::Sigh::

About 2 seconds after McCain uttered the words "...Republican Guard..." in reference to Iran's terrorist group, I was on cloud nine. Game, set, match... this whole thing was about to be over. I was attempting to envision how cool Obama might play the mistake as he calmly explained "...by the way, John, I think you meant the Revolutionary Guard...."

or maybe...

"... John, when did the Republican Guard rebase in Iran? I hadn't heard...."

But alas, opportunity was wasted when he not only failed to correct McCain, but repeated the same mistake himself! Talk about the game-changer that wasn't.

Although I know it wasn't likely, I was really hoping the debate would somehow deliver the knockout blow - where Obama would put McCain down for the count once and for all. Man, what a painfully missed chance.

In its predictable eagerness to declare that Friday's debate produced "no game changers," the mainstream media outlets have overlooked what should be a disqualifying mistake by John McCain.  His claim that Obama did not understand the difference between tactics and strategy was simply one of his many attempts to depict Obama as ill-informed on every issue.  McCain proceeded, as the exchange continued, however, to show that he, not Obama, was confused over this fundamental distinction.

An obvious criticism of McCain's current Iraq position has been that his obsession with the tactical successes of "the surge" have blinded him to any clear conceptualization of the US's strategic dilemma there.  Now McCain implies the surge is a strategy and that the tactics in Iraq lead us toward . . . well, I don't know what.  This reasoning is completely nonsensical.  McCain is the graduate of an American service academy and served in wartime.  He has participated in numerous foreign policy discussions as a Congressman.  And yet, he seems to lack a clear grasp of how a political leader must move back and forth between tactical choices and strategic options.  McCain's statements in the debate were not sadly laughable.  They show a colossally dangerous flaw in his foreign policy reasoning.  Even if one wanted to charitably grant that he didn't exactly say that we should be in Iraq for 100 years, McCain's reasoning shows that he cannot think himself out of the Iraq quagmire.

Why has the MSM failed to make more of this?  Joe Klein on Time.com at least pointed out that McCain was flat wrong, but not much more.  James Fallows on Atlantic.com interpreted this as indicative of McCain's tactical muddling, more a personality tic than a clear failing.  Joe Biden complained about McCain's reasoning on MSNBC, and yet not one of the commentators seemed willing to engage the point, let alone admit the sweeping significance of McCain's blunder. 

We have seen for the entire election cycle how miserably the MSM has covered, run, and analyzed debates.  Voters might have hoped that post-debate analysis might include at least one foreign policy expert who could point out the meaning of this gaffe.  Instead we got all the same pundits, horse-race handicappers, and body language experts.  They swept all the content under a rug.

Fact #1: John McCain is alive today becaue he sold out to the enemy during his captivity.
Fact #2: The Vietcong killed any prisoner that was not of use to them.  Hence, McCains very survival demonstrates his cooperation with the Vietccong.  The only question that remains is what secrets he told the Vietcong.
Fact #3:  If McCain is the hero he purports to be, every American has to right to know about severity of his PTSD.  By his own account, he suffers from PTSD.  Do we really want a president who suffers from such a severe psychiatric illness as PTSD.   By his own admission, he is psycho.  He cannot claim to be some kind of war hero and still claim to be psychologically balanced. 
Fact#4: After Friday's debate, it is obvious McSame is a nut-case...the man has no grasp of even recent history...
Fact #5: Even his own campaign recognizes Sarah Palin is a brainless affirmative action VP choice and has set back back women's equality by 20 years in this country... Palin has single-handedly set back the progress that Hilary made.

My wife recently drew my attention to an old article (www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/011800hth-behavior-incompetents.html) that I think casts the Obama and McCain campaigns in an interesting light. The crux is that incompetent people not only have an inflated sense of their own ability, but similarly have difficulty assessing competence in others. The implications of this seem pretty clear. McCain projects incompetence on Obama while, inexplicably, claiming the opposite in Palin. Obama, on the other hand, seems to go out of his way to assume the best about his opponents, all the while accepting his own fallibility. I think this can be further extended to the way each candidate views the voters. McCain's clear contempt for us is matched only by Obama's confidence in our capacity for reason. Obama assumes the best of us; McCain is counting on the worst. This is the filter through which I've been viewing the past few weeks, but I'm fairly certain that someone more competent than me could examine the last 18 months and come up with even more illustrative examples of this phenomenon.

Hi there, come on in.  What a day after ... come in, come in.  What?  Oh, it's Qeensryche, I love their music.  I hope it's not too loud, felt a bit like jamming out tonight. 

What's the point of having big kiss-ass speakers if you can't raise the roof now and then?  What?  Okay, yell at me if you must because I can't hear you.  Wh ... Oh!  Sure, no problem.  Grab a seat and I'll be right back.  I said GRAB A SEAT - never mind!  What?  You need a WHAT?  Did you just say what I think you said?  Couldn't possibly have - a class of clear?? Okay!  A glass of beer coming right up.  Even if that's not what you meant, you're getting one anyway.  I SAID YOU'RE GETTING ... sorry.  Music stopped.  Don't you just hate it when that happens?  When you get through laughing at me pick something else and crank the volume.  That's all right, I'll wait.  Still waiting.  Getting impatient.  It wasn't that funny.

Will you hurry up?  I've already gotten you that glass of beer you didn't want.  What else can I .... WHAT?  Cool tunes!  I can't hear you ... 

Can we give the money to me , I  think I could do a better job, at disbursing that amount. I'm developing my own new Foundation coming soon, Everett Hurst Save The Elderly and Eliminate Conservatorships.  I need a  partner . Who would like to come join me?

That's right my crews will go in find out who has bedsores in these death camps-nursing homes and get the owners heavily fined and closed down if possible.
Then I intend to attack all the dirty Hud Housing Owners that neglect there propertys and cause hardship to the renters, this is just a few  tips . I intend to clean house thru my foundation in memory of my husband Everett Hurst, who was murdered in one of these facilitys.
It'll be free  false teeth, free hearing aides, free grocerys, free rent, to as many as the budgect  will allow , all in the name of Love.

Who wants to join me?
Henery Paulson can't help you, but Rita Hurst can!!!
call , 951 216 5779 or ritafightingforyou@yahoo.com

also A book is coming soon,  a tell all book of what I know. 
go to http://everett-hurst.memory-of.com click on Time Line  upper right corner, and see photos if you really want  see the truth.
thanks
Rita Hurst, (just a nice widow lady)

The latest meme to roll off the conveyor belt at the Fox News hate factory is that community organizations such as Acorn are responsible for the subprime debacle.  Of course, Barack Obama has "ties" with these "radical allies."  The Fox News ticker was reporting only on this topic for like ten minutes.  This aspect of the crisis literally does not exist in the world of MSNBC.

Acorn and other groups supported laws that would make it easier for the poor to buy homes.  So they are the real culprits in this mess, not the banks or the loansharks or the real estate boosters.  Ann Coulter agrees, of course.  I got this message in my inbox the other day: THEY GAVE YOUR MORTGAGE TO A LESS QUALIFIED MINORITY

And the hawk-eyed conservatives have also noted that unqualified Hispanic employees were responsible for the collapse of Washington Mutual.  I guess they must be the reason why WaMu ran all those ridiculous ads in which their plucky young employee - a black man - torments the stuffy, aristocratic old white male bankers for the sake of the common people.  Poor bankers!  If only they had been able to run their companies without the interference of incompetent minorities, maybe this whole mess would never have happened.

Reading up on the extreme hostility of the business press and right-wing blogs toward Acorn and other community groups is truly eye-opening.  It puts Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin's jeering of "community organizers" at the RNC in a whole new light.   The foolish speculation among liberals that denouncing community organizers was mere code language for racism completely missed the point -- something that I sort of vaguely, instinctively sensed while watching Palin's RNC speech.  They don't hate Obama-the-community-organizer because he's black or urban, per se.  They revile the idea of these organizers as mini bureaucrats, proxies of the liberal nanny state who want to come in and tell you what to do.  Obama the busybody.  "It's a community, and it doesn't need to be organized!" Palin said, to uproarious applause. 

As you can tell from reading the articles below, conservatives basically see liberal community organizations as the bastard lovechildren of the Community Party and the mafia, training cadres to tamper with the system and bilk taxpayers.  They are "corrupt."

Check it out:

The Investor's Business Daily: Democrats want to use profits from the bailout as a slush fund for liberal activist groups, even those involved in vote fraud to help elect Barack Obama...

Renew America: B. Hussein Obabma was at the center of ACORN. As a community organizer he was right there with the corruption. He trained ACORN workers and they in turn worked on his campaign in Illinois...

SEPTEMBER 26TH DEBATE ANALYSIS

September 27, 2998

1st. It's that simple. Cake is Republican. But Democrats? They're Pie People. Cake is dry, crumbly, all the focus on the top layer. The Icing. Icing matters, for cake people. But pie's 'nuther story altogether. Pie's all about the filling. YEAH BABY! The middle. And the more of it, the better. Sure, you CAN make a pie with an upper crust. But you want it thin. Wafer thin. The other thing about pies, you can fill 'em with anything. Chocolate or Butterscotch. Cherries or Apples. Rhubarb or Razorblades. Coconuts of Cream. And really, isn't life mostly about the pie? Scientifically, we're 90% water, right? So who'd want cake? They're ALWAYS dry. Dry as dust. Go ahead, try to talk while you're eating cake. You mumble while it crumbles. Whereas pie? Liquid gold. Nectar of the Dogs. Makes you want to sing. Republicans? F*ck 'em, I say. Let 'em eat cake. 2nd Breakdown. World's biggest Bank failure. World's biggest Insurance failure. World's biggest Housing failure. World's biggest bankruptcy. 5 investment Banks gone. Bye-bye. Nighty-night. 0% on T-Bills. Not worried. Uncle Sam say, I WANT YOU. TO BUY. T-BILLS. 3urd. True story. Friend of mine - lives in the 'burbs outside San Diego. Big Republican area. Nice. Tells me a guy just walked past his house. True story. 4rd. The guy was WALKING. Hello? COULDN'T PAY TO GAS HIS CAR. NOT DRIVING HIS 4RD. 5tyiethly. Butterflies are flapping their wings over the Amazon, creating Hurricanes. Right? Well then. Our course is clear. F*ck the butterflies. Us or Them. Fer or Agin. Evil or Ain't. I say we bounty 'em. $150 a wing. Aerial hunting, 'salright with me. Sure they're pretty, but so are Russians. 5th (Time Out. Suspend This.) And that's the crux isn't it? It's all right there. The Russians. And the Crimeans. And the Sevastopolitians. Now, I know some of you are worried about the Russians. Some of you worry more about Crime & the Crimeans. But me? I'm watching them Sevastopolitans. I remember my history. Doomed to repeat it? I think not. I remember the Neapolitans & what they did to Italy. And how did that end? Crying. Screaming. Running away. Hair-pulling. Tears. Just like birthday parties. 6th Breakdown. Why do we inflict CAKE on kids at Birthday Parties? Partisan horseshit. 7th7th7th. $700 Billion Bail-Out. Waaaaaa(repeat "a")aaaaay too much. Afraid for the kids. I'm greatly depressed. Great. Ly. And a $700 Billion trade deficit. Every year. Which means = $700 Billion in "free gifts." (That have to be paid back.) (By our kids.) Oops! It's still going on! Hey everybody! Stop accepting the gifts!!! And uh and uh uh uh $700 billion for Iraq. Gonna save money on that. Move the troops to Afghanistan. Cheaper cost of living and all. And and and $700 Billion a year for oil. Less oil for the kids. More carbon. More Hurricanes. Sold the family beast yet? Paid off that last dime? Got that SUV up on blocks? This is the way... this is the way.... whimper. Ei8th. True Story. Friend of mine used to run a Works Dept. Every Fall, this lady'd phone up to complain. About trash on her lawn. Leaves. "Tree trash," she called it. Seriously. She's be outraged. OUTRAGED. But did she ever blame the neighbours? Nope. Not once. She was very precise when asked about this. She understood personal responsibility. And it woz the Trees wot done it. The Trees wot should pick it up. And the Trees wot should be punished. "Them," she'd say, "and their Tree Trash. On MY lawn." The City'd send a guy over after dark - true story - and rake her lawn. She's like the House Republicans. Or Wall Street. Or us. 9th Inning, gotta foc_s. Why'd yo_ guys drop the "u," anyway? Seems kinda spitef_l. I know, 1776 and all that, but still, so bitter? And look where it got _. I can see dropping the _ from labo_r. But Neighbo_r? Hono_r? Savio_r?!!! Can _ imagine having the gall to say, I'm gonna change how The Savio_r's spelled? 9th+1th=10th. BREAKING. I'm breaking now. I like the Democrats because they're like us Scottish people. The Demoscots. A Party for people with COURAGE. Ones that know their History. And Demand Justice. And who're always up for a fight. With each other. Because, after all, aren't those the BEST fights? Family brawls. Oldtime hockey. MacDonald/Campbell. Hatfield/McCoy. And f*ck the Clinton's, I say. The Kennedy's. de Rothschild's. And Hubert Hollow Humphrey, that fat lil bastid. 'n I can't WAIT 'til we get to sink our teeth into those Soetoro's. Dynasty? O'er. My. Dead. Demoscottish. Body. 11thI'mComin'Dowwwwn. My Grandfather. The genetic one, not the other one. When he was a kid, goes to Cambridge, takes music. Gets pulled into WW the Oneth. Manchester Regiment. Gallipoli. Basra. Megiddo. They fought in interesting places. He never told any story but the last one. The day he's under fire, dove into a cave. 12 other guys already inside. Anyway, somebody on the other team fires something in. Shell or whatever. 12 dead. All but him. He comes to - Calm. Sees arms, legs, torso's - Calm. Walks out, realizes he's naked & bleeding, except for his boots, and this little leather strap holding his compass. Calm. Guy starts talking to him, my Grandfather realizes he's deaf - and Freaks Out. Music, you see. Afterward, it shamed him. That music was his first thought. Said that in a time of crisis, people think the strangest thoughts. I'm holding that little heart-shaped leather case right now. Things come back around. Crisis. People think the strangest thoughts. 11teenth. Take a turn, turn, turn again. Something's not holding. Something's not holding. 12. See that bird circling? Wha' izzit? Turkey vulture? No? Bald Eagle mebbe? Ya know what they can see? Ultraviolet. Birds see in the ultraviolet. Know that? Yep, 4 types of cones, not 3 like us. Can see in the 4th dimension. That fact messes me up. See, that means to them, a crow ain't... black. To them, a Crow might look brighter'n a Cockatoo. And here's the messed up part. They're closer to seein' the truth than we are. All those colors WE see? Might as well be watching some old black & white TV. Think of that. What color's a black person? I donno. AND NEITHER DO YOU. What color'm I? I. DON'T. KNOW. WE do not live in Reality TV. Take a look at these hands, they're passing in between us. TAKE A LOOK AT THESE HANDS!!! Lucky lucky lucky #13. You don't think 13's lucky. Remember that cave? That shell? Remember those 12 guys that died? Tell me. Who was #13? Tell me, who am I? God may not play dice with the universe. But you and me? I can hear Him. "Yeah baby. Let it riiiiiiiide." 14. I got these fine hands. Musician's hands. Musician's ear, yeah. Music on the brain, that too. But them li'l hands. Genetic. My father was a violinist. Not my Step-Dad. Hell no, he was this huge farmer. But me? Lil hands. You ever stood there, little, and looked at some huge bastard that was gonna hammer you, and looked down at your hands, musician's hands, then up at him, up and down, and life was right there. Your whole life. Choose. Right here, right now son ----- Choose. And all you hear is music, building inside, like Beethoven or something.... But the trouble is.... all you got is blood in your eyes. Generations of it. From your ancestors, them little Jews, all the way back in Leipzig. From them little Scottish people, the ones who went to Bannockburn. Music and War. Music OR War. And you know if you throw that punch, you've chosen your path. And you're torn. And the guy's in front of you now... and he's just so f*ckin' BIG.... and he pulls back his arm.... And you take him down. Your sharp little knuckles turn out to be good at making them bleed. So you do. And you feel like a Wolf. A Bear. Berserker. But the ROAR in your ears afterward. Saying - no more Music from these hands. Just Blood. You chose. So take a look at these hands. Times of crisis, people have the strangest thoughts. Take a look at your hands. You got a choice. Music. Blood. Don't think you don't. 15thward. Hadron Collider. Ebola. Derivatives. Tsunami from the Canaries. Tsunami from Derivatives. And a Snowbilly. Who Hunts librarians. Hunts wolves. Hunts pork. Blessed by the Witch-doctor. Witch-hunter. Same. SAME. And the Witch-Hunter blessed the Snowbilly, and said, "This ole Earth's had a good run. 6,000 years is plenty. Ya hear that bell? I SAID, DO YA HEAR THAT BELL?!!! Time's up. School's out. Get busy. Ssssssssarah." 16. Moose. I hear they run in herds. Huge galloping herds of 'em - saw it on tv. But sometimes their antlers get caught in the trees, right? And the wolves get 'em. You can't have that. 'Taint humane. Heli-huntin's what we need. It's Scientifically proved. It's either Heli-huntin'.... or we go back to the Hellhounds. 17almostabletosee. I'm the man in the box. Pitch black. I am your leader. I've been in the box. So you don't have to. It's dark in there. So I'd never put you in the box. But you wanna look? Bet you do. Wanna see? I can show you. Wanna feel what it's like? Inside? Where I sleep. Wanna see? Step inside. Step inside the box, America. You know you want to. Know. 18th. Not quite. Hold on. Luke's gone. Fast Eddie's gone. Billy the Kid. Butch. Butch is gone, Sundance. What now? Not much time left. Only time for 19. So you better stop. Look around. Here it comes, here it comes, here it comes, here it comes. Here comes your 19th nervous breakdown. Here comes your 19th nervous breakdown. Here comes your 19th nervous breakdown. Here comes your 19th nervous breakdown. America. 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/27/palin-takes-questions-during-cheesesteak-run/#more-21174


Note that she takes the opposite position to what John McCain did last night, on what action we should take against the  Taliban and Al Qaida in the Pakistan Tribal areas.

Excerpt:

The governor got a more serious interrogation moments later when Temple graduate student Michael Rovito approached her to inquire about Pakistan.

"How about the Pakistan situation?," asked Rovito, who said he was not a Palin supporter. "What's your thoughts about that?"

"In Pakistan?," she asked, looking surprised.

"What's going on over there, like Waziristan?"

"It's working with [Pakistani president] Zardari to make sure that we're all working together to stop the guys from coming in over the border," she told him. "And we'll go from there."

Rovito wasn't finished. "Waziristan is blowing up!," he said.

"Yeah it is," Palin said, "and the economy there is blowing up too."

"So we do cross border, like from Afghanistan to Pakistan you think?," Rovito asked.

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin responded, before moving on to greet other voters.

Best thing - in fact, the only thing - that McCain can do now, is a little true confession. Hold a press conference, and say, "My friends (sorry, but it's gotta start with that), I let you down. I betrayed your trust. It's clear now that Sarah Palin, as wonderful a person and politician as she is, is not quite ready for the awesome responsibility of the Exeuctive Branch....." and so on. The "my firiends" bit is necessary so that America doesn' t think he lied about everything. and this has to be preceded by Palin bowing out gracefully, though neither one can truly afford to say "What was I thinking???"

But it has to happen. AND - McCain has also to explicitly come down on Tush - a switch from the implicitness of his recent stumping.

Right now Americans don't trust McCain's veractiy or his political judgement. I'm guessing this is why he was so peeved on Friday night: that he found himself talked into supporting a VP candidate and policy decisions that went against the grain, and now he's losing against a young upstart that this Red, White and Blue military man considers a wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper.

He's got to come clean. With himself, with his party and with the American public. Or the rest of his days on the planet are going to be filled with a lot of that same directionless rage we saw last night. And that's not a nice way to live.

Just got This from HufPo/NYTimes:
Http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/mccains-gambling-problem_n_129937.html

Evidently our Dear Friend has been doing a little pay back and has been knee deep in the Abramoff scandal.

Maverick indeed.

Crash strikes again.

Perusing the various threads offering commentary re last night, I've read many posts speculating as to what the coming debates might hold in store. Specifically, will McCain finally reach his bursting point and simply lose it - on national television, in front of tens of millions of viewers??

That got me to thinking about a novel I read about a decade ago (penned by Jim Lehrer, ironically enough) entitled, The Last Debate. It covers a scenario not very dissimilar to the one being discussed in aforementioned threads - lone caveats being that the candidate is a Palin-like Rapture Freak, and that the blow-up is engendered and precipitated by the panel of journalist-moderators, after secretly colluding that that candidate simply HAD to be taken down.

Interesting, though, how times change - as does what one considers normal and politically viable...

At any rate, it's certainly worth a few bucks, should you be a political junkie (yeah, like anybody at TPM fails to meet that description <g>).

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Debate-Jim-Lehrer/dp/1586480049

Strip out the hyperbole, hubris, arguments and recollections over record, and take away the commentary on things we already know, then you have this is the list of Action Items actually mentioned by the candidates.

To the best of my ability, I have separated the wheat from the chaff, without prejudiced, and bulleted those statements that actually have something to do with goals or action. In italics, I tossed in direct accusations from one candidate against the other, mostly for context in the timeline, and bolded the main action points.

My threshold for ambiguity was very low. Nonetheless, it was thin pickings, I tell you. I think I counted four things total that would actually be a policy decision. John Caelan

ON THE FINANCIAL RECOVERY PLAN

OBAMA:

"…Series of proposals that protect taxpayers…:"

"…Oversight

… "$700 billion, potentially, is a lot of money."

"…Money back and gains for Taxpayers…

if the market -- and when the market returns."

"…none of the money to…Golden Parachutes..."

"Helping homeowners

."

MCCAIN:

"This package has transparency in it. It has to have…"

Oversight.

Options

for loans to failing businesses: "rather than the government taking over those loans."

"I called for the resignation of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission."

ON FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES IN APPROACH AS PRESIDENT

MCCAIN:

"I'm going to veto every single spending bill that comes across my desk."

"Senator Obama is also proposing some $800 billion in new spending on new programs."

OBAMA:

"

Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion."

"I've called for is a tax cut for 95 percent of working families, 95 percent"

"…close corporate loopholes,"

"…stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas"

"…tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States."

"…a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage."

MCCAIN:

"Senator Obama finds objectionable…the business tax."

"I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in -- in the United States of America and create jobs."

"I want people to have tax cuts."

"…every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit…purchase their own health care"

"…double the dividend from $3,500 to $7,000 for every dependent child in America."

OBAMA:

"…if you make less than $250,000,…,then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase."

"Senator McCain talked about providing a $5,000 health credit. Now, what he doesn't tell you is that he intends to, for the first time in history, tax health benefits."

MCCAIN:

"We had an energy bill before the United States Senate…It had all kinds of breaks for the oil companies, I mean, billions of dollars worth. I voted against it; Senator Obama voted for it."

OBAMA:

"John, you want to give oil companies another $4 billion."

MCCAIN:

"…give every American a choice:"

"…two tax brackets

, generous dividends,"

"…the existing tax code or they want a new tax code."

"…again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year."

OBAMA:

"Look, it's just not true. And if we want to talk about oil company profits, under your tax plan, John -- this is undeniable -- oil companies would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks."

ON GIVING UP PRIORITIES BECAUSE OF THE RESCUE PLAN

OBAMA:

"…plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil…"

"…increasing production at home..."

"…invest in alternative energy,…solar, wind, biodiesel,

"…developing the fuel-efficient cars…"

"…fix our health care system"

"…make sure that we're competing in education."

"…invest in science and technology."

"…make sure college is affordable for every young person in America."

"…Rebuild our infrastructure"

"…broadband lines that reach into rural communities."

"…new electricity grid to get the alternative energy to population centers that are using them."

MCCAIN:

"…we've got to cut spending."

"…examine every agency of government…"

"…eliminate ethanol subsidies."

"…do away with cost-plus contracts…"

ON LEHLER REDIRECTING THE QUESTION OF GIVING UP PRIORITIES DUE TO RESCUE PLAN

OBAMA:

"…investing in energy in order to free ourselves from the dependence on foreign oil."

MCCAIN:

"a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs.

OBAMA:

"We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad, that we have to look at bringing that war to a close."

MCCAIN:

"Senator Obama opposes both storing and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel."

"…can create 700,000 jobs by building constructing 45 new nuclear power plants by the year 2030."

(John's Note:

I had to quote Lehrer, because he actually said "rule the country"…I try not to stray from some degree of decorum when writing prose (that what I have music for) but are you f*$%$ kidding?)

ON LEHRER REDIRECTING AGAIN: "Are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president?"

OBAMA:

"…have to make some tough decision…"

MCCAIN:

"Senator Obama has $800 billion in new spending programs."

"I got plans to reduce and eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending…"

OBAMA:

"John, it's been your president who you said you agreed with 90 percent of the time who presided over this increase in spending."

ON LESSONS OF IRAQ

MCCAIN:

"This strategy has succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq. And we will come home with victory and with honor. And that withdrawal is the result of every counterinsurgency that succeeds."

OBAMA:

"I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place."

"…we did not use our military wisely in Iraq."

"…end this war responsibly."

ON AFGHANISTAN

OBAMA:

"…I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan."

"…press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people."

"Deal with a growing poppy trade that has exploded…"

"Deal with Pakistan…"

MCCAIN:

"..get the support of the people of -- of Pakistan."

OBAMA:

"…if the United States has Al Qaida, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out…"

ON THE THREAT OF IRAN

MCCAIN:

"…I have proposed a league of democracies, a group of people - a group of countries that share common interests, common values, common ideals, they also control a lot of the world's economic power.

"...impose significant meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians…"

OBAMA:

"…We do need tougher sanctions."

"I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe."

ON RUSSIA:

OBAMA:

"…our entire Russian approach has to be evaluated, because a resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region."

"...make clear that we have to follow through on our…six-point cease-fire."

"…affirm all the fledgling democracies in that region"

"…countries like Georgia and the Ukraine…are free to join NATO if they meet the requirements"

"…deal with the proliferation of loose nuclear weapons."

MCCAIN:

"…support the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in the natural process, inclusion into NATO."

"make sure…the Ukrainians understand that we are their friend and ally."

OBAMA:

"…alternative energy…plan for us to make a significant investment over the next 10 years…"

ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF ANOTHER 9/11 ATTACK

MCCAIN:

"…a better job in human intelligence."

"…trained interrogators so that we don't ever torture a prisoner ever again."

"…make sure that our technological and intelligence capabilities are better."

"…work more closely with our allies.

OBAMA:

"...We've got to make sure that we're hardening our chemical sites."

"...I…believe that we need missile defense…"

"..focus on…Al Qaida."

"…restore America's standing in the world."

The punditry has ignored McCain's gaffe when he stated that Reagan made no effort to talk to the Soviet leadership before the rise of Gorbachev, but that is a false according to written statements by Reagan in which he wanted to to have some sort of relationship with the Soviet leadership before 1985. Plus the there is many books written by scholars such as Richard Rhodes, Melvyn Leffler, and Beth Fischer that stresses the point that Reagan had a fear of nuclear war and wanted a reapproachment with the Soviets in the early nineteen eighties. It is obvious that McCain, the supposed expert on foreign policy, has not read any books about the Cold War period or his hero Ronald Reagan.

In the dabates McCain stated that Obama did not know the difference between tactics and strategy. But it is obvious that Obama did know the difference in that the COIN operations in Iraq are nothing than more than a tactic since they have not acheived their strategic directive which is a peaceful political solution in Iraq. McCain, on the other hand, just believed in winning for the sake of winning but was unable to describe how exactly the United States would achieve victory in Iraq. While Obama was able to state how our operations in Iraq impede the effort in Afghainistan and has ruined our stature in the world. Obama seemd to have his eye on the ball while McCain was very narrowminded and just concentrated on abouy 8-10 months of reduced violence in Iraq and believed it to be some sort of strategic victory even though there is no political solution.

The federal Office of Thrift Supervision closed Washington Mutual, and named the FDIC as the receiver.  Washington Mutual reportedly had $307 billion in "assets", and $188 billion of deposits.  JP Morgan Chase bought the assets for $1.9 billion - and extraordinarily favorable deal, if only those assets are valued approximately correctly.

We knew that Washington Mutual was doing poorly, financially, and particularly with the recent liquidity crisis, its failure does not come as a huge surprise.  But it got me thinking about how banks get shut down by the federal government, and who oversees them (between the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision), and who makes the final decision to seize a bank - all topics on which I am profoundly ignorant.

My concern is in the context of my belief - or at least strong suspicion - that the current $700 billion "rescue" package is just the latest money-grab by this administration, an attempt to get federal funds transferred to Bush and Cheney cronies on a mind-bogglingly unprecedented scale.  With that in mind....

Who decides when to "seize" a bank?  Is there any chance that these decision-makers may be skewing their decisions in favor of making the bank fail, to make the financial crisis appear larger than it might otherwise be, in order to cause more panic to spur Congress to agree to things that otherwise wouldn't pass deliberation?  Or am I being overly paranoid by even considering that this might be a possibility?

This was posted as a comment, but it deserves its own entry, email this out as much as you can! It's hilarious.

The link to the original comment, by Libertine, is here.

And the posted story is this:

Turtle Soup?

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher who's hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Palin and her bid.

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Palin is a 'Post Turtle'".

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a country road you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top - that's a 'post turtle".

The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain. "You know she didn't get up there by herself, she doesn't belong up there, and she doesn't know what to do while she's up there, and you just wonder what kind of dummy put her up there to begin with".

“What we have here is a failure to communicate.”  The iconic line from Cool Hand Luke could just as easily represent the current discourse between Democrats and Republicans.  And, while life, truly, is for the living, it is sad to note that as of Saturday one of the major voices for American progressive thinking fell silent for the last time.

McCain's people are looking at the same poll numbers as we are - or worse.  They know he needs a game-changer, especially when you see the distinct shifts in the electoral map towards Obama.  McCain saw his troubles earlier this year and decided to turn things over to the Rove thugs (you could argue that his first real "adjustment" came in 2004, when he gambled on lurching towards the conservative base).

When the scorched earth strategy of the Rovians produced little real movement in the polls beyond a mild softening of Obama's favorable ratings, he decided to throw caution and vetting to the wind in favor of Alaska's Miss Petrol Congeniality.

These are a series of calculated gambles, much like "suspending" one's campaign and trying to cancel a debate.  The gambles almost always have failed to pay dividends worth the damage inflicted.  The one gamble that seems to have to paid off was keeping Palin away from reporters - clearly a better option than putting her near any microphones, while also effectively lowering the bar for Thursday's debate.  As Dylan said, though, "there's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."

Which brings us to last night.  As mentioned, McCain at best tied on a night of foreign policy which his team negotiated to put out first in order to position him over Obama going into the next two debates.  It's still early, but I'd say that gamble will work out like the rest of them.  More importantly, time is growing short and those poll numbers are not looking good.

Keep in mind those Rovian thugs, who are 1) realistic, and 2) completely amoral.  While McCain may prefer to fade away like an old soldier, my guess is that his campaign would rather burn out with all guns blazing.  We will likely see a few major hail mary passes in the remaining weeks - and some of them may not look pretty.  The Obama camp has been pretty savvy to date, and I just hope that they are prepared for this eventuality.

This is a bullet point list of actual action items presented in the debates.  I cannot get it to post correctly to Talking Points.  Please feel free to copy and repost if you can.

http://johncaelan.blogspot.com/

This is a bullet point review of the Presidential Debate, listing only any stated actions or goals. 

Strip out the hyperbole, hubris, arguments and recollections over record, and take away the commentary on things we already know, then you have this is the list of Action Items actually mentioned by the candidates.

Strip out the hyperbole, hubris, arguments and recollections over record, and take away the commentary on things we already know, then you have this is the list of Action Items actually mentioned by the candidates.

Republicans understand that words matter, which is somewhat ironic considering how regularly Bush butchers the English language.  But words made it possible for republicans to finally gain public support for the death tax after repeated unsuccessful attempts at trying to pass the same bill under the name of the estate tax.  It is why republicans refuse to say global warming, adopting instead the less threatening climate change.  It is why republicans refused to speak of undocumented immigrants, choosing instead the more emotionally-tinged illegal immigrants. Winning the battle of words oftentimes means winning the war in public perception.  It is how we have the Clear Skies initiative which weakens environmental protections.  And No Child Left Behind which does little to address education.  And a slew of other ridiculously named republican policies.

So it comes as a surprise that when what is deemed the biggest financial crisis since the the Great Depression, the Bush administration rolls out Henry Paulson's proposal which they originally called the Troubled Asset Rescue Plan.  Frank Luntz must have cringed when he heard this.  It's little wonder that the proposal was quickly referred to as the Bailout plan.  Granted, a bailout aptly describes the situation, but describing a bill for what it is goes against the Bush adminstration and republican history.  Where was the Bush sales and marketing team on this one?

I have been reading people's reactions to the debate, looking at the polls and analyzing them. Looking at things from an historical standpoint. Outside of the normal reasons I've been hearing, such as "McCain was overly aggressive", or "McCain condescended to Obama" or "Independents preferred Obama", etc., which are all completely valid and I agree with, there are a couple of other points to be made.

The first one is one that James Fallows over at The Atlantic, who states the point better than I could:

When the details of this encounter fade, as they soon will, I think the debate as a whole will be seen as of a piece with Kennedy-Nixon in 1960, Reagan-Carter in 1980, and Clinton-Bush in 1992.

In each of those cases, a fresh, new candidate (although chronologically older in Reagan's case) had been gathering momentum at a time of general dissatisfaction with the "four more years" option of sticking with the incumbent party. The question was whether the challenger could stand as an equal with the more experienced, tested, and familiar figure. In each of those cases, the challenger passed the test -- not necessarily by "winning" the debate, either on logical points or in immediate audience or polling reactions, but by subtly reassuring doubters on the basic issue of whether he was a plausible occupant of the White House and commander in chief.

But outside of that point, which in and of itself disqualifies McCain from a win in the debate, is the central theme of this election: change.

As anyone who has paid even a lick of attention to this election knows, McCain ran a campaign the entire summer on the theme of "experience". At the Republican Convention, he officially ceded the theme of the election, abandoning the "experience" message for the one Obama had established from the beginning of his campaign: "change". Though he had used a different word, "reform", the message was clear: this is a Change Election.

The debate was McCain's chance, perhaps his last, to prove that he was the candidate of change, or "reform". Obama, by contrast, had nothing to prove with regards to the message of "change" -- he has been running a campaign on the theme for 18 months. And unfortunately for him, he was not able to do that. The biggest piece of "change" McCain was able to propose was a spending freeze. And that was a failure, because he proposed freezing all spending except military spending. People don't like hearing that education and health care spending would be frozen.

McCain presented himself not as a candidate of change, but as the older, experienced candidate. He presented himself under the old message of his campaign, not the new one. As I said, it was perhaps his last chance to define himself as a candidate of change or reform, and he failed. Where does this leave him? Between a rock and a hard place. In a way, we may look back on this first debate as the time McCain didn't just lose, but gave the election to Obama.

Rarely does something come along that epitomizes how I feel about many things. About the country of my ancestors, (Ukraine) and my home, the country I live in. (USA) But this poem puts it in a nutshell. About America, I feel that we here have been robbed of our birthright, as if some foreigners with no feeling for the people they conquered have invaded us! We have always been the first victims of our own imperialism. Hard working people have been the victims of those who want to plunder the country for themselves.

But how is it that I may claim that my history informs a great deal about how I feel about what is being done to this country? To answer that I must tell you how I feel about my people, their history and their present situation vis à vis Russia. Since the fall of Kievan Rus our land was overrun by conquerors. Each one of them made serfdom part of the deal, and tried to wipe out our identity. As far as the conquerors were concerned, our land was not ours, but theirs all along. A resource waiting to be exploited. And so they enriched themselves off of our misery. There were those who tried to liberate us. Bohdan Khmelnytsky was one. He freed us from Poles. But he also started us on the long road to Russian tyranny, when he needed to find an ally against new Polish incursions. Russia slowly strangled the life out of the Cossack State. Taras Shevchenko bravely raised our consciousness amid the worst of Nicholas !'s repression. Then came Stalin's Great Terror, the camps, genocidal famine. After that came Hitler's Germany to whom all Slavs were second-class slaves. And more genocide, more repression. The Soviets came back to return the "Worker's Paradise." We all jumped for joy when the U.S.S.R. collapsed of it's own rot in the end. We became independent in 1992. But Kuchma and other leftovers from the Soviet Union couldn't let the corruption go, and it was up the Orange Revolution to sweep him out of power. And now Viktor Yushchenko is trying to bring back justice to a free and independent Ukraine. The Russian threat is still there in the form of Vladimir Putin an ex-KGB who is trying to revive the U.S.S.R. He is a bully, who is squeezing the freedom of his people to death and wishes to do the same to his neighbors. And what of America in all of this? Under Clinton, Ukraine had a strong ally and a friend. Bush's America can no longer guarantee the security of Georgia, Ukraine, or any other successor state to the Soviet Union because of Iraq. The U.S. economy is hoc to China, and now things could get much worse. The tragedy is that Ukraine needs NATO presence to guarantee it's freedom! Maybe the ten vital years of American help under Clinton gave it enough strength and time so that with Obama's America as a friend it can withstand Putin's Russia and stay free this time!

SUBOTIV

by Taras Shevchenko

In the village of Subotiv

Upon a lofty hill

There stands the coffin of Ukraine

A crypt both wide and still:

It is the church of great Bohdan, 

Where once he used to pray

That Muscovite and Cossack might

Share good and ill alway.

May peace be to your soul, Bohdan!

Their gain has been our loss:

The Muscovites have snatched away

All that they came across;

And now they rend the burial mounds

In search of further loot;

Their hand assaults your hidden vaults;

They curse your soul to boot

Because they've nothing for their pains . . .

That's' how it is, Bohdan!

You've ruined derelict Ukraine

By your most friendly plan!

And this must be the gratitude

Now falling to your share . . .

The church that once had coffined you

No neighbour will repair!

That same Ukraine where long ago

You broke the Polish threat

The bastards of Great Catherine

Like locusts have beset.

And thus it is, Zenobius 

 faithful friend, 

You gave them all; but gratefulness

Is plainly at an end! '

They say, you know. that all Ukraine

Was always really theirs,

And that we only farmed it out

To all the Tartars' heirs

And to the Poles . . . . Appears it so?

Suppose it is the truth!

But on that score the neighbours' tongues

Deride us without ruth . . .

Yet do not laugh; ye foreign folk!

That church beneath the skies

May crumble down, but from it’s vaults

A new Ukraine will rise

To end the night of slavery;

Injustice will be gone;

Our serf-born sons’ glad orisons

Will greet sweet Freedom’s dawn!

from the Kobzar by Taras Shevchenko

translated by C. H. Andrusyshen

Two observations on the debate:
First: I was startled at McCain's diffident response when asked if he would support the bailout plan. His offhand answer was a mumbled "sure." So the drama of the preceding 24 hours meant nothing?
And second: After McCain repeated his attacks about Obama's "earmark" abuses I thought that Obama would point out that Palin was the world earmark chamion; but when McCain then mentioned that his running mate was also a "maverick" it occured to me that McCain had been trying to goad Obama into attacking Palin. If so then Obama was wise to avoid taking the bait.

THE WICKED CREDITOR, WHO WAS FORGIVEN HIS DEBT BY A BAILOUT , HARSHLY PUNISHING OTHERS.

 

So, I'm watching the replay of the debate last night on CNN with my girlfriend (sorry, ladies!).  She apparently has a pretty low tolerance for listening to John McCain speak.  As a result, she's getting bored.  I wasn't all that enthralled myself.

I'm trying to keep her entertained by talking some kind of nonsense.  I don't really remember what started it, but I was making some kind of bogus claim about something or other.  She's arguing back with me, having fun with it.  I've put myself in a totally indefensible position.  She knows it.  She keeps pushing the logic forward.  Finally, I slip and admit that her position is correct.

"Hah!", she says.

"Erm, what I meant to say was..", I begin to respond.  She cuts me off.

"Nice save, McCain! 'Uh, what I meant was that the American worker is fundamental to our economy.'"

I almost died laughing.

Remember all those quippy sayings that get repeated when you're a kid?

"Nice one, Einstein!"

"Smooth move, Ex-Lax!"

"You got Bork'd!"

Okay, I don't think I ever heard that last one, but it sounded just like that.

"I'm suspending my campaign and won't attend any debates until this financial crisis resolved."

"Well, it looks like we're making sufficient progress, so I guess I can come."

Nice save, McCain!

I propose that we make "Nice save, McCain!" part of the lexicon.  I also humbly request that you submit any other "nice saves" that McCain has indulged in.

I thought Obama missed a chance last night to hit McCain directly with a very simple retort when McCain repeatedly insisted that he did not understand:

John, I do understand.  I understand that you and President Bush are wrong.

The much discussed bailout may be passed tomorrow.  The bailout "debate" has been too short and too shallow.  As a result, I have more fears than hopes for the success of the bailout.
Fear No. 1 Weapons of Mass Destruction.  The actual problem has not been sufficiently identified.  Apparently the credit markets are beginning to dry up.  Consumers continue to receive credit card solicitations, but the commercial paper market reportedly has contracted.  
The cause, according to the Bush administration, is too many mortgages are in default.  The mortgage defaults have caused other financial instruments vaguely identified as "derivatives" to decline in value.  Apparently Paulson intends to spend $700 billion to purchase such "derivatives".  But not one news story I have seen accurately identifies the "derivatives" to be purchased, the identity of the issuer of such "derivatives" the financial institutions holding such "derivates" or the number and value of such "derivatives" held by each financial institution.  
Congress is about to appropriate $700 billion to purchase securities that it cannot identify any more accurately than the weapons of mass destruction it authorized a war to find.
The so-called debate on the Paulson has never gotten beyond an exchange of metaphors.  Surely we can hope that our Congress can shed more light on the greatest financial crisis of our time.
Fear No. 2  The purpose of the bailout is to conceal a massive securities fraud.  The bailout plan is so vague as to the relationship between the underlying mortgage pools and the "derivatives" that the vagueness surely is intentional.  The first question that I ask is whether all or some the financial institutions that issued the "derivatives" effectively sold the underlying mortgages many times over.  If the issuers did that, then fraud is almost surely involved. And both the administration and Congress owe the taxpayers a candid explanation of why they find it necessary and appropriate to spend $700 billion to conceal fraud.  
If the "derivatives" to purchased are nothing more than fraudulently issued securities, the "derivatives" are almost surely worthless and we taxpayers have no hope of getting our $700 billion back.  We need to know that before Congress appropriates the money.
Moreover, if the "derivatives" are nothing more than fraudulently issued securities, the Bush administration and Congress probably do not know the actual scope of the fraud and just how much money will be needed to buy up fraudulently issued derivatives.
The fact that none of the issuers of the "derivatives" to be purchased has appeared before Congress to testify under oath to catalog and explain the "derivatives" raises suspicion that the "derivatives" have been fraudulently issued.
Fear No. 3  The Bush administration does not understand the crisis well enough to formulate and implement a solution.  This crisis seems to be overwhelming the Bush administration.  Paulson has engaged in a wide range of bailouts and interventions that seem to be symptoms of an underlying problem.  Paulson's bailouts and interventions appear to have been ineffective.  The Bush administration either will not or cannot define the underlying problem and take appropriate steps to address it.  I have the impression that Bush is merely hoping to throw enough money at the crisis to keep the crisis at bay for the remainder of his term.John McCain's statement in last night's that the bailout "is not beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning" of the crisis speaks volumes.  
When the next President takes office,  Bush can then say, "I didn't let the crisis blowup on my watch."  
Despite the apparent problems, Congress has not called upon representative of the financial industry to testify as to the scope and cause of the crisis.
$700 billion is too much to pay if we cannot be reasonably sure that the administration understands the problem and has formulated an effective solution.

I was 13 years old in 1980.  I remember the presidential election that year vividly, in part because it was the first one I was old enough to really focus on, but mainly because Ronald Reagan scared the spit out of me.  I just knew he was going to start a nuclear war before I had a really good kiss with a girl.

So I remember fairly well, for a 13-year old, the Carter-Reagan debate, the one and only.  People rightly focus on "there you go again," but that was just the tagline on the whole event, where Carter tried to paint Reagan as a reactionary lunatic, but only made himself look bad (see: daughter Amy and Nuclear War).  Carter didn't like Reagan (I can sympathize) and it showed throughout the event.  Reagan, meanwhile, had to reassure voters that he WASN'T a reactionary lunatic, and he did, with his humor and pleasant demeanor.  This gave the electorate, who were in the mood for a change, the license and confidence to vote for Reagan.

Obama has the same problem today that Reagan had in 1980, likely moreso.  The electorate is REALLY ready for a change, but the change is a scrawny black guy with a fairly short national resume.  Reagan had been on the national political scene for years by the time of the 1980 election, and a generation had grown up with him in bad movies and television appearances.  Obama burst on the national scene in 2004, albeit with as fine a speech as we have heard in many a year.  Oh, and did I mention he's black?

It seems clear from the focus groups and polling post-debate that many of the uncommitted voters were pleasantly surprised by Obama's knowledge, demeanor and temperament.  Consciously or unconciously, they had likely internalized the Clinton/McCain/media meme that Obama is "inexperienced."  His performance last night punctured that misconception perfectly.  He went toe-to-toe with Mr. National Security and held his own, and arguably beat him.

Perhaps more important, in the early part of the debate he came across as sincerely caring about and understanding the economic hardship many people in this country have been experiencing, and since before "Black Monday."  So much for Patrick (blech!) Healy's "aloof" meme.

And, like Reagan, Obama was reassuring.  No skeptical, lower information voter could perceive any of his behavior as threatening, extreme, lunatic, etc.  Quite the contrary, McCain, like Jimmy Carter, was the one who ended up looking like a jerk.  Obama looked, sounded and acted like a President last night, just as Reagan did on that October night in 1980.  Obama could have won more battles in that debate, but in doing so, he might have lost the war that mattered:  the war for the hearts and minds of the average American swing voter.

Rarely does something come along that epitomizes how I feel about many things. About the country of my ancestors, (Ukraine) and my home, the country I live in. (USA) But this poem puts it in a nutshell. About America, I feel that we here have been robbed of our birthright, as if some foreigners with no feeling for the people they conquered have invaded us! We have always been the first victims of our own imperialism. Hard working people have been the victims of those who want to plunder the country for themselves.
But how is it that I may claim that my history informs a great deal about how I feel about what is being done to this country? To answer that I must tell you how I feel about my people, their history and their present situation vis à vis Russia. Since the fall of Kievan Rus our land was overrun by conquerors. Each one of them made serfdom part of the deal, and tried to wipe out our identity. As far as the conquerors were concerned, our land was not ours, but theirs all along. A resource waiting to be exploited. And so they enriched themselves off of our misery. There were those who tried to liberate us. <a href ="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohdan_Khmelnytsky">Bohdan Khmelnytsky</a> was one. He freed us from Poles. But he also started us on the long road to Russian tyranny, when he needed to find an ally against new Polish incursions. Russia slowly strangled the life out of the Cossack State. <a href ="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taras_Shevchenko">Taras Shevchenko</a> bravely raised our consciousness amid the worst of Nicholas !'s repression. Then came Stalin's Great Terror, the camps, genocidal famine. After that came Hitler's Germany to whom all Slavs were second-class slaves. And more genocide, more repression. The Soviets came back to return the "Worker's Paradise." We all jumped for joy when the U.S.S.R. collapsed of it's own rot in the end. We became independent in 1992. But Kuchma and other leftovers from the Soviet Union couldn't let the corruption go, and it was up the Orange Revolution to sweep him out of power. And now Viktor Yushchenko is trying to bring back justice to a free and independent Ukraine. The Russian threat is still there in the form of Vladimir Putin an ex-KGB who is trying to revive the U.S.S.R. He is a bully, who is squeezing the freedom of his people to death and wishes to do the same to his neighbors. And what of America in all of this? Under Clinton, Ukraine had a strong ally and a friend. Bush's America can no longer guarantee the security of Georgia, Ukraine, or any other successor state to the Soviet Union because of Iraq. The U.S. economy is hoc to China, and now things could get much worse. The tragedy is that Ukraine <em>needs</em> NATO presence to guarantee it's freedom! Maybe the ten vital years of American help under Clinton gave it enough strength and time so that with Obama's America as a friend it can withstand Putin's Russia and <em>stay free this time!</em> <blockquote><strong>SUBOTIV</strong> <em>By <a href ="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taras_Shevchenko">Taras Shevchenko</a></em> In the village of <a href ="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subotiv">Subotiv</a> Upon a lofty hill There stands the coffin of Ukraine A crypt both wide and still: It is the <a href ="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Subotiv_cherch_of_Bohdan_Khmelnytsky.jpg">church</a> of great <a href ="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohdan_Khmelnytsky">Bohdan,</a> Where once he used to pray That Muscovite and Cossack might Share good and ill alway. May peace be to your soul, Bohdan! Their gain has been our loss: The Muscovites have snatched away All that they came across; And now they rend the burial mounds In search of further loot; Their hand assaults your hidden vaults; They curse your soul to boot Because they've nothing for their pains . . . That's' how it is, Bohdan! You've ruined derelict Ukraine By your most friendly plan! And this must be the gratitude Now falling to your share . . . The church that once had coffined you No neighbour will repair! That same Ukraine where long ago You broke the Polish threat The bastards of <a href ="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_The_Great">Great Catherine</a> Like locusts have beset. And thus it is, <a href ="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohdan_Chmielnicki">Zenobius</a> <a href ="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Aleksei_Mikhailovich">Alexey's</a> faithful friend, You gave them all; but gratefulness Is plainly at an end! ' They say, you know. that all Ukraine Was always really theirs, And that we only farmed it out To all the Tartars' heirs And to the Poles . . . . Appears it so? Suppose it is the truth! But on that score the neighbours' tongues Deride us without ruth . . . Yet do not laugh; ye foreign folk! That church beneath the skies May crumble down, but from it’s vaults A new Ukraine will rise To end the night of slavery; Injustice will be gone; Our serf-born sons’ glad orisons Will greet sweet Freedom’s dawn! <em>from the <a href ="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobzar_(book)">Kobzar</a> by Taras Shevchenko</em> <em>translated by <a href ="http://catalog.onlib.org/polaris/search/searchresults.aspx?ctx=1.1033.0.0.4&type=Browse&term=Andrusyshen">C. H. Andrusyshen</a></em></blockquote>

Here are links to articles in the Dothan, Alabama and Albany, Georgia papers about the rally. My sister said the talk is that it is an anti-Obama event though the articles do not mention that.
http://www.dothaneagle.com/dea/news/local/article/south_georgia_residents_brace_for_kkk_rally/38210/

http://www.albanyherald.com/stories/20080924n9.htm

This is my reaction to some of the post-debate posts I've read here and elsewhere on the web, as well as the post-debate analysis that I saw mostly on MSNBC and CNN. I'll summarize here (and hope you agree with me), that Obama was "nice" and "gentlemanly", missed quite a few opportunities to jab McCain, should have been more pointed. There has been some consensus from these folks that it was on the whole a tie, and/or worked slightly in Obama's favor. Reaction polls from debate watchers from CBS and Nielsen showed a lightly more insightful, non-pundit appreciation for Obama's overall style, calmness and lack of political killer instinct to go for the jugular. I appreciate all of the above, particularly the folks calling for blood. To them, I suspect Obama has succeeded in becoming just a candidate, and has managed to mainstream himself to the point of ordinariness, whatever his other qualities. For a non-caucasian, however, I cannot process this the same way. I simply cannot trust in the American people to look beyond the fact of his color. Sure, a lot of people will. But to win an election, you need to win the hearts and minds of middle America, majority America. The position of President, more than almost any other choice people make, requires a comfort level with the persona, style and culture of the candidate. They are, after all, selecting someone who represents *them* on the world stage. The face of America. Subconsciously, I'm inclined to believe there is a mapping of father-figure archetypes guiding that decision, influencing whom you feel comfortable with in an authority position. You might hire Michael Jordan to play ball for you, hire Chris Rock as an entertainment act, Johnnie Cochran as your lawyer. For a black man to be elected President of this country, he will need to overcome any and every former negative black archetype and establish an altogether new one - one with qualities of grace, of calm, of intellect, in the political arena. This is more than Morgan Freeman and James Earl Jones on the black dignity index scale. It's dignity - and predominantly, a lack of anger - demonstrated while engaged in bitter, belittling battle. Any presence of anger simply reminds us of the deep social memories of injustice, race conflict. Anger, so rightful when confronted with racism, simply brings race to the forefront no matter the context. The pointing out of injustice also serves to bring to mind the injustices of the past, those so severe that they cannot be brought up safely in polite society, not something you can remind people of and win their likable-authority-figure-who-best-represents me vote. It was in Jackie Robinson's contract that he couldn't complain (I learnt this from Randy Pausch's Last Lecture). Yes, it's been many decades since then. But the first black guy who does something new, climbs a new mountain that involves winning over the hearts and minds of the American people, doesn't get to complain. Doesn't get to act nasty, not if he wants to win. And has to work twice as hard, as Barack understands only too well. Such is life in America.

My sister tells me that there is a KKK rally and cross "lighting" scheduled for Donalsonville, Georgia during their upcoming Harvest Festival and that she was told the KKK is holding these rallies across the South in response to Obama's candidacy. Has anyone read/heard of any other KKK rallies? I have seen nothing on this.

I've run another set of simulations of the election using data from Votemaster Andrew Tanenbaum's www.electoral-vote.com.  State polling data is now coming fast and furious. The least recently polled state, Louisiana, had an average poll date of September 12, and just 16 states haven't been polled within the past week. So most of these results incorporate voter reactions to the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, and the Federal Reserve's takeover of AIG, with over half coming after Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke proposed their $700 bailout of distressed mortgage assets.

I'm still running a 4% margin of error snapshot, which represents what would happen if the election were held now, and also a 10.75% margin of error, which is about how accurate the polls were in 2004 this far out. The bounce John McCain got in the aftermath of selecting Sarah Palin and the GOP convention has now fully dissipated, with Obama posting about as strong numbers as he had all year.

4% Margin of Error:
Obama wins 96.7%, averages 299.5 EV (low 243, median 297, high 370)
McCain wins 1.6%, averages 238.5 EV  (low 168, median 241, high 295)
Electoral tie 1.7%

10.75% Margin of Error:
Obama wins 87.0%, averages 298 EV (low 203, median 298, high 390)
McCain wins 12.2%, averages 240 EV (low 148, median 240, high 335)
Electoral tie 0.8%

Obama has a clear lead, but as we saw with the GOP bounce, things can change quickly. It is interesting that McCain ties about as often as he wins outright in the 4% margin of error case. The most common tie scenario there remains Obama winning all the Kerry states except New Hampshire, plus Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico, with McCain winning the rest of the Bush 2004 states. Even the wider margin of error doesn't help McCain much any more, as recent polling has stengthened Obama's once tenuous leads in Michigan and New Mexico, and states the GOP convention seemed to take out of play, like FL, NC, and MO, are again competitive.

Almost all the changes this week were good for Obama. Obama had leads of 4, 4, 3, and 9 in Colorado, with one outlying poll (from ARG) showing McCain up 3. Florida, which looked like it might be drifting out of reach, is now basically a tossup again, as 4 new polls gave McCain leads of 1, 5, 2, and 1, while two other polls (ARG and Mason Dixon) gave Obama leads of 1 and 2. Michigan had 8 new polls, with one showing a tie, one giving McCain a 3 point lead, but the other 6 giving Obama leads of 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 13. 

8 new polls in Pennsylvania all showed Obama head, by between 2 and 9 points. Ohio remains leaning to McCain, where one poll showed a tie, but two McCain 4 and 1 point leads. Like the tar heel state, however, the more recent poll was weaker for McCain. Virginia had 7 polls, with Obama leading in 4 and McCain in 3.

It seems that the continuing financial crisis  isn't helping McCain. Rasmussen released two polls in each of four different states, and in all four, the more recent poll was better for Obama. Obama increased his Pennsylvania lead from 3 to 4, and he cut McCain's Ohio lead from 4 to 1. But he did even better on Tobacco Road, turning a 3 point North Carolina deficit into a 2 point lead, and taking a 5 point lead in Virginia after trailing be 2 before.

The news wasn't all bad for McCain - after looking like it might be competitive, Montana now looks safely red, with two new polls giving McCain 9 and 13 point leads.

The state polling appears to lag the daily tracking polls a bit, but the recent momentum has been entirely in Obama's direction. Presumably the McCain campaign knows all this (and arguably has even better data), so I have little doubt that his attempt to "suspend" his campaign was an intentional campaign tactic designed to try to shake things up again. The current narrative wasn't working, and he needed to try something to change the game. The Palin selection had worked well tacticially (although it perhaps now may be turning into a net negative), so McCain hoped to do some other "maverick" like thing to shake things up. It looks like that hasn't worked, and last night's debate, which both sides had reasons to be happy about, also likely didn't provide McCain a significant boost.

The clock is ticking for the McCain campaign, and Obama is still keeping his cool, and his lead.

I was just having a lively debate with a close friend of mine who disagrees with me about… well pretty much any issue you can disagree about in America.  I love this person, I respect this person to my very core and we openly disagree DAILY.   Now, if all you do is watch TV, you should believe that the fact that we disagree and the fact that we love each other – or that we even speak to one another – should be mutually exclusive.

But this is not the case.

I think one of the fundamental reasons that our government (any government) is so dysfunctional is that many of our leaders have lost their ability to simultaneously respect and disagree with one another.  “ I respectfully dissent.”  Can’t you just hear the guy in the blouse and powdery white wig suggesting that (insert flamboyant regional accent here) “although the Senator from La-la land has nothing but admiration for the Senator from East Nowehere and his earnest desire to see an outcome that is agreeable to all parties, I must disagree on these points” and he proceeds to calmly, yet passionately explain his position.  This stuff was uttered and, in most cases was meant with sincerity, in our own nation’s history.  But today, although the words may still echo through a legislative chamber or a debate hall, the sentiment behind those words has vanished. 

The debate last night is a good example.   How are we supposed to believe that Senator McCain has ANY respect or admiration for Barack Obama when he won’t even acknowledge him with a courteous glance – not ONCE – during a 90-plus-minute debate?  I think everyone agrees that these guys have overarching ideologies that are in direct opposition on almost any issue you want to pick.  They don’t agree on the War in Iraq.  They don’t agree on welfare – corporate or social.  They don’t agree on reproductive rights.  They don’t agree on how we should organize a healthcare system, an education system, or any system that exists or might exist in our social structure.  But they do, in my estimation, agree that America is a great nation to which we should all give the very best that we have to offer.  Barack Obama and John McCain has each been chosen by members of his own political party (all well-meaning Americans) to represent them in this presidential election and to me, that garners each man at least some respectful eye-contact.  When you put up a wall (whether physical or proverbial) between yourself and another human being – it is a broken relationship.  People in a broken relationship have a REALLY hard time solving problems.

To illustrate, let’s look at an instance when people with opposing ideologies coupled with mutual respect have successfully come to the table to work on a problem.  The SCHIP program has its roots in a cooperative, relational, political conversation between Senator Orrin Hatch – a stalwart conservative Mormon from Utah – and Senator Ted Kennedy – an old-fashioned liberal Catholic from Massachusetts.  These are men who served together and, over time, developed a friendship upon which they built a program that served hundreds of thousands of children in the U.S. who, before had slipped through the cracks of our healthcare system.  They probably knew that they weren’t going to be able to agree on legislation that would fix the entire broken system, but they found common ground – the desire to help some poor children receive coverage – and used their considerable talents to make a difference.  Isn’t it amazing what can be built on a foundation of respect?

So it’s not impossible.  But if you aren’t able to acknowledge your opponent as even a legitimate entity, then what foundation do you have for building ANYTHING?  Is this what we can expect from McCain when he meets with world leaders?  I don’t agree with you.  I don’t like you.  And I will not acknowledge your presence.  In some cultures, that isn’t just rude – it’s unforgiveable.  But maybe McCain isn’t going to meet with leaders with whom he disagrees.  Perhaps he’s afraid that making eye-contact will cause him to erupt in anger or that looking at them -- recognizing their human face – will somehow legitimize their opposing view (like Ahmedinajad’s outrageous words about Israel).  Maybe he’s going to set “preconditions” that include “my way or the highway”.  I’m not sure how you can maintain positive diplomatic relationships or transform negative or non-existent ones when you are fundamentally unable to see your counterpart as a person.  If the eyes are the window to the soul and you won’t look into someone’s eyes, then you cannot see their humanity, a component of common ground .  How can you believe that transformation (see: change) is possible for yourself but deem it impossible for another?  And if you’re not looking to be transformed – always looking to grow – how can you create it in anyone else, let alone a nation? 

If John McCain refuses to look at Barack Obama – his peer, whether he will admit it or not – how can we expect him to look at us and see what we need as a nation?   

Did he do enough?
It may just have been my nervousness as an Obama supporter and volunteer in a swing state.  Or perhaps it was the subtext that I grew up with (and that Chris Rock has expressed so eloquently in the past few days) that when a Black man is in the ring against a White man, you can't go to the judges -- if the White man is still standing, he won.
It may also be the fact that I hung on every word instead of reading body language.  (I didn't notice that McCain didn't look at him or call him "Barack" until I heard the pundits afterward.)
Whatever the case, I initially felt that the debate was a draw at best, and I was shocked -- and elated -- at the early polls showing that undecided voters felt that Obama did better in the debate.  Many of my friends are pleasantly surprised as well.
My theory is that a lot of the undecided voters haven't been following Obama as closely as I have.  They've seen him through the lens of Rezko and Wright, Ayers and "bitter," Hanity and Limbaugh, and were stunned to see what we have seen all along.  He's far more equipped than McCain to be the next president of the United States.  He has the intelligence, temperament, vision and common sense that have been missing from the White House for the past eight years.
On Thursday Biden will mop the floor with Palin, and then I, my brothers and sisters will start biting our nails again.
Anyone else have that feeling.  Or is it just me?
http://latebreakingmuse.blogspot.com

Being Canadian, I have no vote to cast on Nov. 4, but if I had, it would be for Barak Obama.  That being said, having been a poitical junkie since the age of seven (I can remember well the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon race), I like to think that I can be dispassionate and unbiased when I guage who "won or lost" a debate(whether it be a two person American debate or a five person Canadian free for all).

Listed below are the reasons why I think that Barack Obama won the debate last night.

1) SUBSTANCE/KNOWLEDGE:

The Economy:  While Obama may have been better able to  hammer McCain on the monthly cost of the war in Iraq(i.e. 2 months cost of the war($20 billion) is more than the $18 billion in annual earmaks that is McCain's pet peeve), there is no doubt that Obama is more knowledgable and capable about both the generalities and specifics of the American economy.  As McCain himself has admitted, economics is NOT is best topic and it shows.  Easy win for Obama.

Foreign Policy/National Security  is generally conceded to John McCain's strength and one of Barack Obama's shortcomings.  Even though McCain tried to constantly paint Obama as unknowledgable and/or inexperienced, this was belied by the depth of knowledge that Obama showed on every one of the FP/NS questions that were asked.  McCain only two "winners" were about Obama's statement about the surge exceeding his wildest dreams(which was taken out of context) and Obama's statement that he would meet foreign leaders without preconditions(true-but Obama has since expanded his answer to the original question in one of the Democratic primary debates).  Other than those two instances, try as he might, McCain did not show Obama to be lacking in basic knowledge about the topics.  I though that Obama actually showed more nuance on most topics than McCain, but I guess that really isn't that much of a surprise.  Obama got off a couple os zingers himself when he said that McCain was wrong on the Iraqi war being easily won, being greeted as liberators and that fact that the Shia and Sunni wouldn't go after each other.  Best 30 second clip of the debate.  When McCain went with one of his constant stump speech blurbs about the braclet on his wrist, Obama met it head on with his own bracelet story.  Second best line of the night. 

While some have bemoaned the fact that Obama said that "John is right" too often, I think this will actually play well with the undecideds because it showed that Obama has the grace and intellegence to acknowledge when someone else has a legitimate point.  What I don't think that will sit too well with the undecideds was McCain's constant refrain that Obama "doesn't know or  have the experience" to deal with such matters.  Draw

2) STYLE/POSTURE/ATTITUDE:

Some of this perculates on the concious level and some on the subconcious. 

While I am no expert on such matters, my reading of Obama's facial expressions and body language was that he was glad to be taking part in the debate and was (as much as one can under such circumstances) enjoying himself.  On the other hand, McCain's hunched posture and pained/pinced facials led me to believe that he wanted to be anywhere other  than Oxford Miss. debating this pretender to his throne. 

As many have already mentioned, McCain's refusal to look at Obama throughout the debate(it had to be deliberate as it is next to impossible not to look at your opponent(even in passing) over the course of a 90 minute debate) was contemptious, arrogant and rude.  I am certain that, in McCain's attempt to show hismself as the tough guy, his disrespectful treatment of Obama will cost him far. far more votes than he will gain.  Big win for Obama.

3) GAFFES:

To my mind there was only 1 major  gaffe and that was when McCain called Pakistan a failed state before the military coup that installed Musharef in power. Win for Obama.

So given that McCain failed to show Obama to be "unpresidential" and looked petulant while trying to do so and McCain had the major goof of the debate, Obama has to be considered the clear winner of a debate that McCain was supposed to win hands down.

I try not to put too much emphasis on instant polls taken within minutes of the debate using a very small  number of people.  However, apparently all the quickies had Obama has the winner, which should be a good indicator.  A couple of the internals of the CNN poll caught my eye.  By significant margins, Obama was considered to be more likable and  more in touch with people's needs and problems, which should mean that he now "connecting" with voters better.

Being a woman, I read with some interest Judith Warner's blog in the New York Times, where she professes pity for Sarah Palin. 

It made me groan.  I feel no pity for Palin whatsoever. 

What I have noticed recently is how well rested she looks.  I would expect to she her looking a bit frayed around the edges, with dark circles under her eyes from putting in overtime trying to learn the issues.  And I don't see that, not one little bit.  One would think she'd be burning the candle at both ends, learning as much as she can to become a credit to this ticket.  Either than isn't happening, or the McCain campaign has decided the fresh pretty face is more important than actual substance.

I also don't see desperation or panic in her face.  I think she is narcissitic enough to assent to being on the ticket when she is utterly unqualified.  She sees being on the ticket as a mark of her superiority.

Palin also doesn't have a record of being especially compassionate for people who aren't her own.  Let's not feel sorry for her. 

Thanks to the modern miracle of the virtual community, I was able to meet with a fiesty, funny, great group of military families via liveblogging, during the Foreign Policy debate between Barack Obama and John McCain that just wound down.

I'm referring to Blue Star (and Gold Star) Families for Obama.  They've got a great website available at www.bsf4o.com .

The motto of the organization is "Pro-Military, Pro-Obama," and what I found so, well, COMFORTING was being able to converse via the Internet with active-duty military families--many of whom had loved ones currently deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan--and the veterans who were watching with them.  (I've got one of my own here, who was also watching.)

What I mean by "comforting," is that if you live in a conservative Red-state area, as I do, you are used to gritting your teeth into powder while being surrounded by a bunch of flag-wavers who seem to think that if you don't vote Republican that you hate the troops, or that if you are from a military family, well you MUST hero-worship the war-hero.

I can tell you that there are many military families who not only DON'T hero-worship John McCain, but resent deeply his seemingly endless ability to play on his war service and navy family for political purposes while, at the same time, voting against veteran's benefits time and time and time again.

As one said, "I'm glad he keeps bringing up his support for veteran's issues.  That only gives us an opportunity to point out the facts of his record."

And so "GoldStarLMW" did just that.  Among the statistics she posted were that, among every major veteran's group you can mention, McCain's voting record in support of their interests virtually never went above 25%, although once or twice, he went along with their needs maybe half the time.

"Militarywifeobamamama" typed, "Veteran sitting beside me says McCain supports Bush; he doesn't support veterans."

When it came to McCain's sad, sentimental, soaring story about wearing the bracelet of the war dead to remind him that he never wanted to see another soldier die in vain, "GoldStarLMW" immediately posted:

"NO soldier EVER dies in vain."

The rest of the bloggers were outraged at the whole bracelet story.  To condense what several said, "We're all wearing bracelets, John.  You don't have a corner on the market on that one."

One simply typed, "This is shameless."

There was laughter, too, when Militarywifeobamamama proposed a new "drinking game," wherein we all took a swig of whatever we had handy whenever McCain said, "What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand..."

A few moments passed, then one wag typed, "I'm gonna have to get another bottle of wine."

And when Obama said, "We have to use our military wisely," a blogger calling herself "Lawyer Mama" blogged that the group of veterans in the room watching the debate with her broke into applause.

If Obama had a mis-step, at least from the perspective of the Blue Star families watching, it was at the very end, when McCain said, "I love the veterans, and I will take care of them.  They know that I will take care of them."

So many military family bloggers hit the keys at that one that the system was clogged up for a moment.  I may have actually used the term LYING BASTARD in my comment, and yes, I did use all caps.

Most of them were upset that Obama failed to take the moment to reveal the truth of McCain's DISMAL track record in support of veterans.  He doesn't take care of them AT ALL, as I pointed out in a previous post, "Bikers May Love Obama, But Veterans Do Not."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deanie-mills/bikers-may-love-mccain-bu_b_117225.html

One said, "WHY WHY WHY didn't he go after his record?"  Another said, "I cannot believe he didn't go after McCain's record."

I pointed out that it was the very end of the debate, and Obama had a few seconds to wrap the whole thing up.  There just wasn't time, and McCain KNEW that.  He always wrings out the emotional rag when he knows he's short on facts or truth.

And when he mentioned, at the very end, that he'd been a prisoner of war, "Militarywifeobamamama" who was also watching with a group of veterans, wrote, "Veterans abuzz here.  Some had a bet on when he'd mention it.  I won!"

Among those troops currently deployed, according to non-partisan statistics, support for Barack Obama outnumbers support for John McCain SIX to ONE.   Veterans groups, as well, routinely rate his voting record as poor.  When both candidates recently addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars, one vet in the crowd commented that all McCain did in his speech was criticize his opponent, whereas Obama had spelled out his vision and program and funding ideas for their needs.

"I'd've liked to have heard what McCain was going to do about all these problems," he said.

McCain has always acted as if he takes the military and veteran's votes for granted.  That they would automatically support him just because of his war-hero narrative.  This is every bit as insulting as the idea that most all women will vote for him because he chose a woman for a running mate.

He seems to think if he just tells a tear-jerker story, waxes patriotic, waves the flag a time or two and says things like, "Veterans know that I will always take care of them," that somehow they will believe him even though they know better.

It's not the case, and I've met many troops and veterans who not only don't support McCain, but are angry at him for his policies and outraged at some of the things he says that they know are not true.

And they fully support Barack Obama.

But I'm afraid that's just something that Sen. McCain doesn't seem to understand.

I was 8 in 1960 and that was the first election I remember as my folks were huge JFK fans. My son saw Obama with me in May in Hickory NC and puts up with Dad the political junkie.

Last night Andrew asked me what a debate was and I told him it was like a boxing match with words. He thought that sounded pretty cool so we watched the debate.

I explained the scoring boxes on CNN and I asked him to simply give me his reactions so we would watch a segment, pause the DVR, talk for a minute and go back to the "Thrilla at Ole Miss".

He enjoyed the "fight" and I must say out of the mouths of babes come some pretty good analysis. As you might expect much of his reactions were visceral which is a huge part of how many people will react:

• "Why is McCain so mad?"
• "Why is he so old like Grammy?
• "Daddy, when McCain smiles like that ( ie-the smirk) I think he is really mad at Obama".
• "I don't like it when he acts like that."
• "Why isn't he looking at Obama? Barack looks at him. I think he is trying to be mean."
• "Obama looks better"
• "When McCain talks it bores me and when Obama talks it excites me."

I think that Andrew's observations are pretty astute and sum up how a lot of people will remember last night. In fact looking at Frank Luntz' NV focus group of independent voters looks like my son was spot on how they felt and 17/27 of them - 62% - thought Obama won....just the group we need to convince.

This would be better with a screenshot but cue the Kenny Loggins and you'll get the idea...

If John McCain is a "Maverick," is America "Goose"?

Remember America: Goose gets killed.

Sharon Astyk blames the global financial mess on rising food prices and our desperate efforts to replace oil: Peeling the Onion: What's Behind the Financial Mess?

If you want a pat answer to what has caused the financial crisis that is reverberating around the world, and now threatening the derivatives market, we've got one. Nearly everyone - in the mainstream media and outside it, tells the same story - that the crisis was caused by the unravelling of the housing market, particularly the US housing market.  And if you ask what's behind that, well, we're told there was a bubble.  And if you ask what was behind the bursting of the bubble, well - it is turtles all the way down.

I'm going to suggest that if you peel off the layers of the financial crisis, we're going to find some pretty basic things.  And one of the basic things is, well, food.  It seems sort of anti-climactic, I think, if you are a pundit, to talk about the cost of rice and soybean oil as part of the root problem of such a massive financial crisis, but I suspect we'll find it there.  And underneath the food, I think we'll find oil.

Astyk asserts that, "the majority of farmers, builders and factory workers use some machinery, but the primary engine of production is human work." With some training, she continues, a subsistence farm worker can become an a very productive industrial worker. A great deal of education, however, is required to produce white collar workers. "The money is in the new workers." she writes, meaning that these converted subsistence workers are a real bargain for the companies that employ them, and ultimately a great source of wealth for the industrialized world.

But with the rising cost of food:

 The new workers, and the lubrication they provide in the global money system are being systematically impoverished, and what money they do spend goes to an increasingly narrow band of companies - instead of spreading the money around, money goes for very basic things - mostly food, and mostly basic foods.  And the farmers who make the basic foods mostly send that money back to a very small number of companies - the ones that produce oil and the ones that produce fertilizer - many of them located in the same countries and places.

... And what is the root cause of the high price of food?  Well, the single biggest factor, according to a number of studies, including the UN studies, has been the move to food based biofuels.  So if we peel back the onion one more layer, what we find is that one of the major factors slowing the economy has been, well, oil.  The rush to biofuels is a response to tightening oil supplies and rising costs, and the aggregate effect has been to push up food prices all over the world, while doing pretty much nothing to increase energy security, reduce greenhouse gasses or do much of anything else useful.

I'm no economist, and I don't pretend to be.  But I wonder, when we peel back the layers of the onion later, and look at the history of this Depression, I wonder if we'll see that in fact, what happened was that we squeezed out the lifeblood of the very thing we'd built our economy upon - new workers/consumers who could be counted on to grow the economy outwards and upwards.  We could have foreseen this - but we chose not to - we chose, as we struggled to keep our lifestyle intact on the backs of the world's poor, not to see that we stand on their backs, and it is people...all the way down.  In killing them, we killed ourselves. It may be that besides the tragedy of starving millions of poor people, we may also have brought down our own system, simply because we did not see, did not realize that the poor matter more to us than we like to admit.

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Pogo

In reading through comments over at Time's Swampland, I was directed to this article on an ABC News blog referencing a quote from Kissinger, which ended with a statement from Powell indicating that he would make up his mind about which candidate he was endorsing after the debates:

While there was little direct talk about the presidential campaign itself, Madeleine Albright reiterated her endorsement of Barak Obama. Jim Baker expressed his support for John McCain. When asked who he is supporting, Colin Powell said he has great respect for both candidates but he's waiting to watch the debates before he makes up his mind.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/kissinger-backs.html

So, after each of the candidates laid out their approaches to foreign policy - areas where they're in basic agreement and where they differ, where do you think Powell would fall?  Is he more likely to support McCain or Obama, if you were to judge simply on compatibility of philosophy and policy?

Since last night, I've seen and read a great deal of coverage of the negative response undecided dial groups seem to have had to McCain attacking Obama as naive or not understanding. Much of the analysis has centered around the idea that people object to the negativity. I agree that many people object to the negativity, but I think many are missing the key dynamic at play.

As most analysts have noted over the last several weeks, when the subject is personality, the candidates are tied, or McCain is a little ahead. When the subject matter is policy, Obama has a significant advantage. The reason for the the former can be debated. The reason for the latter is clear: by a 2-to-1 margin, people agree with Obama that the Iraq war was a mistake; by a 2-to-1 margin, people want a timetable for withdrawing our troops; by a 2-to-1 margin, people want the US to engage in active diplomacy with adversarial governments such as Iran and North Korea, and; the list goes on. Recognizing that the majority of Republicans agree with McCain's positions, that means the independents agree with Obama's positions by and even larger margin.

So back to those dial groups- when an undecided voter was listening to McCain say Obama was naive about Iran, what they heard was that THEY were naive about Iran; when McCain said Obama didn't understand what would happen if we withdraw our troops from Iraq, he was saying that those undecideds didn't understand.

I don't think many people cared that McCain was condescending to Obama- McCain was condescending to Obama's ideas- ideas that most of them share- in short, he was condescending to them.

Poor Jim Lehrer.

All he wanted was some presidential eye-contact last night during the debates. After the months of smears and vicious ads, Jim pleaded for Obama and McCain to man-up and be forthright with one another.

The candidates seem mystified by their disciplinarian's insistence they they address each other like human beings and not robots regurgitating their programming codes.

LEHRER: Say it directly to him.

OBAMA: I do not think that they are.

LEHRER: Say it directly to him.

OBAMA: Well, the -- John, 10 days ago, you said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. And...

MCCAIN: (to Lehrer) Are you afraid I couldn't hear him?

LEHRER: I'm just determined to get you all to talk to each other. I'm going to try.

No such luck. What Jim (and the American people) got were two politicians doing what politicians do best -- reciting their stump speeches, and for the most part, trying to avoid the blade of a snappy comeback.

McCain got to repeat his snarky lines about hunting down deviant politicians and writing down their names on his revenge list, and Obama spat up his painful go-to line about Main Street versus Wall Street.

Obama didn't even raise an eyebrow when McCain professed his love for the troops, even though McCain opposed the G.I. bill that would have expanded benefits for veterans.

Obama surrogates love to talk about what a classy gent their boss is, which is why he didn't want to deliver a "Gotchya" moment at McCain.

But if Obama can't nail McCain on mirroring the behavior of one of the most despised administrations in the history of the country, the Democrats are doomed come November.

The Democrats needed a firm leader, who arrived outraged on behalf of a country gone to hell. What they got was a gentleman with a fine memory, who largely repeated the same message he's been delivering for half a year.

It makes one long for the presence of Ralph Nader, who at least would have stirred the pot and forced Obama to push his political message left.

Nader's presence may have even put Obama on offense instead of the pathetic, stumbling defense where he muttered "That's not true," as McCain blasted him with a mixture of half-truths and lies.

Alas, not even McCain had enough energy to make this debate interesting. It looked like John was using every ounce of his iron-clad will just not to die on his feet. I don't even think he looked mean like some pundits are claiming. Instead, he also looked pathetically weak and apathetic.

In an election promising to be about "hope" and "change," we got a lukewarm argument like every other debate come before it.

This is a sub-point to what I thought was an over-all successful night for Barack Obama. John McCain was allowed to have the last word on almost every question of the debate. If you went back and watched this debate again and focused on the concluding remarks on each question you would see that McCain either talked over Obama or pushed Jim Lehrer into giving him the last word. At one point the camera had already cut to Lehrer, who was transititioning to the next lead question, when McCain jumped in and Lehrer relinquished the floor. McCain didn't say anything profound, but having the last word is an advantage. It gives the appearance of having said something that your opponent isn't capable of rebutting. I think that it was a clear strategy of McCain's to fight for the last word and that Lehrer wimped out by allowing him to cut in and Obama was overly polite by not insisting of responding. If I were in the Obama campaign I would demand that the next two moderators have the candidates alternate concluding remarks as they alternate opening remarks.
James

In the 25 days since McCain nominated Palin (the cardboard cutout that went to college to learn how to read from a teleprompter) to be his running mate, Palin has held:

                         0 press conferences

Pudd'nhead wasn't in the debate spin room, didn't do any TV spots and didn't hold a pre- or post-debate press conference.

Read this to answer the question, Where was Sarah Palin Last Night you ask?

Last night, Pudd'nhead Palin decided the best way (to avoid being cornered by any pesky reporters and) to absorb McCain's debate performance (in preparation for her own upcoming debate) was to head to an Irish Pub in Philadelphia. Debate drinking games a lot more fun with the really sharp political junkies that hang out at Irish Pubs.

While waiting for the debate to begin (some heard her shout, "heh when's the face-off"), Pudd'nhead was going to challenge some Philly Flyers fans to a game of "Stump The Candidate" (with the loser to get a Stinky Sanchez from the winner).

But Pudd'nhead left abruptly during the first period when she discovered the bar was pouring her McCain's favorite brew, Bud Lite, ("tastes worse than moose piss" she knowingly declared) instead of her favorite Panty Peeler Tripel.

Pudd'nhead went back to her hotel and put away a growler (or two) of Panty Peeler with her 13-year-old daughter while watching the rest of the debate ("I donna know, debates make me real thirsty", Pudd'nhead said).

Here are the questions that bar's politically savy customers were gong to stump Pudd'nhead with if she had stuck around:

1. Are you a turtle?
2. What's a hockey puck made out of?
3. Have you read this week's National Enquirer?
4. What are you hiding?
5. Since you say you never travelled and instead learned about the world through education and books, what was your college GPA and what was the last book you read?

If McCain selected a running mate that can't handle a full-fledged Washington DC press conference for and hour (or two) then McCain doesn't deserve a single vote.

We'll need a couple of days of polls to really gauge the effect of this debate, but it seems pretty clear that McCain is still alive and in there with a chance.

This shouldn't be. No Republican presidential candidate should be in striking distance of the Democrat this year. I'm not going to bore you with yet another laundry list of disasters, we could all recite them like schoolboys can recite the lineup of baseball teams. Bush and his administration have trashed practically everything (everything?) that they have laid their hands on. Obama should have a lead of about twenty points: this year the Republicans should lose like Mondale did against Reagan.

This does not look like happening and I believe that it is because voters are simply not convinced about Obama and perhaps race matters for only about six percent of them. The rest is simply the failure to connect with his message and his personality.

At this point I thinks Barack Obama is very vulnerable. The Republicans are sure to spring something very nasty and Rovian on Obama in the next few days (the famous “Michelle Tape”, perhaps?) and he should have at least a ten point lead to absorb the damage. With Bush fumbling so badly, he should have that lead already… he doesn’t.

The fact that he doesn't makes more people doubtful, a vicious circle.

As I say, this is weird, the American people have such doubts about the Democratic Party and about Barack Obama's fitness to run US affairs that a Republican president that makes Jimmy Carter look like Abraham Lincoln can't give them a solid ten point lead as the United States of America apparently circles the drain.

http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

I'm surprised that a lot of pundits misread McCain's not looking at Obama as "disrespect"-- on the contrary, I think it was fear and anger at being the less powerful in the situation.

Look at the body language. Obama was the Big Dog -- calm, relaxed, looked directly at McCain, called him by his first name (dominance), was even gracious to him. Those are the signs of someone who is in charge and not afraid or threatened.

McCain was unable to look at Obama or meet his eyes -- a sign of being the less powerful in the situation -- and he seemed furious at his lower status. All he could talk about was Obama and (by implication, the subtext) how much he resented Obama. Unable to let it go. He was barely controlling his rage.

People watching "got it" -- which the pundits did not -- because in our real lives we have to be able to read people and know who's got the power and who doesn't -- we see bullies as weak, despite their bluster. Most people felt Obama won because we saw that he was the Big Dog in the room -- and we want a Big Dog representing us out there in a dangerous world -- not a yappy hysterical little dog who is always picking fights.... and losing them.

Let me walk you through an idea I had for an advertisement for a financial institution, maybe a bank.  It starts with a young girl (NOT Sarah Palin, I'm done), it shows the young girl now a teenager graduating from high school.  Now she's a woman getting married.  Now her and her husband stand outside what we presume to be their first home.  Now she's pushing out a bunch of stupid kids (Maybe Palin, heh heh, okay I'm not done), and now her kids are growing up and moving into their first homes.  And years later, her and her husband sit in rocking chairs on the deck of their home.  Now a man steps forward.  Smiling.  Trusting.  And the message?  That on every step of your life's journey he was there with you.  This is followed by the aforementioned financial institution's logo across the screen.

If my idea sounds entirely unoriginal it's probably because you've seen it a thousand times in one form or another.  It's the message which reminds the viewer of the services that banks and lending insitutions provide:  Sound financial advice.  We'll work through this together and find what's right for you.  And in many ways the message is very similar to what one would like to believe of other trusted experts, namely doctors or attorneys.  They provide solutions.  If the individual knew as much as the specialist or expert he wouldn't need their advice.  This is not the same as getting a blowing credit on a television or purchasing a new car that you can't afford, a home is a major life decision and it requires sound advice from a person whose sole duty is to provide it.

What I'd like to know is why I constantly hear politicians and economists and other talking heads blaming people who took out loans they couldn't afford to buy houses that were far out of their price range.  While we live in an information age that allows everyone greater access to the same tools used by professionals, we are not all professionals in these areas.  If a person goes to a bank because they are looking to buy a home they place trust into that institution to use a degree of professional scrutiny and work out a solution that is right for them.  If it's out of their price range or they can't afford it or there's any risk, that's the exact point at which we expect the expert to speak up and provide a different solution.

Some have used the term "predatory lending", which is misleading.  It assumes that there was a small portion of Guy Smiley Trickster's out there who were going door-to-door in poor neighborhoods with promises of a better tomorrow if you just "signed here" (those would be the Army recruiters).  In truth I think that most of those who took out these bad loans were people who looked at the economic conditions around them and went to the bank to see if this was something they could be a part of.  They expected scrutiny.  They expected to be placed under a microscope.  But they expected that within their own financial circumstances the person they were speaking to would provide a solution that was right for them.  Blame them for not being skeptical enough, but don't blame them for being misinformed.

What I see are a number of politicians and leaders throwing the foreclosed under the bus to appease this deep sensibility we have in this country of hating anybody who has had an easier time acheiving something than they did  (just look at people discuss Affirmative Action).  I think this goes back to the Great Depression, and a lot of old hawks whose daddies had to live in boxcars and fight each other over pieces of string cheese.  And ironicallly enough, while these old bastards lived through an era where pensions and social security was granted without individual responsibilty, the rest of us live in an age of total insecurity where we have to make each decision for ourselves and hope that our decisions are well-informed. So is expecting that level of accountability from the homeowner fair?

We have a health care crisis.  Speaking from personal experience I constantly see people getting treatments, expensive treatments, that are completely inappropriate that would yield very little results.  But the doctors push for them anyways and the patients want to see every option exhausted regardless of whether they can afford it.  Surely we wouldn't begrudge the patient for that (not yet).  But should we apply the "it's all on you" philosophy of banking to the health care crisis?  Is the patient responsible for his own diagnosis, irregardless of what the doctor is pushing?  When will these leaders start blaming people who got themselves into medical debt for not having the foresight to look beyond what advice was being provided by their doctor?

Obama looked pretty good last night, and i think McCain did fairly well but kinda creeped people out in the process. The excessive blinking, the angry smile, the refusal to make eye contact with his opponent. People read those cues whether they consciously notice them or not. When even the conservative commentators are pointing that out, you know the effect has left a lingering impression on the American psyche -- and one that does not bode well for McCain.
 But watching Biden eloquently and succinctly eviscerate McCain on all the major networks immediately following the debate was just priceless. He was really on his game last night, and i don't think I've ever seen someone look that credible and respectful while completely trashing their opponent and his record. But there he was, just tearin it up on every channel. I think that he may have even absconded with a few of McCain's freshly-won festoons while Mac's campaign was still busy breathlessly declaring the victory that they had already declared in an ad buy released before the thing started. (Republicans don't wait for reality -- they just create their own.)
 So where was Sarah to do her part for the McCain team? Oh yeah -- she's not allowed to talk to the media!
 Doh!!! 
 Yet another unforseen consequence of the Palin pick (and the damage-control strategery that it necessitated) must be painfully obvious to the McCain campaign this morning. The analogy that comes to mind at this moment is reaching for a candy bar when you've skipped lunch and need dinner. A little boost up, followed by a big crash.
I think this must be the part where the sweet intoxication has ended, and it's all just a big headache for McCain. Maybe that's why he looked so grumpy.
But Biden looked great - he must've had the arugula. Of course we all know it was collard greens, but to Republicans i suppose all greens look alike ; )
Sure am lookin forward to that VP debate!

Most of the pundits and bloggers are concentrating on style/tactical stuff: Was Obama too professorial? Did he give pithy responses or use too many big words? Was he aggressive enough? Etc.


Not the point. Look at the poll numbers: In the CNN post-debate poll, Obama's biggest numbers were on "more in touch with needs and problems of people like you" (Obama 62%, McCain 32%)  and "stronger on the economy" (Obama 58%, McCain 37%).  


Same thing with CBS's poll: On "Would make the right decisions about the economy," Obama trounced McCain66% to 42%.


And the Fox post-debate focus group with "absolutely uncommitted" voters showed exactly the same responses:


--A middle-aged woman: "[Obama] seemed to know what he was doing, he cared about the average person, and he got to me." 


--Another woman: "Yes, Obama moved me. He seemed to care about everyone in America, he was very articulate..."



These numbers and responses show that Obama won the debate on substance, not style. I think Obama won by emphasizing his middle-class tax cuts and hitting McCain for his big corporate give-aways. Especially effective may have been Obama's chiding McCain for over-emphasizing earmark reform, when McCain's own $300b corporate tax cuts would dwarf any savings on earmarks. Obama: We're not going to build a future for the middle-class on earmark reform. Obama emphasized job creation, health care reform, getting us off expensive foreign oil.


As a boxing match, the contest may have been a draw, as many well-paid on-air pundits and comfortable bloggers have said. But it seems most average viewers wanted to know who was on their side, especially on pocketbook issues. There, on the core national concerns, Obama won in a walk. 


So, a very big night for Obama.

Most of the pundits and bloggers are concentrating on style/tactical stuff: Was Obama too professorial? Did he give pithy responses or use too many big words? Was he aggressive enough? Etc.
Not the point. Look at the poll numbers: In the CNN post-debate poll, Obama's biggest numbers were on "more in touch with needs and problems of people like you" (Obama 62%, McCain 32%)  and "stronger on the economy" (Obama 58%, McCain 37%).  
Same thing with CBS's poll: On "Would make the right decisions about the economy," Obama trounced McCain66% to 42%.
And the Fox post-debate focus group with "absolutely uncommitted" voters showed exactly the same responses:
--A middle-aged woman: "[Obama] seemed to know what he was doing, he cared about the average person, and he got to me." 
--Another woman: "Yes, Obama moved me. He seemed to care about everyone in America, he was very articulate..."

These numbers and responses show that Obama won the debate on substance, not style. I think Obama won by emphasizing his middle-class tax cuts and hitting McCain for his big corporate give-aways. Especially effective may have been Obama's chiding McCain for over-emphasizing earmark reform, when McCain's own $300b corporate tax cuts would dwarf any savings on earmarks. Obama: We're not going to build a future for the middle-class on earmark reform. Obama emphasized job creation, health care reform, getting us off expensive foreign oil.
As a boxing match, the contest may have been a draw, as many well-paid on-air pundits and comfortable bloggers have said. But it seems most average viewers wanted to know who was on their side, especially on pocketbook issues. There, on the core national concerns, Obama won in a walk. 
So, a very big night for Obama.  
But to average workin

Dear Senator McCain, I observed during the Friday night debate that you usually answered a question by first negatively bashing Senator Obama rather than just answer the question. And yet, you say you will "reform" Washington. Well, that negative bashing sounds like the same old thing to me. Senator McCain, I also observed you spoke of Senator Obama in the 3rd person as if he wasn't even there. And yet, you say you can and will work with both parties and can and will unite this country. Senator McCain, I ask you, "How can you work with or unite something that you can't even acknowledge is there?" You couldn't even "look" at Senator Obama. So, Senator McCain, I'm sorry to disappoint you but I am a woman who is smarter than you hope I am! I am a 55 year old white woman who will vote for Obama! 

I figured it out. Palin can't be as pathetic as she looked/sounded with Katie. The McC/Rove braintrust would never let her out in public like that....unless its a Rovian plan--a Ropa-dope for Thursday. If she comes out on Thursday like she did for her acceptancve speech and blows away the gullible millions, McCain will have another two-week news cycle about how she was unfairly treated, etc.etc. Could it be? More likely she's just completley unqualified to be VP and is simply incapable of formulating a coherent sentence.  We'll see.

DCBEN

A great progressive and humanitarian died today after a long battle with cancer. In the 26 years since it's inception, Newman's Own has donated all its profits, over $175 million, to charity.
In other news, sad excuse for a human being Rush Limbaugh continues to draw breath. If there is a god, he's got some splainin' to do. 

Obama has come in for a fair share of criticism for being too "nice" in Friday night's debate.  He should have hit McCain more and harder.  He should have attacked more and with greater passion.  Most of all, he should not have been so consistently agreeable, willing to say that, "John McCain is right" on point after point. I disagree.

Senator Barack Obama, candidate for President and potentially the next President of the United States, should not change his approach in the slightest degree.  What he is showing is not a debating style; it is a governing style.  And it's a governing style that we have been waiting for, for seven and a half years.

The inter-personal dynamics people will tell us that if you want to carry on any discussion, much less, any relationship, with another person, you need to start with the items that both sides agree with. Consider the following exchange:

  --You're always late.
  --That's not true! Why only a week ago last Thursday . . .
Think about how that conversation would develop, then consider the following alternative.

  --You're always late.
  --It's true; that's often the case, I know . . .

In the second example, there is the possiblilty that a conversation could continue--and a solution be found--because both sides know that they are being listened to and both sides know that in one area at least [no matter how restricted or limited the agreement on that area really is] everyone is talking about the same topic.

Obama's ability to see that other people have said things that are true, coupled with a willingness to explore how far he and his opponent might possibly agree, is part of why many of his supporters [this one, at least] have a great deal of confidence in his leadership and judgment and decision-making process.

I'm going on memory here, but it seems to me that I read that one of the reasons that Obama's selection as President of the Harvard Law Review was supported even by more conservative editors who might otherwise disagree with him, was that they considered him to be fair and willing to give the other side a hearing.

We are choosing someone not to win a debate but to govern a country. Think of it: Who would you like to be leading the discussions that lead to the decisions that affect our nation:

  --someone who would consider any consoderation of the merits of the other side's arguments as a sign of weakness? or

  --someone who can listen to the firmly held and fervent opinions of every side, and look for the best solution, whatever its source.

It is possible that an approach of considerate, thoughtful, "niceness" may in fact be a posture of strength and confidence. An approach of firm "don't tell me anything different" certitude is not [as we have seen] a posture of confidence.

Senator Obama, don't change a thing.

Jan 20, 2009
Today I became Commander and Chief of the Bounty amid some fanfare. As I well understand the burden of my duties from my years as prisoner of war in the Orient, I took up my office with not much need of the crew's help.

A crowd far from conservative sent us off with great wailing as we embarked, yet it was a day of songs and speeches and rum with my hearty fellows, and I allowed the crew their high spirits far into the night.

Jan 21, 2009
We are beset by conditions most foul! It seems I raised my hand only yesterday to give the first order when the ship began taking on water.

The Bounty threatens to founder, buffeted by strong headwinds and seas that seem to flip and flop before my tired eyes. I am ill. Is it really the seas—or only my point of view—lurching to and fro so angrily?

Jan 22, 2009
The storm has abated only for a few minutes, I think, as I write this. The crew has performed well thus far, but I wonder if they are in need of some reform soon. Lately, I have heard some of the men cursing under their breaths. They look at me askance as if I do not steer a steady helm.

Jan. 23, 2009
Under a break in the clouds, I have given the lash to one of my crew and sent him to the brig. A touch of reform will serve him for his disloyalty.

Jan. 24, 2009
We are becalmed, drifting upon the current of events. I have ordered the master of our ship's assets to see to the economy of our stores, though I confess I hardly know what that means other than putting all hands on half-rations.

Jan. 25, 2009
Upon orders of the ship's doctor, I ate lemons today to avert the scurvy. I heard a man call me "Old Sourpuss," whereupon I saw that more of the crew were turning against me. Thus I summoned Mr. Christian to deliver the whip into Mr. Blunt's firm hand. I was most satisfied that the crew resumed their silent grumbling.

It occurs to me I have seen this behavior before, under another captain. He could not then hold the ranks for the good of the ship, which came close to sinking until I returned from the hard-fought campaigns at the last minute. Yet even I could not force them to unite.

Jan. 26, 2009
Treachery! Betrayal! Unpatriotic mutiny!

Mr. Christian awaits outside my chamber. Are my quarters to be my only sphere of influence? My solitary, oval office?

They are breaking in! O, unclothed shame! Where is the swift sword Commander Lincoln bequeathed to me? Where are the boots given me by Captain Roosevelt?

Nay, it cannot be! Palin is with them! Hurriedly, I drape myself in the flag. I shall teach the ungovernable louts the meaning of reform when they come through the ...


Moral of the Story

McCain has so little standing among the Far Right that his much-ballyhooed return to Washington produced no results this week, only enabling a revolt against the bailout bill by House Republicans.

McCain can't control his party even while the most decisive presidential election in decades draws near. Even when the stakes are a national economic disaster. So what chance does he have to get his agenda passed through a Democratic Congress if he were to become president? With McCain and Palin in the White House, the GOP caucus would splinter and be hijacked by Christian conservatives.

McCain will not be able to govern. Nor should he be given the chance to try.

Now Rec this this or I will have you put in leg irons.

A lot has been made about McCain's lack of eye contact with Obama, and certainly, watching him made me uncomfortable.  All that grimacing and grinning and squinting when he wasn't talking really impacted my ability to listen to him when he was speaking.  What I saw was a nasty, twitchy control freak.

So on foreign policy, do we want a President who acts this way when talking to another head of state?  Maybe that is why he doesn't want to speak to, or negotiate with, any head of state that isn't 100% on his side -- because he can't hold himself together well enough to listen in a calm and respectful manner.  

Don't Americans usually want that calm, rational, look-you-in-the-eye sort of President who will project a strong image to both them and to the rest of the world?  That is where I thought Obama's comments regarding restoring the image of the U.S. to the rest of the world were excellent.  Bush has torn that image down, and did the man standing next to Obama show the qualities needed to restore that image, or would he only build on the Bush legacy, only in an even more disrespectful and unlikable manner? 

I am a geriatric social worker and part of my job is to ensure that seniors in long term care are properly registered to vote in my long term care facility. This election has generated a lot of interest, and people who havn't cared to vote in years are signing up. In talking with them I have sensed a high level of anxiety about the state of out country. This economic crisis has brought forth many painful memories from the Depression. Here is what kind of surprised me. They are 99.9% going to vote for Obama.  They voice a large amount of trust in him. I was surprised because there is still a large amount of racial prejudice in many of our seniors. They really dislike John McCain, and see him as mean and arrogant. They think he is too old, and it is time for the next generation to step in.  They are appalled at his aggressive,warmongering stances. They have grand, and great-grand children who they feel are at risk. One lady told me she was surprised that Obama, "a black man" was running for president, and then went on to say that "when you look at him you can tell he is a kind person" who "cares about people". She will cast her first vote, in a long time, for Obama. I don't know if this small sampling means anything at all, but come November, there may be quite a few assumptions about politics and race proven wrong.

According to the Army Times, beginning October 1st, the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team will be deployed within the United States for the purpose of "homeland defense". For 35 of the past 60 months, the brigade has been on active duty in Iraq.  Now they're training in the use of nonlethal weapons and crowd control techniques.  The paper says the unit may be called upon to help with instances of civil unrest as well as to assist in the "war on drugs". The brigade will be under the control of NorthCom--a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense and to provide defense support for various civil authorities.  At first glance, this would seem to be a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.  At the very least, it sets a troubling and dangerous precedent.  Will the U.S. now join the list of countries where the sight of armed military personnel patrolling the streets becomes commonplace?  Apparently so.

Here's the announcement in the Army Times:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

Apparently, our local police forces are not longer sufficient to keep the peace.  The Bush Administration, with the help of a feckless and sometimes corrupt Congress, appears to be on the verge of nationalizing law enforcement.  Were the abuses this year at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul merely a dress rehearsal?

It may be wise to write your Congresspeople--right now, today--and ask them why the Army is being deployed on American soil.

This is a major story that the MSM should be covering.  One wonders why they aren't.

Greenwald is on the case.  He points out that while conspiracy theories of martial law and an endless Bush-Cheney dictatorship are tempting to consider, it's unlikely that this could be accomplished with a single Army brigade:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/index.html

Still, the timing of this move is somewhat ominous...

On could argue that last nights debate was one of McCain's most important TV appearances ever.
McCain's tie choice last night was a real symbol of the whole campaign:  anyone in the TV industry will tell you can't wear tiny high-contrast stripes like that or you will subject your viewers to an optical illusion-induced headache.
Who is looking out for this guy?  Or is he such a maverick he insisted on his lucky tie and common wisdom be damned?  He's been on TV before!  He's got "people"!  He spends $5000 on MAKEUP, for frak's sake, so how did that tie happen?
Or maybe it was a deliberate move to draw attention away from his eyes, which he seems to want to hide from the press, the public, and his opponent as much as possible.

America: If you are looking for a leader with sound judgment, that does not panic, and try to crawl into a hole,  at the first hint of trouble, then Barack Obama must be your next President.

Senator Obama did not give into the craven cut-and run antics of John McCain.

Senator Obama had the wisdom and backbone to insist on having your rights as voters upheld,  and that you needed to hear and see both candidates in last night's debate.

John McCain tried to deprive you of that precious right. Senator Obama held steadfast and true to the nations democratic principles, for Ye The People,  and he forced John McCain to live up to his solemn commitment to appear before you for your judgment.

Do the right thing America. You owe it to the nation. You know which one behaved like a real leader, and which one behaved like an erratic calf, which is what a maverick really is.

Senator McCain keeps bragging about how he has always behaved like an erratic calf, and that you can never tell  how he is going to zigzag from one day to the next.

Is that what you want in a President.  Don't you want a President that has some sense of direction, and one, that you can feel sure, will not always turn on a dime, and do the exact opposite to what he promised you he was going to do just the day before.

John McCain did indeed behave like an erratic maverick this week. As the nation was heading to Old Miss for the debate, Maverick McCain ran off into the brush, and was refusing to be herded out.

Senator Obama, saddled up, threw a rope around that erractic Maverick, and dragged him down to the debate corral.

If you take a close look at that maverick's hind quarters,  you will now see that it has been branded. Take a good look at that brand.  It is The Bar O brand.

McCain supporters may have set Obama up for a win with the general public and undecideds. My sister keeps talking about the fact in the 2000 and 2004 debates Bush clearly came up second best, but the pundits, and public, accorded him a win because he didn't do as badly as expected. Although, the eye contact thing seems to have made a big impression on viewers, as evidenced by the comments on news websites, I wonder if Obama doesn't, at least with the public, profit from the fact many people haven't seen him in this sort of format before. Pundits have, which may explain why they didn't see the victory the public does. Thursday, I was looking at the Jackson, Miss., paper to see what locals thought about McCain's gimmick. The pro-McCain meme was that Obama can't speak without a teleprompter. Obama gave a speech at a Harold Ford rally in Nashville two years ago with no teleprompter in sight, so I knew it wasn't true. And people found that out last night. This underscores a problem of the McCain campaign: setting up a narrative Obama that doesn't play out.

It seems to me that if a merchant has a great product to sell, he or she sells it. For example, a restaurateur purveying great steaks sells the steak -- its flavor, its texture, its tenderness. The guy with an indifferent product sells atmosphere and sizzle, avoiding the topic of steak as much as possible.

Similarly, the McCain campaign is selling nothing but semantics, and Friday night's debate shone a bright spotlight on that fact.

Senator McCain (or as his opponent called him, "John") attempted to sell several points in the debate in an attempt to persuade his audience that Senator Obama's inexperience and naïveté means that he "doesn't get it." Some of the points were:

1) That Senator Obama would hold talks without preconditions while a President McCain would insist on such preconditions;

2) That Senator Obama's plan to withdraw American soldiers with a time table from Iraq would be catastrophic for American foreign policy for years to come while Senator McCain's plan to withdraw the troops when commanders on the ground agree with the prudence of doing so would improve the American position;

3) That Senator Obama's withdrawal from Iraq would be a defeat while Senator McCain's withdrawal will be a victory;

4) That Senator Obama would attack Pakistan.

The fact is that McCain's position on all these topics is indistinguishable from Obama's. The only difference is wording. Senator McCain calls them "preconditions." Senator Obama calls them "preparations." A distinction, if you will forgive the cliche, with no difference.

Senator McCain says his withdrawal plan will require about a year and a half, but Senator Obama's plan would take place in just eighteen months. McCain's differentiation between his "victory" and his opponent's "defeat" appears to be limited to the words themselves.

Senator McCain did not offer an alternative to Senator Obama's plan to strike Osama Bin Laden in the face of Pakistani recalcitrance.

The major political parties have been all about marketing ever since television became the dominant medium, so it is predictable that style would replace substance in both campaigns. But Senator McCain's rather transparent attempt to turn word parsing into a political platform exposes his empty-suit-ness.

Obama 84% to McCain's 15.9%

The Guardian

Quick question.  Did anybody notice the moment while Obama was talking and while on split screen, McCain scrunched up his eyes as though looking for somebody in the audience?

It reminded me of the famous Bush the 1st - Looking at his Watch as though bored.

In Philadelphia, to be exact.

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/29785734.html

Check out Obama's new ad. The title is Zero. http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1819798543

Here's the transcript:

Anncr:  Number of minutes in debate: 90.

Number of times John McCain mentioned the middle class: Zero

McCain doesn’t get it.

Barack Obama does.

Barack Sync:  The fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake...

And when you look at your tax policies...
you are neglecting people who are really struggling right now. I think that is a continuation of the last eight years, and we can’t afford another four.

Barack VO:  I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.

Did anyone else notice Obama's response when McCain stumbled when attempting to say 'Ahmedinejad'? No flicker of contempt, or humor--only compassion. He just said, softly, 'that's a tough one.'

Strong and compassionate. I love this guy. He may have an Islamic-sounding name, but he's 's a mensch.

One TPM reader says that John McCain's refusal to look Obama in the eye last night is the "behavior of a low ranking monkey."  Our friend is also a real monkey scientists, so I'm ready to believe.

But, if you're skeptical about comparing monkeys to humans (and I know most of you aren't, but just in case) I'd say that McCain's refusal to look Obama in the eye is quite the same as hoping that the bully who roamed the halls in your middle school couldn't see you if you didn't look at him.  Monkey or bullied midschooler, McCain did reveal his own feelings about his chances last night.

I think that Obama turned the phrase "Let's talk about that..." into a verbal assault.  Every time McCain tried to distort Obama's positions, Obama just calmly said "let's talk about that," and then he explained himself, in pret5ty clear language.  The bit about talking to Ahmadinejad was a good example.  Obama does really seem to think that voting aged Americans can process and explanation and make the right choice.  I sure hope he's right.

So the verdict is that there were no game changing moments last night.  I disagree.  The only thing McCain had going for him, heading into this debate, was his stature as a leader with a long record and I think that's diminished now for anyone who watched the debate.  There's no way an undecided voter turned off the TV thinking that McCain proved he had the greater stature.

No one debate is going to decide the election but last night was not a good night for John McCain.  If, at 847 years old, you're still the low ranking monkey, face it -- you're not climbing higher.

There is a Drudge Report 2008 online poll as to who won last night -- go vote: http://www.drudgereport.com/

Initially, I was furious and dumbfounded by Matthews, Mitchell and company criticizing Obama's performance in the economy part of the debate.  As I thought about it, though, I think their criticisms are a bad sign for McCain.  They went on and on about Obama "letting" McCain opine on issues like spending and earmarks that "don't matter."  Think about that for a moment.  The elite Washington press corps is now saying openly that McCain's signature issue (aside from "all war, all the time") is a distraction from the real economic problems of the country and the government!  That suggests to me that the mindset of the media is really starting to turn against McCain.  If the dreaded "earmarks/wasteful government spending on toad DNA" doesn't matter anymore, Obama is in very good shape.

Going into the debate last night, political pundits said that Barack Obama needed to show voters that he ISN'T a RISK.  That he is competent and prepared to lead the nation.  He did that.

Who actually ended up being the one that folks might consider a RISK -- was John McCain.

His anger, his know it all attitude, his condescending attitude, his warnings to others -- all put you in mind of a man that could 'blow' at any time.  Voters were more likely to consider John McCain a RISK to vote for.


http://coonsey.wordpress.com/

If there ever was a sentence that summed up John McCain's vision for the 21st century, that was it.   And it isn't pretty.
When he suggested a spending freeze on everything but defense, he crystallized what it is that sets him apart from Barack Obama.  
McCain really wants to be a war time President.  And that's dangerous.  
Because it means that our  enemies stay enemies and our allies might well become them.  

  The Democrats can still gain the proper perspective: stop talking about rescue--it is time to talk about Recovery.  Recovery is the future.   I have been against the Paulson Plan before it became the DEMOCRATIC PLAN.  I am even more opposed to the Democratic Plan although I admire the genius of Bush once again flipping the framing.  Of course having Dodd, Schumer and Frank running out of their first meeting with Paulson all ready committed to spending $700billions.  A number that was plucked from the air by the Mutt and Jeff duo after they have spent 15 months lowering interest rates, committing Fed funds, another $600 billions, and spending $160 billions on a 'stimulus package', $85 billions on AIG, $30 billions on Bear and billions more on Freddie and Fannie.   All ready $1,000 billions have been spent on the actual bail out.  This is just another $700 billion being thrown down the money pit.  Why, to allow Bush to ride out of town with at least the illusion of a functioning country still existing.  Why did the Democrats jump in to save Bush from his hubris?  Why do they not allow the tragedy of the last thirty years reach it's climax and let all collapse in resolution.   The Democrats are only proving who their paymasters are.  To me McCain won big points talking about corruption in Washington.   To me Democrats, in their zeal to attain power, are blind to the pus oozing from every pore of their body habitus.  Clinton being worth $120 millions after what---nothing in 6 years.  To me it smells.  And then he gets his ya-yas off getting truly rich people to pledge money while he paternalistically smiles and spends nothing himself.   Dodd, Schumer and Frank accepting the Paulson Plan as a starting point.  The House Republicans, who are philosophically bankrupt, look reasoned and rational proposing their plan a week later.  It showed some thought.  Everyone knows this whole bail out is not a plan, it is not going to work, it will transfer wealth and it is a reaction.  The twitching of a headless chicken.   Now, Obama is right in there with the other feathered beasts.   The Democratic Party can regain it's soul.  Every rescue, be it in New Orleans or on a mountain top, eventually becomes a recovery plan.  It will take a leader standing, upright, speaking the truth.  After truthfully describing the situation, lay the ground for January 20, 2009: 'We will be prepared with a plan for recovery from this morass created by George Bush and his rich crony capitalists."     Dorian Lucey Gainesville, Fl

At some point, Governor Palin is going to say, "I've got more executive experience than Senator Obama" or words to that effect. Biden's response should be: "I have no doubt that Governor Palin does an outstanding job representing the 620,000 citizens of Alaska. But Senator Obama is one of only 100 people elected in the Senate to look after the health, welfare and safety of 300 million people in the United States. And, through the campaign, the American people have fully vetted Senator Obama and 18 million of them have voted for him. In Governor Palin's entire political career, she has received the votes of only 300,000 in her entire lifetime. I have confidence in the ability of those 18 million Americans to judge Senator Obama's readiness to be president."

I suppose after the McCain campain declared the debate a victory before McCain had committed to attend, I should not be surprised by the ability of the right to delude itself.  But this is somewhat startling, given what the independent voters had to say:

There were no knockout blows in this debate, but McCain won on points--a surprise for people like me who expected a crushing performance from the much more silver-tongued Barack Obama.

Never let the facts get into the way of a good right-wing narrative.  I can't wait to hear the Repugs boast how McCain destroyed Obama in the EV count by garnering more than 200 (albeit fewer than 270) votes.

If Barack Obama has common ground with John McCain on a few details of their differing policy positions, what he should make clear to the audience is not that McCain is "absolutely right" about it, but rather that Obama himself believes and has said thus and so, and that he is "pleased that Senator McCain agrees with me on that point."

In the silly season, framing is everything.

In listening to the pundits criticize Obama's performance last night - the perceived failure to really capitalize (!) on the economic crisis by stressing the plight of the average voter - I'm wondering if we are failing to recognize real leadership, in which the desire to win takes a back seat to concern for the long-term health of the country.  I'm no economic expert, but do know enough about our current situation to realize that any approach  (fiery rhetoric) that creates consumer panic at this point, especially when no "bailout" is in place, could do enormous harm to our already-teetering economy.

A couple things caught my eye during the debate.  McCain's body language was remarkable.  Shortly into the debate, I realized that he just wouldn't look at Obama.  This debate format was a hybrid between an open town hall style meeting and the old, ridiculous "you have 60 seconds to respond, 30 seconds to rebut" debates of past campaigns.  This should have played better to McCain's alleged strength, but last night he simply looked rigid, tense, and pissed.  He didn't squeeze out a single milli-second of humor.

My "whoa" moment came early, and I can't even remember the topic.  McCain was speaking and Obama forcefully cut him off, and McCain let Obama get away with it!  It was an Alpha Dog moment.  McCain dropped his head, Obama charged on rebutting McCain.  That immediately established Obama as an equal player on the stage. 

I was a bit surprised by CNN's flash poll result which gave Obama a large victory.  I think McCain's surreal campaign suspension / save the day in DC stunt and Palin's Couric interview may have set the foundation for some of the immediate high scores for Obama.  The independents have been marinating in McCain / Palin juice all week.  Obama didn't need to prove himself as presidential during the debate because he's the only candidate who looked presidential last week. 

Finally, the debate format was a tremendous improvement. Kudos to Jim Lehrer.  Candidates had time to actually get into some depth.  I would have liked to have seen more interplay between the two candidates, but McCain's unexpected rigidity prevented that.  Unfortunately, (and likely wisely) McCain's camp negotiated to keep the VP debate as the old style where candidates don't address each other.  Imagine Palin and Biden speaking in this format! 

In listening to the pundits criticize Obama's performance last night - the perceived failure to really capitalize (!) on the economic crisis by stressing the plight of the average voter - I'm wondering if we are failing to recognize real leadership, in which the desire to win takes a back seat to concern for the long-term health of the country.  I'm no economic expert, but do know enough about our current situation to realize that any approach  (fiery rhetoric) that creates consumer panic at this point, especially when no "bailout" is in place, could do enormous harm to our already-teetering economy.

It may be inconvenient for Kissigner to admit it, but he DOES agree with Obama's position of negotiation without preconditions.

To simplify the illustration, McCain says to Iran: "I demand you completely dismantle all your nuclear energy programs, and then maybe I can negotiate with you about dismantling your nuclear energy programs."

Obama (and Kissinger) say: "let's talk about dismantling your nuclear energy programs."

Which do you think works better?

Kissinger first articulated this in March of this year, per Bloomberg:

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the U.S. should negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program and other bilateral issues.
:


"One should be prepared to negotiate, and I think we should be prepared to negotiate about Iran," Kissinger, who brokered the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war and peace talks with the North Vietnamese, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Asked whether he meant the U.S. should hold direct talks, Kissinger, 84, responded: "Yes, I think we should."
:


The Nobel Peace Prize winner said any direct talks between the U.S. and Iran on issues such as the nuclear dispute would be most likely to succeed if they first involved only diplomatic staff and progressed to the level of secretary of state before the heads of state meet.

Here is Kissinger at the GWU former SoS symposium on Sept. 15th, transcript excerpted from CNN:

KISSINGER: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...
:
(CROSSTALK)
:
SESNO: Put at a very high level right out of the box?
:
KISSINGER: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.
:
Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?
:
But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.

I am a sucker for a “A Few Good Men” by Rob Reiner.  The courtroom scene between Tom Crusie’s Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee and Jack Nicholson’s Colonel Nathan Jessup is a pretty compelling half-hour of film.  In the film, Jessup is called to testify about the death of a private at the hands of two other marines at Jessup’s Guantanamo Bay base.   The mere fact that Jessup is required to testify in Washington to, in essence, justify how he runs his unit is beyond infuriating for him and he drips contempt for the trial and especially for the young, Harvard-educated lawyer whose ties to the military are in name only.

That really is the same sort of contempt McCain displayed last night at the debate through his non-verbal  (failing to look at Obama) and his verbal (“What Senator Obama doesn’t understand”) communication.   Like Josh Marshall has said, he is perturbed he has to run against Obama.  

Both Jessup and McCain believe their methods are unassailable.  Jessup says “I run my unit like I run my unit.”  McCain, with his mavericky ways is quite the same.  How dare anybody call his “suspension” a political stunt.  How dare somebody question his pick of Sarah Palin.  How dare somebody point out the Rick Davis – Fannie / Freddie connection.   McCain will run his campaign like he runs his campaign and it simply isn’t your or my prerogative to question his choices. 

I only half-kid when I say I expect to see Obama rattle McCain at the next debate to the point where McCain flys completely off the handle and the scene devolves into something resembling the “You Can’t Handle the Truth” scene. 

I am a sucker for a “A Few Good Men” by Rob Reiner.  The courtroom scene between Tom Crusie’s Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee and Jack Nicholson’s Colonel Nathan Jessup is a pretty compelling half-hour of film.  In the film, Jessup is called to testify about the death of a private at the hands of two other marines at Jessup’s Guantanamo Bay base.   The mere fact that Jessup is required to testify in Washington to, in essence, justify how he runs his unit is beyond infuriating for him and he drips contempt for the trial and especially for the young, Harvard-educated lawyer whose ties to the military are in name only.

That really is the same sort of contempt McCain displayed last night at the debate through his non-verbal  (failing to look at Obama) and his verbal (“What Senator Obama doesn’t understand”) communication.   Like you’ve said before, Josh, he is perturbed he has to run against Obama.   

Both Jessup and McCain believe their methods are unassailable.  Jessup says “I run my unit like I run my unit.”  McCain, with his mavericky ways is quite the same.  How dare anybody call his “suspension” a political stunt.  How dare somebody question his pick of Sarah Palin.  How dare somebody point out the Rick Davis – Fannie / Freddie connection.   McCain will run his campaign like he runs his campaign and it simply isn’t your or my prerogative to question his choices.  

I only half-kid when I say I expect to see Obama rattle McCain at the next debate to the point where McCain flys completely off the handle and the scene devolves into something resembling the “You Can’t Handle the Truth” scene. 

It'd be - as TNT is apt to say - a "New Classic."

I just saw John King of CNN announce that John McCain pulled his campaign ads during the "crisis" on Wall Street.

BULLSHIT!

I have seen at least 27 "I am John McCain and I have approved this message" TV ads between McCain's Letterman dodge and  Friday's (9/26) debate. Hell I think I even saw one on CNN. Yet John King announces in post debate coverage that McCain pulled his spots.

No wonder he gets interviews with McCain. Watch and see if he doesn't get a shot at Palin in the near future.

Did anyone else see McCain ads during the alleged suspension of his campaign?


GOOD to be back by the way, my computer died

"If money isn't loosened up, this sucker could go down" Bush recently said about the American economy. It's revealing to hear how Mr. Bush describes our economy and ultimately the United States of America as "this sucker". Well, in a sense he's right, he's been suckering us all along. Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me three times, etc., etc., = SUCKER!

Thank you Mr. President, may I have another?

Given even the right wing concern about Palin, and even recommendations that she quit the race, I recommend that the McCain Campaign consider replacing her with Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the right wing commentator from The View.
After all, Hasselbeck has all the same charm and 'see-you-could-run-a-country-too-ness.'  She has a young baby, looks sexy on TeeVee, and is incredibly, unabashedly right wing.  Sure, she may not have any bloody moose pics, but here's the bonus:  you can put her in front of the press, and instead of being a drooling pit bull with lipstick, she'd be a feisty chihuahua in high heels.  She knows how to bark back an barf up all those hair-brained republican schemes.  

The Huffington Post had piece earlier this week called What's Up With John McCain's Left Eye along several links to recent comments about the possibility that there is something going on with the Republican's health because of the droop in his eye.  There have been more calls for him to release his full medical records which came to a crescendo with the hard-hitting ad, and (despite being a big fan of Robert Greenwald) I think a bit over the top, by Brave New PAC making a graphic call to McCain's cancer problems.

 

Yesterday, I had lunch with some friends where we talked almost entirely about the debate and the candidates.  My lunchmates surprised me and caught me off guard because I never really sat back and considered what they threw out there seriously.  They had noticed McCain's eye, and were convinced that he had had a stroke.  One was actually quite sad about it, and still liked McCain, despite being an Obama supporter.

 

I didn't see it, but then thought that maybe he actually is having another bout with cancer.  Now, after seeing the debate and how he was on the verge of real tears when he talked about Ted Kennedy being in the hospital, I wonder what's up.  I started thinking about Bob Novak and how I really thought he was just being a shameless jerk after his hit and run, but have a lot of sympathy for him now after reading some of his post-brain tumor columns and interviews.

 

It just made me think that maybe McCain has a secret and is carrying a bit of an emotional load.  Maybe thinking about Ted Kennedy made him consider a health problem that he's having.  

 

Now, with this thought and the possibility of Sarah Palin getting her in inexperienced feet into the door of the White House really scares the heck out of me.  It's been encouraging to see that there is a growing outpouring of conservative contempt for her and a call for her to drop out.  If McCain is sick–and I sincerely hope he isn't (I was a fan of his in 2000)–it would be a nightmare if he somehow won the election, which I think is highly unlikely, and Sarah Palin in the worst way got into the highest office.  

 

I hope I'm not coming across as a conspiracy theorist, but in the event that McCain actually is hiding a health issue and his staff and Palin know about it, her "in a Palin/McCain adminstration" and comparison of herself to Harry Truman in the last FDR adminstration would make a lot more sense.  I'm just sayin'.

Why do we care?

Herbert suggests that unless she is soon proven to be more qualified for the post of Vice president, McCain should replace her for the good of the nation.  
This on top of conservative  columnist Kathleen Parker's assertion of the same denoument for the Republican VP nominee/gov/mayor/beauty queen.
Perhaps this is the beginning of the next giant lurch in direction of the McCain campaign.

Poblano's analysis of the internals.   Really priceless analysis, not to mention heartening for anyone who, like me, was at risk of going into a blue funk after seeing the Drudge  & Fox debate polls.
fivethirtyeight.com
(The analysis explains why the internals are even  worse for McCain than the topline results, which had Obama winning 51-38.)

THE MISSION:


"There are 2,700 District Attorneys in the United States. We intend to send a copy of The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder to every single one of them....



"American Military Deaths in Iraq



Since war began: Total = 4168 In Combat = 3376


Since 5/1/2003: Total = 4029 In Combat = 3268




Total Wounded: Official = 30,642 Estimated = 100,000+



An estimated 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion. More than 4 million Iraqis have now been displaced by violence in the country.



Cost of the War in Iraq

$555,322,462,437 and counting . . .




"We believe that somewhere in our nation there is a courageous man or woman who wants to reestablish The Rule of Law in this country. There can be no exceptions to 'No Man Is Above The Law'...

"What we're trying to do is to 'Kick Start' the judicial process by finding one -- from out of thousands of District Attorneys -- who will help us all begin to reclaim our country. . . ."

For further information, please continue to
http://prosecutegeorgebush.com/mission.htm

Thank you for your time.

Won that debate, and everyone with a brain knows it. Watching the pundits cite all of the polls held directly after it ended shows that the people know this as well.  Points, smoints....blehhhhh,,,,,,. I started to write out all of the times and statements that prove this to be true, you know that Obama won,  but then thought why bother. I look around and see comments like Obama should have done this, or said that, I say thats nonsense!
 So the talking point for the MSM will be McCain won on points, and Obama won on something I thought this whole dam thing is about, what did your eyes see? Why does this man have to be like Jesus walking to get any credit. The notion that he has do things 100% correct, or its a failing, or average grade is so annoying to me. People, what did your eyes see and dont talk yourself out of it. We make Chris Rock correct when he jokingly quotes his father indicating that blacks dont win decisions agaisnt white people, that they have to knock them out. I expect more from the liberal people and people in the media who have a brain. For me, once the poll results came in for Obama, I was done with the whole thing. Now, just as in the primary, it appears, or I fear that the MSM is going to tell people what they whitnessed, rather the people tell the media. Somebody got they ass whooped last night, and it wasn't Obama. Your not biased for pointing that out, your just paying attention!

Jan 20, 2009
Today I became Commander and Chief of the Bounty amid some fanfare. As I well understand the burden of my duties from my years as prisoner of war in the Orient, I took up my office with not much need of the crew's help.

A crowd far from conservative sent us off with great wailing as we embarked, yet it was a day of songs and speeches and rum with my hearty fellows, and I allowed the crew their high spirits far into the night.

Jan 21, 2009
We are beset by conditions most foul! It seems I raised my hand only yesterday to give the first order when the ship began taking on water.

The Bounty threatens to founder, buffeted by strong headwinds and seas that seem to flip and flop before my tired eyes. I am ill. Is it really the seas—or only my point of view—lurching to and fro so angrily?

Jan 22, 2009
The storm has abated only for a few minutes, I think, as I write this. The crew has performed well thus far, but I wonder if they are in need of some reform soon. Lately, I have heard some of the men cursing under their breaths. They look at me askance as if I do not steer a steady helm.

Jan. 23, 2009
Under a break in the clouds, I have given the lash to one of my crew and sent him to the brig. A touch of reform will serve him for his disloyalty.

Jan. 24, 2009
We are becalmed, drifting upon the current of events. I have ordered the master of our ship's assets to see to the economy of our stores, though I confess I hardly know what that means other than putting all hands on half-rations.

Jan. 25, 2009
Upon orders of the ship's doctor, I ate lemons today to avert the scurvy. I heard a man call me "Old Sourpuss," whereupon I saw that more of the crew were turning against me. Thus I summoned Mr. Christian to deliver the whip into Mr. Blunt's firm hand. I was most satisfied that the crew resumed their silent grumbling.

It occurs to me I have seen this behavior before, under another captain. He could not then hold the ranks for the good of the ship, which came close to sinking until I returned from the hard-fought campaigns at the last minute. Yet even I could not force them to unite.

Jan. 26, 2009
Treachery! Betrayal! Unpatriotic mutiny!

Mr. Christian awaits outside my chamber. Are my quarters to be my only sphere of influence? My solitary, oval office?

They are breaking in! Oh, unclothed shame! Where is the swift sword Commander Lincoln bequeathed me? Where are the boots Captain Roosevelt gave me?

Nay, it cannot be! Palin is with them! Hurriedly, I drape myself in the flag. I shall teach the ungovernable louts the meaning of reform when they come through the ...

McCain did well in hitting Obama over and over again with the words with naive, inexperienced,  and doesn't understand.  Obama needs to paint McCain as the wreckless impulsive hothead by repeating phrases like erratic, and overreaction.  These terms identify with the bush administration, and certainly with McCain's decision making over the last few weeks.  This was a missed oppertunity tonight, while it was a well thought out debate on obama's part, he was the one who looked rattled.  Democrats are at a disadvantage in that they try to stay with what is truthful, as republicans will just say what draws a reaction.  There needs to be  alittle more push from Obama in the next debate.

This post is not about the horse race or who "won" the debate. This post is about the greatest problem facing America today, a greater problem than we have faced in many years. This post is about the economy. I'm sorry to say that neither of the candidates took the opportunity to address it in a serious manner.

Let's begin with McCain, the stupider of the two. What's McCain's solution to our economic travails? Reducing earmarks. As Jim Lehrer pressed him on how to address the current crisis, McCain responded with earmark reform and more earmark reform. Earmarks are certainly a problem. We waste a lot of money on local projects that serve not the nation's interest but the interest of reelecting certain congresspeople who have proven their worth by staying in office long enough to head choice committees. Great. Let's cut the earmarks. According to the O.M.B., we spent $16.5B on earmarks in 2008. That's a lot of money to you and me, but to the Federal Government, it's chump change. The total Federal Budget in 2008 was almost 3 trillion dollars, of which earmarks make up one half of one percent. Let's say McCain were to be elected President and, against all odds, succeed in banning earmarks completely. The Federal Budget would still be 3 trillion dollars. What does shaving 0.5% (at most) from the Federal budget have to do with stabilizing the economy?

But it's worse than that. Ever since Keynes, it's been widely accepted that governments should spend money during recessions in order to stimulate the economy. Whatever limited value earmarks have for the nation, they at least pump money into the economy. So McCain's solution to the recession is to cut Federal spending which would accomplish the exact opposite. 2009 is the worst moment in recent history to cut earmarks. McCain's solution not only offers minimal benefit to our economy; it's actually counterproductive. Did I say stupid?

Obama's turn. Obama, to his credit, spent a minute or two discussing the bailout plan, which is more than McCain was able to muster. But the bailout is a stopgap measure meant to stave off a massive collapse. It's the first step in what must be a comprehensive plan to rebuild the economy. So what else did Obama have to say about the economy? Tax cuts for the middle class. Everyone who makes less than $250K will receive some kind of tax cut. Rolling back the Bush tax cut for the rich will cover the cost. Income distribution and the shrinking middle class are major problems which need to be addressed, and I'm very glad that Obama intends to address them. But those plans do not address the economy in the near term. The tax cuts do not constitute a stimulus package. Obama's plan simply that shifts the current tax burden to wealthier Americans. It does not provide any solution to our immediate economic malaise.

The correct answer to Lehrer's question about what we need to cut would have been to say that now is not the time to reduce the deficit. What we need right now are stimulus packages for the top, the bottom, and the middle. We need to inject capital into the economy and restore confidence. We need a plan to protect the country from a long, deep, painful recession. Neither candidate has offered even the glimmer of such a plan.

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

Cross-posted at my new blog, DagBlog.com, a joint project with cohorts Articleman and Deadman.

Republicans are crowing because Obama said "I agree with John", 7 or 8 times during the debate.

But for the last few weeks, one of their talking points has been that Obama hasn't done anything bi-partisan (you know -- like the mavericky McCain).

I know it was a debate, and the idea is to highlight differences, but still.  Who seems to be willing to find common ground?  Obama or McCain?

Tearing into the bailout plan, and Henry Paulson's delusions of regency in particular, Jon Stewart reminds us that he may be the last bastion of honest journalism, even if he keeps professing not to be a news program.  You can't write this stuff.  That's what makes the show so brilliant.  They just grasp the manifest.  It's so sad it's funny.  Yet horrible.

Keep working to stop this bailout.  It is a threat to everything we claim to be as a nation of people. Damn, this is funny.  See the video clip here:

http://johncaelan.blogspot.com/2008/09/daily-show-takes-on-bailout.html

This statement by Obama (below) is too long for a soundbite, but I suspect it resonated - deeply - with a number of people:

"Look, over the last eight years, this administration, along with Senator McCain, have been solely focused on Iraq. That has been their priority. That has been where all our resources have gone. In the meantime, bin Laden is still out there. He is not captured. He is not killed. Al Qaeda is resurgent.

"In the meantime, we've got challenges, for example, with China, where we are borrowing billions of dollars. They now hold a trillion dollars' worth of our debt. And they are active in countries like -- in regions like Latin America, and Asia, and Africa. They are -- the conspicuousness of their presence is only matched by our absence, because we've been focused on Iraq.

"We have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens, not to mention, look at our economy. We are now spending $10 billion or more every month.

"And that means we can't provide health care to people who need it. We can't invest in science and technology, which will determine whether or not we are going to be competitive in the long term.

"There has never been a country on Earth that saw its economy decline and yet maintained its military superiority. So this is a national security issue.

"We haven't adequately funded veterans' care. I sit on the Veterans Affairs Committee, and we've got -- I meet veterans all across the country who are trying to figure out, "How can I get disability payments? I've got post-traumatic stress disorder, and yet I can't get treatment."

"So we have put all chips in, right there, and nobody is talking about losing this war. What we are talking about is recognizing that the next president has to have a broader strategic vision about all the challenges that we face.

"That's been missing over the last eight years. That sense is something that I want to restore."

This is really talking about more than a "sense" of something Obama wants to restore.  It's a challenge, a warning that the United States may be on the verge of losing its place in the world and failing in its promise to its people.

 

Who won? I’d say scoring the debates on points, McCain came out somewhat ahead. But neither guy really distinguished himself, which is a victory for Obama: going into the debate more people wanted to vote for Obama, foreign policy is supposed to be John McCain’s best chance to get people to vote for him instead, and many of those people just needed Obama to hold his own and show himself a credible commander-in-chief, which he certainly did.

Neither man seemed really comfortable in his own skin, and each smothered some attack lines and one-liners by delivering them in a half-apologetic sounding way. But McCain, as we knew before, is a somewhat better debater. He sounded crisper, and he drove his lines of attack more directly and consistently. Obama went too far out of his way to emphasize where he agrees with McCain, and he didn’t draw on some of the more powerful lines of attack he’s leveraged against McCain in other fora (now that Iraq’s Prime Minister and George Bush have both come out for timetables, John McCain is standing all alone on this issue).

Mostly, Obama seemed eager to correct the record on particular points but once the debate moved from the economy to foreign policy, he offered a lot of good arguments against John McCain but not a unified theory of why he’d be a scary president.

Like George Bush in 2000 responding to Gore’s attack on his actual opposition to the actually-existing Patients’ Bill of Rights Legislation by spewing bipartisan happy-talk, John McCain did a good job of parrying criticism of his actual record with empty words about how he loves the veterans so much and they already know he’ll take care of them (even if he votes against improving the GI Bill) and “no one from Arizona is against solar power” (even though he keeps voting against solar power - maybe because he’s not from Arizona, he just moved there to run for Congress). If the media keeps letting them get away with that stuff, why wouldn’t they keep doing it?

As for the format, the much-hyped interactive format, to Jim Lehrer’s great consternation, mostly just made it clear that neither senator wanted to interact too much with the other. They didn’t respond to too many of each other’s attacks either.

Haven’t waded into the talking heads’ spin yet, but this seemed to me like a debate unlikely to distract attention for too long from the $700 billion bail-out that seems to be coming down the pike or the Bush-McCain record that got us into the mess. Not to worry: John McCain will cut down on our $18 billion in earmarks! (Does that include aid to Israel)

Obama carried the debate.  McCain looked like a deer caught in the headlights.  He told mistruths and carried his smirk too far.  It must have been a senior moment for him because it appeared he was taking a trip down memory lane on his travels.  If he care so much about the veterans, why haven't conditions changed in his 20+ years in Congress?  He demonstrated all the things I am tired of seeing and hearing from "old school" politics.  We need someone in the Whitehouse that Washington has not changed and that's Obama.