Crazyworld

Rachel and I carved pumpkins this year. Guess who did which one? Hint: I'm from eastern North Carolina, near where Blackbeard lived and East Carolina University.

Oh, great.

It seems Twtter is being invaded by opportunists scooping up bunches of names.

I've avoided it for so long. I guess now it's time to take the plunge.

Millions of people watched Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's 30-minute infomercial last night.

While one can argue the effectiveness of such a ploy, I think it's safe to say that the Obama campaign has officially moved beyond politcking and is now firmly in the realm of marketing.

It happens more every election cycle, but there's always been some overlap. Now, the Obama brand seems to have sealed the deal. The point of an infomercial is to sell you a product. And that's what the Obama camp was trying to do: sell you their product. They even had a toll-free number pop up at times. I half expected the guy who looks like one of the Brady Bunch actors to jump up in the middle of it and try to sell something that enhances "that certain part of the male body." The only thing missing was what special offers you'd receive if you call within the first 15 minutes.

Now, critics will say (actually, they began saying this within minutes after the ad aired) that the infomercial was "over-the-top" or "too much." Most of those critics are on 24-hour news channels -- or in the blogosphere -- which have helped drive our media-obsessed culture with their constant up-to-the-minute updates on everything from political campaigns to car chases to pop stars. They helped make people want this. Obama simply gave it to them.

This is the next step in the evolution of political campaigns. Years from now, people will look back to Ross Perot as the pioneer and Barack Obama as the one who perfected it.

Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, one other thing was missing from Obama's prime-time sales pitch: a money-back guarantee if you're not completely satisfied.

Click here to see comics that shipped this week, courtesy of The Tangled Web.

Hands down, "Final Crisis: Rage of the Red Lanterns" is the must-read this week. If you haven't been following the Green Lantern books, they are consistantly good, and building to a major climax late next year in the "Blackest Night" event.

You know, one Democratic insider I talked to this week joked that, "The change we really need is for this election to be over." Amen. After two years, I think that's what everyone is ready for.

So to take a break from the last week of chaos, I'm lucky enough to get to see Guy Clark tonight at The Handlebar in Greenville. Tickets are still available, which blows my mind. Hopefully, they'll allow audio or video recording. I've tried my hand at that a few times...

Anyway, here goes a good version of Clark's "Desperados Waiting for a Train." Not sure who recorded this one or where it's from, but it's good.

On my long journey to get caught up on my comic reading after moving last month, I've decided to go back and re-read some titles that I'd gotten really behind on. One is the superb "Doktor Sleepless" by Warren Ellis and published by Avatar Press.

On the second pass, I rediscovered the Datashadow, a wiki that anyone can use. It's just one of the many buried treasures that makes this comic so cool.

This time, I went further and poked around on http://grinding.be/, a blog authored by a select group of fans. From there, I discovered this fascinating essay on the evidence of a global superorganism. Check it out.

If you've followed the race for Spartanburg County coroner or have met either of the candidates running for that seat, you'lve probably heard them put an emphasis on accessibility.

Now, obviously, if you're dealing with the death of a loved one, that is important to you. But it's also important to us ink-stained wretches who churn out the news. Here's why.

Today's small news item about a body found in an abandoned mobile home is currently the most-read story on GoUpstate.com. If you read the story, you see that there's information missing.

The current regime at the Coroner's Office doesn't allow for reporters to initiate contact with its investigators. There's no central line we can call on nights or weekends. Their cell phones (the numbers for which I had to get through a FOIA request from county administrators) don't have voicemail. E-mail is not an option. Basically, we're at their mercy. We have to wait for them to call and release information on what they determine is news.

It's a terrible setup, because it's our job to determine what's news, not theirs. I honestly believe that most, if not all, of the investigators would be open to a better arrangement, but they're just following orders. And if I was in their position, I would probably do the same. But the orders need to be changed.

This isn't whining, by the way. This is a legitimate problem. One of the reasons crime news is so popular is because people want to make sure no one they know is a victim or has passed away. The Highway Patrol, which also doesn't have the most progressive attitude toward public information, has a strict (though dumbfounding) policy of refusing to identify victims in fatal crashes, and directing reporters to contact the coroner's office -- which, in Spartanburg County, isn't always an option. (I should point out that, in my experience, this hasn't been a problem in Cherokee or Union counties.) The county coroner is no less a public official than any other elected or appointed person. They have to be responsive. And they need to view a reporter as potentially thousands of people (constituents, if it makes you feel better) rolled up into one.

So, whoever wins the coroner's race, I hope that the office will indeed become accessible.

To all of us.

The Americans for Legal Immigration political action committee is targeting Sen. Lindsay Graham in television and radio attacks ads and automated calls across South Carolina.

The ad includes snippets from a speech Graham gave to The National Council of La Raza, during which he made the infamous comment about "bigots." Ultra-conservatives have taken offense at this, saying they are being called a bigot for simply wanting immigration reform. Graham's campaign has said often that the comment was taken out of context, and that it was directed at extremists on either side of the argument.

"Today, we are airing parts of the speech that Senator Lindsey Graham does not want voters to hear before election day," William Gheen president of the PAC said in a press release. "We have already tested reactions to this speech and we know that SC voters do not approve of Graham's comments, support for Amnesty for illegal aliens, and support for La Raza!"

I spoke with Gheen briefly, and he insisted that immigration is still a key issue, despite the economy and the war.

I wonder how it will be effected by the decreasing number of illegal immigrants?

Graham faces Bob Conley, a Democrat in Name Only and former Ron Paul supporter who is also pushing the immigration issue.

A quick note for anyone interested in the new southeastern FedEx Ground shipping hub, which the company has said it's likely to place in Greensboro, N.C., Murfreesboro, Tenn., or the Greenville-Spartanburg metro area.

I can clarify "the Greenville-Spartanburg metro area." To my understanding, the site on the short list is, in fact, in Spartanburg County. The Economics Futures Group is working on the deal.

The hub is an estimated $110-million investment that would employ about 470 people at full capacity.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

My girlfriend and I were among the dozen or so people who saw Oliver Stone's "W." at the late showing Saturday night at Spartan 16. I'm a fan of Olver Stone, but this movie wasn't worth $10. It might have been worth renting or watching on cable. But $10? That's asking a lot with little return.

It was hard knowing what to expect going into "W." The previews made it seem like it would be a comedy. And while there was plenty of satire, it really wasn't that funny. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think the movie makes you feel sorry for President George W. Bush.

As has been said in many reviews, one major theme in the movie is that Bush is constantly in his father's shadow, former President George H.W. Bush. He's portrayed as a simple-minded spoiled brat who wants nothing more in life than to make daddy happy -- and, according to Stone, the younger Bush often did things he thought would please his father that really didn't sit well with the elder statesman.

There's hints of manipulation, particularly by the likes of Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney. They'll "suggest" something to Bush, and as long as the president believes he's making the ultimate decision on the matter, everything is OK. Perhaps the most blatant use of this is when Cheney talks about the United States "never" leaving Iraq, and the building of an empire. Cheney, played by Richard Dreyfuss, is the most interesting character in the mix, but not much time is spent on him. In fact, the only real characterization was that of Bush. And with a running time of more than two hours, you have to develop more than just the main character.

Stone, in a director's commentry on one of his past films, referred to "JFK" as his "Godfather," and "Nixon" as his "Godfather II." Does that make "W." his "Godfather III" ?

Only if you believe the third movie is inferior to the first two.

Incumbent Sen. Lindsey Graham stopped by the Herald-Journal office today. I asked him about Colin Powell's endorsement of Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Graham said he respected Powell, but was disappointed with the decision. He said he would "accept it for what it is." Graham highlighted the differences between Obama and Republican presidential candidate -- and one of Graham's strongest allies -- John McCain, saying that Powell's take on Supreme Court nominees is "not in the mainstream."

"I didn't know he was so socially liberal," Graham said. "And I guess he hasn't studied either economic plan at all."

I asked Graham if he thought this country would still be in Iraq if the Bush administration had followed the Powell Doctrine, which calls for entering a war with a clear objective, an overwhelming force in order to complete that objective and having a clear exit strategy -- an idea obviously shaped by the Vietnam War.

Graham said he thought the Powell Doctrine was a "good plan," but then criticized Powell for "throwing cold water" on the troop surge in Iraq. Graham added that he's concentrating on Iraq's future, not its past.

In case you missed last night's forum featuring state and local candidates at the Spartanburg County Headquarters Library, here's a link to Bob Dalton's story on the matter.

It's much easier asking questions at these things than having to cover them -- even though one of the candidates insisted on calling me (and Dalton) out by name as part of the evil "liberal media" bent on destroying him. (But really, Mr. Millwood, how many Democrats would share your assessment of our paper?)

A few things I picked up on as interesting:

- Incumbent state Rep. Lanny Littlejohn said that former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney had donated $500 to his Statehouse campaign. I've checked Littlejohn's disclosures, and those for Romney's new Free and Strong America political action committee, but don't see this. Perhaps it just came in and will be on the final quarter disclosure form. But given how much money Romney spread around South Carolina two years ago, it sounds to me like this could be the beginning of 2012. We'll see.

- Several Republicans sitting behind me said, "That's a good idea" and applauded when Democrat Jimmy Tobias suggested tax credits for parents who successfully help their children graduate high school.

- Democrat Harold Mitchell is afraid of a write-in Republican challenger on Election Day. I later talked to Spartanburg County GOP Chairman Rick Beltram about this, and he said that was "silly talk."

- Next time, I think we need to be allowed to interrupt a candidate if he or she fails to answer the question. That happened a lot last night.

- Republican state Senate candidate Shane Martin's aunt reads this blog. Points for Martin!

- As for Republican Joey Millwood and Democrat Mark Chambers -- the latter of which did not bother to show up last night -- more and more conservatives seem to be afraid that this paper's endorsement of writing in ousted Rep. Bob Walker on Election Day will split the conservative vote in House District 38 and give the election to Chambers. If that happens, I have a feeling our editorial board will never hear the end of it.

As always, click here to see a list of comics shipping this week, courtesy of The Tangled Web.

IDW's "G.I.Joe: A New Beginning" drops this week, and I'm cautiously optimistic about it. It's only $1 -- so no one has any reason not to pick this up -- and will introduce three Joe series that will debut early next year, I believe. There's been conflicting reports as to whether one of those is a miniseries. But with talent like writer Chuck Dixon and original G.I.Joe architect Larry Hama on board, it's hard to see how this can go wrong.

It's possible -- I'm not really pleased to see more than two decades of history scrapped in favor of this "new beginning." But I'll give it a shot. You should, too.

Republican John McCain gave a helluva performance last night -- but he was not wearing an American flag lapel pin, and Democrat Barack Obama was.

How could the national media have missed this?

I mean, everyone knows the national press is biased against John McCain. State Attorney General Henry McMaster reminded a group of die-hard Republicans of that last week, with some of them standing to applaud as he blasted the so-called "liberal" media.

Why didn't McCain wear a flag pin? I mean, at times, I couldn't even concentrate on his answers because of his bare lapels glaring at me. I almost had to turn away. Considering how much time and effort was focused on Obama when he didn't wear such a pin during the primary season, surely this debate faux pas won't go unnoticed for long.

Did the media do it as a favor to McCain? The Republican has criticized the press himself for being infatuated with Obama -- though, if such an infatuation exists, there must be a lot of masochists in this field. For a guy who has had scores of reporters riding around the country on a bus with him, and who regularly ended press conferences during the primary with a friendly, sailor-like, "Awright, ya jerks, that's it," perhaps McCain really is hurt, and the press did this to make up for being unfaithful. It's the equivalent of a bouquet of flowers.

Or perhaps McCain doesn't need to wear a flag pin, because real Americans see only red, white and blue when they look at him. It was a sign of confidence that everyone -- everyone, my friends -- knows John McCain is an American hero.

Or maybe the media really is in love with Obama, and they just didn't want to point out the fact that he caved to the pressure to wear a lapel pin.

Surely the media's failure here isn't to be blamed on the fact that moderator Bob Schieffer did a masterful job of conducting the debate, forcing the two candidates to address issues that haven't received much attention so far.

And it's impossible that because McCain came across as a true elder statesman and Obama as an inspirational leader the press was swept up by... what's the word? Substance? It seems wrong to even think such a thing.

At least Obama's attitude was at times flat and McCain looked (and breathed) like an angry bull. Thankfully, we had that distraction.

With less than three weeks to go to Election Day, I'm astounded that the national press passed up this golden opportunity to focus on something so trivial and insignificant.

For months, they allowed the same flagless-lapels to open the door for critics to question Obama's patriotism -- and, for the extremists, to question his citizenship, faith and "true agenda." Those same people are the ones yelling "Terrorist!" now at Republican rallys when Obama's name is brought up.

Given that, it's hard to understand how real Americans are able to stand behind a candidate who (literally) doesn't wear his flag on his chest.

Unless none of them ever needed to in the first place.

The best radio station in the world, 88.7 WNCW, is holding its annual fall fund drive. I can't really afford to donate this year (my girlfriend has contributed in the past), so I figured I'd do my part by helping spread the word.

Click here for the radio station's Web site.

Really, 88.7 has made me realize there is still hope for radio. Considering the mind-numbing commercial-driven stations that most markets are stuck with, we have a channel that really does offer an eclectic mix of virtually all types of music. It helps that there's such a rich local music scene in western North Carolina and the Upstate. Chances are if you are a fan of any Spartanburg artist, they've been played on WNCW. The station deserves your support.

For a bill that won't be pre-filed until December, Rep. Nathan Ballentine's proposal to require candidates to disclose all contributions online within 48 hours during the two-week blackout period before elections has generated a lot of discussion.

I saw Rep. Keith Kelly, R-Spartanburg, tonight at the Spartanburg County GOP Bronze Elephant do-dad. It seems there's a friendly game of one-uppance afoot. Kelly said he read about Ballentine's bill and figured out a way to make it better: Require disclosures within 24 hours.

"I like what Nathan's got, but if we can get it down to 24 hours, that would be great," he said.

So, we started at 48. Now, I'm hearing 24. Anyone want to go for 12?

State Rep. Nathan Ballentine, R-Richland, posted a campaign disclosure reform bill on his blog recently that would close at least one loophole in South Carolina law that gives candidates a two-week period before the election where they can rake in contributions without any scrutiny.

Current state law requires candidates to file a pre-election disclosure form 15 days before their election. As it stands, any contributions a candidate receives after that aren't disclosed until the election is over. And those post-election disclosure forms can be telling.

Ballentine's bill, which would also require county council, school board and municipal candidates to file online -- a requirement statewide candidates already must follow -- would force candidates to disclose any contribution they receive during the two-week blackout, as I call it, within 48 hours.

This would be especially helpful in seeing who is getting last-minute boxes of cash -- and, yes, it's likely that candidates supported by New York libertarian Howard Rich and his associates would feel this the most. (I hear the box of checks comes via FedEx a day or two after the blackout begins.)

We've pointed out Rich's influence before. This summer, the blog Barbecue & Politics went race-by-race to examine how much Rich funneled into various candidates' coffers during the blackout. See, for example, this entry on state Senate candidate Lee Bright, who received $50,000 during the blackout. Local candidates like Joey Millwood, Roger Nutt and Ken Roach, among others, also benefited from the current arrangement.

I have a feeling this may come up during the Oct. 20 forum. I have that feeling because I'm one of the people asking questions. And I'm only suggesting it now because I hate hearing disingenuous answers like, "Well, I haven't seen the bill," when the idea is more important than the piece of paper it's written on -- especially considering most bills are amended before they become law, anyway.

This month's issue of "Tales from the Crypt" will feature Sarah Palin on its cover swinging a hockey stick at the comic's main characters, including the infamous Crypt-Keeper. She's shouting, "Didn't we get rid of you guys in the 50s?"

This apparently references two things: Palin's pseudo-attempt to ban books as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and the fact that the old EC horror comics were one of the biggest victims of a 1954 Senate inquiry into juvenile delinquency -- an inquiry that caused the comics industry to begin self-censoring itself. (That practice, thankfully, has faded much over recent years.) Perhaps one of the most other pieces of propaganda from that era was psychologist Frederic Wertham's book, "Seduction of the Innocent," which attacked Batman as promoting homosexuality.

Click here to read Newsarama's more detailed account.

Carolina Barbecue -- which has locations on Hearon Circle and Blackstock Road -- has launched a "Fork over your vote" jellybean poll.

The premise is simple. When you finish your meal, you're given a jellybean to drop in a jar for John McCain, Barack Obama or undecided. The poll will run through Nov. 2. Results will be posted weekly at the restaurants, or you can visit www.mycarolinabbq.com. (Today's count puts McCain ahead with 161 jellybeans, compared to 48 for Obama and 39 undecideds.)

"It's a great way to get the community involved," owner Michael Hicks said in a press release. "It's [sic] also teaches our kids how important it is to start voting and being well informed about who to vote for."

Hicks stated that in 2004, the poll accurately predicted George W. Bush would win the presidential election.

Click here to see comics shipping this week, courtesy of The Tangled Web.

I'm finally starting to get caught up on my reading. I must say, writer Gail Simone has really begun to work her magic on "Wonder Woman." It's not shipping this week, but the last couple of issues should still be around. And they are absolutely worth checking out. The villain is the Queen of Fables -- who, like most villains, I never cared for until Simone penned her -- but the best part of the title is the ongoing awkward romance developing between Wonder Woman and super-spy Nemesis. In Issue No. 24, he meets Wonder Woman's mother, the queen of the Amazons, and that was handled beautifully.

... in separate instances, of course.

You can read about the endorsements here and here.

I wonder which one involved more soul-searching?

I've been to a few of these before. If you plan to spend the day in Charlotte, it's not bad to drop in for a few hours. You never know if you'll find a gem.

Anyway, it's 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Sunday at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 201 S. McDowell St. Admission is $3. Apparently, parking is free if you ask for a token before you leave. Go early, as vendors tend to start packing up before 4 p.m. if turnout is extremely light.

Thanks to Dave's Comics in Fort Mill for the heads up.

The first flier from South Carolinians for Responsible Government doesn't mention incumbent Democrat Glenn Reese at all. Hmmm.....

Reese faces Republican Mike Gardner on Nov. 4.

"Glenn Reese certainly isn’t a favorite of those conservative groups," Spartanburg County GOP Chairman Rick Beltram said.

"I can only guess, but by looking at this first piece, which obviously cost money, I would say they’ll invest $25,000 to $50,000 in the campaign."

Beltram added that doesn't count money coming in from the county GOP or the state Republican Party on Mike Gardner's behalf.

I first found out about this after trying to learn more about the alleged push polls in this Senate district that were first mentioned on our own TalkUpstate. What's funny is that as the post was about to go away, Beltram got into it with Reese's son, Michael, and now at least two blogs have picked up on this.

Anyway, this begs the question: How much money will we find out Howard Rich and his associates contributed to Gardner after the election?

Ever sent a late-night e-mail that you regret the next day?

You might find this application helpful.

I may need to install it myself.

The State Law Enforcement Division, citing state budget cuts, has found yet another way to limit access to public information.

SLED, as the organization is commonly called, charges most people $25 for criminal background checks. It charges only $8 to a charitable organization, a "bona fide mentor" -- whatever that is -- or a recreation commission. In the past, criminal background checks have been free to the media as long as they were on people involved in a crime. (The organization still insisted on charging the press $25 for criminal background checks for candidates for public office, which is absurd. They also charge housing authorities that $25 when they run a background check to screen applicants.)

Now, it's worse.

SLED no longer will provide free criminal background checks to the media -- unless that organization is holding a press conference, in which case courtesy checks will be provided. (That in itself shows a we'll-tell-you-what-we-want-you-to-know mentality, which is straight out of 1984.)

SLED cites a state law that sets the rate for a check at $25. There's another state law they often fail to mention that requires public information to be available at a nominal cost. And then there's all this talk about transparency in government, which goes against charging at all.

I don't know whether this is ridiculous or scary. Maybe it's just plain arrogance on the part of SLED.

This is public information. It should be free to everyone. The organization already has a system in place where you can look up the information online -- as long as you have a credit card to soak up that $25 charge.

PUBLIC INFORMATION IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE USED TO GENERATE REVENUE. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS ARE IN PLACE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS, NOT THE GATEKEEPERS OF THE INFORMATION.

I mean, the state Ethics Commission has an online database in place to search candidate disclosure forms and guess what? It's free. I know times are tight in Columbia, but so are they everywhere else. I've lost a lot of colleagues in this field -- both here and friends I've had elsewhere in the media -- and the fear of future cuts isn't subsiding. But we haven't resorted to charging the people we serve for access to our copy online.

SLED should follow the Ethics Commission's lead and make all of their public information available online. The organization should realize that it is not above the law, not above scrutiny, and is nothing more than a public servant just like journalists, or cops or nonprofit volunteers.

I should probably stop now. I'm so angry about this, if I keep going I'm liable to say something to get myself in trouble.

... as evidenced from one of the latest forwards to hit my Inbox.

Pitiful.

In a quick conversation with state Rep. Harold Mitchell, D-Spartanburg, just now, I asked him which state or local candidates he'd be endorsing this year, or campaigning for.

"I learned my lesson on that last year," he said, referring to his primary endorsement of then-presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. "That becomes a hazard."

He added: "As the late Judge Littlejohn said, 'Don't endorse anybody.' I'm going to stay in my race, and get to work."

The sentiment is shared among several other sitting elected officials -- particularly in a tumultuous political year that so far has shown strong anti-incumbency leanings.

Spartanburg County GOP Chairman Rick Beltram, for instance, not long ago told me he'd be putting pressure on sitting county councilmen -- all but one of them are Republicans -- to endorse and support his party's nominee for the District 1 seat, Donna Hicks. (Hicks, by the way, still doesn't live in the district in question. She's running against incumbent Democrat Michael Brown.) That didn't sit well with a few of the councilmen I talked to, particularly David Britt. Britt said there was "no way" he would get involved in another council member's race.

It's likely a smart move, with so many question marks as to who will win what this year. Elected officials are trying not to get off on the wrong foot with someone they may end up working with.

With the presidential election only weeks away, I find myself reminding more and more people that if you get a forward in your Inbox, and it asks you to please forward to as many people as possible, chances are the information within is either skewed or a flat-out lie.

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has taken a mob-inciting tone in recent days regarding Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama's ties to William Ayers, much to the delight of her party's faithful who are constantly looking for new reasons to fear Obama. It should also be pointed out that Republican presidential candidate John McCain isn't without his own shady past, as he has been linked to the Iran/Contra affair. Last night, just before the second presidential debate (which was kind of a yawner), MSNBC's Keith Olbermann pointed out that the weapons and other equipment the United States sold to Iran eventually ended up in the hands of the Taliban and even later, Osama Bin Laden. Olbermann went so far as to say if Bin Laden is quaking in his boots over a McCain presidency, McCain could have very well helped supply those boots.

Here is the CNN account of the Obama-Ayers relationship.

Here is the CBS story on the McCain-Iran/Contra relationship.

So, to both parties, please stop forwarding fearmongering e-mails and let run-of-the mill cynicism resume.

It's no secret that John McCain's presidential campaign has written off South Carolina as a win. The campaign has even requested activists here volunteer time in the battleground states of Florida and North Carolina.

One Republican insider out of Columbia I talked to today was worried about the impact that might have down ticket.

"We have state legislative races all over the place," he said. "We could use those people here."

As I've said before, leaders in both party aren't as concerned about whether McCain or Barack Obama carry South Carolina, but are more focused on the margain of victory. That is, a tight margin could spill over and decide close legislative races.

I've taken some heat about criticizing Fred Thompson during the primary (though, surprisingly, no one seemed to notice whenever I wrote anything "nice" about him, which happened mostly during the last few days before the South Carolina Republican primary). And I've already had some e-mails regarding my recent post on Sarah Palin's lackluster debate performance. (I just wish they'd post here!)

Now, I can't endorse any candidate or their views. But I can be critical of them. That's part of a journalist's job.

So, here are some of the most basic criteria I use -- and, yes, this is totally subjective, but when you deal with as many politicians as I do and as often as I do, I think it's appropriate -- to grade candidates for various political offices.

1 - Are they passionate about the job? Do they seem to actually want the office they're running for?

2 - Are they comfortable talking in front of a crowd or introducing themselves to strangers, and generally charismatic?

3 - Can they answer the question that they are asked intelligently? Have they thought through the matter themselves, or are they reciting some memorized talking points or spouting some generic party line?

4 - Can they take criticism? Can they dish it out? Would they, say, be able to stand in front of a lawmaking body and argue a point that convinced other people to vote their way? Would they be reasonable enough to vote differently than they had planned if they are presented with intelligent information, or are they stuck in their ways? It's OK to change your mind -- which often is harder to do than not changing your mind, as your political opponents will brand you a flip-flopper.

5 - Do they understand that running for elected office puts them under a higher level of scrutiny, particularly from the press? Do they seem willing/able to make themselves available to the press? (I once voted against a candidate in North Carolina because he wouldn't give me his cell phone number.)

6 - Are they too wrapped up in themselves to, say, return phone calls or answer questions at all?

7 - Can they answer questions in a way that doesn't contradict past actions? This is different than changing your mind. This is blatant do-whatever-it-takes-to-win politicking.

8 - Are they honest? Or, at least, do they generally speak what they believe to be the truth?

9 - Have they fulfilled promises they've made in the past?

This is just off the top of my head. But if a candidate fails at some of these basic things, then maybe they should reconsider their candidacy. Maybe this makes me some radical opinionated blogger. But I don't think so. We have a responsibility to show candidates for who they are and what they represent. It's OK if you agree or disagree. Just don't shoot the messenger.

The Tangled Web's weekly newsletter is ready, listing the books hitting the stands this week. Click here to see it.

I'm so far behind in my reading that it's not even funny. That said, what I've read of the current Brainiac story in "Action Comics" has been super cool. I'm still not sure what all of the hub-bub over "Deadpool" is about. Will try to glean that from shop talk this week. But I've never been a fan of the character, not since he debuted back in "New Mutants" No. 98. He just talks too much and says too many stupid things. But apparently the new series is hot...

I just got an interesting call from a reader, who declined to give her name, about a story I did recently on how Democrat Jimmy Tobias and Republican Lanny Littlejohn are using campaign events to raise money for charities.

She pointed to a recent story about vice presidential candidates Sarah Palin, on the Republican ticket, and Joe Biden, on the Democratic ticket. Palin released her tax records, which showed that she has given more to charities in the last two years than Biden has in the last decade.

"This shows a lot about a person's character," the caller said. "Especially here in the Bible Belt."

She thinks our Statehouse candidates should disclose the same information. It's a good point. I wonder what we'd find out about our esteemed candidates if they were to release their records...? All it takes is a couple, and that puts pressure on a few more to do it.

Perhaps this is a good question for the Oct. 20 debate.

Comments, anyone?

Slashdot has an interesting summary of how one of CNN's so-called "iReporters" -- that is, people who are not trained journalists but have the ability to post content as if it was news -- caused Apple's stocks to drop to an 18-month low by posting that the company's CEO, Steve Jobs, had suffered a heart attack, which was eventually proven false.

And this, thankfully, is one reason the world still needs trained reporters -- for both online and print material. It's a small comfort in what's a tumultuous industry right now.

I mean, seriously. Did she? I've watched the vice presidential debate twice now. And all I've heard from Sarah Palin was updated talking points that McCain surrogates have been spouting for years. If you know of a question that she actually answered when asked, please post a comment and let me know.

Biden was weak during the first part of the debate, but when he started getting angry -- and he seemed incredibly reserved compared to his usual self -- that was the best part of the night. Specifically, when he started debunking the McCain "maverick" image.

During the primary season, I interviewed nearly every candidate at least once. McCain was one of those I'd interviewed so many times I'd lost count. Out of all the candidates, McCain and Huckabee were the only ones who remembered my name. The only time he seemed frustrated during an interview was when he was asked something that he'd answered elsewhere. He wanted to be challenged. He is a fine candidate.

Too bad he fumbled the VP pick.

Sarah Palin: Worst. Vice Presidential Candidate. Ever.

I write about, among other things, politics and comic books. I guess this was inevitable.

A group of comic creators have launched the Comics Industry for Obama project, a social networking site that will be auctioning off artwork and other things with proceeds going to the Obama campaign.

For the unfamiliar, many a comics fan gets heartburn when they see real-life politics co-mingled with the world of capes and tights and super powers. Comics, after all, are meant to be an escape.

But it's interesting to see the industry (part of it, at least) taking a stand for what they believe in. Their catch-phrase is "Let's make sure the good guy wins."

Newsarama has many more details. Click here to read an interview with the founders of this initiative.

The county GOP organizations in Greenville and Spartanburg are co-hosting a vice presidential debate watch party Thursday night. It's at The Academy of Arts, 80 School St., in Taylors. Doors open at 8 p.m., and the debate starts at 9. Light refreshments will be served. The event is being co-ordinated by Allen Klump, a regional field director with the S.C. Republican Party's Victory '08 project.

If anyone - Republican, Democrat or independent - else is hosting local watch parties tomorrow night, let me know at jason.spencer@shj.com.

Interesting e-mail just ended up in my Inbox. Won't say who it was forwarded from, but it originated at southcarolina@johnmccain.com. It's funny that McCain's rival, Barack Obama, is criticized for not being able to connect with working-class Americans. I don't know many working-class people who could take a a week to volunteer for a polticial campaign in another state.

------------------

Volunteer in a  Battleground State

Dear Friend,

The McCain-Palin campaign needs your help to  win. We need volunteers in Florida and North Carolina from now until Election Day. Can you come to Florida or North Carolina for a day, a weekend, a week, or the  final 72 hours of the campaign?

If you are interested in deploying to Florida or  North Carolina at your own expense, please send an email  to either fldeployment@johnmccain.com or ncdeployment@johnmccain.com based on your preference. We ask that you provide the following information in your email.

*   Name
*   Town and County of Residence
*   Phone Number
*   Email Address
*   Dates You are Interested in Volunteering
*   Preferred Location in FL or NC

Our campaign is deeply grateful for your support and  we appreciate all you are doing to help elect John McCain.

Thank you,

Buzz Jacobs
Southeast Regional Campaign Manager
McCain-Palin 2008

------------------

P.S. Any locals who end up doing this, drop me a line a jason.spencer@shj.com. We'd love to keep up with you on your adventure. And if you pick North Carolina, I may even be able to convince the powers-that-be to let me shadow you for a bit.

Ken Kirzinger, who played Jason Vorhees in "Jason vs. Freddy" and was the stunt co-ordinator in "Friday the 13th, Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan," will be one of the featured guests at a self-billed supernatural, sci-fi and superhero show this weekend in Concord, N.C.

The event is this Saturday and Sunday at the Carbarrus Arena & Event Center. Plenty to do there, including a costume contest, bands, sci-fi and horror stars, a handful of (mostly) local comic artists, and even free zombie makeovers on Sunday. I'm tempted to go, just to meet Kirzinger.

Anyway, click here to find out more about this year's Comics & Toys MonsterCon.

Thanks to Dave's Comics in Rock Hill for the heads up.