It was only a matter of time. The McCain campaign has, in effect, been running in recent days on a platform of the impending doom facing Senate and House Republicans. In return, congressional Republicans in even the reddest parts of the country have been seen hugging Barack Obama and shunning John McCain. Now, Jonathan Martin reports, the Republican National Committee is laying down its chips, shunning the role party committees traditionally take during presidential elections by earmarking significant funds to help the GOP maintain at least a 41-seat minority in the Senate.

The Republican National Committee, growing nervous over the prospect of Democrats' winning a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, is considering tapping into a $5 million line of credit this week to aid an increasing number of vulnerable incumbents, top Republicans say.

With party strategists fearing a bloodbath at the polls, GOP officials are shifting to triage mode, determining who can be saved and where to best spend their money.

And with the House and Senate Republican campaign committees being drastically outspent by their Democratic counterparts, and outside groups such as Freedom's Watch offering far less help than was once anticipated, Republicans are turning to the national party committee as a lender of last resort.

A decision is imminent because television time must be reserved and paid for upfront, and available slots are dwindling.

Party insiders, according to Martin, tried to play this move off not as a diversion of money away from McCain, but it's difficult to it as anything else. There are limited resources in politics -- yes, even for the well-funded Obama campaign, and certainly this year for Republicans -- and believe you me if McCain were down by a point or two rather than eight the $5 million loan would be going to him rather than Senate Republicans. Indeed, this is what occurred within the Republican Party in 1996, when the RNC shifted funds away from lagging presidential nominee Bob Dole towards the party's efforts in Congress. But while the GOP was able to stem losses in Congress that year, losing eight seats in the House and actually picking up two seats in the Senate -- keeping both chambers under Republican control -- the party's chances to win majorities on Capitol Hill or even curtail losses this fall are decidedly worse. At the least, it appears that the apparent civil war within the party could continue yet another day.

One of my biggest frustrations with Democratic leaders is their refusal to embrace the energy policy Al Gore outlined this summer, which could "end our reliance on carbon-based fuels" in the next decade.

Barack Obama has offered an energy policy that's a big improvement on what George Bush has done. Unfortunately, Obama still supports more investment in so-called "clean coal" and has not ruled out expanding nuclear power.

On the plus side, Obama also calls for generating 10 percent of our country's electricity from renewable sources by 2012--which sounds great until you learn that the U.S. has already surpassed that goal.

Look at what happened in the past year, even as the Bush administration did little to promote wind and solar energy:

According to the latest "Monthly Electricity Review" issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (October 3, 2008), net U.S. generation of electricity from renewable energy sources surged by 32 percent in June 2008 compared to June 2007.

Renewable energy (biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind) totaled 41,160,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) in June 2008 up from 31,242,000 MWh in June 2007. Renewables accounted for 11.0 percent of net U.S. electricity generation in June 2008 compared to 8.6 percent in June 2007. Compared to June 2007, wind power grew by 81.6 percent in June 2008 while solar and conventional hydropower experienced increases of 42.6 percent and 34.7 percent respectively. Geothermal energy also enjoyed a slight increase (0.8percent) while biomass (wood + waste) remained relatively unchanged.

Years ago, some people thought it was a pipe dream to ask Congress to require that 10 percent of U.S. electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2010. Yet even in the absence of a mandate, we exceeded that number two years ahead of schedule.

Just think of what could be done if we had a president and Congress committed to expanding wind and solar power in this country. Assuming Obama wins the election, we need to press him to raise the bar on renewable energy. If Obama suggests that the best we can do is 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025, we will fail to capitalize on the opportunity to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

(Note: A commenter at another blog suggested that Obama may not be counting hydroelectric power as one of the renewable sources from which we should get 10 percent of electricity by 2012. If that is so, then we would need to approximately triple electricity generated by wind and solar in order to meet Obama's goal in four years. Even that goal doesn't seem ambitious enough to me, however.)

Perhaps more important, Obama and other Democratic leaders should stop lending credibility to the idea that we need either more "clean coal" or more nuclear power. We can meet our baseload needs without them. Every new coal-fired plant is a 50-year investment in the wrong direction, and every new nuclear reactor creates more waste we don't know what to do with.

The false choice between coal and nuclear power understates the potential to reduce our electricity consumption through conservation and efficiency measures.

It also affects decision-making at the state level. In April, the two Democrats on the Iowa Utilities Board (including key early Obama supporter John Norris) cast the deciding votes in favor of an application to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown. They rejected testimony from James Hansen and others regarding the adverse health and environmental impacts of coal emissions, as well as the utility's ability to do much more to promote energy efficiency.

Speaking to the Des Moines Register, they explained that they voted to approve the coal plant because they don't believe we can meet demand for electricity without new coal or nuclear power, and no one is seeking to build more nuclear reactors in Iowa.

Even with strong presidential leadership, we'll have plenty of trouble getting Congress and the states to adopt good energy policies next year.

Obama should set higher goals for generating electricity from clean renewable sources and make that (along with efficiency measures) his top energy priorities.

Yesterday, Barack Obama won the endorsements of 17 newspapers around the country while John McCain received only 2. According to Editor & Publisher, that brings the tally up to 28 for Obama (with a combined daily circulation of 2,758,429) vs. 11 for McCain (circ. of 1,349,721.) Yikes. Another interesting tidbit from E&P: Obama has now won the endorsement of 5 newspapers that endorsed George W. Bush in 2004 including CA's The San Bernadino Sun and The Stockton Record, OH's The Canton Repository, PA's The Easton Express-Times and WI's The Wisconsin State Journal.

The San Bernardino Sun endorsement is particularly sweet, coming as it does just as the county, which is to the east of LA County and typically considered among the reddest parts of California, turns blue. The Sun's editorial board was unanimous in its choice of Barack Obama, saying, in part:

We're in a crisis of confidence in this country. We need a new direction, because where we've been headed is not good. What people need most right now is hope.

That's why Sen. Barack Obama is the best choice for the next president of the United States.

Obama has the ability to restore America's confidence and get people excited about working our way back to prosperity. He inspires the younger generation like no political figure since President John F. Kennedy.

Just as importantly, he has the smarts needed to run the country. It's crucial now to have a president who can take an informed and nuanced approach to the nation's and world's increasingly complex and interrelated problems.

We must elect a president who embraces adaptability and resourcefulness.

Obama would give the nation both.

One of the more interesting endorsements Obama received over the past 24 hours was not from a publication at all but rather from Christopher Hitchens, whose political leanings shifted decidedly rightward after 9/11 and even wrote in The Nation four years ago that he was "(Slightly) For Bush." Well, this year he's for Obama, although the endorsement appears driven more by disdain for McCain and Palin than any great regard for Obama. His take down of the GOP ticket is extremely entertaining to read. Here's a taste.

Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience. McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him.

Sarah Palin was met with a couple new chants from the crowd at a Belmont, Ohio rally yesterday: "Mine, Baby, Mine!" and "Coal! Coal! Coal!" (Hey, I guess it beats "Terrorist!")

Palin was in coal country so it makes some sense but it's pretty messed up that the only thing that can get the right wing crowds riled up is either extreme anger or the prospect of increasing our dependence on fossil fuels.

So, it's an interesting contrast to hear Hillary Clinton's latest crowd-pleasing line at a Pennsylvania rally today on behalf of the Obama/Biden ticket:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a Democratic rejoinder to the Republican chant of "drill, baby, drill." Said the one-time presidential candidate: "Jobs, baby, jobs." [...]

At the Republican National Convention and various GOP rallies, an oft-repeated chant was "drill, baby, drill," a plea for more oil drilling. McCain and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin back more offshore oil drilling; Palin favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Clinton said Democrats have a better answer: "Jobs, baby, jobs."

Part of the whole "Drill, Baby, Drill" ethic is a twisted sense of nationalism, as though the most important part of the phrase "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" is the word "foreign." You know, cuz whatever fossil fuels we get out of the ground are just fine as long as they come from American groud! So it's smart for Clinton to turn the chant on its head, into an economic call to action, not that it's divorced entirely from energy, of course. One of both Clinton's and Obama's plans for returning jobs to America has been to create a whole green economy where people will be put to work developing/installing/maintaining/repairing, etc. renewable alternative energy sources. As both Bill and Hillary Clinton have often said on the stump this year, solar panel installer is one job that can not be outsourced.

Update [2008-10-13 19:25:31 by Todd Beeton]:And it should be noted that it's no coincidence that Hillary's chant tracked with Barack's message of the day (and, no doubt, the next 23 22 days):

We can't wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now -- who don't know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don't know if next week's paycheck will cover this month's bills. We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class and we need to do it now. Today I'm proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities, and help struggling homeowners. It's a plan that begins with one word that's on everyone's mind, and it's spelled J-O-B-S.

So, call me crazy but if the number one criticism about you is that you act erratically and it's sticking because, well, you're undeniably acting erratically, wouldn't it be wise to stop? To start acting with purpose, with some modicum of discipline? Wouldn't that just be Politics 101?

Not so much for the McCain campaign. Here's TPM's rundown over the past couple days:

Despite a top surrogate's suggestion over the weekend that McCain would be unveiling new economic proposals, we  learned this morning  that in fact John McCain wasn't planning to announce anything of this kind today.

Now it turns out the whole plan all along was for McCain to offer new proposals. Tomorrow, that is.

That's what the McCain campaign just announced on a conference call with reporters moments ago, a few hours -- coincidentally, we're sure -- after Obama made headlines with proposals of his own.

It was just yesterday, mind you, that McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds insisted that no new plans were forthcoming.

No wonder then that the right wing is in full meltdown mode over the inept handling of John McCain's campaign.

This is your schadenfreude break for the day:

Public Policy Polling has an excellent analysis of Barack Obama's rising support in the South. Central to their report is a debunking of the conventional wisdom that it's mostly a function of higher than normal expected turnout among African-American voters. On the contrary, Obama's growing support among whites is making the most difference in his newfound strength in the South.

PPP looked at their own polling in Virginia (O+8), North Carolina (O+6) and Florida (O+3) for data. For the purposes of this post, I'm going to focus just on North Carolina.

First let's look at the increased turnout among black voters. In 2004, African-American turnout in North Carolina was 19% and Kerry won them 85-14; this year, PPP projects turnout will rise slightly to 21% and that Obama will win them 92-4. That gives Obama a net overall gain of 5% over Kerry's performance in 2004. But George Bush won the state by 12% 4 years ago, so for Obama to be ahead in North Carolina by 6% he has to have swung North Carolina a full 18 points over how Kerry performed. So where does that 13 extra points come from?

White voters. While PPP projects the white vote in NC will decrease as a percentage of the overall electorate from 78% in 2004 to 76% this year, Obama is doing 16 points better among this demographic than Kerry did (McCain is winning white NC voters 56-38 vs. Bush's 67-33 win in 2004.) PPP calculates this 16 point increase equates to a 13 point overall net gain for Obama.

PPP sums it up:

That's a 13 point reduction of the deficit for the Democrat among white voters compared to 2004. So while Obama's 5% increase from black voters is important, 2/3rds of his improved standing can be attributed to shifts in voting preferences among whites in North Carolina at this point.

It will probably come as little surprise to you what PPP finds is the reason for Obama's surge among the white vote in the South:

-Economy, Economy, Economy. Among white voters in North Carolina who list it as their top issue Obama is actually up 48-46. In Florida Obama has the same 48-46 lead with whites most concerned about the economy. In Virginia it's a 49-46 advantage. Even as Obama continues to trail by a good amount with whites overall in these states, he's winning with them on the issue foremost on voters' minds this year. There's not much doubt the economy is the main factor causing whites who voted Republican for President in 2004 to go Democratic this year. That is the single biggest factor driving his lead in the polls across the country right now.

I highly recommend reading the entire report, which has charts and detailed explorations of all three states.

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?