Much has been made of Barack Obama’s historic victory over John McCain for the presidency of the United States. The rise of a black man to the highest office in the land is indeed a major event in our history, but have race relations in the U.S. really made the advances we think Obama’s presidency signifies? Think again.

Although dear ol’ Lincoln enacted the Emancipation Proclamation around 150 years ago, and the civil and voting rights acts  passed just under 50 years ago, most would argue that we haven’t made real progress until now. This election has been touted by many as the final and real end to the racial politics that prompted the civil war, but let’s check our assumptions.

Compare the map above, which appeared in The New York Times and shows which states went for which candidates in this month’s election, with the map below, which depicts the Union states in blue and the Confederate states in red (and the gray states didn’t exist):

Has much “changed”? Instead of a Union and a Confederacy, we now have a Blue America and a Red America. The divide is the same, the semantics are different.

Those who see the election of Barack Obama as indicative of a triumphant “change” in U.S. race relations are mistaken. If anything, this election points to the contrary. The idea of a black man becoming president is still unacceptable in the states that once called themselves Confederate.

The Civil War did not end because the southern states accepted their intolerance. Rather, the brute force of the Union states made southerners abandon their bigoted practices. These southerners are in the same situation today—but this time, the votes of the majority (as opposed to guns and ammo) are providing the push for them to accept a racially just outcome.

Celebrating the election of the first black president in U.S. history should not be overshadowed by these realities, but should give us some pause for what lies ahead. Not everyone is pleased that Barack Obama is our new president-elect and these folks will be watching and criticizing (and undermining) his every move. Obama may have won the election-night fight, but he still has a four-year battle ahead of him.

We can only hope that his term in office will bring about much needed political and economic change, but also, and most importantly, a substantial transformation that will end this country’s long history of racial intolerance.

I was pan-frying ground turkey when it happened. I added some basil and a pinch of pepper, and turned to glance at the TV. Plastered in red and blue lettering across the bottom half of the screen: “CNN Prediction: Obama Wins Presidential Election.” I turned the gas off—turkey be damned—and stood with my hand over my mouth and goosebumps creeping up my spine. Wow, I thought. So, this is democracy. I had only cast my ballot an hour before, but by 8:20 p.m. my ticket was cashed in.

I’ve never voted before. In fact, I’ve spent my life struggling with the dual identity of being a double major in British and American. I was born here, but grew up there, and returned to the U.S. just in time for my first presidential election. Because of my American identity, I was never allowed to vote in the U.K. and I was never old enough to send an absentee ballot across seas. But then suddenly, there I was—strolling into the polls after a hard day at work, and making my well-rehearsed decisions final. I wore my “I Voted” sticker with pride when I walked to the Starbucks around the corner and claimed my free coffee. I still carry the ballot stub in my wallet.

Back at home, I watched intently as John McCain took the stage. The crowd started to “boo” as he graciously offered congratulations to Barack Obama. McCain put up his hands in protest. “Please,” he ordered. He expressed his admiration for the inspiration Obama had become to millions of Americans. He recognized that both he and Obama loved their country. He emphasized the morals that the two candidates share, not those which separate them from one another. In a single speech, he humanized the campaign. “I offer my sincere sympathy that [Obama's] grandmother did not live to see this day,” said McCain. “Although our faith assures us that she is at rest in the presence of her creator and so very proud of the good man she helped raise.”

At this point, I admit—I was in tears. Not for this white-haired man who stood at the podium the image of dignity and patriotism, nor for the passionate young candidate he was ceding to, but for the country I had loved and missed for more than 20 years. This was the America I was raised to believe in: a land of unification, of determination to propel the wings of greater good, of people standing hand in hand—regardless of life experience, beliefs, age or color—under the flag of the country they all so believe in. America is the land where polar opposites meet: where one can stand in the boiling heat of the Mojave desert and stare up at snowy mountain tops, where homeless people sleep above the stars on Hollywood Boulevard, where peanut butter meets jelly and donuts are a breakfast item.

When Obama walked on stage with his wife and children, there was a strange feeling of nostalgia—as if the anticipation that this moment would be so historically significant had glossed it with an air of repetition. How many times will we see view this moment in the days, months and decades to come? How many times and ways will it be analyzed, criticized or praised? How many people will share this image and store it in their mind for the length of a lifetime? (Q: “Where were you when Obama was elected?” A: “Cooking Spaghetti”)

To me, a certified American just learning about Hamburger Helper, American Football, and SNL, Obama spoke a very specific message during his election night speech. This is a man who is very aware of how the world views America from the outside in, and his words were directed at the cynics across seas. To many, America has become the butt of a bad sitcom joke in the last eight years. I have witnessed the anti-American sentiment grow. European and worldwide perspectives changed and the U.S. became nothing more than a land of ignorance, bigotry and gluttony. What the world needed was a sign that America is on course to regain its dignity and rehabilitate the stereotypical behaviors that have turned so many heads in disgust.

“If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy… tonight is your answer.”

The following day my sister told me that even in her corner of the quaint English countryside on the outskirts of London, the British were rejoicing. In their usual way, the British media was reacting with dramatic skepticism—broadcasting images of Obama hiding behind a bullet-proof screen while the results were announced, and speaking of the unspeakable fear that Obama will indeed be the next JFK. But excitement was still pulsating through the rainy isle. “It’s like America is entering a new time,” my sister commented. “And the whole world is happy about it.”

MSNBC anchor David Shuster was the victim of a hoax.

On Monday, he said the source for a particularly salacious piece of gossip about Sarah Palin (that she thought Africa was a country) was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy advisor. After all, Eisenstadt said so on his blog.

By Wednesday, the New York Times had the whole story, and MSNBC was running a correction.

Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish created the character of Eisenstadt, and created his blog, designed a Web site for the fake think tank he works for and filmed YouTube videos of Eisenstadt in action (played by Gorlin).

MSNBC wasn’t the first news organization to be fooled by Eisenstadt. Mother Jones blogger Jonathan Stein was tricked by Eisenstadt in July, but in his retraction post, he fully documented the commentator was fake. Gawker called bull on the “adviser” on Nov. 4, a full week before the MSNBC story ran. And if an MSNBC researcher just Googled Eisenstadt’s name, he would have found some sites that had outed Eisenstadt as a hoax as early as June 27.

So David Shuster got fooled. And in retrospect, Martin Eisenstadt isn’t too convincing of an advisor (just watch those YouTube videos!). But it worked just the same. If you want to create a fake policy adviser, how do you do it? What’s the best way to hoax the media?

Step 1: Come up with a believable name. Per Eitan Gorlin, he and Mirvish settled on Martin Eisenstadt because, he told the Times, “all the neocons in the Bush administration had Jewish last names and Christian first names.”

Step 2: Say you work for a think tank named after a president who governed in the 1920s. Just check out the mission statement pages of the real Hoover Institution and the fake Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy.

Step 3: Say something the media outlets want to hear. Formerly anonymous source coming forward to admit he’s a backstabbing staff member? Of course we’ll report it! (Documents proving George W. Bush was a lousy Air National Guard member? Of course we’ll use them!)

Step 4: Remind yourself of a couple Internet truisms: Anything written online is true, therefore, your fake adviser’s blog will be believed to be true. And don’t forget the second truism: Anything sent via e-mail is true, too.  MSNBC spokesperson Jeremy Gaines told the Times that someone in the newsroom learned about the Palin source from a colleague via e-mail and assumed it had been verified.

So where will the next hoaxter come from? Who knows? But one piece of advice: Don’t trust any senior fellows from the James Buchanan Equality Institute.

Michelle and Barack Obama out for dinner on Saturday night.

The McCain camp scored one of its few victories over the course of the campaign when it labeled Barack Obama a celebrity in advertising spots that ran in August. The criticism stuck because in many ways it was true: Obama was drawing thousands of adoring fans to every campaign rally he held.

But now that Obama is President-elect, Americans can obsess about their new, handsome Commander-in-Chief and his beautiful family without fear of being labeled star hounds. On Friday, the Obama camp posted election-night photos of the family waiting for Barack to be declared the winner on Flickr, and the page wouldn’t display for a while as visitors eager to see the new first family overloaded the site.

The Obamas are getting the real celebrity treatment: There are now grainy photographs chronicling their every move. The Huffington Post breathlessly declared Sunday, “Obamas Eat Out For First Time Since Win.”

Barack and Michelle Obama are meeting with George and Laura Bush Monday afternoon for their first official tour of the White House, and Washington insiders are predicting awkwardness as Obama meets with someone he has spent the last months criticizing on the campaign trail. But while Obama meets with the exiting president, continues to assemble his cabinet, and weighs what policy initiatives to take on first, us lowly citizens are tackling the real issue the first family needs to address, asking “what kind of dog should Malia and Sasha get?” [Ed note—presidential celebrities are just like you and me!]

Obama addressed this concern at his first press conference as president-elect on Friday.

With respect to the dog, this is a major issue. I think it’s generated more interest on our Web site than just about anything. We have—we have two criteria that have to be reconciled. One is that Malia is allergic, so it has to be hypo-allergenic. There are a number of breeds that are hypo-allergenic. On the other hand, our preference would be to get a shelter dog. But obviously, a lot of shelter dogs are mutts, like me. So the—so, whether we’re going to be able to balance those two things, I think, is a pressing issue on the Obama household.

Obama has been praised for running a brilliant campaign, but clearly he knows the real way to get into Americans’ hearts: talk about pets. Just Google “Obama family dog” and there will be thousands of stories and hundreds of breed suggestions for the Obamas to consider.

Even Bill Kristol is concerned a dog-friendly Obama will be an unbeatable president. Writing about Obama’s press conference, the conservative New York Times columnist said, “Here, in a few sentences, Obama did the following: He deepened his bond with every dog lover in America. He identified with every household that’s tried to figure out what kind of dog to get. He touched every parent with a kid allergic to pets. He showed compassion by preferring a dog from a shelter. And he demonstrated a dry and slightly politically incorrect wit by commenting that ‘a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me.’”

A common refrain during the campaign from McCain and others was that Obama was an unknown. Now that he will be the next president, there is a demonstrated hunger from Americans to learn more about Obama and his family. What new styles will Michelle introduce? Where will the girls go to school? Will Barack follow through on his pledge to install a basketball court in the White House?

We’ll all be able to follow along as the Obamas make their new home in Washington. Some celebrities complain about the lack of privacy in their lives. But that doesn’t apply when it’s the president, right?

Vlad left Kiev in 1989 (the Wall fell and he was out) and became a citizen in the ’90s. He’s enjoyed the enfranchising privilege every year since then. Remembering that voter participation was “encouraged” (i.e. required) in the USSR, he never questioned his decision to take part in each election, but he also used that memory to guide his candidate choice.

“I voted absentee. It’s hard doing anything during the day because cab drivers have long hours.”

“I saw Communism and the soldiers’ badges, and I felt their hands on my shoulders. So i would never want to see anything close to that here.”

Here’s the brief vid Gaille Chua shot of my conversation with him:

Vlad the Cab Driver Speaks Voting from Gaille Chua on Vimeo.

Be careful what you ask for: Barack Obama won the US presidency in convincing fashion, taking 53% of the popular vote and snagging the lion’s share of the electoral college (349 with North Carolina and Missouri still hanging out there, according to CNN). With plenty of “this is breaking down racial barriers” stories already on tap for the immediate news of his win, the media is turning to the “now what?” question. The answer is a resounding “this man has a lot of work to do and an uphill battle to get it done,” despite Democrats having almost total control over both houses of Congress (they just missed the filibuster-proof 60 seat majority in the Senate). What is clear is that Obama has the support of his country and his planet like no one this generation has ever seen.

Bittersweet Victory: Californians (as well as Floridians and Arizon…ians?) elated with the symbolic progress their country made last night by electing the first African-American president had a short honeymoon when they awoke to discover Proposition 8, which writes a ban on gay marriage into the state constitution, passed by a narrow margin. The nation appears to have moved beyond the racism that suppressed Black America just 50 short years ago, but has replaced it with a church-sanctioned form of bigotry. Between the vast financial support of the Mormon Church (you know, the people exiled to their own state because of intolerance) and the supposed “Obama Effect” of socially conservative minority voters showing up in droves for Barack and voting for Prop 8, I think we can all agree that gay is the new black in this country.

Oh yeah, those guys: So what is on tap for the GOP? For starters, the real John McCain finally made an appearance last night during a magnificent concession speech where booing at the mention of Obama’s name epitomized everything wrong with his party. Conservative writers lament Obama’s electoral landslide as a referendum on Republican economic policy, but as Elizabeth Dole would probably tell you, it was more a definitive death-blow to the Atwater/Rovian/Schmidt style of smear tactics and voter-intimidation by fear.

Oh yeah, her: The real enigma of the GOP is Sarah Palin. McCain gave her a full-throated endorsement for 2012 in his speech last night, even though she apologized for costing him votes. But Steve Schmidt equivocated when asked early on Election Day if Palin was to blame for his campaign’s eventual loss. Not exactly the unified front we are used to seeing from a party that had won seven of the past 10 national elections. She tickled the base, but the Moral Majority might be no more and one has to think that Republican strategists are already concocting ways of replacing the requisite pandering to the Religious Right with a broader appeal. Whether or not she studies up in the next four years will determine if she is her party’s savior, or its John Edwards.

And the award for the most shamless election night technological gimmick goes to: CNN. No shocker here, coming from the network with more giant flatscreens than a Cribs marathon. After several teases by a purple-tie-wearing Wolf Blitzer as “something you have never seen on television before,” Jessica Yellin was beamed into the election center as a hologram for conversation with the political reindeer himself. Why have we never seen this on live TV before? Because it’s absolutely f***ing worthless. “Help me Ander-San Cooper, you’re this network’s only hope.”

Award for most interesting, non-racial, non-freak-out at the uphill battle, post-election slant: McClatchy’s story on how Obama plans to utilize his 3 million strong volunteer database as president.

Minutes before John McCain took the stage to admit defeat, I spoke with John Gaddis, a young Republican from Placentia, California, who was suited up to attend the GOP’s “Victory 2008 Election Night Party” in Irvine.

Gaddis, a college student, said he voted Republican because “it’s the more logical of the two options.”

Why? Economics.

Gaddis doesn’t buy the argument that the GOP is responsible for the country’s current economic crisis.

“The Democratic congress forced these low-income families to take on loans they couldn’t afford,” argues Gaddis. “And I think that’s unethical.”

Gaddis also likes how the Republican party upholds the values of Christianity. He has a year to go until graduation. After that, he intends to become a pastor . . .  or a salesman.

He supports the war in Iraq and thinks the American people need to be more concerned with integrity, as opposed to reputation. We’re still a superpower, he says. What other countries think of us is beside the point.

The same philosophy might be what compels Gaddis to lean Republican, despite his youth.

“They say, ‘If you’re young and a Republican, you have no heart. If you’re old and a Democrat, you have no brains,’” he grinned. “Well, I chose to find my brains early.”

Before McCain’s concession, Gaddis was hopeful that his candidate would pull through.

“We still have some crucial large states,” he said. “Every vote counts. I won’t lose hope until every vote is tallied.”

Twenty minutes later, after McCain threw in the towel, Gaddis was still hopeful—for the outcome of the state propositions. Namely, he thought Californians would vote Yes on Prop 8, the measure to end legalized gay marriage in the state.

“I think these propositions address deep-seated ethical values held in the heart of every American,” Gaddis said.

He went on to stress that this is a resilient country. As long as we follow the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, we’ll continue to be strong—even with Barack Obama in the White House.

Ah, democracy! We’re lucky enough to live in a country that allows us to choose our leaders from the comfort of home… well, somebody else’s home.

The term “polling place” no longer refers to government-affiliated stations. It doesn’t even apply solely to the gymnasiums, rec centers, and holy houses (complete with lemonade and Rice Krispie treats) we’ve come to associate with booths and ballots on election days.

For a decade or so, folks have volunteered their garages to the political cause by converting their two-vehicle carports (call it a new kind of “garage conversion,” if you will) into voting HQs.

Our editor came across one such vote-abode just north of Lincoln Blvd. on Santa Monica’s Pine Street.

Gaille Chua and I visited the two-story white home with a bench in front and an American flag waving from its second floor, with a line of enthusiastic voters at the open garage’s door. From young Berkeley-esque parents with bohemian-looking babies ensconced in modern stroller contraptions, self-contained middle-aged professionals taking a break from the workday to vote in their neighborhood, to elderly individuals making their way to the polls alone or in pairs, Barbara Bouer’s home was a hub of activity from as early as 6 a.m. to the closing 8 p.m.

Bouer explained she started offering her home to the country every first Tuesday in November when a canvasser let her know that hosting an election was possible. Excited to give her adopted country what the Toronto-born nurse called her “little civic contribution,” she opened her house to voters 12 years ago, sharing bagels and coffee with these visitors every year.

Canvassers pay her $20 backs to commandeer her garage Monday and Tuesday. Together, they all set up decision-making shop, and the rest is, well… you know the score.

The lean West side woman never asks how her “guests” are voting, but says she’s happy to watch them exercise their democratic rights.

“It’s none of my business, but I hope they’re voting right!” She laughed. “Either way, we’re all having fun here.”

She says her house was more popular today than it’s ever been, but not because her home’s improved.

“People are just so excited,” she said. “I’ve never seen lines like this. People got here at 6 a.m., and I had to remind them they weren’t allowed in for another hour.”

Photo: Ron Paul at his desk.

Connecticut-born Joe Spiegel works in finance in Boulder and New York City. He’s voting for neither John McCain nor Barack Obama.

A registered Libertarian, Spiegel won’t even be checking the box for party candidate Bob Barr.

Come Tuesday, he’s writing in Ron Paul.

Spiegel, who is in his mid-thirties, has said that of all the structural political ideologies and belief systems floating around the states, the one that resonates most deeply with him is that of Republicanism in its most traditional, 18th century form.

John Adams once defined a republic to be “a government of laws, and not of men.” The original sentiments behind Republicanism put personal freedom and the power of written law over the finicky whims of politicians and other such go-betweens.

Similarly, Libertarianism, also born in the late 1700s, remains true to its name: Libertarians prize “liberty,” despise authoritarian governments, believe that people possessing free will may coexist without the need for a governing body, and encourage respect for property, privacy, and the minding of one’s own business.

Joe Spiegel explains that of all the candidates he’s seen bursting into the political arena, Congressman Ron Paul’s views—anti-NATO, anti-UN, anti-federal income tax, anti-Federal Reserve (in favor of hard currency), anti-Patriot Act, anti-gun regulation, anti-No Child Left Behind, anti-War on Drugs, anti-Roe v. Wade (supporting state decisions), non-intervention—hew closest to his own.

We spoke on the phone about his support for Paul:

Do you think you’re wasting your vote by going for a candidate not likely to win?

The only vote that’s wasted is the vote not cast. Sitting something out says ‘I don’t care,’ but I do care. He’s the only candidate I’ve ever given money to. The purpose of an election is not to vote for someone who’s going to win, but to support a candidate whose ideas most closely espouse your own. I think that in the last 50 to 100 years, people have gotten confused about that. We’ve moved away from what a representative government really is. Politicians have to go to Washington to do what their constituents tell them to do.

And Ron Paul…

…Most closely matches my ideas. He’s one of the last real Republicans. He and [Dennis] Kucinich vote only for what they believe in. There’s no background deal. With most politicians, you can tell they’re looking at each other and agreeing ‘you vote for mine; I’ll vote for yours.’ People who think anything’s going to change with the new president are lying to themselves. You can see people’s voting records, but nobody seems to bother to look. Ron Paul’s been consistent: he’s voted against every spending bill and everything that goes against civil liberties (like wire tapping).

It’s really unfortunate that people have developed the idea that Republicans are religious maniacs. It’s an ‘equality of opportunity’ party. It’s become confused with religious zealotry, but in most parts of the country, that’s not true. There’s a lot of misunderstanding; there’s a huge schism in both parties. The people who associate Paul with that kind of zealotry are ignorant about what he believes in.

What do you dislike about McCain and Obama?

I hate all of Obama’s policies. I agree with him on nothing. I find that on the margin, McCain’s ideas are less bad. They’re not great, but they’re less bad. His government would be smaller than an Obama government. But neither one of these guys has fleshed out his ideas. Neither of these guys has real policies. I don’t see either candidate righting the mistakes of the last 60 years.

Schools are a local matter. Libertarians still believe that. You’d think Democrats would like ‘No Child Left Behind,” but they maintain the world view that everything that Bush does is bad. [Warrentless] Wiretapping was a Clinton invention. It’s a bad thing, but no one complained. A lot of things people find distasteful about Bush, like the horrific Patriot Act, only happened because of a Democratic Congress. Congress makes the laws.

You go to New York or Boulder or Berkeley, and that’s all they talk about, how the Patriot Act and wire tapping are bad. So why are they pro-Obama? He supported both.

For the Democrats to turn around and say that it’s all Bush…it should be called a Pelosi policy because both side of the aisles, and law-passing Congress, bear some responsibility.

What do you like about Paul’s internal economic policies?

His promotion of a small government. The past few weeks have shown us that Americans don’t want huge interventions in the economy. They didn’t want a $700 billion bail out using their money. The stock market’s going down anyway. The bank made bad loans, and that was a mistake. Taking out loans you can’t afford is a mistake. Both sides of the transaction cause problems, and I guess both sides deserve to fail then. People get hurt. They’re the collateral damage. But on the whole, [neither] I [nor] Ron Paul like huge interventions.

Do you think Libertarianism, and thus Paul, promote a sort of selfish antithesis to good Samaritanism? That is, how do you feel about welfare or Paul’s approach to it?

I think morally, people can be asked to intervene and help those in need. But I don’t think the welfare system is a good one. There’s a big difference between unemployment benefits, a safety net you pay for, and block grants. The latter are terrible. They’re massive transfers to people that are based on nothing. Moreover, that kind of system is really demeaning, and it’s not structured in such a way to get you out of a difficult situation.

There’s no mandate in the Constitution that says something like welfare should be a federal responsibility. It doesn’t make sense. What will someone in one place know about how to deal with life at the other? It boggles the mind to think a centralized bureaucracy would know how to deal with that kind of thing. You have to attack the problem on the level on which it is suited. A centralized army? Yes. Welfare? No.

What Ron Paul would suggest, and what I would support, is making each individual community and state responsible for their own. It’s not the federal government’s responsibility. The people helping need to be closer to the problem. The system needs to become more localized.

Does it bother you that he opposes Roe v. Wade?

Well I’m totally pro-choice. But no, it doesn’t bother me because I hate Roe v. Wade too. The ruling establishes a precedent. It implies that the Supreme Court can make something up out of thin air. People are so absorbed by the end that they don’t understand the means. They don’t care how they get there, and that’s very dangerous. By giving the court that kind of power, even if the ruling supports something you believe, it opens the door to a terrible thing. Like, ‘We’re going to pretend you have the right to privacy,’ but by saying the Supreme Court can grant rights, you’re allowing it the same power to take them away.

The Court’s job isn’t to infer a right; it oversteps its power. But the truth is that neither side is really interested in resolving this decision, so they save abortion and gun control as emotional issues to get people riled up and emotionally involved in an argument that no President or Vice President really has any power over.

The President doesn’t have the power to regulate firearms. It doesn’t matter whether or not the President or pro-choice or pro-life, he or she doesn’t have the ability to do anything about it [except through the appointment of Supreme Court justices. But see above argument against giving Supreme Court justices the power to make that decision]. If you’re pro-choice, you’ve had 35 years to enshrine this nebulous decision into an actual law. But no, both sides thus have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortions. I agree with Paul that Roe v. Wade’s a terrible court ruling. It should be decided state by state. If you live in a state that doesn’t support abortion and you have to move, so be it. There’s no perfect solution. No one’s forcing you to stay there. It’s not Big Brother’s business what you do.

What’s your reaction to Ron Paul and foreign policy?

By and large, I agree with him that there’s no reason to maintain a presence in other countries. Let’s start with the 1940s. After WWII, there was no reason to maintain that presence in Germany. Fighting Japan was a good idea. The Korean war was crazy. In 2001, the Middle East attacked us, so we had to retaliate. We’re already in Iraq, but we should find a way to get out. It’s very murky and messy. If we’ve had the ability since 1945 to subdue enemies without putting our troops’ lives in jeopardy, we should consider doing so.

People fight; it happens. But there are certain ways of doing it without requiring massive amounts of people anymore. We can use technology to our advantage without committing ourselves to large expenditures or putting lives at risk. I think there’s little need for us to have a far flung military presence in most places.

And in the case of foreign genocide?

That’s a slightly different ball of wax. I think we would have gotten into WWII even if Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbor. In terms of something like Darfur, while I don’t think it’s technically the U.S.’ responsibility, we could have a moral obligation to help. Could we be asked? Yes. Should be asked? Yes. Being asked and responding are, however, very different from unilaterally deciding to do things our way and just stepping in.

Being a Libertarian doesn’t mean you have to be hawkish. There will be times when people aren’t going to live and let live. Strong isolationism means hiding your head in the sand. But I am, and I think Ron Paul is, a supporter of weak isolationism.

How do you feel about the media’s coverage of Paul and the election in general?

Every newspaper, magazine and TV station has a bias against the Right in favor of Obama, especially the New York Times. I have to stay that if you take out the editorial section and just leave the news pages, the Wall Street Journal does a pretty good job of keeping it simply about the news and not about opinion, as does the Economist.

Ralph Nader is back in the news, but probably not quite in the way he hoped. He hasn’t convinced millions of voters to support his independent campaign for president. His rhetoric against “McBama” hasn’t won him frequent press coverage. But attempting to break a Guinness record for the most speeches in a day will earn you an article or two, just like any other schmo.

Nader traveled across Massachusetts on Saturday, speaking in 21 different locations for more than 10 minutes to more than 10 people. He stopped in cafes and colleges and, of course, a Dunkin’ Donuts. His message? ”Barack Obama has raised more corporate money than any candidate ever before in the history of the Democratic Party,” Nader said. “He has told these business interests he’s their man.”

Obama may be raising more corporate money, but he’s also drawing larger crowds. The day after Nader’s traipse across the Bay State, more than 100,000 people assembled to hear Obama speak in Denver.

Nader believes we need a strong three-party system to have true representation of the electorate. But neither John McCain nor Barack Obama was the conventional-wisdom choice for his party. Obama defeated the Clinton machine during the primaries, and McCain’s campaign was left for dead in the summer of 2007. Voters had plenty of choices during the primaries, and Mitt Romney learned you can’t buy a nomination, no matter how much of your personal fortune you spend.

Yes, we all know our political system is flawed. But sometimes you’ve got to go along with the rules to make your point. Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, ostensibly could have run as an independent and not competed in the primaries, but far fewer people would have heard his message. Paul participated in the primary debates and grew legions of fervent fans, despite opposing the two-party system. After bowing out of the Republican race, he had much more influence among independent-party circles.

Ralph Nader has always fought against the system. He got 2,882,955 votes in the 2000 election and, many argue, stuck the country with George W. Bush. In 2004 Nader’s fortunes had changed. He wasn’t even on the ballot in Ohio, the key swing state that year. He only received 463,653 total votes. Will he break 100,000 this year?

Nader is making campaign stops across the country in the final days of the campaign, with many visits at college campuses. Too bad the students will be waiting for Obama instead.

What are bloggers especially good at? Sniffing out a hoax. And they just wrapped up a doozy.

Thursday afternoon, the Drudge Report linked to a story that said a John McCain campaign staffer in Pittsburgh was beaten up after her assailant saw a McCain bumper sticker on her car. Ashley Todd, 20, told police a 6-foot, 4-inch-tall black man beat her up in front of a bank ATM, stole $60, and carved a “B” into her face.

Is there anything more incendiary than a white female McCain supporter getting beaten up by a black Obama supporter?

But bloggers on the right and the left doubted Todd’s claims. On Thursday, conservative commentator Michelle Malkin was saying on her Web site Todd’s story smelled fishy, because she refused medical treatment after reporting the incident to the police. Malkin also posted a photo of Todd with the “B” scratched into her face. A reader noted: ”Notice how the ‘B’ is backwards on the right cheek … if you were looking in a mirror and put it on your own face … she put it on her own face but forgot it would show up backwards.”

The story quickly fell apart, and by Friday afternoon the Pittsburgh police were holding a press conference after Todd failed a polygraph test. The Washington Post’s election blog has more details about how reporters, bloggers and police officers worked to disprove Todd’s story.

How did conservative bloggers behave during a story that was perfect for them to spread around the Internet? The Drudge Report started the whole thing, but it did correct the story as Todd’s story looked less and less likely to be true. RedState linked to the story, but on Friday expressed embarrassment, saying, “Good heavens. If our people resort to such tactics, we are no better than the liberal lie-babies. Anyone out there reading this pitiful effort, please be forthright and honest. Those are basic principles of conservatives.” We’ll call that one a half apology.

Michelle Malkin was one of the first people to cast doubt on Todd’s claims, and Fox News Executive Vice President John Moody wrote a post on his blog that in hindsight is especially damning. “If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting,” Moody said. (And it looks especially bad for the McCain campaign that his Pennsylvania communications director pushed reporters to tell an inflammatory version of Todd’s uncorroborated story.)

Imagine if we had bloggers 19 years ago, when Charles Stuart accused an unnamed “black man” of carjacking him and his pregnant wife and shooting them both. Although the Ashley Todd story and the Charles Stuart story are on different levels of seriousness and severity, the parallels between them are striking.

The quick backstory: After lamaze class with his wife Carol at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Charles Stuart drove their car to Mission Hill, a portion of the city with many black residents, shot his wife in the head, himself in the stomach and then claimed to police that a black man with a raspy voice had carjacked them. The Boston police picked up a suspect based on Stuart’s description, and Stuart “correctly” identified him in a police lineup. The truth didn’t come out until months later, when Charles’ brother confessed he had helped dispose of the murder weapon. Stuart subsequently committed suicide.

The obvious parallels: Both Todd and Stuart had few ways to identify their attackers, and the primary way was their race. Todd could only say that her attacker was 6-foot 4-inches tall, despite the fact he supposedly sat on top of her and carved a “B” into her face. Stuart initially only told emergency personnel the attacker was a “black man.” He later said the man had a raspy voice, was of medium height and build, and wore a black jogging suit.

In both cases, Todd and Stuart injured themselves to make the crimes more realistic. While Todd says she doesn’t remember scratching the “B” onto her cheek, it looks like a self-inflicted injury. Stuart shot himself in the stomach.

Most bizarrely, Charles Stuart shot his wife on Oct. 23. Ashley Todd said she was beaten up On Oct. 22, and the story broke the next day.

What’s frightening is that 19 years after Charles Stuart created a black murderer, the first thing Ashley Todd did was invent a black mugger. In Boston, a city known for racial intolerance, tensions quickly flared. Did Todd hope to incite the same racial divisions less than two weeks before Americans are likely to elect their first black president?

Let’s hope that wouldn’t have been the case. And let’s also be thankful that quick reporting from people across the political spectrum stopped an outrageous story from spreading before the truth could come out.

Last week, in an attempt to see what the “other side” thought of the debates, I headed to the Life lounge on Wilshire, where the Southern California Republican Club (SCRC) was hosting a debate party.

I initially thought I was in for an hour and a half yawn-athon with the suited-up, business-class crowd, but as the evening wore on, and alcohol accumulated, these conservatives loosened up — and started talking.

We had just finished watching the showdown on the big screen, when Wendy Randall, a Brentwood, California resident, launched into a screed. She was glad that McCain had finally taken the gloves off.

“The Obama people are such scum and such lowlifes that [McCain] finally acted the way he should have acted from the very beginning,”she said.

“Instead of [McCain] being passive and trying to be a gentleman, he acted like a real man…and stood up for what the Republican Party stands for,” Randall continued. “He wasn’t a sissy.”

She talked on as though poor John McCain had suffered most of the beating during this near-done run for the White House. Last I heard, McCain and his lipstick-loving sidekick were the ones throwing the word “radical” around at rallies, while dropping a trail of tiny “terrorist” tidbits from stump to stump across the country. Last I heard, the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies were yelling threats and hurling obscenities at Barack “Hussein” Obama. Last I heard, well, it didn’t matter what I heard—because Randall wasn’t about to listen.

“Republicans are the best,” she said with a smile. Minutes earlier, Randall had whipped two plastic cards out of her wallet, one with McCain’s smiling mug stamped on it, to prove her involvement with the Republican National Committee and membership in the “Inner Circle”—whatever that means.

“[McCain's] a gentleman, first of all,” she gushed. “And he’s a class act. Obama is an embarrassment.” In another breath, she asserted, “Everything that’s affiliated with [Obama] is tainted.”

And Michelle Obama? Oh, don’t get her started.

“[Obama's] wife is a racist. I’ve read her thesis, she’s a very angry lady. And I’m sorry for her that she has to carry that anger around. She’s gonna need a face-lift if she continues to do so.”

Randall went on to call Barack Obama a liar and describe him as a “frightening guy” and a “radical imbecile.” She went on about Acorn and Jeremiah Wright, and then suggested that an Obama presidency would lead to another 9/11.

Wait, what?

“I hope to God I’m wrong,” she added.

When I had my fair share of Obama bashing, I ventured across the room in search of someone a little more nuanced, and sparked a discussion with Jasmine Rose, a young thirty-something who happens to be a Jill-of-all-trades: owns a modeling agency, freelances as a professional photographer, sings, acts, and sells real estate on the side. How this woman has time to follow politics, I don’t know.

“My entire life I’ve always heard people say that they want somebody down to earth, somebody more like us, and we finally get somebody in there—Sarah Palin—and then they’re suddenly saying that she’s not intelligent enough and it’s ridiculous. She’s very intelligent. She’s sharp,” said Rose.

When Palin rallied a crowd of 20,000 at the Home Depot Center in Carson, California earlier this month, Rose was one of the pack. She claims she didn’t hear anyone scream the derogatory remarks the press keeps harping on and on about at this particular event. Like most other Republicans, Rose considers the media a bit biased. I asked why she thinks the press, along with the academics and most of Hollywood, has a tendency to lean liberal.

“You don’t have to be intelligent to be an actor or singer or whatever,” she replied, though she is one herself.

I approached Austin Dragon, the founder of the SCRC, and asked him what he thought about the crowd his club attracts. From where I stood, I saw a room full of mostly older, fairly well-off, white folks. Stereotype accomplished. (For whatever reason, I was under the impression the SCRC was a more diverse group.) Austin took a quick look around.

“You don’t see a diverse crowd? I see a diverse crowd,” he replied.

I could have counted the number of black people who attended the event on my right hand—and still have had a finger to spare. This crowd for McCain was nowhere near diverse, and Dragon knew it. He e-mailed me over the weekend:

“I did want to give you another piece of political insight. You had mentioned to me about the ‘diversity’ of [the] gathering. Having been both a liberal Democrat and now (and forever) a Republican conservative, let me let you in on another secret . . . The reason you see ‘diversity’ in Democratic gatherings is because someone sits down and says, ‘Let’s have some Blacks stand here, some Hispanics here, a few Asians here, let the visibly gay guy stand here and we’ll [put] the wheelchair gal over there.’ The Republican gathering simply says, ‘All Republicans are welcome!’ I’ll let you be the judge as to which is more ‘truthful’ and which is more ‘noble.’”

Maybe someone should let Austin in on another secret: When a politician is attracting 100,000-strong crowds for his campaign rallies, as Obama did in St. Louis, Missouri this past weekend, I don’t think the Dems have to go out of their way to stage anything.

The surge in the polls speaks for itself.

John McCain has been portrayed in a “substantially negative” light over the past six weeks by the national media, according to a new study released Wednesday by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Barack Obama’s media coverage has been more balanced, with 36 percent of stories positive, 35 percent neutral, and 29 percent negative.

In contrast, 57 percent of stories about John McCain were negative, 29 percent were neutral and 14 percent were positive.

The negative McCain coverage isn’t coming from an inherent media bias however. Instead, the report concluded, more negative stories were written about McCain Between Sept. 8 and Oct. 16 because he was behind in the polls.

The PEJ said …

In the end, the trajectory of McCain’s coverage during this heart of the general election phase reflects the convergence of three closely related factors—the exploding economic crisis, some missteps in handling it, and the polls showing Obama moving solidly ahead. Once McCain began to fall behind in the polls, his efforts to change that were viewed from a political perspective. And on this ground, he lost footing.

The media love covering the horse race aspects of the campaign—53 percent of all campaign stories in the six-week window focused on horse-race elements, like strategy and polling.

McCain enjoyed a bounce in coverage in the week following the Republican convention, when 37 percent of stories about him were positive and 32 percent were negative. In contrast, 41 percent of stories on Obama were negative during the same time period, and only 20 percent were positive.

But that positive press changed the following week, when McCain gave his infamous “fundamentals of our economy are strong” speech. Every week after Sept. 15, positive press coverage decreased, as McCain struggled with how to respond to the economic meltdown.

Coverage of Obama has changed dramatically since the early days of campaign, when it was overwhelmingly positive. Between Jan. 1 and March 31, 2007, 47 percent of Obama stories were positive, while only 16 percent were negative, a PEJ study found. If reporters had the Obama infatuation bug early last year, they’ve gotten over it by now.

The problem for candidates is how the press works as an echo chamber. The PEJ writes in its report, “The event is covered. The effect is measured. And the reaction to that measurement by the campaigns is then examined and covered. That pattern becomes a snowball, and the trajectory of any one campaign event is magnified.”

An upcoming New York Times Magazine story on John McCain’s campaign (posted online Wednesday) shows how it has frequently tried to change the candidate’s message. These changes get amplified by the media, growing from ripples to waves. McCain and his strategists may be trying to change the narrative of his campaign, but this ends up working against them.

There are plenty of things wrong with media that only focus on the horse race. But this election, projecting a “steadiness of temperament” has certainly paid dividends for Barack Obama.

Over at Fox News, Brit Hume is titling his conversations things like, “Special Report Panel on Whether McCain Still Has a Chance.” Ha!

Hillary Clinton is apparently secure that the Prez needs no more campaignin’: she was in Minnesota yesterday campaigning for… Al Franken. (Fair is fair: she was in Florida and Nebraska for the main man the day before.)

Greenspan comes clean! The Former Federal Reserve Chairman admitted at a hearing on Capitol Hill today that maybe that deregulation thingy with the housing market was a stupid idea. The New York Times reports that Greenspan kinda, sorta admitted he made a mistake:

“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,” he said. ““I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.”

Whoops!

Apparently, the “Un-American” meme that Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn) tossed to the media on Hardball over the weekend wasn’t a one-off thing. CQ Politics is reporting that House Republicans have been slandering their Dem counterparts with the label for some time.

My anti-Mac colleague may be interested to hear this from Fortune, who says the iPhone is driving down stocks for its prime vendor, AT&T. Oops.

One more thing: I really don’t get the McCain attack line criticizing Obama for saying that he would cross Pakistani borders to kill “terrorists” (with or without permission), since we’re already there, killing people. This is covered under the umbrella of the Afghan war, though, so don’t worry that we’re on too many fronts. Good grief. If Obama is really a “savior,” he’ll keep us out of war with Iran.