Two seconds of radio news was enough — suddenly the 2008 presidential campaign collapsed around me in an unrecognizable heap of consumer politics as I ate breakfast.

“Redistribution of the wealth,” John the Candidate was saying. “That’s one of the tenets of . . . socialism.”

This was maybe the ten thousandth time I’d been whacked with that and similar Cold War-era words in the last couple weeks, and the surrealism buildup — the sheer weight of all this empty rhetoric and mock horror, the waste of money and air time and newsprint, the overwork of my own revulsion mechanism, but most of all my exhausted sense of urgency that the nation has serious troubles that need immediate attention — came out in a groan of paralyzing despair.

Enough, enough, enough, enough, enough. Electoral politics at the presidential level — excuse me, this is the most important reassessment of national and global direction taking place on the planet right now — has deteriorated, or at least half-deteriorated (the Karl Rove half), to the level of impulse snack sales at the supermarket checkout aisle.

A critical US Supreme Court decision against GOP voter meddling in Ohio may prove temporary.

In its on-going campaign to inject chaos and confusion into the voting process, the GOP has sued Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, demanding that she release to county boards of elections lists of registered voters whose information does not precisely match government data bases. The right to vote of such registrants---by most estimates as many as 200,000 in Ohio alone---could then be challenged on a case-by-case basis. George W. Bush was awarded Ohio's 20 electoral votes in 2004 with an official margin of less than 119,000 votes, though more than 100,000 votes cast in that election remain uncounted.

The 200,000 voters targeted by the Republican Party were all registered since January 1, 2008. News source estimates suggest 75-80% of these newly-registered voters are Obama supporters.

I spent the past couple of days hanging out with Vincent Bugliosi who wants Bush killed for his crimes, following a fair trial of course, and who openly pushes the supposed need for retribution while disclaiming much interest in deterrence or restoration. Then I watched Oliver Stone's new movie, "W," which depicts Bush as a poor, sad fool who's just been trying his hardest to please his daddy all these years. If I have to choose, I'm on Stone's side.

I think Bush has been far more sadistic and cynical than Stone's depiction, but I think Stone's work opposes the spread of sadism and cynicism in his audience, while Bugliosi plays to and encourages both. At the same time, I think Bugliosi is doing more good for the world than Stone, because Stone is simply making movies, while Bugliosi is attempting to prosecute Bush for his crimes. The need to prosecute Bush, to my mind, has nothing to do with whether or not I like the man. He needs to be punished in order to deter future presidents from committing similar abuses. Is that too abstract a motivation to build a popular movement around? Is it necessary to play on people's hatred for Bush in

To the Editor:

As voters in this Great State of Ohio, we demand the following of each and every newspaper in this state:

1. Inform the readers in a non-partisan nature of allegations of voter fraud.

2. Inform the readers in a non-partisan nature of lawsuits filed by each political party, the reason for those suits, and the outcome of those suits.

3. Inform the readers in a non-partisan nature of the reported number of questionable registrants.

4. Inform the readers in a non-partisan nature of how the Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner is intending to resolve those issues of voter fraud and questionable registrants before the election.

5. In light of the recent Supreme Court decision defending Secretary of State Jennifer Bunner’s decision NOT to turn over state databases to county election boards in order to validate registrants, we demand in a non-partisan nature that you report HOW these 88 counties intend to properly determine the validity of each registrant.

The latest polls seem to have created a tidal wave of euphoria among Obama supporters.

Excuse me if I don't get swept away along with it.

I still remember going to bed thinking Gore was elected in 2000 after the networks called Florida for him. In 2004, I read through exit poll numbers the afternoon of the election and discovered that John Kerry would defeat George Bush.

As a political consultant I've been in more campaigns than I would like to count where minority candidates underperformed final polling expectations.

I'm expecting a squeaker on November 4. 

Support for Obama looks too fragile to expect otherwise. We've yet to hear from Osama bin Laden, who weighed in, you'll remember, on the eve of the 2004 election. We've yet to see any last minute action by the White House that could change the national conversation in McCain's favor. 

There are some powerful unplayed cards still in the deck----the most powerful being vote suppression.