Third Time's the Same

tonight is the last night of my mini-stay-at-home vacay. so i’ll be keeping this short and posting early because i can’t stay up all night and listen to post debate analysis. but i offer you some of my thoughts.... as they happen.

a live blog for you, my loyal readers... on this, the occasion of the final presidential debate of 2008.

the third and final debate
ah....we’re sitting this evening.

mccain begins with a shout out to nancy “just say no” reagan. then launched into: “they’re [i.e. the american people] hurting and they’re angry. that’s important so i’ll say it again. they’re hurting and they’re angry.... they’re angry.” the key word here is “angry.”

mccain is hitting this very unpopular idea of buying up home mortgages. you know.... his idea.

obama immediately starts speaking directly to the middle class. tax cuts for anyone making less than $250,000. also – access to retirement/401(k) plans without penalty.

GREAT answer to mccain’s idea for buying up foreclosures. could be a profit-making venture for the banks.

wow...look at john mccain looking directly at obama as he attacks about the plumber. this is new....

mccain...the camera is on you. stop looking so itchy.

“joe the plumber” and “we need to spread the wealth around.” i just heard these talking points on the o’reilly factor as i was momentarily humoring my older, conservative brother.

mccain needs to get less advice from o’reilly and rush and listen to smart conservative like mike murphy.

is mccain really revisiting his america vs. ireland argument?

let’s see if bob can finally get an answer about the WHAT will you cut in order to pay for these economic stimulus packages?

well, obama once again danced around the question. mccain pulled a sarah palin and decided to talk about something completely different. nope, wait... he just said he would start a spending freeze.

hmmm....mccain would eliminate subsidies on ethanol. did he just write off illinois, iowa, wisconsin and indiana?

“i’m not president bush. if you wanted to run against president bush you should have run four years ago.” a nice line from mccain. obama needs to hit him back with: “well, then you shouldn’t have voted with bush over 90% of the time.”

“record, record, record...” yes, johnny boy. we get it.

“if i sometimes mistake your policies for bush’s policies...” it’s because they’re so similar. a nice response obama.

but holy shit. mccain is really hitting hard tonight. he is on the attack.

8:25pm: bob schieffer brings up the nastiness of the campaign and will you address the negative attacks to each other.

i can’t believe mccain is really trying to blame the ugliness on obama’s unwillingness to sit down for 10 town hall style debates.

look at mccain playing the victim. poor me.... they found out i’m a racist and they called me on it. boo-hoo.

“you didn’t tell the american people the truth because you didn’t.” what?!?

there’s the answer. says obama (in a nuthshell): the american people care less about our hurt feelings and the nastiness than the real issues. that’s what they want us to talk about.

i’m so fucking happy that obama is hitting mccain on he and palin not addressing the shouts of “kill him” and “terrorist” at their rallies. they’re also yelling shit like “off with his head” and “treason.” that shit is scary. the kennedys... MLK. that is not the distance past.... this type of language is horrifying.

mccain’s lines of attacks just go so far off the beaten path sometimes.

obama’s point that we can’t paint each other as “bad people” is a nice line. and then off mccain goes on ayers and ACORN which is all such bullshit.

i love that the word “terrorist” is oh-so-slightly dropped whenever mccain brings up ayers.

obama has given some very nice, direct answers to the idiotic allegations by the mccain campaign and then gave a beautiful list of his advisors: buffett, biden, luger, jones... beautiful.

why is bob letting this debate descend into this idiotic, trivial dialogue? MOVE ON!

let’s talk about THE ISSUES!

oooooh… a biden v. palin question. this seems like a gimme for obama. “because palin is a fucking idiot!” game, obama!

the key word for palin is “reformer.” ummm....no: idiot. how can mccain really justify his stunt known as sarah palin with a straight face?

awww....the victim card again! “she understands special needs families.”

when asked if sarah is qualified to be president, obama gave the stock hillary answer: “that’ll be up to the american people.”

oh snap! obama said we need to fund more research for autism if we’re gonna take special needs research seriously. and that can’t happen if mccain wants an “across the board spending freeze.” beautiful....

“tax and spend liberal.” this week’s republican talking point.

energy and oil. mccain: “drill, baby drill.” whatever...

allow me to digress for one moment: we all know that even if we begin drilling tomorrow, it’ll take ten years to see any oil from these new offshore drilling sites. exploration, construction, drilling.... ten years. but what nobody talks about is that once shell and exxon and everyone else drills the oil – it’s not american oil. the oil belongs to the oil companies. and they don’t have to supply it to america. they’re businessmen! they will sell it to the highest bidder. if china is willing to pay more for a barrel of oil, guess what? shell sells it to china. we won’t necessarily see ANY of it.

thank vishnu that obama spoke about wind and solar energy. why not spend all that money...the time over the next ten years....to explore alternative energy?!?! why not work to end our dependence on oil?!?

mccain finds a way to add “and he’ll raise your taxes” into any conversation... no matter how irrelevant. amazing....

fuck... over 30 minutes left and i’m already bored.

hit him, obama! clarify your plan for health care and the exemption for small businesses and “joe the plumber.” nice argument about young, healthy individuals may be able to afford health insurance for $5,000. but older, less healthy individuals probably can’t afford it for only $5,000 a year.

are you listening out there in pennsylvania?!?

“joe! i want you to do the job” mccain says. yeah...but joe can’t afford it! how can anyone really be against health care for everyone?!? should we just let our citizens die?

this amazes me! and i miss hillary....

oooooh! a roe v. wade question! mccain says he thought it was wrongly decided. “i think a lot of cases were wrongly decided.” really? can you name one? because sarah can’t...

i get so annoyed with the term “litmus test.” why can we not apply a fucking litmus test? we need judges that will uphold a woman’s right to choose!

carey – are you listening? obama just said roe v. wade was rightly decided. and he upholds a woman’s right to choose (under the safe guise of “right to privacy.”)

oh! and i’m so happy obama keeps bringing up equal pay for equal work.

education: obama thinks the children are our future. just like whitney houston.

well, hell.... we’re starting to repeat ourselves. let’s move on to my quick hits for the debate.

quick hits
--cnn’s newsroom is as busy as their graphics during the debate. 12 pundits and three moderators. i find it difficult to keep up.
--i think they asked bob shieffer to moderate in hopes it’ll make john ‘the cryptkeeper’ mccain look younger.
--mccain starts writing notes as soon as he sits down. is his memory that bad he has to write down thoughts before he forgets them? and then he just writes and writes and writes.
--i heard a great argument earlier today that mccain could’ve convinced people that he wouldn’t be a third bush term if he hadn’t decided to run a third bush-style campaign. it was nice.....
--“for all intents and purposes” is an empty fucking phrase. and WAY over-used.
--fuck! i wish i’d been counting how many times mccain brought up “joe the plumber.” by 9pm CST – it’s been at least four times... but about three or four times during each time he brings him up.
--mccain’s body language is better tonight. he looked at obama. he spoke directly to obama. but he still looks like a grumpy old man.
--obama looks presidential. he looks calm. but he looked (and was) ready to fight back on mccain’s attacks.
--do you know who obama’s number one surrogate is tonight after the debate? one hillary clinton. oh yeah.....
--on the final question of the debate, why is mccain suddenly so intent on interrupting obama while he speaks?
--thanks chuck todd on nbc. joe the plumber was mentioned over 20 times by mccain.

final thoughts
my final thoughts will also reflect the candidate’s final remarks.

my older brother (the conservative) thought mccain looked more choppy tonight than he has in the past. i think he’s uncomfortable on the attack but everyone had told him that he had to attack, attack, attack. it’s too bad.

and he did come out and attack. and he hit obama hard.

but i think obama was able to answer all of his attacks. and calmly.

the closing remarks were nice. mccain spoke of his service. obama spoke about the needs of the country. i dunno....?

i find it a bit of a draw (again) tonight. boring....(again) though maybe not as boring as last time.

but again...it was a draw. mccain can’t win with a draw. a draw means obama wins. and i just didn’t see anything tonight that changed the game.

another nice analysis from chuck todd: mccain’s performance will excite his base. but both candidates have their base. what did mccain do to garner votes from the center? from independents? i just don’t see it.

and to follow-up on a statement that chucky t. made about a month or more ago: we’ll know how this race will end november 4th on october 15th. well...look at the polls. look at the electoral maps: obama is up. and he’s up well.

i haven’t brought up realclearpolitics for some time, but let me revisit my favorite website. the RCP average of national polls has obama topping mccain by 7.3 percentage points: 49.8% to 42.8%.

and if you look at RCP’s electoral map. obama has 286 electoral votes in his column to mccain’s 158. that’s obama up by 128 electoral votes. of course, you only need 270 electoral votes to win the presidency and he’s already at 286 without toss up states.

add toss ups? obama 364. mccain 174. that’s obama in a landslide of 190 electoral votes over mccain.

again.... i’m cautiously optimistic.

well, it’s almost over. the debates are over. i can’t believe it’s a mere 19 days until election day.

and i leave you tonight with bob shieffer’s mother’s sage advice: “go vote now. it’ll make you feel nice and strong.”

obama/biden 08!

e.

Fannie/Freddie Fact Check

thank you, CNN:

The Statement: At a presidential debate Tuesday, October 7 in Nashville, Tennessee, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain said Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats resisted regulating mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which ultimately collapsed and had to be taken over by the government. "Meanwhile, they were getting all kinds of money in campaign contributions. Sen. Obama was the second-highest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money in history — in history," he said.

The Facts: Federal law forbids candidates from receiving money directly from companies. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics tracks donations from employees of various companies. The center's list of contributions from Fannie and Freddie employees places Obama second. Ahead of him is Sen. Chris Dodd, Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

The total listed for Obama is $126,349 — a tiny fraction of the approximately $390 million his campaign has raised, according to the center. The list shows McCain has received a total of $21,550 from Fannie and Freddie employees. The list includes donations of at least $200 from those who receive paychecks from Fannie and Freddie. It also includes donations from political action committees — pooled contributions from employees.

The report spans from 1989-2008 — just a portion of the time since Fannie Mae went private in 1968 and Freddie Mac was created in 1970.

The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.

VERDICT: Misleading. No donations actually came from the companies. One method of measuring employee contributions does put Obama second overall, but another, for the current election cycle, shows McCain receiving significantly more.

e.

Belmont Stakes

well, it’s the second of three debates tonight between john “i’ll fight dirty after i promised to fight clean” mccain and the messiah known as barack obama. i’m thinkin’ i’ll attempt another live-blogging... but i may be moving around a lot... or just yelling at the t.v. a bit too much to get a lot down. but i’ll try.

first.... let’s say up front: i like the format. i realize this is supposed to help mccain, but i like the idea of the candidates answering questions directly from voters. and not having any distance between themselves and who may vote for them.

i also hope that tom brokaw does a better job at moderating than gwen ifill did last thursday. that was easily one of the most disappointing performances i have ever witnessed. i’m an enormous fan of ms. ifill... but the news stories circulating about her new book praising obama clearly got in her head and she let palin take over and not even answer the questions posed.

tom... keep them on point. keep them honest. don’t let them get away with “no, i want to talk about my talking points.”

also…before we go into this: what do we think about mccain’s dirty campaigning? will he bring up the smears? with obama in the room? with a live audience that may boo him?

i’m predicting no… but i guess we’ll see. it’s just bad politics and as much as i can’t stand mccain and his cronies... he must be smarter than that, right?

hmmm... can i change my answer?

debate night in america
mccain at least acknowledged obama as he entered the stage. obama is to the left. mccain is to the right. seems appropriate.

first question, not a surprise: the economy.

obama immediately pegged this current crisis on bush’s “failed policies” and included: “policies senator mccain supported.” nice... tough words against AIG execs. demands they give the money back and executives fired. again, nice...

mccain addressed obama but didn’t really look at him.

i think mccain’s “nice to see you at a town hall meeting” was meant as a subtle jab. maybe too subtle...

people want to hear about their 401(k) plans and sending their children to college... mccain is talking home prices. the question was about stocks and 401(k).

oh, nice question tom: who will you appoint to be the next treasury secretary to replace paulson?

the question clearly took mccain by surprise. he has no answer. again, tried a lame joke: “not you, tom.” obama said buffett would be a good choice but maybe not the best (but didn’t stop from reminding people warren does support him). but neither one of them gave a name.

mccain got the talking point: “not a bailout. a rescue.” um, yeah... no. it’s a bailout.

you can put lipstick on a pitbull but it’s still a hockey mom. no, wait.... is that how the saying goes?

need to fact check: is obama the second largest recipient of fannie mae and freddie mac money?

huh. mccain talked in generalities and attacked obama when asked what exactly is in the bailout package for individuals. obama came right back and said, “let me tell you what you get out of this...” but then i think he meandered and kinda answered (available credit) but then didn’t really answer... and gave his credentials on trying to stop the economic crisis.

and now he’s attacking mccain again....

come on, barack. give a definitive answer.

“we have a 20th century policy for a 21st century problem.” yes, obama. we get it. you’re the bridge for washington into the 21st century.

wow, look! mccain looked directly at and spoke directly to obama. a strong moment, actually....

okay, when asked why he should be trusted with our money...obama was direct. he spoke about need for healthcare and energy policy reform.

mccain is throwing out a lot of numbers but not giving any specifics. “record, record, record.” “pork, earmarks, pork.” “energy, energy, energy.” but can you provide any specifics? we’ve heard the talking points...

wait? did mccain just bring up terrorists when talking about priorities?

obama is, once again, being specific: energy, first. “in ten years we have to be free of middle east oil.” health care, priority number two. priority number three? education.

well played, sir.

first internet question: we’ve never been asked to sacrifice anything but our soldiers’ blood since WWII. what will you ask people to sacrifice?

mccain’s answer: cuts in washington and washington programs. and then the one example you give is a more streamlined defense budget? how is that asking any of us to sacrifice?

how about a call to volunteer? a call to donate to nonprofits?

obama started talking about a call for service. talked about how everyone needs to start thinking about the energy they use. how can we save energy in our homes and our buildings? he also talked about young people’s hunger to serve and doubling funding for the peace corps.

ah, at 8:37pm (CST) mccain brought up the spectre of “tax and spend liberals.” obama will raise taxes on small businesses.

hit back obama.... he will not raise taxes on 95% of the nation. and he won’t raise taxes on most small businesses... but he will give them tax incentives for providing health care benefits to the employees.

did mccain just blow off the idea of having to SAFELY dispose of nuclear waste? seriously?

5 million new jobs can be created by working on alternative fuels, claims obama. hillary would call those “green collar jobs.” i miss hillary.

mccain just referred to obama as “that one.” 8:49pm. why not just call him “boy”?

i’m so happy obama keeps hitting mccain on the fact that he wants to TAX healthcare. healthcare costs have never been taxed. it’s idiotic! keep hitting him on that, obama.

“medical errors” as they call them. you mean the doctors?

i think mccain is hitting obama on healthcare mandates again (sorry, i was typing). obama doesn’t have mandates. hillary had those (i miss hillary). i wish he had mandates... otherwise, we’ll never get to universal health care.

mccain believes healthcare is a “responsibility” not a “right.” obama… you better hit him on this!

good…obama says in a country as wealthy as our country, healthcare should be a right. bravo. (and amen!)

clear it up, obama. no mandates for you. no threats of making you change your plan. no mandates for small businesses but 50% tax incentives for healthcare. only mandates for children.

what was that cocky move mccain did with the mic after saying “there’s no time for on the job training, my friend”? who does he think he is? tom jones?

the obama doctrine? while we may not always have a national security issue at stake, we have a moral issue. basically, he believes we need to help stop ethnic cleansing and genocide but also acknowledges that we can’t be everywhere all the time. an honest answer.

i’m getting really tired of mccain saying “my friends.” fuck you! you’re not my friend.

the mccain doctrine? i dunno? bomb, invade? what is he saying? and did he just say we need a “cool hand” at the controls? and that would be you, mctemper?

mccain said: “your children’s safety is my first priority. after our nation’s security.” so...we’ll send your children into iraq to die and cause further hatred of our nation and endanger ourselves and our troops… which actually makes us less safe. but i’ll take care of your children? what?

mccain is keeping his cool tonight... but he’s still so smug and smarmy.

i don’t know if obama’s constant insistence on follow-ups will play well with everyone. he may come across as too pushy... or maybe even whiney. but i think it’s important for him to defend himself after mccain’s false attacks.

“i was joking with an old veteran friend,” mccain says. this when he said “bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb iran.” yeah.... funny, john. real funny.

“withdraw our troops in a responsible way” from iraq, obama says. hillary started the trend of “responsible withdrawal.” i miss hillary....

mccain just said obama is “correct” on some of his points when it comes to afghanistan. okay, obama people: mccain’s camp jumped all over you guys two fridays ago when obama said mccain was right on some things. quid pro quo.

mccain repeated his “i looked into putin’s eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G and a B.” bad line two fridays ago. bad line again tonight. fell flat.

9:20 CST: i’m bored.

obama needs to work on these long rambling answers. he’s answered the question three times (the russia question). we gotta stop our democratic candidates from giving long, kerry/gore-esque answers. answer the question and stop talking.

by “our interests” mccain means “oil.”

9:29 CST: can we get in one more question brokaw wants to get in? he forges on. a question from new hampshire with a “zen like quality.” and it is a good question: what don’t you know and how will you learn it?

obama gave a nice answer about learning more from challenges you never expect rather than challenges you do expect. then he went into what he does know and how america is great and his mother was single.... you know, flag pin stuff.

mccain says he doesn’t know what’s going to happen... sounds like he’s setting up an attack on obama being too risky.

“i know what it’s like in dark times,” mccain says. you mean before the invention of the light bulb, right john? (sorry, enita...i couldn’t resist.)

9:34 pm CST: the debate ends on an odd note: mccain was standing in front of tom brokaw’s speech.

quick hits
--nobel prize winner al gore is in the house!
--okay... i love the oliver stone presidential movies: jfk, nixon.... i mean, i’m like an insanely HUGE fan of those. and now i have so much hope in W. and i think the previews, with that song, are pitch perfect.
--it’s comforting to hear tom brokaw’s voice.
--meanwhile, teresa in section F is about as hick as hick comes....
--8:21pm (CST): mccain calls himself a “reformer” for the first time and said “reform” within 30 seconds of it.
--8:24: “reform.” everybody drink!
--8:24: “ronald reagan.” everybody drink!
--i think people underestimated obama’s comfort level in front of a town hall crowd. he looks confident, relaxed and knowledgeable.
--here’s a switch: the democrat brought up 9/11 first!
--did you know that both obama and mccain are south paws? have i mentioned this before?
--mccain looks like a tiny pitbull pacing back and forth looking for the perfect place to take a piss.
--8:41pm: “ronald reagan.” drink!
-- ah...leave it up to a younger voter to ask about the environment. thank you, ingrid.
--“we cannot drill our way out of the problem.” nice obama.
--“i’ll stop and you didn’t even wave.” mccain used that exact same line in the first debate. get some new comedy writers.
--mccain keeps pacing. he can’t sit still. he can’t just stand back at his chair when obama speaks. it’s irritating. obama sits at his chair, allows mccain to speak….and watches him the entire time. good body language.
--mccain’s hair transplant crack fell flat. quelle surprise.
--there are a lot of white people in that room. actually, a lot of bald white men.
--by 9:10pm we’d only heard from two african americans... no latinos. mostly white people.
--okay...drinking game words for next time: for mccain: “record” and “my friends.” for obama: “21st century” and “clarify” or “follow-up.” jager shots if anyone mentions “change,” “reform” or “maverick.”
--is cindy mccain wearing purple? purple doesn’t bring to mind money or medication. what is she thinking?
--after the debate, obama went to shake mccain’s hand again and he directed him to cindy and never shook his hand.
--just a reminder: the election is four weeks from today.

final thoughts
i thought it was a pretty even debate. i would give obama the lead on demeanor and substance. mccain didn’t lose his cool and didn’t make any personal attacks.

but mccain did not change the game tonight.... which means he lost.

the types of petty attacks he made and dippy jokes just made him seem disconnected from real problems facing the country.

mccain hit hard on taxes, of course... but i’m not sure he hit home with any of them. obama was able to come back and defend himself.

mccain was clearly on the attack... but obama basically kept his cool. answered the attacks honestly. and just seemed much more presidential.

at a time when polls are widening.... and battleground states are steadily becoming more blue. this was not a performance that will lose obama any votes or garner mccain any votes.

with four weeks to go and only one more debate... i’m not sure how mccain can change the game at this point.

i’m becoming cautiously optimistic.

obama/biden 08!

e.

Notes From All Over: Political Edition

i know, my lovelies... i've been neglectful.

but work has appeared to slow down and i've caught up on my press watching and i've had a chance to compile all of my political thoughts from the last couple of weeks.

when last we visited our heroine, senator clinton was coming off a sub-par performance in the philadelphia debate.

where do things stand now?

latest polls

hillary has slipped in the polls. no question. she saw an immediate slide after the philly debate and obama has finally shown some movement.

the latest kcci8 poll (november 12-14) shows the iowa race with hillary still in the lead at 27% but obama only two points behind at 25%. edwards is still showing strong at 21%.

for the first time, however, obama does lead in an iowa poll. a new abc/washington post poll of iowa voters has obama at 30%. hillary is four points behind at 26% and edwards is four points behind her at 22%. the poll has a +/- of 4.5 points. a statistical dead heat.

interesting thing about iowa, however. it's just about impossible to know who will win. polling is pointless, almost, because you never know who will show up at the caucus meetings. is it snowing that night? does someone have to stay home and watch the kids?

and time after time i hear pundits tell me most iowans do not make up their minds until they step into the high school gym.

but...obama's movement is troubling. trends mean something... and hill's team is obviously nervous. more national members of her campaign are arriving in iowa every day.

this could get interesting.

my new wet dream site

i've been meaning to look for a month or more... i finally did. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

seriously...check this out. you can track national polls and state polls... all the major races. who's ahead in iowa? check it out. florida? take a look....

it shows trends... it provides links to interesting articles.

see for yourself... i can't get enough.

jefferson jackson day dinner

have you seen clips from obama's speech this past saturday night? it reminds me of the greatness he displayed at the 2004 democratic national convention.

if he could perform like this at a debate.... he'd be ahead in all the polls.

speaking o' the debate - or - knock out in vegas

as one member of the press put it: the bitch is back.

hillary delivered a stellar performance at the cnn las vegas debate last thursday night. she was strong and fought back when attacked.

roger simon of politico wrote: "she gave as good as she got. and those who tried to kick her stubbed their toes."

john dickerson of slate said: "well, that was a short death spiral." and went on to say: "clinton ran no risk of looking weak by talking about her gender, because she was kneeing her opponents in the groin."

when asked about playing the gender card, hillary had - perhaps - the best answer of the night: "i'm not playing the gender card, i'm trying to play the winning card." she went on to say, "they're not attacking me because i'm a woman. they're attacking me because i'm ahead."

huge applause... and the rest of the night just went her way.

edwards and obama tried to consistently attack hillary. but every time they swung, she hit right back.

after obama first attacked hillary she hammered back about his health care plan and how it wouldn't cover the populations of nevada, iowa, new hampshire and south carolina (i wonder why she picked those states?). obama loomed at first - then backed off. he can't look at her when she attacks, but she can look at him.

and an interesting thing happened about an hour into the debate - after a lot of the attacks had stopped - edwards tried to use his canned attack on hillary about lobbyist money. he was actually booed. obama was booed at one point, as well, when he tried to compare her to romney and giuliani.

i think this really frazzled them both and i'm not sure they recovered.

body language

once again...i just think hillary has the best body language. she is always engaged. always listening. others are scribbling down notes, shifting. but she's always listening and looking directly at the speaker.

when obama tried to defend his potential tax hike to help social security, he twice said "tax break." hillary came back and corrected him: "i think you mean tax increase, because that's what it would be." she listens.

after edwards gave his first attack - never looking at hillary but hillary looking directly at him - she delivered a great line about accepting "attacks on my record, on issues." but accused edwards of "slinging mud." you could tell it stung edwards... just the look on his face.

and there's a great camera angle from edwards at the edge of the stage to hillary delivering the line. in between them stood obama and dodd. as soon as she said "slinging mud" they both turned away from her and looked down. they didn't want any part of it.

smart move, boys.

driver's license stumble...again.

but fear not...this time it was obama. it was amazing how well he fucked up his response. all three responses he gave. the audience actually laughed at him twice....

byron york of the national review (yes, a republican) said, "obama's mistake was absolutely mystifying. a democratic strategist just said to me it's almost as if he had read her [clinton's] answer from the previous debate and thought it was the right thing to say."

amazing... surely somebody had prepped him for that question, yes?

okay...i could go on and on so let's skip to my quick hits from the debate:

• what was with all the pre-debate analysis during the beginning of the debate time? how many hours did cnn have beforehand? oh - that's right. 24 hours.
• edwards first statement of the debate was: "nobody on this stage is perfect." john, give it up.
• enough with the canned answers! richardson's first answer was so canned it was pathetic. and edwards' "is that a planted question" remark was so out of place it just fell flat. there was no laughter.
• the first question to biden was 10 minutes in. he was the first candidate besides obama, clinton and edwards to speak.
• 20 minutes in kucinich got a sentence into the conversation...but still no direct question.
• 28 minutes in - the first question went directly to dodd.
• 30 minutes in, wolf blitzer piggy-backed a question on unions to kucinich.
• 50 minutes in, kucinich is asked the first question initially directed specifically to him.
• john roberts asks some really good questions. maybe he should moderate a debate on his own?
• dodd gave a great response on teacher "merit pay."
• happy birthday, governor richardson. when you blew out your candles, i hope you wished for better stage presence.
• i still don't think obama should be allowed to make any comments on the iran vote when he didn't even bother to show up (and he gave such a weak answer to why he wasn't there. "umm... i was running for president." yeah - so are clinton, dodd and biden.)
• kucinich has it out for edwards. he nailed him all night long.
• richardson shut down kucinich light an annoying gnat when he told him to stop lumping him in with the other candidates. he's not in congress, he reminded dennis.
• kucinich was really angry this debate. came across more bizarre than usual.
• chris dodd has tiny feet.
• biden mentioned potential impeachment of bush if he invades iran.
• an hour and half in, kucinich mentioned impeachment.
• apparently obama watches nbc nightly news and saw brokaw's interview with warren buffett.
• the audience portion of the debate really dragged. lose it.
• dodd said "here" 25 times. i doubt he got 25 minutes worth of air time.

meet the press quote of the week (a catch up)

sunday, november 4th.

fred thompson was the guest for most of the hour. i liked him so much more in the hunt for red october and in the line of duty. it's great when he's playing an asshole... not just being one.

since ole pick-up truck fred is such a defender of the bush administration and the war in iraq, i found it particularly interesting when he said:

i don't think we should be armchair generals...when we have people on the ground who apparently now know what they're doing.

so...since the war began...we just now have people on the ground that know what the fuck they're doing? it's nice to know we wasted....how many years with dumbfucks running the show?

p.s. thompson has a very machiavellian view on foreign policy. he'd definitely rather be feared than respected.

sunday, november 11th

senator barack obama was tim's guest for the entire hour.

i think obama did well... but he certainly demonstrated that he can parse an answer just as well as the next politician. especially in his discussion of "precondition" vs. "preparation."

i found it interesting that he has the balls to say he can take lobbyist money and we should just all assume he can fight against the influence. why you and nobody else, sir?

i really wanted to make his quote of the week "i do not believe being gay or lesbian is a choice" because it's reassuring to know that even though he doesn't think us fags deserve equal marriage rights (only civil unions), at least he doesn't think we're all choosing to be this way. hmmm... then why do we not deserve equal rights "in god's eyes"?

but i loved his long summation of his campaign:

i have admiration for senator clinton. i think she's a fine public servant. the reason i'm running is because i think we're at a unique moment in history right now. the nation's at war, our planet is in peril. we've got a series of decisions that we're gonna have to make and i believe i can more effectively, than any other candidate in this race, bring the country together, overcome some of the same old arguments we've been having since the 1990's and that i can reach out to the republicans and independents more effectively...

i think he could have gone on for another ten minutes if russert hadn't interrupted him.

sunday, november 18th

just a quick interesting note from chuck todd about the debate and some interesting internal numbers concerning iowa polling.

i think the obama folks know they had a bad night. the edwards folks had a really bad night. and this is just one night, but if he starts fading too quickly...that's actually not good for clinton. the quicker this is a two person race, the better for obama.

apparently when asked about who their second choice might be...obama and edwards fare much better. if you're not voting for clinton first, you're probably not voting for her at all. so if edwards begins to fade greatly, the majority of voters will probably defect from him to obama. and in a tight race.... that's no so good for my hill.

but my quote of the week goes to ron brownstein of the national journal, who provided this nugget:

not a leaf will fall in the forest between now and iowa and new hampshire without obama and edwards looking for a way to make this into a contrast with hillary clinton because that is ultimately what you have to do against a frontrunner.

only 45 days until iowa.... anything can happen.

e.

Post Debate Analysis

well...it was an interesting, sometimes odd, debate this evening on msnbc.

i thought brian williams did a nice job of showing that his five nights behind the big desk has given him a wide range of information from which to mine questions.

tim russert continued to use quotes and statistics from the candidates themselves to frame his questions.

so who won? conventional wisdom says as long as hillary clinton doesn't make any major stumbles, she wins. but did she stumble? did obama draw the blood he promised in the times over the weekend?

let's break it down.

edwards wins
i think that was pretty clear... at least from my standpoint. he took the chris matthews approach and drew clear distinctions between himself and the front runner: hillary clinton.

his attacks were strong.... his distinctions clear.

he hammered and hammered and hammered away at clinton and took any spotlight away from obama.

will the attacks hurt him or help him?

i think his constant return to the theme of clinton's "double talk" may resonate. especially after something unforeseen happened with just a few moments remaining in the debate.

hillary stumbles
it was a simple question. only two minutes or so left in the debate. russert asked my girl about governor spitzer's plan to issue driver's license to illegal immigrants in new york. she said she supported his idea...or it seemed like a good plan.

then chris dodd went off....

then it happened. hillary backtracked and said she wouldn't necessarily support it.

why? why, hillary? you had this thing in the bag.....

edwards immediately pounced and said she just gave two different answers in a matter of two minutes. "double talk."

hillary had fended off attack after attack so well all night... she was particularly strong early in the evening. but as howard fineman of newsweek pointed out: she "came off like a politician."

a clinton stumble...... well, fuck me.

biden covered her ass a bit in the post analysis on msnbc saying she was clearly not decisive but held off on calling it "double talk."

amazing....

obama attacks...kinda
his attacks were there...but they were subtle. he had a particularly strong moment when he called out hillary to release all correspondence between she and bill clinton during his presidency from the clinton archives. he said we're coming out of the most secretive administration in history. americans want transparency. he also said if she's running on her experience in the white house as first lady - why not release the records?

it was a good point......

best line
no big surprise....joe biden. during a series of answers to a question about rudy giuliani doubting the experience of clinton and the other dem candidates.... biden said nobody is less experienced to run the country than bush but rudy giuliani.

then his great line: "rudy giuliani...there's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11."

perfect.

most bizarre moment, i
first off...who knew shirley maclaine was a godmother to one of dennis kucinich's children? secondly, in all seriousness, russert asked kucinich about an episode maclaine recounts in her new book that he saw a UFO and it was a deeply moving experience for him.

kucinich? yep....he saw it. freely admits it.

jesus...the man can't win.

most bizarre moment, ii
bill richardson defended hillary. he said other candidates were acting "holier than thou" and the attacks were boardering on personal. he said he trusts hillary...but he disagrees with her on big issues.

that's where the debate should be, argues bill. save the attacks for the republicans... keep the democratic debate positive.

well done, sir. i hope you get the v.p. job (if obama doesn't want it).

best spontaneous moment
when asked if he believes in life beyond earth, obama chuckled and then said, "i don't know... but i do know there's life here on earth." and then went on about how we need to take care of people in the united states that have been ignored too long.

it was a strong moment... one of his best.

quick hits

• the first question went to obama - directly asking him about his plans to attack clinton.
• the next twenty minutes were spent on obama and edwards attacking hillary and she fighting them off.
• dodd also got in on attacking hillary. she handled it great...very strong in her answers.
• i still think hillary has the best body language. she's engaged when others answer. she nods and shakes her head. she smiles. i think it shows a great deal of confidence.
• the first question posed to bill richardson was 21 minutes into the debate.
• first question to kucinich? 22 minutes in.
• where was that ole kook, mike gravel?
• kucinich mentioned impeaching bush 3 times throughout the night.
• kucinich is very passionate about HR-676.
• bill richardson, bless him, just doesn't handle lightening rounds very well.
• this was clearly dodd's best performance in a debate.
• chris matthews clearly does not like hillary clinton and it's really starting to piss me off.

i'll probably have more later but, for now, i'm exhausted.

hillary...you're still my girl. now go clear up your stance on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

a state's issue.... causing hill to stumble....

who knew?

e.

Democratic Debate Drinking Game

you've been waiting for it... and here it is. at long last! my democratic debate drinking game. each player will need to pick a candidate. more than one person can pick the same candidate, but you should pick the candidate you plan to support.

first, however, i think we should set this thing up with some perspective.

recent polls

the latest la times/bloomberg national poll of democratic voters places clinton in the lead with 48% of the vote. obama trails with only 17% of the vote and edwards continues to bring up the rear with only 13%.

please note: obama is 31 points behind hillary.

the most recent university of iowa poll shows the potential voting in iowa as follows:

clinton 29%
obama 27%
edwards 20%
richardson 7%

richardson just can't seem to find any traction... but i think edwards is actually sliding in the must win state of iowa. the poll has a +/- of 5.5% but that still puts edwards out of even a statistical tie.

obama may be tracking up in the polls, but clinton does seem to be holding a slight lead.

gloves off?

perhaps this is why barack obama gave an interview to the new york times over the weekend where he promised to take off the gloves and start attacking hillary.

of course, he said the same thing back in august (i think) to the washington post.

i'm not sure attacking hillary now and abandoning his "politics of hope" will help at this point. doesn't it all just look desperate?

in fact....hill's camp has hit back to most attacks by edwards and obama by pointing out the desperation by the two camps who have appeared to stall in the polling.

i mean....let's look at edwards. he has attacked and attacked and attacked my girl. especially on lobbyist money. but as holly bailey of newsweek points out: "well, he's been saying this for months and it hasn't helped him in the numbers, poll-wise."

true, holly. so true.

so what does obama hope to gain? will this not turn off his NPR-listening supporters? is it too "politics as usual" for his crowd?

and will edwards possibly start attacking obama to try and take his legs out from underneath him? why shouldn't he go after both candidates leading him in the polls?

or will tonight be another all-against-one with everyone teaming up against hillary?

the media is practically begging for obama to attack hillary and draw blood? but will he ever land a real body blow?

and with that..... let's get to the game!

democratic debate drinking game rules

you may want to go ahead and call in sick for tomorrow now. i doubt tonight will be pretty. it's the first real debate everyone will be paying attention to and the candidates should be pulling out their full arsenal.

after all, only 65 days until iowa.

okay....once each person has picked their candidate... they must take a drink whenever the candidate uses any of the following words or phrases. it's that simple. your candidate utters these words, you chug my lovelies.

lets play!

hillary clinton: "leadership," "experience" or "girl."

any of these words....you drink, my fellow hillary supporters.

barack obama: "judgement" or any reference to hillary's vote on iraq or iran.

hell, you could probably get sloshed on the word "judgement" alone.

john edwards: "coal mine," "lobbyist" or any direct attack on hillary.

again...at the rate he's going: you could just go with "lobbyist."

bill richardson: "governor" or "as a governor i've done it."

or any discussion that "change and experience" come as a package with him. it might be fun to drink anytime he looks confused, as well.

joe biden: "truth" or "honest" (as in, "let's be honest" or "let me tell you the truth.")

you can also play for any time he goes off on troops dying and how he'll never vote to cut off funding as long as one american soldier is on the ground in iraq. you could also play with any mention of "body armor."

chris dodd: "here."

if you've ever heard the connecticut senator talk...trust me: you can get drunk simply playing with the word "here." the man uses it like punctuation. listen closely. you could get drunk after one answer from senator dodd when he's really worked up.

dennis kucinich: any time he finishes an answer with "that's what you'll get with a kucinich administration. thank you."

or any time he makes a joke about finally getting a question.

mike gravel: "follow the money."

and really...any time he goes off on some unintelligible answer....just drink. if you're voting for gravel, you're probably drunk anyway.

once the debate is over...you argue over who won. by now you should be well tanked so it should be a lot of fun. whoever is the last person standing or not in tears... wins!

enjoy.... and please: don't drink and drive.

leave that up to the cast of 'lost.'

e.

Post Vacation Catch-Up

it was not an easy ten days, my lovelies.... little time for news. no time to blog. my parents still have dial-up, for chrissakes.

but i'm back.... and there's a shitload to talk about. where to begin?

the grand ole party hates black people

or they at least have written them off as being worthy of inclusion. only 6 out of the ten GOP contenders for president bothered to show up at the tavis smiley forum on minority issues the other week. the top four contenders were those absent: giuliani, romney, thompson and mccain. they all claim scheduling conflicts.

but as buchanan pointed out... african american voters only make up ten percent of the electorate. only about 10% of that 10% vote republican. so why show up?

it's just insulting all around............. and embarrassing all around to the GOP. shit, even bush spoke out about it. and we know he doesn't care about black people. just ask kanye west.

what's most surprising in this....despite pat's reasoning..... bush won ohio in 2004 in large part because of the 16% african american vote he carried. that 16% won him the election.

who is running these campaigns? at least attempt to be competitive.

"well, he's not standing here"

perhaps the best moment during last wednesday's democratic debate in new hampshire came when that ole rascal tim russert surprised hillary with a quote from her hubby bill about a possible exception to using torture. she answered per her convictions. when russert revealed the speaker of the quote, hillary's response:

"well, he's not standing here right now."

"so there's a disagreement?" russert pressed.

"well...." hillary demured. "i'll talk to him later."

it was a beautiful moment and the one most discussed from the debate. my only concern for hillary: she needs to start being more direct in her answers. people are starting to really take notice and you can only dance around topics so long. i know she's afraid of pigeon-holing herself before the general election.... but people are tired of non-answers. we get enough of that from republicans.

giving props where props are due

i know john "hope is on the way" edwards has become my favorite punching bag as of late... but he did have a brilliant moment on wednesday. when discussing hillary's vote to list the iranian military as a terrorist entity (why the FUCK did you do that, hill?), johnny boy talked about the danger of conceding any territory to bush that might lead to more possible conflicts in the future.

quoting edwards:

we learned a very different lesson from that. ... what I learned in my vote on iraq was you cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted.

amen, and bravo.

january 1, 2013

not one of the three front runners in the democratic field would promise to have all combat troops out of iraq by january 1, 2013 (the start of their second term). kiddies, i'm afraid we're in it for the long haul.

third quarter dollars

for the first time, senator clinton has out raised superstar barack obama. with estimated third quarter earnings being reported this week, obama raised $19 million in primary cash. a very impressive number.

hillary raised $22 million.

for the first time ever, hillary's individual number of new donors also topped obama's.

up, up and away........

on the GOP side, well, it's pretty pathetic really:

flip flop romney raised $10 million. "i spent more time at ground zero" giuliani raised $9 million. and fizzlin' out fred thompson raised only $8 million in his first quarter of official fundraising. mccain only raised $5 million.

perhaps the biggest surprise? texan congressman and all around anarchist ron paul raised $3 million. that is more than other, considered more serious candidates: biden, dodd and huckabee.

great obama quote

again...in the spirit of giving props where props are due:

some now seek to rewrite history. they argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors. or they were voting for diplomacy... you need to ask those who voted for the war how can you give the president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?"

it's a great quote... but why is he so hesitant to name clinton by name? or even edwards? he's real tough on the campaign trail... but then sits on the back burner during debates. it's possible obama's campaign of hope has limited what he can do in terms of attacking other democratic candidates and really distinguishing himself from the rest of the field.

i know the attacks have hurt edwards.... and you have to be careful with them. but at some point - he needs to be more forceful if he wants to take this thing.

the forgotten war

the media is reporting that overall violent attacks in iraq were down in the month of september. violent attacks are up 20% in afghanistan. the highest since the war began.

just thought you should know....

$190 billion

the bush administration has asked congress for another $190 billion for the iraq war.

wow.

a new abc/washington post poll asked if congress should approve this latest request? 27% said yes. an overwhelming 67% of americans think they should not.

the poll also asks the all important job approval ratings.

while bush's approval rating stands at 33% (equal to its lowest point in this poll), congress continues to bottom out with an approval rating of only 29%.

what's behind this number? 55% of respondents feel the democrats in congress have not gone far enough in opposing the war.

i've heard a lot of talk about democrats wanting leaders in washington. they may or may not understand that the dems do not have enough votes to end the war.... but at least lead the discussion. bob herbert of the ny times said it was time for the democrats to stand up. he describes the dems as a "timid party."

make some noise, nancy and harry! hold votes. make the GOP accountable. do something. anything. just show us you're trying and you understand our frustration.

don't just make calls to clear channel. which brings us to....

comedian rush limbaugh

to steal a title from keith olbermann. ole blow hard limbaugh is in a heap of trouble after he called iraqi war vets who have returned to speak out against the war "phony soldiers."

and before anyone wants to defend rush... if there's nothing wrong with what he said - why did he edit out the phrase before it was rebroadcast on armed forces radio? as general wesley clark said: "he knew he made a mistake."

don't attack the soldiers, rush.... your party doesn't like it. nobody likes it. have we learned nothing from "nappy, headed hos"?

what really amazes me is watching the pundits dance around the question of "phony soldiers" vs. "general patraeus or general betray us."

that uber-dunce heidi harris made the comment that she's upset harry reid would take time on the floor of the senate to condemn limbaugh's comments. that she pays for that time....

well..... what about john cornyn and moveon.org? he introduced a goddamn senate resolution to condemn the patraeus ad.

of course....ask a democrat if what limbaugh said is wrong in attacking a soldier... was the moveon ad wrong in attacking an acting general. dems dance pretty well, too.

in the spirit of nonpartisanship. which i think is bullshit - but there ya go.

as ted rall once wrote.... we don't vote in candidates to be bipartisan. we vote in people because they hold our views and we want them to fight for them.

iowa

newsweek has some interesting poll numbers out. we'll take them one party at a time.

2008 iowa causus - republicans

all republican voters break down as follows: romney 25%, thompson 16%, giuliani 15%, mccain 7% (my, how the mighty have fallen) and huckabee 6%.

of likely caucus voters: romney 24%, thompson 16%, giuliani 13%, mccain 9% and huckabee tops mccain at 12%.

dan balz of the washington post describes any type of support for a republican candidate in iowa as "soft." he also agrees with me that there's an interesting potential for huckabee in iowa. a lot of people reference the high howard dean numbers before he bombed out in iowa and want to make that argument for the dems. but why not the republicans? could huckabee be the spoiler? he performs very well in debates. he's a true christian conservative and thompson has not skyrocketed as people had hoped. he also scored very high in the straw poll.

however....having said all this. i'm about ready to put my GOP prediction in print. i think it will be romney for president. but i'm not ready to quite stand by that statement 100%. not quite yet.

pat buchanan thinks somebody will have to take down romney and only rudy will have the cash to do it. thompson's only shot it in south carolina. if he doesn't win there - he's out.

2008 iowa causus - democrats

the breakdown for all democratic voters have clinton leading at 31% with obama at 25%, edwards at 21% and richardson bringing up the rear at 6%.

funny side story: my dad decided not to watch the debate last wednesday... not the majority of it, anyway. when i told him that richardson continued to make his grand, verbal mistakes and referred to barack obama as the "n" word.... i thought he had ignored me. but no.... he believed me. just goes to show what a verbal fuckup richardson can be. even a richardson supporter thought he was dumb enough to use the "n" word. ugh....

likely caucus voters is much more interesting. clinton drops to 24%. obama wins at 28%. edward remains steady at about 22% and richardson rises to 10%.

it's really interesting that obama leads with likely voters. as i've said several times before: iowa is the basket edwards has placed all his eggs. if he doesn't win iowa - he's out. but could obama win?

balz made an interesting point that bill clinton never had to run in iowa in 1992. harkin was running for president so everyone skipped the iowa caucus. so the clintons never really developed a network in iowa the way they did in new hampshire. and, according to balz, there's not a great affection for hillary in iowa the way there is in n.h.

david gregory of nbc news says "this should really show people that this is still a race and not hillary clinton running away with it."

yes....she is WAAAAAAAAY ahead in all national polls. (by the way - she's polling way ahead of the entire race in arkansas - dems and republicans alike. even against arkansas governor huckabee.) but you have to win those early states.

which brings us to.....

meet the press quote of the week

yes, yes...... i have been neglectful of my meet the press. two sundays ago - too busy in chicago. the sunday before that... prepping for my vacation.

but i return with a surprising choice. i never thought i'd see the day i would quote this gentleman, but i already have once or twice in this entry... so why not give him the grand honor?

i can't stand the man's politics.... but there's no arguing his political savvy.

this week's quote comes from former GOP candidate for president and current msnbc pundit, pat buchanan. allow me to preface this with his belief...and i tend to agree.... that obama has to win iowa or it's over. apparently, he agrees with michelle on this one. i would argue that edwards is in the same boat. says pat:

if hillary wins [iowa], she rolls right through new hampshire and the game is over. hillary is in the finals. these two are fighting to get into the semifinals, or get into the finals. and i don't think edwards, if he wins, can go the distance. i do think obama can go the distance but he can't get beat in iowa.

what's happened to my texans?

i know they're riddled with injuries.... ahman green is out. andre johnson is out.... but we looked like shit on sunday against atlanta. we lost to an 0-3 team! this week... we face miami. an 0-4 team.

please don't let the texans give miami their first W.

i hope our injured players are back.... and our defense can regain their mojo. the once hopeful playoff dreams are quickly fading from my friends (and from me). show us you got what it takes......

besides.....my dad's team is 4-0. i can't take his cowboys winning much longer. he gloats.

my boyfriend

by the way.... jake is hurt in carolina so david carr started for him on sunday. three sacks. lost the game.

come to mamele. i'll make it all better......

e.

Schoolin' Obama (and the others)

did you guys see the CNN/youtube debate last night? there was some serious schoolin' goin' on by my hillary. she is just so much more polished and knowledgeable than the other candidates.

don't get me wrong... i adore my democratic field. i read 'the audacity of hope' and i really like obama. and i love that he's getting people excited. i've been a longtime fan of biden.... and back in 2004 i was telling my friend about richardson. "we need a governor," i said. "there's this great guy that's the governor of new mexico that i like a lot."

but i'm crazy-silly about hillary. my hand to the god i don't believe in - she makes me cry i get so excited about her.

so i've been reading all the post debate analysis and the general consensus is that hillary won. (except roger simon of politico who's "accurate to three decimal places" scoring system puts edwards ahead of hillary just slightly.)

the minute-by-minute analysis by cnn had this to say about what i found to be the standout answer of the evening:

Obama promises to meet Castro, Chavez, Kim and other dictators in his first year in office.

Clinton refuses to promise, and takes the opportunity to school him:

"It is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level until you know what the intentions are ... I do not want to be used for propaganda purposes," she says. "We’re not just going to have our president meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez ... until we know what the way forward would be."

and on the question of whether anyone has a problem with 24 years (if hillary is elected) of bush/clinton/bush/clinton? hillary's response:

"I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000. I actually thought somebody else was elected in that election. Of course I am running on my own merits, but I’m very proud of my husband’s record as President of the United States."

love her....

now, i thought edwards' youtube video was the best. you can watch it hair, i mean here, if you missed it: http://johnedwards.com/watch/hair/

brilliant, really.

i greatly admire biden's honesty. he is speaking the truth - as much as the far left is craving red meat and immediate withdrawal. biden knows his shit and ain't afriad of no smackdown. hell, he called a gun-toting nut out on national television! of course, we all know biden's hoping for a secretary of state post under a clinton presidency. i'm all for it!

gravel.....bless him..... he's just too much fun. but what a kook! great for a laugh, but we gotta get him out of future debates. (does that sound bad...?)

i could probably go on and on..... but i think i'll stop here. i mean, i'm supposed to be working, ya know.

peace.

e.