Voice of Revolution

U.S. Elections

Change Once Again the Casualty in the U.S.

This election year the call for change has once again been at the center of the presidential campaign. According to U.S. media reports, Senator Barack Obama, who campaigned under the slogan of change, has emerged as the champion endorsed by the majority within the U.S. ruling circles for 44th President of the United States. His campaign used various slogans, including "Change We Can Believe In," during the primaries, then "Change We Need" and now "Vote for Change." He also now has a t-shirt with the slogan "One Voice Can Change the World." The back of the shirt says: "The Power of One: If one voice can change a room then it can change a city, if one voice can change a city then it can change a state, if one voice can change a state then it can change a nation, if one voice can change a nation, then it can change the world."

Bill Clinton first raised the slogan of change in the 1992 presidential election. At that time our journal carried an article which pointed out that it is precisely change that is the casualty in the U.S. "So much noise was made during the presidential election about change, it should have looked as if the U.S. was on the verge of a revolution. But what was being said over and over again is that the people who were so pushed away from the reins of power should now return to the fold. Little Bo-Peep had lost her sheep, and went out to get them back. How would that happen? How can the election of Clinton change the content of relations between the U.S. state and its people? The U.S. state represents the legal will and it is out of step with the popular will. Instead of submitting the legal will to the popular will so as to harmonize the two, the U.S. administrations equate the popular will with their notion of national will and try to get the popular will to submit to them that way. Clinton in his victory speech exhorted U.S. citizens to do away with the popular will in favor of the national will."

Obama too is appealing to the people to return to the fold and stand with the national will. The challenge each presidential candidate faced during the campaign was to give a convincing rendering of the national will in a manner that transforms the power of the U.S. presidency in particular and the U.S. in general into an effective instrument to keep all contenders for that power within the U.S. and abroad under its dictatorship. In a speech in Pennsylvania October 28, he said, "I know these are difficult times for America. But I also know that we have faced difficult times before. The American story has never been about things coming easy -- it's been about rising to the moment when the moment was hard. It's about rejecting fear and division for unity of purpose. That's how we've overcome war and depression. That's how we've won great struggles for civil rights and women's rights and worker's rights. And that's how we'll emerge from this crisis stronger and more prosperous than we were before -- as one nation; as one people. So there's no reason we can't make this century another American century. We just need a new direction. We need a new politics."

He went on: "Yes, we can argue and debate our positions passionately, but at this defining moment, all of us must summon the strength and grace to bridge our differences and unite in common effort -- black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American; Democrat and Republican, young and old, rich and poor, gay and straight, disabled or not.

"In this election, we cannot afford the same political games and tactics that are being used to pit us against one another and make us afraid of one another. The stakes are too high to divide us by class and region and background; by who we are or what we believe.

"Because despite what our opponents may claim, there are no real or fake parts of this country. There is no city or town that is more pro-America than anywhere else -- we are one nation, all of us proud, all of us patriots. There are patriots who supported this war in Iraq and patriots who opposed it; patriots who believe in Democratic policies and those who believe in Republican policies. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America -- they have served the United States of America."

Speaking in Virginia October 22 he said, "To succeed, we need leadership that understands the connection between our economy and our strength in the world. We often hear about two debates -- one on national security and one on the economy -- but that is a false distinction... We must be strong at home to be strong abroad -- that is the lesson of our history. Our economy supports our military power, it increases our diplomatic leverage, and it is a foundation of America's leadership and in the world. Now, we must renew American competitiveness to support our security and global leadership."

He emphasized that, "Throughout this campaign, I have argued that we need more troops and more resources to win the war in Afghanistan, and to confront the growing threat from al Qaeda along the Pakistani border. Make no mistake: we are confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan, and we have to act... We need to change course. At home, we must invest in the competitiveness of the American economy. Abroad, we need a new direction that ends the war in Iraq, focuses on the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and restores strong alliances and tough American diplomacy. To keep our country safe and prosperous, we need leadership that brings the American people together. That is the lesson of our history. Together, we cannot fail; together, we can rise to meet any challenge."

Obama also said, "We cannot afford four more years of policies that have failed to adjust to our new century. We're not going to defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries through an occupation of Iraq. We're not going to deny the nuclear ambitions of Iran by refusing to pursue direct diplomacy alongside our allies. We're not going to secure the American people and promote American values with empty bluster. It's time for a fundamental change, and that's why I'm running for President."

Yet it is precisely the absence of this fundamental change that guarantees that change remains a casualty in the U.S. The government of a state that wants the entire world to change according to its fundamental interests does not want to change those interests.

It goes without saying that what the American people consider change and what the U.S ruling circles consider change are not one and the same. Nay more, they are diametrically opposite. While the American people require and desire governance that serves the public interest, the ruling circles -- who have long since usurped power by force -- seek to transform that power in a manner that can stabilize their rule and continue to serve their vested interests.

As Election Day drew near an increasing number of representatives of the ruling class enunciated what kind of change they have in mind. In an interview with Tom Brokaw on October 19, Retired General Colin Powell, when asked what priorities he would give to a new president his first day in office January 21 said: "I would start with talking to the American people and talking to the world and conveying a new image of American leadership, a new image of America's role in the world. The problems will always be there and there's going to be a crisis come along in the 21 or 22 of January that we don't even know about right now. And so I think what the president has to do is to start using the power of the Oval Office and the power of his personality to convince the American people and to convince the world that America is solid, America is going to move forward and we're going to fix our economic problems, we're going to meet our overseas obligations. But restoring a sense of purpose, a sense of confidence in the American people and in the international community, in America."

In this quote we note the emphasis on using the power of the Oval Office and the personality of the president. Far from this indicating a departure from the new normal established under George W. Bush it actually indicates a resolve to take it further so as to make it effective. According to the logic inherent in Powell's quote, the only problem would be the lack of credibility of Bush, which is to be sorted out on the basis of "the power of Obama's personality." Obama has also indicated that he will do whatever it takes. In speaking of his plans for tax cuts and incentives during his infomercial October 29 for example, he said he would "lay out in specific detail what I'll do as president to restore the long-term health of our economy and our middle class...and how I'll make the decisions to get us there." It is notable that all of the specific details normally involve working with Congress, as the president cannot enact law. This however is not mentioned anywhere in Obama's many speeches. On the contrary, appeals to bipartisanship and Obama's personal support for the "committee" George W. Bush cobbled together to get the bail out bill enacted show the kind of non-elected governance the ruling circles are putting in place.

Similarly, speaking to the National Guard Association Conference September 22, Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden said, "Whether we're Democrats, Republicans or Independents, we all share a profound desire to do right by America. We all put country first. When John [McCain] and I send our sons to war, they don't wear a Republican flag or a Democratic flag. They wear an American flag. Our only differences are on how best to protect our national interests, and serve our military."

Biden, at a speech in Seattle October 19, also addressed the issue of "divisive politics," something both Obama and McCain have campaigned on. He said, "One of the things we're trying to do in this race is not just change the agenda, but we're trying to change the chessboard here. We're trying to change the way politicians have played, the divisive politics." Citing the Korean peninsula and Pakistan as potential "hot-spots," he added, "The next four years are going to determine what it looks like 25 years from now because we either get this right internationally or we're in trouble."

Revealing a constant theme in U.S. politics of a morbid preoccupation with defeat, Biden continued, "We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes... We're gonna find ourselves in real trouble when we get elected... Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy...Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough [decisions.] And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you, not financially to help him, we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right..." Biden explains that a generated crisis "May emanate from the Middle East. They may emanate from the sub-continent. They may emanate from Russia's newly-emboldened position because they're floating in a sea of oil. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Aegean stables, man. This is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets, this is a systemic problem we have with this economy."

In this manner Biden and Powell and others are putting forward the grave crisis facing U.S. imperialism on all fronts and its preparations for yet more war and repression. The existence of unbridled U.S. power that tells the world and its people that they must submit to it is further threatening the peace and security of the world. The recent bombings of Syria and Pakistan are evidence of this. The election campaign has increased this danger and its culmination will increase it even further. Vigilance is required. And far from beginning the fundamental change required to favor the interests of the worlds peoples, Americans included, the election is revealing that change is once again a casualty in the U.S.

[TOP]

A Campaign for the Ages, Tilting Toward Democrats
Liz Sidoti, Associated Press, November 2, 2008

Counting down to Election Day, Barack Obama appears within reach of becoming the nation's first black president as the epic campaign draws to a close against a backdrop of economic crisis and lingering war. John McCain, the battle-scarred warrior, holds out hope for a Truman-beats-Dewey-style upset. Whoever wins, the country's 44th president will immediately confront some of the most difficult economic challenges since the Great Depression.

In that effort, he'll almost surely be working with a stronger Democratic majority in Congress, as well as among governors and state legislatures nationwide. GOP incumbents at every level are endangered just eight years after President Bush's election ignited talk of lasting Republican Party dominance. It's been an extraordinary campaign of shattered records, ceilings and assumptions. Indeed, a race for the ages.

Democrat Obama has exuded confidence in the campaign's final days, reaching for a triumph of landslide proportions. "The die is being cast as we speak," says campaign manager David Plouffe. Undeterred, Republican McCain vows to fight on, bidding for an upset reminiscent of Democrat Harry S. Truman's stunning defeat of Thomas E. Dewey in 1948. Looking back only to early this year, campaign manager Rick Davis says, "We are witnessing perhaps, I believe, one of the greatest comebacks since John McCain won the primary."

The odds for Republicans in 2008 have been long from the start: Voters often thwart the party that's been in power for two terms. And this year, larger factors are working against the GOP: the war in Iraq, now in its sixth year, and the crisis on Wall Street and in the larger economy. Voters deeply distrust government and crave a new direction.

Republicans are girding for widespread losses. "It's a fairly toxic atmosphere out there," said Nevada Sen. John Ensign, chairman of the Senate GOP's campaign effort. Added his House counterpart, Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole: "We haven't caught very many breaks."

Democrats are looking ahead to expanded power. "Things are looking very good," said Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the head of the House Democrats' campaign committee. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Senate Democrats' effort, predicted: "We're going to pick up a large number of seats, and that's going to make Democrats very happy."

The Democrats are reaching for a 60-vote Senate majority that would allow the party to overcome Republican filibusters, and could pick up two dozen or more House seats. Democrats also hope to pad their slim majority of governorships and increase their ranks in what already is their strongest majority in state legislatures in more than a decade.

The implications are far-reaching: Governors and state legislators elected Tuesday to four-year terms will help preside over the redrawing of legislative and congressional districts following the 2010 Census. The party in charge can redraw districts in its favor.

Atop the ticket, Obama leads in national and key battleground state polling, though the race appears to be tightening as it plays out primarily in states that Bush won twice. Among the unknowns: the choices of one in seven likely voters who are undecided or could still change their minds; the impact of Obama's efforts to register and woo new voters, particularly blacks and young people; the effect of Obama's race on voters just four decades after the tumult of the Civil Rights movement. "Right now, it's very clearly Obama's to lose, and I think his chances of doing so are pretty minimal," said Republican Dick Armey, the former House majority leader from Texas. He said the possibility of a McCain comeback is "getting down to slim-to-none."

An Obama victory would amount to a wholesale rejection of the status quo: voters taking a chance on a relative newcomer to the national stage, a 47-year-old first-term senator from Chicago, rather than stick with a seasoned veteran of the party in power. With strengthened Democratic majorities in Congress, he'd have to deal with the party's left flank while governing a country that's more conservative than liberal. The Republican Party essentially would be in tatters, searching for both a leader and an identity.

An Obama loss -- or McCain comeback -- would be a crushing disappointment for Democrats in a year tailor-made for the party. It would suggest McCain's experience trumped Obama's clarion call for change, and raise troubling questions about white Americans' willingness to vote for a black man. Blacks, in particular, might be furious and deeply suspicious of an almost sure thing that slipped away.

The Presidency

Tuesday's election caps a nearly two-year campaign unprecedented in many ways, merely unusual in others. "The candidates are more interesting. The media is bigger. The technology is better. Participation has increased dramatically," said Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska who once aspired to the presidency himself. "This is the first global campaign that the United States has had. People will always remember this as an extremely important election."

From the start, the race was different: It was the first since 1928 in which neither a president nor a vice president competed. The Democratic primary was excruciatingly long, with historic and improbable characters: Obama, a black upstart Illinois senator, against a former first lady turned New York senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. McCain, at 72 once the GOP's most vocal scold, early on was the favorite for the Republican nomination. His campaign all but imploded, then he came back to overcome multiple opponents and win the party's nomination. He chose the first woman for the national GOP ticket, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Racism, sexism and ageism all colored the campaign, to varying degrees.

Interest appeared exceptionally high across the globe, particularly in Obama. More than 200,000 people turned out to attend an Obama speech in Berlin when he made a trip abroad to bolster his foreign policy credentials. His U.S. crowds also were gargantuan; 75,000 in Portland, Ore., before he was the nominee, more than 100,000 in Denver just a week before the general election. An estimated 42.4 million people tuned in to watch Obama and McCain accept their parties' nominations.

More voters cast ballots before Election Day than ever before. As of Saturday night, there were some 27 million absentee and early votes in 30 states. Democrats outnumbered Republicans in pre-Election Day voting in key states.

Fundraising and spending were off the charts, too. McCain and Obama amassed $1 billion combined over the course of their candidacies. Obama reversed a previous pledge to stay in the public financing system for the general election if his opponent did. Thus, he became the first to reject taxpayer money, raising $641 million from a breathtaking 3.2 million donors. That dealt what's almost certain to be a fatal blow to the post-Watergate-era system for presidential campaigns. McCain, for his part, collected more than $250 million in contributions, and accepted $84 million in public funds.

Obama took the next step after Howard Dean's embrace of the Internet in 2004, creating a remarkable cyber-networking tool that brought in legions of new voters. He expanded the Electoral College playing field by pouring advertising and manpower into Republican bastions like Indiana and North Carolina. Beyond any previous year, the Internet amplified the feeding frenzy nature of the media and gave campaigns new tools, including YouTube videos, partisan and nonpartisan blogs, and social networking sites like Facebook. Both campaigns also got burned and, as a result, curtailed the candidates' non-scripted interactions with reporters. Authenticity and spontaneity were sacrificed.

The Senate

No matter how the presidential race plays out, Democrats are poised for gains in the 100-seat Senate. They currently have the barest of majorities, 51 seats under their control, including two occupied by independents. Several pickups are likely, even if Democrats fall short of getting the magic 60 needed to stop filibusters.

Democrats are overwhelmingly favored to pick up GOP-held seats in Virginia, New Mexico and Colorado, where Republicans are retiring. And many Republican incumbents running for re-election are in difficult races, including Ted Stevens of Alaska, convicted this past week on seven corruption counts. No Democratic seats appear in jeopardy.

The House

Democrats, with a 235-199 majority and one vacancy, are expected to add at least 20 seats. They hope Obama's coattails give them a 35-seat gain or more. It would be the first time in more than 50 years that a party saw large waves of victories that boosted their congressional margins in back-to-back elections. All 435 seats are up for election.

Many Republican incumbents are endangered, and open GOP seats are at risk in Arizona, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, and two each in New Mexico and New York. Democratic Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida, under investigation after admitting to adulterous affairs, is in trouble, and Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha is in a fight after calling voters in his Pennsylvania district "racist."

Governors

Chief executives in 11 states are on the ballot. Democrats hope to boost their 28-22 majority. The GOP's best chances for gains are in Washington and North Carolina. Washington's Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire and GOP challenger Dino Rossi are in a repeat battle of 2004, when Gregoire won by 133 votes after two recounts and a lawsuit. In North Carolina, Republican Pat McCrory, the Charlotte mayor, is in a dead heat with Democratic Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue to replace term-limited Democratic Gov. Mike Easley. Democrats expect to gain a seat in Missouri, where Attorney General Jay Nixon leads GOP Rep. Kenny Hulshof. Republican Gov. Matt Blunt is leaving office.

State Legislatures

Voters also will choose 5,824 lawmakers across 44 states. With their strongest majority in more than a decade, Democrats hold nearly 55 percent of all legislative seats and control the legislatures in 23 states; Republicans dominate in 14 states. Twelve states are split, and Nebraska is nonpartisan.

The election could determine the control of legislatures in several states. The biggest prize may be New York, where Democrats are two seats from taking the Senate majority. They already control the House and the governorship.

Pennsylvania Republicans need a one-seat gain to take back the House, while Indiana Republicans need two. In Nevada, Democrats are one seat away from a Senate majority.

Ballot Measures

Some 153 initiatives are on the ballots in 36 states. Voters will weigh constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona. An amendment in South Dakota would ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest and a serious health threat to the mother; another in Colorado would define human life as beginning at fertilization.

Initiatives in Colorado and Nebraska would ban race- and gender-based affirmative action. Washington voters will decide whether to offer terminally ill people the option of physician-assisted suicide.

A North Dakota initiative would cut the state income tax rate by 50 percent for individuals and 15 percent for corporations. A measure in Massachusetts would repeal the income tax altogether.

[TOP]

Republicans Scrambling to Save Seats in Congress
Carl Hulse, New York Times, November 3, 2008

Outspent and under siege in a hostile political climate, Congressional Republicans scrambled this weekend to save embattled incumbents in an effort to hold down expected Democratic gains in the House and Senate on Tuesday.

With the election imminent, Senate Republicans threw their remaining resources into protecting endangered lawmakers in Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Oregon, while House Republicans were forced to put money into what should be secure Republican territory in Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Virginia and Wyoming. Sensing an extraordinary opportunity to expand their numbers in both the House and Senate, Democrats were spending freely on television advertising across the campaign map. Senate Democrats were active in nine states where Republicans are running for re-election; House Democrats, meanwhile, bought advertising in 63 districts, twice the number of districts where Republicans bought advertisements and helped candidates.

"We are deep in the red [Republican] areas," Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on Sunday. "We are competing now in districts George Bush carried by large margins in 2004." What seems especially striking about this year's Congressional races is that Democrats appear to have solidified their gains from the 2006 midterm elections and are pushing beyond their traditional urban turf into what once were safe Republican strongholds, creating a struggle for the suburbs.

Trying to capitalize on economic uncertainty, House Democrats are taking aim at vacant seats and incumbents in suburban and even more outlying areas -- the traditional foundation of Republican power in the House. With many of the most contested House races occurring in Republican-held districts that extend beyond cities in states like Florida, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio, Democrats said expected victories would give them suburban dominance.

The same is true for Senate Democratic candidates, who are seeking to nail down swing counties outside urban centers and move the party toward a 60-vote majority. That majority could overcome a filibuster, if party leaders could hold the votes together.

Among open House seats that Democrats say they have a good chance of capturing include those being vacated by Representatives Ralph Regula and Deborah Pryce in Ohio, Jim Ramstad in Minnesota, Jerry Weller in Illinois and Rick Renzi in Arizona.

On the list of incumbents Democrats believe they can defeat are Representatives John R. Kuhl Jr. in New York, Joe Knollenberg in Michigan, Tom Feeney and Ric Keller in Florida, Don Young in Alaska, Robin Hayes in North Carolina and Bill Sali in Idaho.

Democrats say they have been able to peel away suburbanites by emphasizing Republican culpability for the economic decline, a point they say House Republicans helped make themselves by initially balking at the $700 billion bailout and sending the markets into a tailspin that depleted retirement and college savings accounts. "Suburban voters are angry that their quality of life and standard of living is under attack," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and a leading advocate of Democrats trying to broaden their appeal in the suburbs.

The partisan spending gap was stark. As of last week, Senate Democrats had spent more than $67 million against Republican candidates, compared with $33.7 million in advertising by Republicans. In the House, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had spent $73 million, compared with just over $20 million for the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to campaign finance reports. [This is the opposite of what more commonly occurs, when Republicans far outspend Democrats. It is a further indication of the backing Democrats are receiving, from Obama on down, from the ruling circles -- VOR Ed. note.]

Most of the House Republican money was spent on behalf of incumbents or in districts where a Republican is retiring, emphasizing how much the party was playing defense. By contrast, House Democrats spent most of their money in the last month going after Republican seats in Colorado, Nebraska, Washington, West Virginia and elsewhere. On Sunday, Democrats prepared one last radio advertisement to begin running Monday in an effort to claim the seat of Thomas M. Reynolds, a Republican retiring from his upstate New York district near Buffalo. [It is a further indication of the backing Democrats are receiving from the ruling circles from Obama on down and of the disintegration of the Republican Party -- VOR Ed. note]

"That kind of says it all," said Representative Thomas M. Davis III, a retiring Virginia Republican whose own suburban seat is likely to go Democratic on Tuesday. Mr. Davis said Republicans simply faced too many disadvantages heading into Election Day, including a higher number of retirements in the House and Senate, an unpopular president and an economic collapse. "You like to see a fair fight," said Mr. Davis, a former chairman of the Republican Congressional campaign committee, "but basically we are playing basketball in our street shoes and long pants, and the Democrats have on their uniforms and Chuck Taylors."

Neither of the national Senate campaign arms was advertising in Colorado, New Mexico or Virginia, indicating that Republicans were virtually ceding those states, where members of their party are retiring, to the Democrats. Senate Democrats were also optimistic about the prospects of unseating Senator John E. Sununu in New Hampshire and Senator Ted Stevens in Alaska, where Mr. Stevens campaigned despite being newly convicted on felony ethics charges.

Democrats said they saw themselves with the advantage in Minnesota, North Carolina and Oregon, giving them a reasonable chance at claiming eight seats and enlarging their Senate majority to 59 if they hold their current seats. If Democrats swept those races, it could leave the potential 60th vote to break filibusters resting on the outcome in Georgia, Mississippi or Kentucky, where Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, is in a competitive race with Bruce Lunsford, a businessman. Polls show Democrats trailing but within striking distance in all three races, with the final results potentially hinging on the presidential race and turnout among Democratically inclined black voters.

In Mississippi, which has not sent a freshman Democrat to the Senate since John C. Stennis was elected in 1947, Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican appointed last year to fill the seat left vacant by Trent Lott's resignation, is in a tight race with former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, a Democrat. "We feel we have a lot of momentum," said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, "but we are ever mindful that getting to 60 is an extremely difficult thing to do because we are in so many red states."

Republicans privately acknowledged that there was little hope for some of their candidates, including Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina. But Republicans have not given up on the idea of unseating Senator Mary L. Landrieu in Louisiana, a state where Senator John McCain was running well against Senator Barack Obama in the presidential race. A victory over Ms. Landrieu by John Kennedy, the state treasurer, would be a significant moral victory for Republicans, and they pointed to internal polls that show a close race.

In Louisiana, North Carolina and Oregon, Republicans were trying to energize voters with the threat of Democratic dominance in Washington, running advertisements that warn voters about "complete liberal control of government."

"We agree with Chuck Schumer that this is a tectonic election," said Rebecca Fisher, spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "And if Democrats get their way, this country will shift so far left it will take generations to get back on track."

Both parties were focusing substantial final energies on the Senate race in Minnesota, where Senator Norm Coleman, the Republican, was in a heated clash with his Democratic challenger, Al Franken, a former comedian and radio talk show host. The race remained close as Mr. Coleman was named in a last-minute lawsuit in Texas alleging that a businessman had funneled $75,000 to him through his wife's business. Mr. Coleman, who has filed an unfair campaign practices complaint accusing Mr. Franken of broadcasting falsehoods in his advertisements, denied any impropriety, but the lawsuit led to a flurry of news accounts only days before the election.

In Kentucky, Mr. McConnell enlisted hundreds of volunteers to knock on doors and to make phone calls in the remaining hours. He was to embark on a fly-around of the state's cities Monday in his effort to repel the serious challenge from Mr. Lunsford, who brought in one of Kentucky's favorite daughters, actress Ashley Judd, to campaign on his behalf in the closing days.

Strategists for both parties said it seemed increasingly possible that the full Senate picture might not even be settled Tuesday, given that a third-party candidate could cause both Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, and his Democratic opponent, Jim Martin, to fall short of 50 percent of the vote, forcing a runoff on Dec. 2. [Georgia is one of the few states requiring the candidate to secure 50 percent of the vote. Most states require only a plurality of votes cast -- VOR Ed. note.]

Party operatives also warned that Tuesday was likely to produce some surprises, considering the strong resentment toward Congress that has been reflected in polls for months. They predicted upsets of some House incumbents not thought to be in trouble. Republicans said they believed some top Democratic targets, like Representative Dave Reichert of Washington and Christopher Shays of Connecticut, would be able to hang on because they, and others, had run strong campaigns built on their individual images and records. "Republican candidates who have established their own personal brand, and have framed their respective races around creating a clear choice, will succeed on Election Day despite the turbulent political environment," said Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

One problem for House Republicans was that freshmen lawmakers who gave Democrats control of the House after the 2006 elections were faring much better than party leaders had expected. Some, like Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, who represents the Hudson Valley in New York, became prime Republican targets virtually from the moment they were elected but are now favored to win second terms after raising formidable sums of money and cultivating moderate voting records that insulated them from attack.

Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky, the president of the Democrats' 2006 freshman class, said only two of its members were in serious trouble: Representative Nick Lampson of Texas, who represents a heavily Republican district south of Houston, and Representative Tim Mahoney of Florida, who has been entangled in a scandal over extramarital affairs.

Mr. Yarmuth credited House Democratic leaders with pursuing an agenda that gave the freshmen substantial achievements to promote back home, especially a generous new education benefit for veterans that counterbalanced the Democrats' opposition to the war in Iraq. "I think that was a trademark of this last Congress that created a moderate image that we were pro-military, pro-troops," Mr. Yarmuth said.

[TOP]

For Your Information
Obama's Conception of Change

Voice of Revolution is reprinting below excerpts from speeches by Barack Obama on his conception of change.

Speech in Sarasota, Florida, October 30, 2008

In five days, you can turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street. You can choose policies that invest in our middle-class, create new jobs, and grow this economy so that everyone has a chance to succeed; from the CEO to the secretary and the janitor; from the factory owner to the men and women who work on its floor.

You can put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election; that tries to pit region against region, city against town, Republican against Democrat; that asks us to fear at a time when we need hope. In five days, at this defining moment in history, you can give this country the change we need.

We began this journey in the depths of winter nearly two years ago, on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois...I knew that the size of our challenges had outgrown the smallness of our politics. I believed that Democrats and Republicans and Americans of every political stripe were hungry for new ideas, new leadership, and a new kind of politics -- one that favors common sense over ideology; one that focuses on those values and ideals we hold in common as Americans.

Most of all, I knew the American people were a decent, generous people willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations. I was convinced that when we come together, our voices are more powerful than the most entrenched lobbyists, or the most vicious political attacks, or the full force of a status quo in Washington that wants to keep things just the way they are.

Twenty-one months later, my faith in the American people has been vindicated. That's how we've come so far and so close -- because of you. That's how we'll change this country -- with your help.

The change we need isn't just about new programs and policies. It's about a new politics -- a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts; one that reminds us of the obligations we have to ourselves and one another.
If you will stand with me, and fight by my side, and cast your ballot for me, then I promise you this -- we will not just win Florida, we will not just win this election, but together, we will change this country and we will change the world. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.

Infomercial, October 29, 2008

We've seen over the last eight years how decisions by a president can have a profound effect on the course of history ... and on American lives. But much that's wrong in our country goes back even farther than that. We've been talking about the same problems for decades ... and nothing is ever done to solve them.

This election is a defining moment. The chance for our leaders to meet the demands of these challenging times and keep faith with our people. For the past twenty months, I've traveled the length of this country. And Michelle and I have met so many Americans who are looking for real and lasting change that makes a difference in their lives.

Speech in Chester, Pennsylvania, October 28, 2008

Change is a middle class tax cut for 95 percent of workers and their families. Change is eliminating income taxes for seniors making under $50,000 and giving homeowners and working parents more of a break. Change is eliminating capital gains taxes for the small businesses that are the engine of job-creation in this country. That's what I want to do. That's what change is.

Speech at National Security Avail, Richmond, Virginia, October 22, 2008

The next President will take office at a time of great uncertainty for America. We are in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. And as challenging as our current economic crisis is, the next President will have to focus on national security challenges on many fronts. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large and plotting, and we must be vigilant in preventing future attacks. We are fighting two wars abroad. We are facing a range of 21st century threats -- from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to our dependence on foreign oil -- which have grown more daunting because of the failed policies of the last eight years. To succeed, we need leadership that understands the connection between our economy and our strength in the world. We often hear about two debates -- one on national security and one on the economy -- but that is a false distinction. We can't afford another President who ignores the fundamentals of our economy while running up record deficits to fight a war without end in Iraq.

We must be strong at home to be strong abroad -- that is the lesson of our history. Our economy supports our military power, it increases our diplomatic leverage, and it is a foundation of America's leadership and in the world. Through World War II, American workers built an Arsenal of Democracy that helped our heroic troops face down fascism. Through the Cold War, the engine of the American economy helped power our triumph over Communism. Now, we must renew American competitiveness to support our security and global leadership.

This change must start with a responsible end to the war in Iraq... Ending the war will help us deal with Afghanistan, which we talked about at length this morning. In 2002, I said we should focus on finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden. Throughout this campaign, I have argued that we need more troops and more resources to win the war in Afghanistan, and to confront the growing threat from al Qaeda along the Pakistani border.... Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that's the change I'll bring to the White House.

We need to change course. At home, we must invest in the competitiveness of the American economy. Abroad, we need a new direction that ends the war in Iraq, focuses on the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and restores strong alliances and tough American diplomacy. To keep our country safe and prosperous, we need leadership that brings the American people together. That is the lesson of our history. Together, we cannot fail; together, we can rise to meet any challenge.