It's been an interesting week in the free speech debate; we have Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University next Monday, A Colorado collegiate newspaper that runs an editorial of two words: F**K BUSH and Stanford students and faculty hitting twelve on the outrage meter that Donald Rumsfeld will participate in classes. In other words, we have a strong, healthy dose of reinvigorating the Constitutional debate happening and it's always a good exercise.

First on Ahmadinejad. I, for one, say, "let the man speak." Sunlight is a great disinfectant and perhaps an enterprising blogger or student will ask him some tough questions the media does not. Maybe we'll see him put on the spot for his references to erasing Israel and his steady quest for nukes. Heaven knows that free speech is effectively dead in his home country of Iran, where saying what you think will get you shot. We also see the anti-war people for who they are, rabid socialists who support Palestinians and abhor Israel.

In other words, a man that right-thinking people hate is allowed to speak because the political right values free speech more than the political left. The proof is available in two cases in California involving the aforementioned Rumsfeld and Larry Summers.

This story at Fox might explain why Hillary Clinton and all the others missed their Sister Souljah moment.

In just the 2006 election cycle, MoveOn.org spent $27 million in advocacy to elect a Democratic majority in Congress and used its formidable fund-raising clout to propel numerous Democratic challengers to House and Senate victories. By comparison, the NRA PAC donated $11 million in 2006.

"They give away and raise about three times as much as the National Rifle Association," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. "A tremendous amount of money, especially when you consider how quickly they came on the scene."

Jay Cost at RCP writes that essentially what MoveOn and others have done is to replace the national party system with a network of shadow parties. It makes much more sense to see MoveOn and their actions as a part of the Democratic Party.

In case you missed it, a funny article appeared in this weekend's LA Times chronicling the advent of a new political phenomenon. In a merger of sports and politics, the Nevada State Democratic Party is now sponsoring an adult soccer team, dubbed Los Democratas. Why? Hispanic voter outreach. You see, the league, Unidas, has some 10,000 players, most of them Latino, and that means a whole lot of fans.

It's a rapidly expanding pool of potential voters. An influx of Latinos over the last 15 years has helped make Las Vegas one of the fastest-growing regions in the country; they account for about 25% of the state's residents. But for two key demographic reasons--age and citizen status--Latinos account for 12.5% of Nevada's eligible voters, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey.

It's a community oriented approach, and Democratic volunteers turn up at the games with voter registration forms. While this is an interesting idea, I worry that it will lead to the corruption of the soccer league itself. How long can it be before a team is renamed Los Republicanas? Then each party will start pouring in more and more money to acquire the best players. We'll have naming-rights battles for soccer fields. And what will become of the non-partisan Guanacos team? No, while it's smart for Democrats to continue reaching out to Hispanics, it's best to keep politics out of sports.

Mike DeWine, fresh from a humiliating defeat after twelve years in the senate is back on the trail, this time for John McCain:

"I have known John McCain for almost 25 years. We both were elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. I worked closely with him during our years together in the House and during my 12 years in the U.S. Senate. No one is more qualified to be our next President. While our Party is truly fortunate to have such a strong field of qualified candidates, I believe that John McCain has what it takes - the experience, knowledge, and foresight - to lead our Nation. He is decisive. He has guts. And, he leaves no room for ambiguity or uncertainty in his reasoned policy decisions.

"I don't agree with John McCain on every issue. But, I do know that when we elect a President, we elect the Commander-in-Chief. We elect someone who is going to be making life and death decisions every single day. There is only one person I want making those decisions - and that person is John McCain.

"The fact is that the future and security of this country hinges on next year's election. The Presidency requires a person of sound judgment, with an extraordinary grasp of foreign and military affairs - someone who can navigate our country through very dangerous and unchartered waters. Again, that person is John McCain.

Reaction from the Ohio Republican blogosphere was swift, fierce, and for those familiar with the situation, completely unsurprising.

The San Francisco State University Republican Club is under fire by University leaders:

SFSU's foray into unlawful censorship began after an anti-terrorism rally held on October 17, 2006, at which several members of the College Republicans stepped on butcher paper they had painted to resemble the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah. Unbeknownst to the protestors, the flags they had copied contain the word "Allah" written in Arabic script. On October 26, a student filed a formal complaint with the university against the College Republicans, alleging "attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment" and "actions of incivility." Although the university's Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development (OSPLD), led by Joey Greenwell, could have settled the matter informally or dismissed the charges outright, the university is instead pressing forward today with a hearing on the charges.

Why should it matter whether or not the students knew that the word "Allah" was written on the flags. Even if they did know, what they did was not unconstitutional, just as dipping a Jesus replica in urine is not unconstitutional. Hell, when they did that, it was called "art."

The students were exercising their right to protest, regardless of what the target of their protest was. Does anyone with an iota of grey matter believe that if the students were stomping on a Christian symbol we'd be having this discussion or that charges would've been brought?

Out of fifty, only seven governors have so far made endorsements. This is not surprising considering how early in the process this all is. I was surprised to learn that Richardson is the only sitting governor so far. Huckabee and Romney are former governors.

According to this article:

• McCain: Mitch Daniels of Indiana, John Huntsman of Utah, and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota.
• Romney: Matt Blunt of Missouri
• Huckabee: Mike Rounds of South Dakota
• Obama: Rod Blagojevich of Illinois and Tim Kaine of Virginia

John Edwards returns home to North Carolina tonight and gets a big rally:

Presidential hopeful John Edwards finished a six-state campaign tour on Saturday evening, returning to his home state where an overflowing crowd greeted him at an outdoor rally.

About 5,000 people, according to campaign officials, packed onto a grassy area across from Edwards' Chapel Hill headquarters for the homecoming. Hundreds held "Tomorrow Begins Today" signs - a reference to Edwards' effort to persuade Democrats to get involved in the 2008 presidential campaign early.

...

American flags were draped on a stage set up in the grassy square, and flags also hung from a few businesses in the surrounding shopping center. Children held red, white and blue balloons, and people chanted "Edwards! Edwards!" as they waited nearly two hours for the candidate to arrive from a stop in Columbia, S.C.

That's a little impressive. OK, it's pretty darn impressive. Even figuring that the count of 5,000 is a campaign official count and exaggerated. Getting a sizable crowd out between New Years and Christmas in a time when most people have had it up to here with politics?

For years, those that may have liked Democratic candidates but couldn't vote for them because of issues such as abortion and gay marriage found an alternative this year. The values Democrat:

In many cases it was the first time in decades that voters could vote for a Democrat who was pro-life, against legalization of same-sex marriage, supportive of responsible firearm ownership, comfortable talking about his or her own personal faith and willing to allow everyone - including Christians - the opportunity to express their own faith in the public square.

A look at Democrats who won show many who are very conservative including John Tester, James Webb and Heath Shuler. They are akin to the golden Democrats of the fifties and sixties such as Truman and "Scoop" Jackson who weren't so ideologically driven when it came to social issues. Granted, gay marriage was not even a blip on the radar screen at that point, but other social issues such as the sexual revolution were starting to arrive.

The incoming Democratic leaders of Massachusetts, Governor-elect Deval Patrick and Lt. Gov.-elect Tim Murray, have incorporated a series of community meetings into their transition.

On the way to work today, I dropped in on one of the final meetings. The subject: local government. The location: Boston's historic Faneuil Hall.

By my estimate, about 50 to 60 people showed up. Among those who spoke were Murray and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. (Patrick was apparently not present.) Audience members were invited to come up to a microphone and share their opinions.

Of the community meeting process, Murray said, "There have literally been thousands of people who have come out to participate."

Patrick ran on a grass-roots theme, and it seems like he's using more of this strategy to appeal to the public. He's following in the footsteps of other Democrats. Hillary Clinton used a "listening tour" to jump-start her first Senate campaign, while Al Gore assembled a group of citizens to help him prepare for debating Dubya in 2000.

Is anyone else a little annoyed by the breathless shocking news that the swing voters went Democrat this time? This article is a good example:

The Republican Party ceded the center of American politics and its many groups of swing voters to the Democratic Party in the 2006 midterm elections - with predictable results.

The GOP lost the House and the Senate.

Republicans lost badly among independent voters, suburbanites, white Catholics, the middle class and Hispanics - groups it had courting successfully in recent years, exit polls found.

I'll give you that there is some interesting data breakdowns in the article, but the main thrust isn't really news, is it? Democrats won because they got the swing voters. If the swing voters went the other way, the GOP would have won, as they had in the past.

News flash: Swing voters are capable of changing their votes. This time, for some big and small reasons, they went Democrat. Next time they may go GOP.

The article does have a good point that Rove's entire strategy was based on the idea that turnout matters more than swing voters. And that may be true to a certain extent in most elections where the swing votes divide evenly. But they didn't this time, and overwhelmed whatever turnout operation that Rove was able to generate.

Lesson learned: Turnout is important, but having a message that resonates with swing voters is even MORE important.

Further defense of Rove, he is best at being a campaign strategist, he is not the guy elected to run the Global War on Terror. If the GWOT dictates a strategy that loses you votes in a midterm, then that's what you do, and you tell your campaign strategist to make lemonade if he can. Karl Rove tried to make lemonade and failed.

Student Trustee's at Orange Coast College have banned the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The group, including a self-described "atheist" and "socialist", take issue not only with the "under God" portion, but pledging allegiance to our nation:

Student leaders at a California college have touched off a furor by banning the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings, saying they see no reason to publicly swear loyalty to God and the U.S. government.

A cursory review of what the pledge is about shows that you are not swearing loyalty to the U.S, government, you are pledging loyalty to this great nation and its ideals.

Here we are, one day from Veterans Day -- a day set aside to thank those who've served our nation protecting freedoms that are not available in any other country -- and these Che wannabe's refuse to say a simple pledge to uphold the principles of our great country.

Review your history ladies and gentlemen, you can say the pledge and omit the "under God" portion, but to ban the entire pledge brings to mind shades of the world's most oppressive regimes.

Nationally, the shape is a Dem wave. You may not like it if you're on the other side but there it is. In all the gnashing and chaos that is DC, the trend is becoming clear. It will be a big Dem win. Remains to be seen what they will do with it.

Locally, one of the candidates we recruited to run for the legislature has lost and the fate of the other is unknown. i'm at a big coffee house with 100 people in a relatively small town (6,000) so it's a big party but the tension is palable. It's tough to wait for results from town offices, hoping someone will call a cell and let us know the numbers we hunger for. For now, we wait.

Waiting is the toughest part of being associated with a campaign. No matter what you feel the pressure, the hours and days spent walking and knocking. You think about the missed opportunities, maybe if you did something different and you re-play indivisual encounters with voters.

I just heard from a friend who is working in Ohio. The candidate who replaced the disgraced Bob Ney, Joy Padgett, has lost her home county in a conservative part of Ohio. A candidate with the unlikely name of Zack Space will likely beat her.

Back here in Maine, we wait, we wonder, we hope and now we will have the raffle drawing for a Signature quilt. A beautiful wuilt with about 30 signatures of leading Dems. I bought a bunch of tickets, let's see if i get to sleep under greatness. Take a look http://hancockdems.org/ I did not get the quilt, oh well, i would have given the money anyway, at least I had a shot.

For the State of maine looks like the so-called TABOR initiative (that messed up Colorado so bad it got a moratorium vote led by business) will go down and Gov. Baldacci will be re-elected. So what's going on at your party?

It's election day so I thought it would be appropriate to take you inside a campaign. This could be almost any campaign but rather than identify the particular campaign, let's just say it is a statewide campaign. There are a small number of staff people, the campaign manager, the candidate, the candidate's inner circle of advisers aka the 'kitchen cabinet' and the media. Election day is full of tension and anticipation--hectic, frenzied, the inevitable last minute snafus-- but it is also, in a way, anticlimactic.

There's really not a lot for the candidate to do. They will vote go to some polling places to shake hands, maybe do some media interviews but there is not much to say. Sure, we'll be optimistic, forward looking and thankful to the citizens of our great state but most of the candidate's time will be spent at home (constantly interrupted by well wishers who have the phone number). Headquarters tells the candidate to stay away. At this point the candidate is just one more person who wants information. Basically, the same thing is going on at the other campaign.

It's a terrible cliche by now, but this is all going to come out to turnout. I've been following the media and Ohio blogs ever since before the 2004 election and I don't see a lot of excitement here in Ohio except for a few areas.

The Democratic base is fired up and loaded for bear. I know this by reading the left blogosphere, but also by watching for the yard signs. If you see a Democrat house with a yard sign, it's not just one candidate, it's a yard full of the entire Democratic slate. The Democrat base is going to vote, but the kicker is they were always going to vote. I'm not seeing that their excitement helps anything.

That's the premise behind John Fund's piece in today's Wall Street Journal, Absent Without Leave. This year more states than ever are allowing absentee ballots for any reason at all. This means that any ballot postmarked before or on the day of the election have to be counted.

So with the apparent closeness of nearly all races, we could be waiting days before we would know the results of the individual races, if not control of the House and Senate. That's good for us political pundits and bloggers, but perhaps bad for the country. And absentee ballots are notoriously susceptible to voter fraud, as Fund informs us: