Who has not seen the photo?  The 34th President, a haberdasher from small-town Missouri, beams from ear to ear as he holds up the early edition of the Chicago Tribune.  “Dewey Defeats Truman,” the headline proclaims, but the headline is wrong, as the world now knows, and Harry S Truman (no period after the “S,” please) retains the office and burdens that he inherited when FDR died.

That was sixty years ago this week, but the photo still compels our attention as a hard lesson in democracy, journalism and the stubborn unpredictability of human events.

Dewey had several advantages:  he was a well-known governor of a major state (”executive experience,” we’d call it today) and the media liked him (he was endorsed by the New York Times).  Truman had the advantage of incumbency, but compared to the beloved FDR, he was not a popular leader and would become even less so.  His 23 per cent approval rating set a record that would stand until George W. Bush broke it a few months ago.

In addition, Dewey was eloquent and well-spoken, a Republican when most Americans seemed to have grown tired of 16 years of Democratic rule.  Truman was blunt and frequently off-color, which offended much of the population.

Yet Truman won, giving hope to every trailing campaign since then, and worrying journalists, prognosticators and candidates in the lead.

Now is the time, whether you support Obama or McCain, to pull out this photo.  It should motivate your efforts.  “Give ‘em Hell, Harry!” is what Truman's supporters cried, as they urged him on to victory.  You could try the same exhortation, except that “giving Hell” was introduced into this campaign a long time ago.  Try something else, just vote.

The final days of a campaign like this are so hectic and intense that the activities, not the issues, become everyone's focus.  Obama had enough money to produce a half-hour TV show and broadcast it on several national networks.  Bill Clinton and (separately) Al Gore are campaigning for Obama in Florida.  Meanwhile, McCain and Palin are fighting back with new “men in the street” supporters who become spokesmen for a day.  Yesterday, “Joe the Plumber” made an appearance with McCain in Ohio.  Today “Tito the Builder” made an appearance with Palin in Virginia.  Tomorrow, it’ll be some other novelty.

Until next Tuesday, each event or activity by the candidates is an effort to grab the headlines and cut down theiropponents.  One day soon we can all look back and decide whether the McCain-Palin alarms concerning Obama's tax proposals ever got traction with small business owners.  In the meantime, both candidates’ Web sites feature tax calculators where “Joe the Voter” can try to calculate how much he would pay in taxes under a McCain or Obama presidency.  You can try them out yourself and judge how credible they are.  But the promises by both candidates that most of us are headed for tax cuts sound like election eve bravado.  The candidates may believe what they say, but should we?

Once the pollsters have conducted their final poll, and the campaigns placed their last “robocall,” it will all be up to Joe and Jane the Voters.  However they cast their ballots, they deserve some sympathy.  The operations that dangled the prospect of tax cuts will soon disappear, to be replaced by one that appeals for sacrifice.

Business (unrelated to this blog or the U.S. election) brings me to Europe, a good vantage point on America as she prepares to head to the polls.  The U.S. election is not just front page news in all the daily print media here, but the European 24-hour electronic media such as the BBC or Sky News have their correspondents at nearly as many candidate rallies as do CNN or Fox.  It's almost as though the world's media, captivated by this American drama, cannot resist treating it as their own.

They also seem to dwell on issues that our own media prefer to report on quickly and then forget, such as the arrest of two skinheads in Tennessee on Monday whose twisted minds were bent on violent racial attacks, including on the Democratic candidate.  Italian media (such as La Repubblica) were quick to report on KKK-like groups in American spewing forth threats against Obama should he win next week.  American media are more cautious about reporting on such things, perhaps because they worry they might encourage the unstable, or perhaps because they are just afraid of what might be out there.  Foreign media show no similar reluctance.

Just as fear is the dominant emotion in the marketplace, it likewise reigns supreme in some eleventh-hour political pitches.  Today, for example, John McCain and Sarah Palin attacked Barack Obama for having a Palestinian friend, Rashid Khalidi, a university professor who has been very critical of Israel.  Since the Los Angeles Times, the newspaper that broke the “story” six months ago, refused to make public a video of a party in 2003 that Obama attended, at which Khalidi allegedly criticized Israel, this also provided McCain the opportunity to attack the newspaper for being biased in favor of Obama.   (See my post below on media endorsements.)

As Palin put it today, according to CNN:

"And the twist here is that there's a videotape of a party for this person, back in 2003, a celebration of him, and Barack was there, and we know some very derogatory things were said there about Israel and America's support for that great nation," Palin said.

"And among other things, Israel was described there as the perpetrator of terrorism instead of the victim. What we don't know, what we don't know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support, and the reason is the newspaper that has the tape, the Los Angeles Times, refuses to release it."

Palin accused the Times of being Obama's "pet newspaper" and said the paper would win a Pulitzer Prize for "excelling in cow-towing."

This is by now a well-worn McCain campaign tactic of trying to sow doubt about Obama through insinuation and appeal to fear.  Those who have never met a Palestinian but who have heard frightful things about the generations of war between Israel and her neighbors might feel more afraid of making Obama president.  Some American Jews might get nervous about Obama and withdraw their support.  But as the American media, now motivated to defend themselves, did some elementary fact-checking, they learned that a group McCain nominally heads, the International Republican Institute, actually gave money to Khalid's NGO.

Another base and baseless attack.
The attack was also errant in that it ran over the substantive talk that Palin gave on the same day, on energy policy.   One can only conclude that the McCain campaign felt it was more effective for the media to report on the ticket's efforts at mudslinging than on energy issues.

It's almost as though, in the final days of this campaign, fearful of defeat, the only thought that McCain and Palin's advisors can focus on is the conventional wisdom that negative campaigning may not be admirable, but it works.

It's a proposition they seem intent on testing, even if it means kowtowing (correct spelling) to cynicism.

Newspaper endorsements, a sagging political commodity, can still get everyone's attention when they break ranks or tradition. Today the main newspaper of Alaska, the Anchorage Daily News, endorsed Barack Obama. Since its editors have been watching Sarah Palin considerably longer than the rest of us, what they had to say about the candidates for Vice President demands our attention in a way that editorials from the “lower 48″ cannot:

Gov. Palin has shown the country why she has been so successful in her young political career. Passionate, charismatic and indefatigable, she draws huge crowds and sows excitement in her wake. She has made it clear she's a force to be reckoned with, and you can be sure politicians and political professionals across the country have taken note. Her future, in Alaska and on the national stage, seems certain to be played out in the limelight.

Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

In its own way, the endorsement from the Chicago Tribune (”The World's Greatest Newspaper”) is also remarkable. Barack Obama is the first Democratic candidate for President to be endorsed by this staunchly Republican newspaper in more than 160 years of publishing. Although Obama comes from Chicago, the Tribune had resisted endorsing favorite sons who were Democrats, backing Ike against Stevenson in ‘52 and ‘56. The Tribune seems to be part of a wave of center-right voices that now prefer Obama over McCain.

Not all the endorsements are surprises. The Arizona Republic proclaims its favorite son the superior candidate on the basis of his foreign policy experience:

Regarding foreign policy, no contemporary American statesman is more prepared than McCain to assume the mantles of first diplomat and commander in chief. In the tradition of Harry S. Truman, McCain already has demonstrated a willingness to let the buck of responsibility stop at his desk.

No one elected McCain to stand virtually alone against three administrations over their use of power overseas - against President Reagan's ill-fated decision to send Marines to Lebanon in 1983; against President Clinton's decision to send U.S. troops to Somalia in 1993; and against President George W. Bush's decision 10 years later to send insufficient troops to Iraq. He fought Republicans and Democrats over irresponsibly sending troops into harm's way, and he fought Republicans over their equally irresponsible refusal to send enough troops to do the job. In all three instances, history has proved (too often tragically) that McCain's judgment was right.

McCain has not won very many plaudits like this from big city papers. When he has, it seems to go against local dynamics. The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald — and a host of others — all endorsed Obama. Oddly, largest newspaper in Michigan, a state that McCain gave up trying to win, did endorse him. The Detroit News put it this way:

Though economic concerns are understandably dominating the nation's attention, it can't be forgotten that the world remains a very dangerous place. Within the next year, the new president will have to make difficult decisions about how to answer Iran's push toward nuclear capability. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez continues to agitate in South America, Vladimir Putin appears determined to remove Russia from the league of democratic nations and North Korea is ever volatile.

The next president will be charged with stabilizing Iraq so American troops can leave that country in good conscience. He will also have to find an answer for Afghanistan that doesn't bog down America in another long conflict or provoke Pakistan, a tenuous and nuclear armed ally.

The News’ partner newspaper, The Detroit Free Press, endorsed Obama, but again it is the “man bites dog” surprise of a urban, economically troubled environment giving any support to McCain that raises eyebrows. What if McCain had run a campaign this year more like the one he ran in 2000? What if he had chosen a running mate with more experience? We will never know. McCain seems to have chosen the Republican base outside of cities and not the people of both parties who actually live in urban areas. This tale of a few cities is one that Republicans will have to read again if they hope to avoid the worst of times.

For a last look at the candidates and the issues surrounding climate change, come over to the FPA Climate Change blog for Last Call for Presidential Politics.

This acerbic rejoinder by Donald Rumsfeld has a certain all-purpose value: in politics, as in war, there's a lot we can't foresee. “Stuff happens” not only after an invasion, but also in the final days of a Presidential campaign, and most of us who watch the polls and the candidates wonder what sort of “October Surprise” might be in store. Some dramatic shift on the part of John McCain? Or some “unknown unknown” — to use another Rumsfeldism — that changes the political battlefield?

Speculation on this topic has become the fodder of the 24-hour news cycle. What would be required to upset Obama's advantage? “What does McCain need to do?” ask commentators on the right. “What could McCain — and Palin — do now?” ask commentators on the left. David Frum, conservative but now a critic of John McCain, somewhat flippantly offered that an immediate economic miracle might do the trick. Others remind us how the Osama bin Laden tape four years ago, on the eve of the last election, may have spelled the difference in John Kerry's defeat.

There is still room for outside events, probably none of them auspicious, to play the role of game-changer. But if the latest AP poll is accurate, Obama's lead is not that great. Things could change.

There's now, at least on the part of observers, a sense that the remaining days are about momentum, not issues. McCain was in Wolf Blitzer's “Situation Room,” but didn't make much news. Obama held a round-table in Florida on economic policy — it was barely covered. Today he was scheduled for a foreign policy forum, but the coverage is mainly about NBC's serialized McCain-Palin interview and how uncomfortable, according to Chuck Todd, the two mavericks appeared with each other. Todd says he thinks they might be “on the verge of ‘pulling a Bulworth.’”

Now might just be a good time, if you haven't seen that off-beat film, to check out the DVD. Just in case that's the sort of “stuff” that may happen.

A verbatim e-mail from the Republican National Committee follows, annotated and edited — italics only! — by this writer to reflect his annoyance at the tone and content of the campaign in its final days.

Dear (Insert Your First Name Here as though we know each other)

(Unless you've just landed on planet Earth, you know that) only two weeks remain in the campaign to decide America's future. We (My political backers and I ) need you to act now to help elect Republicans (mavericky ones , but not ones so mavericky they support Obama) to offices all across the country - from the White House to the courthouse.

With the clock running out and funding so critical to getting our message to the voters, Governor Palin, GOP candidates and I are counting on you to help us meet our $50 million fundraising goal for October by making a secure online contribution of $2,000, $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $50 or $35 to RNC Victory 2008 today. (Remember that even though I chose to take public funding for my campaign, by giving money to the RNC you can be sure that some of that money can be used to support my campaign even as I complain about Obama refusing public financing.)

Every dollar you donate right now will be used for two important tasks:

* Advertising (mainly attack ads and robocalls) to millions of undecided voters (who somehow haven't been able to make up their minds in two years of non-stop political advertising) in battleground states and targeted districts; and

* Get-Out-The-Vote programs such as last-minute voter identification, door-to-door canvassing, phone banks and efforts to mobilize our Republican base (such as alleging voter fraud and making legal challenges to voter registration campaigns).

From here on out the election is all about grassroots organization and hard work — the type of roll-up-your-sleeves, shoe-leather politics that is the strength of our Party. (We certainly don't have enough money to do much of anything else.)

(Insert your first name once again here so you know I'm writing just to you), we are up against a political and fundraising machine the likes of which we have never seen before in modern politics , not since the days of Karl Rove. A machine designed for one purpose: to aid the Obama-Biden Democrats’ power grab and return America to the higher taxes, bigger government, and failed defeatist policies of the past. (If only we had a machine like theirs!)

(Copying our own tactics), from vicious attack ads smearing our candidates to pouring thousands of paid operatives into crucial battleground states, leftist special interest groups will spend over $1 billion to elect the most liberal Democrat presidential ticket in our country's history (more liberal than FDR, Humphrey, McGovern!) to the White House and expand the Democrats’ majorities in Congress , majorities that used to be ours when Ted Stevens ran Appropriations in the Senate.

The liberal mainstream media is are also doing their part. In the daily newspapers and nightly news programs (that used to be safely in our pocket) , they have condoned the misleading distortions and dishonest attacks against our Republican candidates through their slanted reporting in favor of the opposition. (All we have left are Fox, Limbaugh and Murdoch's latest addition, WSJ.)

We must fight back if our Party is to retain the White House, reclaim control of the U.S. House and Senate, and elect more Reform Republicans (quick: name them!) to state and local offices dedicated to our agenda of strengthening our economy, increasing America's energy independence, winning the war against Islamic extremism and improving the health care system. Just the way the current White House has!

(Insert your name one more time for this warm and fuzzy closing), our Party has an extraordinary opportunity on November 4th to make history. Your secure online contribution of $2,000, $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $50 or $35 to RNC Victory 2008 is vital to ensuring we have the resources to succeed. (If you can afford to give $2,000, you're probably in my tax bracket , not Joe the Plumber's!)

Fourteen days are all we have left to win this election. Please help as generously as you can. All I can promise is more mind-numbing letters like this unless you get me elected!

Sincerely,

John McCain

P.S. (Insert your name — aren't computers wonderful!) the Obama-Biden Democrats and their liberal special interest allies are spending tens of millions of dollars during the final two weeks of the campaign in an effort to flood the airwaves with misleading attack ads and get their voters to the polls. Help us to do the same! Your immediate support is critical to countering their efforts. Please make a secure online to RNC Victory 2008 of $2,000, $1,000, $500, $250, $100, $50 or $35 today to help fund our Party's advertising and Get-Out-The-Vote programs. Thank you.

A quick survey of media commentary and analysis following last night's final debate is, in a sense, reassuring. Reporting by what conservatives disparagingly call “The Mainstream Media (MSM)” was, in fact, “fair and balanced.” Reports generally began by noting that a feisty McCain had been on the attack, particularly in the first half-hour, and had probably satisfied Republicans who had been looking for him to use this last debate to step up his attacks.

Only lower down in the articles and commentaries did the “MSM” take note that Obama's responses were fluid and articulate. By his calm and “Presidential” demeanor — and his command of his arguments — Obama kept his cool and protected his position as front-runner.

This was not a debate about foreign affairs, but a debate over who could rescue the U.S. economy. Except for an exchange between the candidates on free trade agreements — NAFTA, Columbia and Peru — foreign affairs did not come up at all. Street-level concerns, personified by a plumber in Ohio who had briefly talked with Obama earlier in the week, were the core of this debate. “Joe the Plumber” may not have been convinced by Obama's performance, but most viewers were.

Who is best at “walking the walk” — in other words, being an unflappable, organized and consistent leader? The post-debate polls seem to think it's Barack Obama.

10:05 p.m.  McCain gives a moderate “no litmus test” response to a question on Roe v. Wade and Supreme Court nominees.  Obama gives a law professor's reasoning for supporting Roe v. Wade.  The instant meters measuring audience response give Obama a clear edge.

The last question, on education, appears to be another home run for Obama.  McCain, coming afterward, sounds more like an echo, listing objectives rather than how he would achieve them.

The final statements:  McCain, by coin toss, goes first.  His appeal is for viewers to see him as more trustworthy and qualified.  Obama gives a broader, comprehensive summary, closing with an appeal to unity and bipartisanship.

9:45 p.m. — The choice of Veeps is now front and center.  Obama uses McCain's praise of Palin's children with special needs experience as a way to challenge McCain on his planned across the board spending cuts.  On energy independence, McCain is as comfortable and articulate as at any point thus far.   Obama also knows his brief, and seems to be equally comfortable rebutting McCain's repetitive mantra that Obama wants to raise taxes…  Obama follows with an eloquent discussion of health care and what he wants his plan to achieve.

9:13 p.m. — “Joe the Plumber” is McCain's effort to find a down to earth example of the middle class fated to be taxed higher by Obama.  Obama seems to parry this thrust without difficulty.   What about the deficit?  This is Schieffer's effort to challenge both candidates.  Obama has a “pay as you go” answer that seems sensible and in fact rather conservative fiscally.  McCain goes for the “across the board” cut as the heart of his response, which Schieffer tries to turn into a specific, without much success.  Obama then uses his response to once again to link McCain to the Bush record on spending.  McCain spryly avoids the connection with his riposte.

9 p.m. — showtime at Hofstra University:  Schieffer sets the scene and seems to be in control.  The debaters shake hands without acrimony.  McCain is enjoined by Schieffer to begin on the economy and to say something not in his well known talking points.  He responds with an earnest discussion of the mortgage crisis, criticizing Paulson.  Obama gives a more general discription of the economy and moves to the “middle class” argument.  Agrees with McCain on mortgage relief, but this time pairs it to a criticism of McCain.

8:50 p.m. — Howard Fineman of Newsweek tells Obermann what he wants to hear:  all Obama needs to do this evening is to keep cool.  No need to go on the attack unless McCain should overstep, then Obama “can level him.”  The pre-game is over.  The oddmakers in the media have made their book and have given McCain very long odds.

7 p.m. — Who's nastier?  Ex-Bush spokesman Ari Fleisher and Ex-Clinton spokesman Lockhardt spar a bit on this on MSNBC.  Fleisher contends that Obama's repeated lines that tag McCain as a Bush acolyte are just as negative as Palin's “palling with terrorists” line used again Obama.  Lockhardt claims that the negativity can be “measured” — most McCain ads attack Obama, most Obama ads talk about Obama's policies and values.  Another topic, less covered, amounts to negativity in the service of inciting extremist supporters.  Conservatives are taking umbrage (see Michelle Malkin) after various commentators (e.g. Obermann) attack McCain-Palin for not doing more to rein in their own supporters when they shout “kill [Obama]” at Republican rallies.  Malkin claims there's just as much nastiness on the Democratic side.  Obermann last night called McCain a “fraud” for allegedly failing to address the issue.

6:15 p.m.  MSNBC's David Gregory has NY Republican Susan Molinari offering advice to McCain-Palin.  Molinari says that the Republican ticket should promise to take tough, unpopular positions and promise not to run for re-election if they win.  In the same breath, she tells Gregory that Republicans are still upbeat about their chances.  Practically no one else is.  The Robert Novak on-line report (”ENPR”) is predicting a “Republican disaster at hand.”  Poll-tested conventional wisdom seems to be that McCain should not try attacking Obama's character — it doesn't work.