Look, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m completely in the tank for Obama. I’ve phone banked for him and I’m heading to Roanoke later this week to work as a volunteer to get the vote out. If you’ve read any of the other entries on this blog, you know that I’m a flaming liberal.

I don’t support John McCain for many reasons, chief among them his decision to add the incredibly unqualified Sarah Palin to the ticket. Well, the truth is I wouldn’t have supported McCain no matter who he named as a running mate, but his decision to tap Palin made me feel a lot better about it.

It’s late and I don’t have the energy to go off on Sarah’s shortcomings — her fake reformer credentials, her questionable ethics, her lack of intellectual curiosity, her inability to form complete sentences, her eagerness to incite the fear, hate and insecurities of the mob. Shit, there’s really not anything I like about her.

Which is why what I’m about to write feels sort of weird: I’m bothered by this whole “whack job” blowup. In case you missed it, Politico’s Mike Allen says an unnamed McCain staffer used the words to describe Palin. Actually, it’s probably best to describe it as a partial quote:

***In convo with Playbook, a top McCain adviser one-ups the priceless “diva” description, calling her “a whack job.”

That’s it — one, unattributed sentence inserted in the middle of his Playbook column. But that pithy description caused a furor on the blogs today. Of course, it comes as most major media and bloggers are preparing their autopsies of the imploding McCain campaign, which, in its final days, has turned into a back-biting snake pit. It’s everyone for themselves. People are pointing fingers and laying blame wherever they can.

So, in this type of atmosphere, a “top McCain adviser” calling Palin a “whack job” is certain to ignite the blogosphere, as well as earn mentions in the main stream media.

Does anyone see the problem here? If a top adviser actually callled the Republican nominee for vice president a whack job, don’t we deserve more than this one little sentence? And why bury it deep in the column? Can we get a little information on the circumstances behind this remark?

I’m not doubting that someone said it to him. And I’m certainly not saying the description doesn’t apply.

But allowing top advisers to hide behind anonymity to throw these kind of caustic remarks around is a slippery slope. Politico is a respected, credible news organization, which is one reason the “whack job” comment had such currency. But where is the next anonymous accusation going to come from?

Politico should have known the firestorm that reporting this remark was going to cause. In this case, the public would have been much better served with a little less gossip and a little more context.

[Updated: I meant to add these last night but opted for sleep, instead. Here is what bloggers are saying about the whack job comment.]

Joe Sudby @ Americablog:

Nasty. Probably true, but nasty. Just glad the Republicans are putting so much time into hating each other.

Rich Lowry @ The Corner on National Review Online:

This is part of the problem with Palin getting assigned aides with no loyalty to her. I’ve never been a “Free Sarah Palin” type. I’m in the Krauthammer school that the McCain campaign probably let her do big high-stakes media interviews too soon and should have waited while she was more fully briefed-up. But the mishandling of Palin that’s been evident over the last week—from the clothes fiasco that wasn’t her doing to the sniping at her from within the campaign—has been appalling.

David Mizner @ The Daily Kos:

Whack job. It’s a good charge, cause it’s true! This is one of my favorite leaks from the anti-Palin forces working for McCain, right up with the claim that she’s “going rogue.” Like Iran?

I’ve never seen a breakdown in discipline like this on a presidential campaign. It testifies to McCain’s lack of leadership and to the state of his campaign. Knowing they’re going to lose, Mittens’ kittens are angling for advantage against Palin going into the 2012 primary.

Clark Kent @ Sarah Palin Must Be Stopped:

It’s getting to the point where we have to say this stuff is too good for us to be making it up. With every passing day, new insults are being foisted upon Sarah Palin — by John McCain’s own staffers. Yesterday, she was a diva. Today, according to news reports, she’s a “whack job.”

Melvin Crabtree @ Crabbie’s Hollywood:

This was probably the kindest term he could think of. McCain’s campaign is in full meltdown mode. The sad thing is that, if he’d just stuck with his old McCain Straight-Talk Express routine and picked a decent running mate, he might’ve actually won. But he sold his soul to the Rovians and now he’ll have to drag his gimpy arms back to Arizona. Poor old, muddle-brained putz.

How can you tell when a blogger is lacking inspiration? He posts a bunch of videos. I couldn’t resist putting this one up because it’s freaking hilarious. We’ve truly entered unchartered waters: The country is about to elect its first black president, the Tampa Bay Rays are in the World Series and Saturday Night Live is relevant again (via UltimateJosh).

Now it gets exciting. Sources in John McCain’s camp spent the last several days telling reporters that the campaign was about to go hard negative against Barack Obama on the character issue. It was the best way, they said, to move the national discussion off of the economy.

And true to their word, VP candidate Sara Palin came out firing over the weekend, repeatedly bringing up Obama’s association with radical anti-war activst Bill Ayers, while talking about the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr with NYT columnist Bill Kristol, despite earlier pronouncements from McCain that Wright was “off limits.”

But a funny thing happened on the way to the mud pit. Obama’s camp let loose with its toughest offensive of the campaign — launching what they’re calling “Keating Economics,” an effort to remind voters of McCain’s ties to convicted S&L swindler Charles Keating.

The difference in the McCain attacks and the Obama counter is that while McCain is trying to paint Obama as guilty by association, McCain’s ties to Keating go much deeper than sharing a seat on a nonprofit board or being a member of a radical preacher’s congregation.

See Obama, despite Palin’s ludicrous assertions, has never been close friends to Ayers, who made a small donation to Obama’s campaign for the state Legislature and served on the board of directors of a Chicago charity with him for two years. And while Obama attended Wright’s church for many years, he has since repudiated Wright’s remarks on race, no matter that they have a ring of truth to them.

Meanwhile, McCain is going to have a little tougher time extricating himself from his close relationship with Keating, a McCain benefactor who called upon the Arizona senator to act as a buffer between federal banking regulators. These are the undeniable facts:

* Keating gave more than $1 million in contributions and gifts to the senators known as the “Keating Five,” which included McCain, Dennis DeConcini, Alan Cranston, John Glenn and Don Riegle.

* Keating gave McCain $112,000 in contributions, as well as what the WaPo describes as “lavish gifts.”

* Keating was business partners with Cindy McCain.

* McCain, on Keating’s behalf, tried to intervene with banking regulators investigating Keating.

* Keating was convicted of fraud, racketeering and conspiracy and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

* McCain opposed federal regulation of the savings & loan industry, in effect allowing Keating and others to continue making risky, uninsured investments with their customers’ money.

* The Senate Ethics Committee reprimanded McCain for his role in the Keating influence-peddling scandal.

* The S&L crisis and bailout that resulted from the deregulation of the S&L’s cost the U.S. government $160 billion.

Is it fair to resurrect the Keating episode? As one member of the Republican ticket might say, you betcha.

If the Democrats have learned anything from their recent ineptitude in national campaigns, it’s that they must respond to Republican attacks and do so forcefully.

Remember that scene in “The Untouchables” where Sean Connery’s character Jim Malone asks Kevin Costner’s Eliot Ness if he has what it takes to go after Al Capone?

Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I’m saying is, what are you prepared to do?
Ness: Anything within the law.
Malone: And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they’re not gonna give up the fight, until one of you is dead.
Ness: I want to get Capone! I don’t know how to do it.
Malone: You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *Chicago* way! And that’s how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I’m offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?

Is Obama ready to answer McCain attack ad for attack ad? Will he stare him down and bring the heat in Tuesday’s debate? Or will he agree with him over and over again like he did in their first meeting?

Let McCain throw the lies and innuendo. There’s enough real ammo to throw against McCain that Obama doesn’t have to resort to the same despicable tactics. However, with less than month until the final bell rings, Obama needs to let the truth fly and swing for the fences.

He does not want this decision to go the judges. They’ve already stolen one presidential election. He needs a knockout.

Here’s what other bloggers are saying:

Budsimmons @ Thoughts of a Conservative Christian builds a case against Obama as he points out that “Obama’s Connections With Bill Ayers Are Much More Extensive Than He Or His Campaign Staff Is Willing To Admit.”

@ The Confederate Yankee:

“The ties between Barack Obama and terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn go back over 21 years.

The long and short of it? Barack Obama knew, and knew well, that Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were terrorists when he met them. He just didn’t care.”

@ Four Brothers Debate Politics:

John McCain and Sarah Palin need to take a refresher course in logic. Perhaps one of the six colleges Sarah attended while earning her one four year degree will send a professor out on the campaign trail to help them improve their ability to connect the dots in a way that does not insult the intelligence of the American voter.

Jazz Shaw @ The Moderate Voice:

Why are McCain and Palin talking about Ayers right now?

The story was predictable and obvious. I’m seeing it in newspaper headlines and television shows morning, noon and night. Nobody is asking why Obama was involved in any sense with Ayers. They are asking if McCain is looking to turn the page from the economic meltdown? Are they getting desperate because they are behind? Is this a distraction?