The debate ended at 10:30.  Who keeps their infant up that late for the sake of showing him off for the tv cameras?
Enough already.  He's a baby, not a stage prop.

I am touched by Governor Palin's expression of love for her special needs baby and by Governor Palin's public support for her unmarried, pregnant teenage daughter.  But it is important to understand how compassionate conservatism works:

Previously, as governor, Sarah Palin cut funding to help unmarried teen mothers who couldn't pay the bills and take care of their children.  But now, because she has an unmarried, pregnant teenage daughter, Governor Palin supports such women.

Previously, as governor, Sarah Palin cut funding to help special needs children.  But now, because she has a special needs child, she supports special needs children.

I admire Governor Palin's concern for her family, but we need a president and vice-president who understand that other people's problems matter, too -- who care about people who have problems unlike the president's or vice-president's own personal problems.  That is, we need a president, not an interest group.

I think this is just about all that needs to be said about Palin:  John McCain has spent the last six years arm in arm with George Bush.  Sarah Palin is therefore the perfect runnning mate for him, because she is Alaska's version of George Bush.  Let me count the ways:

-Both Bush and Palin were governors (though Bush was governor for 6 years longer than Palin).

- Both Bush and Palin are right-wing ideologues -- from abortion to stem cell research to tax cuts skewed heavily to the rich.

- Both Bush and Palin believe in divisive wedge politics that stirs up anger and hatred and sets American against American.

- Both Bush and Palin question your patriotism if you disagree with them.

- Both Bush and Palin are uninterested in the serious work of governing.  (E.g., Katrina for Bush, state national guard in "crisis" for Palin)

- Both Bush and Palin abuse power.

- Both Bush and Palin are hypocrites concerning fiscal responsibility and pork

- Both Bush and Palin are oil-state governors who know nothing about energy except that their constituencies profit from oil drilling.

What have I left out?

A good tag would cover at least the following:  extremism (e.g., no abortion rights even for rape or incest victims, no stem cell research, interest in banning books, etc.); divisive partisanship (see the stories on her campaign for mayor of Wasilla); abuse of power (troopergate, police-chief-and-librarian-gate); hypocrisy (bridge to nowhere and earmarks).

The only idea that comes to mind for me is "Alaska's version of George Bush."

I like that because it also captures the way in which the Tucker Carlson's of the world are getting hot for Palin over the thought of her shooting moose, just as they got hot for Bush when they saw pictures of him clearing brush in the noonday sun or driving a pickup truck.  Also, the whole "aw, shucks" thing.  In fact, the more I think of this, the more Palin really does seem just an Alaskan version of Bush.

Anyway:  Anyone have other suggestions?

I'm trying to think of tag lines to attach to Palin (like "more of the same" for McCain).  A good tag would cover at least the following:  extremism (e.g., no abortion rights even for rape or incest victims, no stem cell research, interest in banning books, etc.); divisive partisanship (see the stories on her campaign for mayor of Wasilla); abuse of power (troopergate, police-chief-and-librarian-gate); hypocrisy (bridge to nowhere and earmarks).

The only idea that comes to mind for me is "Alaska's version of George Bush."

I like that because it also captures the way in which the Tucker Carlson's of the world are getting hot for Palin over the thought of her shooting moose, just as they got hot for Bush when they saw pictures of him clearing brush in the noonday sun or driving a pickup truck.  Also, the whole "aw, shucks" thing.  In fact, the more I think of this, the more Palin really does seem just an Alaskan version of Bush.

Anyway:  Anyone have other suggestions?

I'm trying to think of tag lines to attach to Palin (like "more of the same" for McCain).  A good tag would cover at least the following:  extremism (e.g., no abortion rights even for rape or incest victims, no stem cell research, interest in banning books, etc.); divisive partisanship (see the stories on her campaign for mayor of Wasilla); abuse of power (troopergate, police-chief-and-librarian-gate); hypocrisy (bridge to nowhere and earmarks).

The only idea that comes to mind for me is "Alaska's version of George Bush."

I like that because it also captures the way in which the Tucker Carlson's of the world are getting hot for Palin over the thought of her shooting moose, just as they got hot for Bush when they saw pictures of him clearing brush in the noonday sun or driving a pickup truck.  Also, the whole "aw, shucks" thing.  In fact, the more I think of this, the more Palin really does seem just an Alaskan version of Bush.

Anyway:  Anyone have other suggestions?

I hope that Obama makes McCain's inclination toward military confrontation a major issue. McCain's inclination is well-documented. So is his temper and his impetuous nature. I think that even many of McCain's backers will be worried about this, if it is pointed out to them. I saw video of a McCain rally the other day, in which Lieberman praised McCain's tension-escalating rhetoric over Russia and Georgia. The crowd was surprisingly tepid in response. No one wants more wars right now. We've had enough for a while. If they know McCain's basic nature, few will want his hand on the trigger.

Stewart has repeatedly taken the view that it doesn't matter what people say/write/draw/etc., so long as they might argue that it was just a joke, just art, just pop culture, or whatever.  So of course he criticizes people for getting all worked up about the New Yorker's Obama cartoon.  "It's just a cartoon."  "Only extremist Muslims get all worked up about cartoons."  Inexplicable.
Hard to imagine Stewart -- who is clearly a smart guy -- could be so stupid on so basic a point.  Forgive me for stating this explicitly.  One doesn't expect that adults need to be told this:  Yes, it matters what people say, whether they're joking or not, because what they say may affect people's opinions, and people's opinions affect what people do, and what people do can either make life better or make it worse.  The effect gets scaled up or down depending on how widely distributed the speech/writing/painting/tv show/whatever is.
My apologies for leaping to the obvious, extreme example, but the Nazi cartoons of the brutish-looking, big-nosed Jewish vulture or jackal assaulting a virginal Arian were intended, in part, to be funny -- the big noses, the fangs, etc.  And yet they mattered.

Because the real alternatives are so good (because McCain is so close a second-place to Obama);

Because the stakes are so small (because globally catastrophic climate change, smart and effective national security, officially codified torture, a counterproductive, stupid, and feckless war, and plutocracy are not at issue this year);

Let us nurture our political purity and join the right wing in criticizing Obama.  Let us refuse to fund his campaign.  Let us vote for Ralph Nader.

What's the worst that could happen?

The press' love for McCain seems likely to be as big a factor as we thought it would be.  I think the only way there's a chance of the press adopting anything like neutrality is if Obama personally distinguishes between McCain's war heroism and the ability to make good policy decisions.  I suggest this refrain:

"John McCain is a war hero, and I honor his service, but he has made one disastrous decision after another about the war in Iraq. 

"John McCain is a war hero, and I honor his service, but he wants to keep American troops in Iraq until the Iraqis stop shooting at each other and at our troops.  And after that happens - however long that takes - he's fine with keeping our troops there for another 100 years on top of that.

"John McCain is a war hero, and I honor his service, but he has flip-flopped on whether we should be torturing people:  first declaring his opposition to it, and then voting against legislation that would repudiate George W. Bush's embrace of torture.

"John McCain is a war hero, and I honor his service, but for economic advice he turns to Phil Gramm -- the man who engineered the reckless deregulation of financial markets that has helped to create the economic problems we are living with now, including high gas prices."

And so on. 

I think Obama should use the phrase "John McCain is a war hero, and I honor his service, but..." so often that (a) the relevance of heroism is sharply and obviously limited (b) it is clear that Obama cannot be painted as being unfairly critical, and (c) people lose interest in hearing about war heroism.

I don't think this should be left to surrogates, and I don't think Obama can rely on the press to see the obvious.  Unless Obama personally drives the point home forcefully and repeatedly, the press will continue acting as surrogates for McCain, pretending that "war hero" necessarily translates into "good president" and that any questioning of that equation is an act of slander.

I hope Obama will take a lesson from this.  Yes, any adult understands that you can't say with absolute certainty what you will do in Iraq a year from now.  Something big might happen to make your firm intentions unwise or otherwise unattainable by the time next year rolls around.  Much of the press probably understands this.  But they also understand (as we all do) that politicians routinely say they are committed to something when they aren't really, and they will later ditch their previous position by invoking a change of circumstances.
Had Obama not just flip-flopped spectacularly on FISA, he would not now be facing suspicions that his Iraq war position is hollow.
(And no, I don't think it's the substance of immunity from civil suits for the telco's that is the big thing here -- not for me, anyway.  It's that Obama announced a firm position during the primary to gain favor with the left base, and unceremoniously ditched it a couple weeks after clinching the nomination.  If you pull that kind of shit, you can expect your credibility to suffer in general.)

l understand why some Obama supporters are angry at Hillary -- for talking up McCain over Obama, for flirting with the idea of relying on superdelegates to overcome the results of the voting, for stoking the Jeremiah Wright story.  I don't really understand, though, why some Hillary supporters are angry at Obama. </p>
<p> I agree that the media's coverage of Hillary has been aggressively slanted much of the time (though it is also true that no other Democrat in Clinton's position would be taken seriously by the media, as she still is).  And I agree that some of the comments by Clinton and her people have been unreasonably cast as racially tinged.  But Obama isn't to blame for the media, and at least to my knowledge, Obama and his campaign staff have not insinuated that Clinton or her people are at all racist.  Additionally, while I think comments from the Clinton camp have often been interpreted too negatively, the interpretations have not been outlandish or hard to predict and avoid.  For instance, Bill Clinton couldn't have been surprised that people took a very dim view of his dismissing the South Carolina primary on the ground that Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina, too.</p>
<p>Most of Obama's criticisms of Hillary strike me as reasonably fair (though any criticism of your favored candidate will seem irksome) and no big deal.  (And much of Hillary's criticism of Obama -- with the exceptions noted above -- strikes me the same way.)</p>
<p>So, for those Hillary fans who are mad at Obama:  What are the particular things Obama has done that make you so angry?  And why are they so important that some of you say you won't vote for Obama over McCain but would rather have four more years of Bush policy on the war (and perhaps a new war with Iran, to boot), and another president who has not paid much attention to economic issues but is reflexively anti-progressive?  I'd really like to know.  

<p>I hope DT cools down between now and November.  His/her list of grievances against Obama is a highly tendentious characterization of issues that are at best debatable and on which a dispassionate observer would find corresponding grievances against Clinton.  (Honestly, caucuses are undemocratic, and that's Obama's fault?  Michigan and Florida deliberately gave up their voting delegates, and that's Obama's fault?  Obama "threatened the party," "called [some]one a racist," said his voters are "better" than Clinton's voters, accepted a "bribe" from a Saddam Hussein loyalist?  This sounds like right-wing talk radio stuff.) </p>

<p>In any case, if DT's second choice is not the Democrat who is practically identical to Clinton on policy matters, but instead the Republican who is the polar opposite on matters of war & peace and domestic economic policy, then I guess Clinton has succeeded in her weeks-long campaign on behalf of McCain as against Obama.  Nice going, Hill.  It's not like there are any important policy issues at stake in this election.</p>

<p>(I'm assuming that DT is not just a right-wing troll.  The I-won't-vote-for-the-other-Democrat folks -- both Clinton's and Obama's -- are easy to confuse with such trolls.)</p>

The consensus seems to be that Obama is in a box because he has presented himself as being above politics as usual, and doing so prevents him from "going negative" on Clinton, which he needs to do.  I don't think this is a hard box to get out of.
I don't think it would be hard to explain -- even to the press -- that honest, fair, substantive criticism is a good, necessary, and important part of any political debate, and that criticism is only dirty or bad if it is dishonest, unfair, or non-substantive.  Even dull-witted people can be brought to see the difference between fair criticism and mud-slinging.  For years, the press has seemed not to know the difference, treating all criticism of an opponent as uniformly "going negative."  So a candidate making an entirely fair, reasonable criticism is lumped together with an opponent whose criticisms are cheap, dishonest mudslinging.  Obama would do us a great favor by simply explaining this point.
If Obama explains this, he can be as severe in his criticism as he wants to be.  He needs only to make his criticism conspicuously honest, fair, and substantive, and to deliver it in a dignified tone.  There is, needless to say, a great deal of damning criticism to be leveled at Clinton.
Reminds me of a speech by Henry Grattan, a member of the Irish Parliament, in 1800:

HAS the gentleman done? Has he completely done? He was unparliamentary from the beginning to the end of his speech. There was scarce a word he uttered that was not a violation of the privileges of the House; but I did not call him to order—why? because the limited talents of some men render it impossible for them to be severe without being unparliamentary. But before I sit down I shall show him how to be severe and parliamentary at the same time.