again, too bad for John McCain, not only is the country in a much different place than it was just 4 years ago, but the left is far better organized with a media infrastructure that has been able to effectively hit back against such attacks in real time. This isn't 2004 anymore.

Update [2008-10-5 19:48:41 by Todd Beeton]:One key way this is sooo not 2004: our candidate hits back swiftly and often. Here's Barack on the campaign trail today:

Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday charged that Sen. John McCain's campaign is launching "Swift boat-style attacks" on him instead of addressing the country's problems.

"Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that they can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. They'd rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up," Obama said at an event in Asheville, North Carolina.

"That's what you do when you're out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time," he said.

Notice how Obama is not adopting a defensive posture. In fact, he even took the opportunity to continue to hit McCain's health care policy, calling it "radical" and "out of line with our basic values."

Saturday Night Live, it seems, is back:

The Beltway folks, who had set as low a bar as possible for Sarah Palin, apparently thought that the Republican Vice Presidential nominee more than did enough to reclaim her image. Mark Halperin wrote that the "late night jokes could cease," and that aside from her winks and folksy jargon Palin "didn't leave Tina Fey much to work with." Similarly, Romesh Ponnuru opined, "The big loser tonight was Tina Fey."

Boy, were they wrong. Fey was as on last night as she has been the past few weeks -- and it didn't hurt that Palin did give her a lot to work with. Halperin and Ponnuru may think that Palin and the McCain campaign have reclaimed control over Palin's image, but at this point she still looks a lot like Dan Quayle, except less qualified and more comical.