tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37963992024-02-28T10:40:57.978-08:00The Facts Machine"And I come back to you now, at the turn of the tide"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3306125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-5966766410145615712008-10-15T20:00:00.001-07:002008-10-15T20:03:18.909-07:00CBS PollUncommitteds believe Obama won the debate by a <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/15/politics/horserace/entry4525171.shtml">53-22</a> margin.<br /><br />UPDATE: CNN has it Obama 58%, McCain 31%Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-50612599834391796642008-10-15T17:48:00.001-07:002008-10-15T19:41:06.056-07:00Live-blogging tonight's debateI usually spend these debates watching them, while following various live-blogs of them. This time, I'm gonna take a crack at it.<br /><br />PRE-GAME... All Obama needs to do here is run out the clock, keep it consistent, sound knowledgeable and reassuring, etc. Basically, do exactly what he's done in the first two debates. He will hammer McCain on policy no doubt, but anything he uses against McCain besides that will most likely be in response to whatever McCain brings up. And that's where the drama is.<br /><br />McCain still needs that "game-changer". He didn't get it in the first debate: repeatedly saying Obama "doesn't understand", followed by repeated instances of Obama responding to questions as if he <i>clearly</i> understood the issues at hand, didn't work. He didn't get it in the second debate: Obama was equally unflappable, and McCain looked conspicuously unpresidential with his "that one" comment. Sooo here? We can look forward to McCain possibly invoking some of the trumped-up Obama bogeymen: Ayers, Rezko, ACORN and, though highly unlikely, Wright. Problem is, three of those four things were thoroughly pored over by reporters during the Primary campaign, and McCain is as closely related to ACORN as Obama is. (watch for McCain to lie that ACORN is about "voter fraud", a serious crime, when the actual issue is "voter registration fraud", a substantially less dire issue)<br /><br />The reason he's gonna bring up that stuff is, well, Obama/Biden have baited him to do so, and he's a proud, proud man. He might look bad bringing that stuff up. McCain's hope, then, is that the moderator, Bob Schieffer, brings it up for him. Which he might. We'll see...<br /><br />6:00 Hofstra University. In Hempstead, NY. I used to live on Hempstead Avenue. In Goleta, but it was still Hempstead!<br /><br />6:02 Please let Schieffer not be such as horrible a stickler for the rules as Brokaw was last week.<br /><br />6:03 A friendly welcome, with niceties exchanged. How far we've come.<br /><br />6:05 "Fannie & Freddie Mae". Oops.<br /><br />6:06 McCain going on about his government-buy-mortgages plan, the one he didn't consult with his advisers about before announcing in the second debate. Please keep talking about it, since nobody likes it.<br /><br />6:07 McCain did not mention the words "middle class" in his response to the economic-plan question. Obama has jumped on this, good.<br /><br />6:10 The use of the phrase "small business" in political discourse can include so many things, but the vast, vast majority of small businesses do not fall into the Republican fantasy of what they really are, and thus the vast majority of them won't see their taxes increase under Obama's plan. By the way, if you had "Joe the plumber" in your drinking game, you are probably on the floor by now.<br /><br />6:18 There's the "across the board spending freeze" again. One of those phrases that sounds good but means nothing. He has identified, in interviews, minor programs he wouldn't cut, so if they're on the bottom end of the priority list of things he wouldn't freeze spending on, it's a meaningless idea.<br /><br />6:19 Line-item veto? Wasn't that deemed unconstitutional after the Gingrich congress gave it to Clinton?<br /><br />6:23 Obama is smacking down the $42,000 tax lie. "Even Fox News disputes it."<br /><br />6:26 Here we go. Hahaha the town hall meetings! He wouldn't have had his campaign say "palled around with terrorists?" if they had more debates?<br /><br />6:30 Notice that McCain had a chance to talk about Ayers etc, but didn't do it. First chance: wussed out on. See if he tries it again later.<br /><br />6:33 When given the choice, McCain has chosen to insult some of his own supporters. At a time when his supporters are expecting him to bring up Ayers et al. Whoops!<br /><br />6:40 And there he goes. That was a lot of bullshit in 4 minutes. I could have watched that new Britney video instead. Nothing big though, nothing but the vague bullet-points of McCain's ads.<br /><br />6:42 And Mr McCain, as your reward for saying the Ayers stuff (sort of) to Obama's face, you shall now be subjected to 2 minutes of trying to explain why Sarah Palin would make a great President! "A breash of freath air"<br /><br />6:45 My sense of the Ayers/Acorn/etc exchange is that McCain wanted to say his one or two bits and then get out of it as fast as he could. He seemed uncomfortable.<br /><br />6:46 If this was a closer race, we would have seen Obama go after McCain's <i>current</i> associations as pertaining to his policy advisers.<br /><br />6:54 Did I just see an eye-roll? I'm pretty sure I just saw an eye-roll from McCain. On the issue of Colombian free trade, no less!<br /><br />6:58 The CNN independent voter dials really love Obama's health care answer. They don't like McCain's, especially the women.<br /><br />7:04 After seriously out-classing McCain on the health care question, Obama gets to watch McCain morph his simple small-business plumber "Joe" into a "rich" man ("congratulations!") to try to defend his taxing of health benefits.<br /><br />7:07 "Supreme Court nominees based on qualifications". But not for VP nominees, John?<br /><br />7:08 Whoa, some mega cognitive dissonance there from McCain. His line about support of Roe V Wade being a disqualifier will make its way into an Obama ad.<br /><br />7:12 Watching the pundits' and the independents' reactions to McCain's abortion attacks in real time is an interesting window into the alternate reality in which cable news personalities seem to live. Also, McCain had essentially nothing to say to Obama's Lily Ledbetter answer. Just a throwaway line of unpresidential snark.<br /><br />7:16 Obama: "Just say no to cavalier sexual behavior". Cough cough Bristol cough cough.<br /><br />7:22 Obama just played the "The Greatest Love Of All" card. (:<br /><br />7:26 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxi8xIeK1II">Yes, it was an eye-roll!</a><br /><br />7:27 Hey closing statements! Last chance!<br /><br />McCain: Serve serve serve record etc.<br /><br />Obama: Middle class sacrifice work for you etc.<br /><br />Nice joke from Bill Bennett just now: "Not since the Nixon years have we hears so much about plumbers".<br /><br />RECAP: McCain had a nice start, but lost the last 60 minutes. Particularly on health care, abortion, education, and pretty much everything after his brief (and quickly aborted) Ayers exchange. As <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/say-it-to-my-face-debate-liveblog-4.html">Nate puts it</a> in the 538 liveblog: "Congratulations, President Obama".Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-28072277416214085532008-10-09T08:29:00.000-07:002008-10-09T08:31:38.142-07:00And the winner is......Ayers web ad!?!?<br /><br />Pathetic.<br /><br />Obama to <a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=5985527">Charlie Gibson yesterday</a>:<blockquote>Well, I am surprised that, you know, we've been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days that he wasn't willing to say it to my face.<br /><br />But I guess we've got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that -- that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate.</blockquote>Somehow, I don't think a web ad helps out McCain very much.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-66028682589881924312008-10-08T21:55:00.000-07:002008-10-08T23:20:35.969-07:00Uh ohThe Troopergate report will be released <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53632.html">on Friday</a>.<br /><br />The McCain campaign will be "<a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/McCain_camp_making_news_in_the_morning.html?showall">making news in the morning</a>" tomorrow.<br /><br />Ruh roh! Incoming distraction stunt!<br /><br />Our options are:<br /><br />-Some big economic proposal. (This is my guess. It's the only thing he might do that would make his former allies in the media re-swoon.)<br /><br />-Some change in his tax plan (Akin to Bob Dole's "I'm giving you money!" ploy in '96)<br /><br />-A one-term pledge. (Not likely. That would be akin to telling voters that he wants Caribou Barbie to be president in no more than 4 years.)<br /><br />-"Barack Obama was a card-carrying member of ___________." (I kinda doubt this. At this point I don't think the McCain people want the big smears coming straight from the candidate himself. All their Ayers insinuating has only helped Obama in recent days.)<br /><br />-An endorsement. (Powell? Not likely. Bloomberg? Dunno. There just aren't that many high-profile undecided political figures out there right now.)<br /><br />-Cabinet announcements. (He'd have to include a center-left person who wasn't Holy Joe.)<br /><br />-The Bristol-Levi wedding date announcement. (Please let this be the one, hahaha)<br /><br />-That Michelle Obama "whitey" video? Ha.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-89033789369610287302008-10-04T22:00:00.000-07:002008-10-04T23:29:35.052-07:00VP Debate review, a couple days lateI think the biggest news on VP debate day, at least pertaining to the race, was the story that the McCain campaign was <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081002/ap_on_el_pr/mccain">pulling out of Michigan</a>. That story broke on Thursday morning, hours before Palin and Biden squared off. The McCain campaign seemingly concluded that no matter what positive effect came out of that night's debate, Michigan -- a swing state for the last several election cycles -- was out of reach.<br /><br />Michigan: epicenter of the "Reagan Democrats".<br /><br />Michigan: where there was supposed to be a large population of white middle-class suburbanites who weren't warming to Obama that quickly.<br /><br />Michigan: where Obama was <i>supposed</i> to have a disadvantage because of the controversy during the Democratic primary season when the state's delegates were not initially seated in full.<br /><br />Michigan: supposedly a test-ground to measure the extent of the so-called "Bradley Effect".<br /><br />All gone, off McCain's radar. So what does this mean? It means the McCain campaign knows that public opinion has turned irrevocably against Sarah Palin, and even the most capable debate performance possible from her wasn't going to change that.<br /><br />And it hasn't.<br /><br />At best, the debate was an absolute wash.<br /><br /><b>Palin</b>: If there was a list of things she had to do to stay afloat, she did all of those, and came across as not a rambling flub-machine. Unfortunately for her, though, she came off as a robotic slogan-machine, retreating to stale McCain/GOP talking points on every single question, regardless of what questions were being asked. "I'm not going to answer your question, I'm going to talk to the American people." But Sarah, this is a debate, the whole point is to answer the questions you're given. And they weren't exactly curveballs (Gwen Ifill kept her questions very simple and straightforward). She reveals herself (haha) as a decent 2nd-tier McCain surrogate, but did nothing to improve her ticket's chances with undecided voters. Of course, there's always <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phqYQS5NO0s">Rich Lowry of <i>National Review</i>, whose take on her performance reeks of KY</a>. Ew. But to quote Homer Simpson, "[She] card read good!"<br /><br /><b>Biden</b>: All he needed to do was not make any major gaffes, and not say anything that could be misconstrued as bullying or sexist regarding his debate opponent. Check and check. One of the things Biden noticed was that Palin was not departing from her scripted talking points during the debate, so he could go after McCain with relative impunity.<br /><br /><b>Key moment of the debate</b>: Biden chokes up a bit when talking about his son and the tragedy that hit his family, and Palin doesn't acknowledge this at all.<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fmruJHMlYCA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fmruJHMlYCA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><b>Impact on polls</b>: Like I said, probably a wash. On to New Hampshire this Tuesday!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-71966576505251281042008-10-03T04:05:00.000-07:002008-10-03T04:06:32.331-07:00Workity work workVP debate recap Friday during the day most likely, been too busy with work this week to blog much, er, at all.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-89315441369855507742008-09-27T00:48:00.000-07:002008-09-27T00:50:18.749-07:00One last linkNate Silver: <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/why-voters-thought-obama-won.html">Why voters thought Obama won tonight</a>.<br /><br />-Obama talked to the voters, McCain talked to the pundits.<br />-Obama 'won' on the issues that matter most to the voters (namely the economy).<br />-Obama closed the readiness and leadership gaps.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-46252034173895078572008-09-26T22:54:00.000-07:002008-09-26T22:56:37.110-07:00Conventional WisdomTwo of the bigger CW-molders from <i>Time</i>, <a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1845114,00.html">Joe Klein</a> and <a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1845106,00.html">Mark Halperin</a>, give the debate to Obama.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-25768230519211838492008-09-26T21:27:00.000-07:002008-09-26T22:49:04.327-07:00First Debate Wrap-upFirst of all, let's all agree that Jim Lehrer did an admirable job as moderator, mostly in a less-is-more fashion. He'd ask a question, then he'd let the candidates pretty much have at it, without butting in with warnings about time limits and so on. My lone complaint, though, was his Russert-ian question about what plans the two candidates would cut back on because of the giant banking bailout. Both candidates believe that all their respective plans are important, and neither was going to admit to making a real commitment to not pursuing something they've claimed to be a high priority to them for months/years, no matter how many times Lehrer pressed the question (4 times). McCain wildly proposed a "spending freeze" gimmick (<a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/spending_freeze.php">a dumb idea</a>), while Obama steered clear of the bait altogether.<br /><br />All the talk on the network wrap-ups as to who "won" the debate, on "points" or whatever (boxing metaphors abound), is somewhat misplaced. The main issue here is with expectations, particularly for Obama. He has the "change" mantle, and people want to vote for him, but his big assignment for tonight's debate -- the foreign policy debate -- was to come across as a credible leader on international issues. Someone who spoke with demonstrable knowledge and expertise on the issues of the world (as opposed to, say, mentioning his home state's proximity to Russia). To do this, he didn't have to 'beat' McCain on what's supposed to be the old man's issue; he merely had to hang with him. And nobody who watched that debate could conceivably argue that Obama didn't do that tonight. In other words, Obama passed that "commander in chief test" Hillary put forth all those months ago during the primary campaign.<br /><br />This was the night McCain was supposed to have a decisive victory, and that simply didn't happen. It doesn't matter if Obama won by a little or McCain won by a little. The only result that would have helped McCain would have been a clear win, or a mega gaffe on Obama's part, and neither of those things happened.<br /><br />I didn't recall any one comment on Obama's part that was hissy-fit-caliber for the right wing echo chamber. I recall the first of the Bush-Kerry debates in 2004; the general consensus was that Kerry won handily that night, but the right-wing media seized on an abstract comment of Kerry's about how America's actions need to pass "the global test", interpreting it literally as some sort of international veto on the American military. I didn't hear anything from Obama's responses tonight that could be isolated like that. Certainly the McCain surrogates I saw on TV after the debate couldn't come up with anything.<br /><br />Except for a stupid video montage of Obama expressing agreement with McCain at various points in the debate, but that's not really anything of importance, given that it was a deliberate disarming rhetorical tactic on Barack's part.<br /><br />(Rachel Maddow, just now, made a good catch on MSNBC: McCain, in an almost throwaway manner -- "sure" -- said that yes, he would vote for the Wall Street bailout)<br /><br />One superficial, but revealing discussion coming up... For those of you who watched the debate on a channel that kept the two candidates on a split-screen -- NBC did this for most of the debate -- you probably saw what I saw. McCain was, for lack of better words, rude and churlish. A variety of pundits noticed that McCain never once looked at Obama through the entire debate. His awkward and disrespectful smirk returned, sometimes coupled with a snicker. Let me put it this way: If Chris Matthews has to ask about McCain, "Do you think he was too troll-like tonight?", that pretty much seals the deal, doesn't it? I think McCain's posture gave us a preview of what we'll soon be seeing on Saturday Night Live.<br /><br />And McCain's repeated talking-point-driven mantra that Obama "doesn't understand" and is "naive" is one of those things that falls apart when the very next thing an uncommitted voter sees is Obama explaining his position on a foreign policy issues in detail, with clear command of the facts and a full recognition of the stakes at hand.<br /><br />Tonight's polls...<br /><br /><a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/cnn_opinion_research_poll.php">CNN: Obama wins on all fronts</a><br /><br /><a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/cbs_news_knowledge_network_und.php">CBS: Obama wins among undecideds</a><br /><br /><a href="http://mediacurves.com/">MediaCurves: Obama wins debate 61-39</a><br /><br />No link, but longtime GOP pollster Frank Luntz's focus group on FoxNews leaned Obama as well.<br /><br />But again, he didn't need to win this debate, he just needed to hold is own, and he did that and then some.<br /><br />LATE THOUGHT: I wonder if the GOP's concerted attempt to ridicule Obama for not being able to talk without a teleprompter might have been the wrong tactic to employ.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-58476096883969016282008-09-26T07:32:00.000-07:002008-09-26T10:50:30.364-07:00Thought of the dayIf McCain does indeed give in and get his butt to Mississippi tonight for the debate, when I think he'll do, then this whole drama was about something else, too:<br /><br />Lowering the expectations for his debate performance to a level somewhere between Earth's mantle and outer core.<br /><br />UPDATE (10:45): Debate back on!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-38020875662087918842008-09-25T11:40:00.000-07:002008-09-25T11:52:27.509-07:00I are serious candidate. This is serious suspenshun.So John McCain is supposed to be Mighty Mouse, coming in to save the day on the bailout plan, which is something <i>only he</i> can do.<br /><br />Yet as of Tuesday (the day before his "suspension"), he <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnsNOEgp-_o">had not yet even read the Paulson bill</a>? It's only three pages long.<br /><br /><img src="http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:SIqEuVkXQv3W2M:http://tvland.classictvhits.com/GilligansIsland/Pics/Gilligan15.JPG"><br /><br /><i>A THREE-PAAAAGE BILLLL</i><br /><br />Like I said, this is about the debates.<br /><br />UPDATE: <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/mccain-campai-2.html">Jake Tapper has more</a> on today's Bush-McCain-Obama meeting:<blockquote><br /><br />The White House's official list of those planning to attend the hastily-convened meeting called by President Bush this afternoon to discuss the Wall Street bailout bill includes a senior policy adviser to the campaign Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Douglas Holtz-Eakin.<br /><br />Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., had been told not to bring any campaign staff. He will be bringing a member of his Senate staff, Ian Solomon, a legislative assistant focused on economic issues.<br /><br />His campaign adviser's presence notwithstanding, McCain announced Wednesday that he was suspending his campaign activities to focus on getting the people's business done.</blockquote>Obama brings a Senate aide, McCain brings a campaign adviser. Remind me who's claiming that their campaign is 'suspended' again?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-83556287369597466432008-09-25T01:32:00.000-07:002008-09-25T02:24:20.374-07:00Chicken?Nate Silver of the invaluable fivethirtyeight.com has <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/remains-of-day.html">a post</a> on McCain's suspension stunt in which he faults McCain for wanting to put off (or even cancel) one or more debates:<blockquote>Let me digress for a moment. One of the reasons I probably turned out to be a Democrat is because of Ronald Reagan and Bugs Bunny. When I was a kid, once every now and then, they had Bugs Bunny specials scheduled for prime time ... I looked forward to these for weeks. But invariably, invariably! -- or so it seemed when I was six years old -- they'd be preempted by Ronald Reagan giving a speech. I was sure what Mr. Reagan was saying was very important ... but I absolutely hated him as a result.<br /><br />Americans feel about the debates they way I felt about Bugs Bunny. The cumulative audience between the three Presidential debates will likely significantly exceed that of the Super Bowl. They like watching them, and look forward to them. If McCain denies them that pleasure, they are likely to be angry with him, perhaps in ways they have difficulty expressing.</blockquote>I will admit, that's about right. I felt the same way about <i>Pee Wee's Playhouse</i> when I was eight years old, and when CBS interrupted it to show live coverage of the Tienamen Square massacre, I was practically in tears. But look at me, now <i>I'm</i> digressing.<br /><br />My problem with this analysis is the following graf:<blockquote>Imagine instead if McCain had called on Obama to return to Washington, and also called on him to meet him at Georgetown University on Friday night for a "civil discussion" (a.k.a. a High Noon showdown) on leading America's economy forward. That could have been brilliant. Obama would probably have had to agree to the change of venue and subject matter. McCain would have needed to follow-through by actually winning the debate, but if he had, that would almost certainly have been a game-changer. But that's not what McCain did.</blockquote>And of course this could have happened... but it's not a matter of what McCain did, it's a matter of <i>who McCain is</i>. The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one, and when you sift through everything that happened today, only one conclusion can be drawn:<br /><br />McCain wanted out of the debates, at least for the time being, and he wanted out at any cost. This was his way of trying to get out of them.<br /><br />Yes, some of this move was about attempting to "white knight" the Congress on the big banking bailout (ahh, <a href="http://www.samefacts.com/archives/john_mccain_/2008/09/malignant_narcissism.php">malignant narcissism</a>), but in the eyes of the campaign that was little more than a potentially positive by-product of his greater need. The economy itself -- something he has repeatedly confessed he "doesn't understand as well as [he] should" -- was little more than a useful circumstance to help him try to accomplish his wussification.<br /><br />McCain and his people made a calculation very similar to the one that produced Caribou Barbie: Running Mate.<br /><br />Status Quo: 100% odds of losing by 2-5%<br />Do Something Crazy: 90% odds of losing by 6-10%, but 10% odds of somehow pulling it out.<br /><br />It was this calculation that gave us Sarah Palin, which looks pretty dumb now -- did you hear about <a href="http://www.google.com/blogsearch?as_epq=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014870.php">her interview with Couric</a>? -- but people could understand why he picked her from a political standpoint at the time.<br /><br />What's absolutely startling about today was that McCain and his campaign decided that the status quo of the rest of the race meant certain defeat, and this included <i>holding a debate</i>, which are supposed to be his chance to change the game, put the young and inexperienced Obama on his heels.<br /><br />But nope, that's not what happened. Instead we have McCain concluding that any debate right now is a huge political loser for him. If his people felt confident that he could best, or even hold is own with, Obama in a debate setting, today's events would not have occurred.<br /><br />And you can't really blame them, can you? McCain has been on a different side of the economic crisis issue every day since Lehman's collapse. (First he said the economy was still strong, then he called for a commission, then he called for the firing of the SEC head, then he suddenly became a pro-regulation populist, and now we have today's silliness) McCain's actions do not suggest either the seriousness or readiness required to support his own position in verbal sparring. On the latter issue, remember a couple a days ago, McCain was railing against the so-called "golden parachute" severance packages received by disgraced CEO's, but when confronted with a question about the $42-million parting gift his top economic advisor, Carly Fiorina, received when she was booted by Hewlett Packard, the Senator's response was essentially a non-response, as if he had <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/mccain-defends-fiorinas-g_n_128277.html">no idea that this ever occurred</a>.<blockquote>McCAIN: I don't think so. ... Because I think she did a good job as CEO in many respects. I don't know the details of her compensation package. But she's one of many advisers that I have.<br /><br />Q: But she did get a $45 million dollar golden parachute after being fired while 20,000 of her employees were laid off.<br /><br />McCAIN: I have many of the people, but I do not know the details of what happened.</blockquote>This could have come up in a debate about the economy. It seems like the simplest thing to prepare for, the most obvious question that could be posed to McCain were he to take a strong stance against giant severance packages for CEO's. Couple this episode with McCain's recent confusions in areas ranging from Iran's relationship with Al Qaeda to what continent Spain is on, and the reasons why the McCain campaign is chickening out of the debates begin to come into focus.<br /><br />And as an added bonus, this could give McCain an out for the one person who could perform worse in a debate environment than him: <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/24/mccain-camp-to-propose-postponing-vp-debate/">Sarah Palin</a>.<br /><br />He'll have to come around though. America likes debates, America wants them. We just need to find someone to perform the Heimlich Maneuver on McCain's dog, so the candidate can have his homework back.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-60977614780355566822008-09-24T13:34:00.000-07:002008-09-24T13:38:26.831-07:00We now have an answerA massive Wall Street crisis, and an equally-massive bailout proposal, are what it takes to get John McCain to actually consider doing his day job for the first time since <i>April</i>.<br /><br />Well, that, and <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/24/post_poll_shows_challenge_for.html">today's</a> <a href="http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/24/fox-news-poll-obama-reclaims-lead-over-mccain-45-to-39/">polls</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-20333669378785352592008-09-21T00:29:00.000-07:002008-09-21T00:41:16.980-07:00Dispatch from Bizarro WorldA piece from Associated Press writer Charles Babington, released Saturday:<blockquote><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/20/politics/p080401D41.DTL">Obama looks to regain momentum in debate series</a><br /><br />For Democrat Barack Obama, the three presidential debates that begin Friday are a chance to halt John McCain's momentum, re-establish his image as a refreshing political force and make his case against a third straight Republican presidential term.<br /><br />For McCain, they provide an opportunity to reinforce voters' doubts about Obama's experience and readiness, and to demonstrate that he's still on top of his game at age 72.<br /><br />With polls showing the race tight, and the debates expected to draw millions of TV viewers, they could tip the balance on Nov. 4.</blockquote>Now I understand that the wire services put out bland "expectations" stories in advance of major events in the campaign (the debates, in this case). But nowhere in this article is there any hint of what has transpired in the past week (the bank failures, the government bailouts, McCain's streak of telling gaffes on the economy, the precipitous decline of Sarah Palin's favorability ratings in the polls, and the steep increase in Obama's standing in the polls vis-a-vis McCain). Surely being in the middle of the largest financial crisis in America in a generation (perhaps longer?) would serve to alter the dynamic of the campaign somewhat?<br /><br />This article could've been written last week. Hell, it might've been. I'll score this as "lazy" over "mendacious".<br /><br />Still, the "expectations" tidbits in the article are very telling:<blockquote>Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican who backs McCain, agrees that Obama carries a heavier burden. Obama has not been on the national stage as long as his opponent, Thune said, and voters have a flimsier grasp of who he is.<br /><br />"Obama really has to score a punch," Thune said. "He hasn't closed the deal with a lot of American people."<br /><br />Thune thinks McCain may benefit from low expectations, because Obama is seen as a great orator, a skill that some voters might associate with televised presidential forums even if the comparison is questionable.<br /><br />Obama's less-than-overwhelming performances against Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democrats during the primary season showed that <b>the format "was not his strength," Thune said. On the other hand, he said, McCain "is wily, he's effective, he carries questions well," and may exceed many viewers' expectations.</b></blockquote>Emphasis mine. Uh, John? I wonder if you have it backwards. Isn't the idea of massaging expectations to scale back those or your own candidate and inflate those of your opponent?<br /><br />Add that to the phenomenon of Republicans and their ilk frequently <a href="http://rightfromtheright.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-teleprompter-hits-trail.html">mocking Obama for supposedly being teleprompter-dependent</a>, and you wonder if these people have any plan at all.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-40898000965556063442008-09-19T15:45:00.000-07:002008-09-19T16:09:50.940-07:00One-Stop Shopping FridayToday's campaign news roundup:<br /><br />--Obama says in a speech today that McCain's attempts to blame him for the current Wall Street meltdown are <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_Panicked_McCains_solution_is_to_blame_me_for_it.html?showall">are signs that McCain is "panicking"</a>. Funny, I thought his panicking started on the morning of August 29th, when he threw out his entire campaign's message by putting Pain on the ticket. Note that he's trying to <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014799.php">revive</a> his "country first" message, but at this point how could such a concept, when ascribed to his actions in the last two weeks, not do anything other than collapse under the weight of its own inanity?<br /><br />--Obama gets <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bAl3UvDwlY">buzzed</a>.<br /><br />--Sarah Palin frequently makes the claim on the stump that, while mayor of Wasilla, she took a pay cut. The numbers, though? <a href="http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/confirmed_palins_pay_as_mayor.php">They tell a different story</a>.<br /><br />--California's Proposition 8, the Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, is now <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/18/BATM12VSRA.DTL">trailing in the polls by a 55-38 margin</a>. The Mormons are going <a href="http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6966">all-in</a> on this one, it appears. I know some of you out there are living in swing states but originally hail from California. It's a tough call on this one, but either choice of where you want to be registered seems like a wise one.<br /><br />And two quotes to mull over.<br /><br /><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/19/mccain-hannity-energy/">John McCain, Wednesday, on Sarah Palin's experience with energy</a>:<blockquote>MCCAIN: Hahahaha, you know, that’s what happens when you throw two mavericks together. So, I’d, listen, I, she, you know, we talk about experience. What’s one of the major, if not the major challenge to America? Energy independence. <b>Who knows more about energy than the governor of the state that provides 20% of America’s energy requirements?</b></blockquote><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/09/palin_without_a_prompterpart_7.html">Sarah Palin, Thursday, on energy</a>:<blockquote>"Of course, it's a fungible commodity and they don't flag, you know, the molecules, where it's going and where it's not. But in the sense of the Congress today, they know that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first. So, I believe that what Congress is going to do also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it's Americans who get stuck holding the bag without the energy source that is produced here, pumped here. It's got to flow into our domestic markets first."</blockquote>Wizzle wazzle?<br /><br />Click the link above to see the full CNN video, including Wolf Blitzer's attempts to interpret what he just heard. And hey, Palin got herself a <a href="http://sarahmolecules.ytmnd.com/">YTMND page</a> out of it!<br /><br />(And by the way, that "Alaska provides 20% of our energy" claim? <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html">Not by a longshot</a>.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-78966579754436456992008-09-17T10:04:00.001-07:002008-09-17T10:06:22.429-07:00PollThe Gallup daily tracking poll goes from McCain +5 to Obama +2 <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/110446/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-45.aspx">in six days</a>.<br /><br />As I said before, if Obama is doing any better than behind by 2% when the debates begin, he wins in a landslide.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-35352462109389614512008-09-16T01:22:00.000-07:002008-09-16T02:42:57.595-07:00Late-Night Link Dump--Sarah Palin <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26727937/">will not meet with investigators</a>, as she had promised, as part of the 'Troopergate' investigation (she pressured the Public Safety Commissioner to fire a trooper who was in a custody battle with his ex-wife, Palin's sister, and when the Commish didn't fire the trooper, Palin fired the Commish). Note that this announcement comes from a McCain campaign spokesman, not someone of Palin's. This reminds me of that time a couple months ago when the US Army trotted out Iraqi PM Maliki's spokesperson and had him <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/19/224359/002/167/554100">pretend that Maliki didn't express support for Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan</a>. Hmm, doesn't seem that honest to me! As Olbermann <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/mccain-campaign-says-palin-wont-talk-to-troopergate-investigator/">put it</a> earlier tonight, “It is like installing a giant neon sign over her head saying, ‘I’m hiding something.’”<br /><br />--This whole McCain-is-a-liar thing is catching on! Even the insufferable longtime McCain suckup <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html?hpid=opinionsbox1">Richard Cohen</a> of the <i>Washington Post</i> has turned on him. Ouch.<br /><br />--Like I said, catching on: The DNC has put together <a href="http://www.mccainpedia.org/index.php/Count_the_Lies">a one-stop warehouse of McCain's lies debunked</a>. (h/t ae)<br /><br />--David Brooks <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin">writes a column</a> causing me to simultaneously pat him on the back for valuing prudence over lipstick and want to gag myself for his almost epidemic need to classify people. (almost?)<br /><br />--I'll leave it to others <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/opinion/15krugman.html?em">much more qualified than I</a> to sift through the wreckage of this week's banking implosions, but the obvious silver lining here is that maybe -- just maybe! -- this will shift both the campaign, and more importantly the <i>coverage</i> of the campaign, back toward the issues, particularly the economy, certainly not where Mr. "I don't understand the economy as well as I should" wants it to be. Especially since top McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9718_mccain_lehman_crisis_gramm.html">played a central role</a> in enacting the deregulations that allowed the mortgage crisis and banking implosions to occur in the first place. And <i>they're</i> the ones who are supposed to <i>reform</i> the economy? If you believe that, I've got a Bridge to... er, <i>Somewhere</i> to sell you.<br /><br />--One last Palin link, then I'm off the Mooseburger beat for a couple days.<br /><br />Sarah Palin: "<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index1.html">All babies want to get borned! All babies want to get borned!</a>"Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-76451009123761243662008-09-13T22:15:00.001-07:002008-09-13T22:46:17.222-07:00Palin takes lying to a whole new levelPalin tells her "Bridge to Nowhere" lie <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lies-nowhere/">over 30 times</a>, then gets called on it during Charlie Gibson's interview and has no choice but to <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014697.php">backtrack a bit</a>. As I blogged about yesterday, she left it out of the speech she gave yesterday in Alaska.<br /><br />Today she returned to the campaign trail in the Lower 48, in Carson City, Nevada... and she <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/13/1394679.aspx">brought the lie right back</a>!<blockquote>CARSON CITY, Nev. -- In her first solo campaign rally outside of Alaska, Gov. Sarah Palin drew an enthusiastic crowd at the Pony Express Pavilion Saturday and returned to a familiar refrain about the “Bridge to Nowhere.”<br /><br />Palin has come under fire in recent days for misleadingly saying she told Congress “thanks but no thanks,” refusing an earmark for a bridge to a sparsely inhabited island in her home state. Independent groups and media fact-checkers have said Palin advocated for the federal earmark before opposing it, only ended after Congress had essentially killed it, and kept the $223 million for the appropriation after the project was killed.<br /><br />Palin had cut the refrain from her speech during her three-day visit to Alaska. But she came back to it today, citing it as an example of earmark reform she and McCain would push for in the White House.<br /><br />“I told Congress thanks but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere -- that if our state wanted to build that bridge, we would build it ourselves," she said.</blockquote>Unbelievable. What does this say about her character?<br /><br />UPDATE: Ooh, extra super bonus lie from Nevada's Lt Governor, who was at the rally:<blockquote>Nevada Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki said on stage that 10,000 people were in the crowd, but parks officials said the pavilion held only 3,500 people.</blockquote>This is <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics">not an isolated incident</a> for the McCain types.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-67586005563467271892008-09-12T19:31:00.000-07:002008-09-12T19:38:37.526-07:00I'll believe it in the Lower 48From the <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/palin-drops-bridge-to-nowhere-reference-in-new-speeches/">NY Times</a>:<blockquote>In speech after speech to crowds in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia in recent days, Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for vice president, has made sure to mention the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, the Alaska project that has become the symbol of earmarks, and what she portrays as her “thanks but no thanks” position on it.<br /><br />When she landed in Fairbanks in her home state on Wednesday night, though, the bridge was notably absent from an (otherwise mostly similar) speech she made inside an airplane hangar before her homestate crowd.<br /><br />(...)<br /><br />On Thursday, a campaign aide said Governor Palin’s decision not to mention the so-called Bridge to Nowhere as she was welcomed home inside the hangar here had no broader significance. Governor Palin had changed other elements of her speech here too, the aide said, in the interest of time. Whether she returns to the theme outside Alaska remains to be seen.</blockquote>Let's make this simple: Palin wouldn't say her "thanks but no thanks" line in Alaska because they already know it's bullshit, since her support for the Bridge To Nowhere was <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm">a major plank of her 2006 gubernatorial campaign</a>.<br /><br />Her incessant lying about the Bridge was (and will continue to be?) aimed at all of us here in the Continental USA. The test is when she comes back here and does her rallies with McCain. And frankly, I wouldn't put it past her.<br /><br />(Speaking of rallies, have you noticed that ever since McCain tapped Palin to be his running mate, suddenly being a popular celebrity is a <i>good</i> thing again? Oy)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-2980814970017108522008-09-12T15:58:00.001-07:002008-09-12T15:59:37.022-07:00Planned Parenthood gives McCain a spanking<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sGBa-4ufCFg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sGBa-4ufCFg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />I'd like to see the phrase "say anything to get elected" worked into the ads of the Democratic ticket itself in the near future.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-72095661828487879892008-09-12T14:55:00.000-07:002008-09-12T15:51:37.656-07:00Stop worrying, Obama supporters!Democrats can be such drama queens sometimes!<br /><br />What have we seen these last couple months?<br /><br />Obama wins series of primaries in late Winter, early Spring, polls go up.<br /><br /><b>Democrats</b>: Cool!<br /><br />Obama plays defense as media goes on and on about Reverend Wright, etc.<br /><br /><b>Democrats</b>: What's wrong with this guy, why doesn't he assert himself?<br /><br />Obama wins primary campaign, gets lots of coverage, polls go up.<br /><br /><b>Democrats</b>: Yay! He's going to win! I can finally relax for once in a campaign.<br /><br />McCain campaign throws a bunch of trivial crap at Obama, Obama plays defense, polls go down.<br /><br /><b>Democrats</b>: Omigod he's gonna looz! This is Kerry/Gore/Dukakis all over again!<br /><br />Obama delivers DNC acceptance speech, polls go up.<br /><br /><b>Democrats</b>: Wow! That was inspiring and surprisingly full of policy details too! I can finally relax for once in a campaign.<br /><br />McCain campaign, now armed with an unqualified governor from Alaska, throws a bunch more trivial crap at Obama, Obama plays defense, polls go down.<br /><br /><b>Democrats</b>: Omigod he's <i>really</i> gonna looz! This is Kerry/Gore/Dukakis all over again! Hell, Mondale too!<br /><br />...<br /><br />Guys. Relax. Have some dip.<br /><br />Fast forward a few weeks...<br /><br />Obama debates McCain, shifts discussion to issues, polls go up.<br /><br /><b>Democrats</b>: He's going to win! I can finally, finally, finally relax for once in a campaign.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Look, it's simple. When the American people hear Obama talk, without a filter, they support him. When the American people are talking about the issues that matter to people, rather than stupid sideshow drivel, they support Obama.<br /><br />Those two elements will converge in the upcoming slate of Presidential debates.<br /><br />In 2004, John Kerry's support <a href="http://election.princeton.edu/2008/09/12/watching-the-next-wave-break/#more-1033">grew substantially</a> after the debates, and the only reason he didn't win then was because he was starting from a lower level of support before those debates. The worst it will be for Obama is behind by 1-2 percent.<br /><br /><i>Now</i> do you see why McCain is throwing not only the kitchen sink, but <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_stretching_the_truth">a kitchen sink backed up with sewage</a>, at team Obama?<br /><br />McCain knows that he's going to start losing ground in a hurry once the debate season kicks in. And if the best he can do right now is pull to a tie, or maybe the slightest of leads, then he is going to find himself making a call of congratulations to the Senator from Illinois on November 4th.<br /><br />So stop worrying, Obama supporters!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-35209044115757489752008-09-12T12:26:00.000-07:002008-09-12T20:13:19.608-07:00Palin & the "Bush Doctrine" (UPDATED)<img src="http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080911/i/r3456729158.jpg?x=400&y=268&q=85&sig=lmQrfl4nROj4ba0NSqrH2A--"><br /><br />Look, it's not as much that Sarah Palin <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/11/palin-gibson-bushdoctrine/">clearly didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was</a> when asked a simple, straightforward question about it <i>per se</i>. It's deeper than that.<br /><br />The point is that Sarah Palin lacks a greater personal context in terms of understanding the world, and this makes her unqualified to be vice president, or president god forbid.<br /><br />Go to any university and ask any senior in its political science department about the Bush Doctrine, and they will A) know what you're talking about and B) have a stance on it. They have a basic level of background knowledge about the general foreign policy narrative of the last decade. They know that the run-up to the Iraq War included a discussion of preemptive war (striking a nation when there's an imminent threat) and preventive war (striking a nation before they could become an imminent threat). The former has been part of our foreign policy framework for a long time, but the latter is what Bush promoted in those heady days of 2002-3. This is interesting because Charlie Gibson got it a little wrong himself, thinking the doctrine was more preemptive than preventive.<br /><br />But that's beside the point, which is that Palin had zero idea of the nature of this discussion at all until Gibson spelled it out for her. And that's unacceptable.<br /><br />It's not enough to have a week's worth of cram sessions with McCain's neocon advisers, Joe Lieberman, etc. There has to be something beneath that, an informed worldview. It's not that Palin has a view I disagree with, it's that she <i>has no view</i>. She's basically a slogan-machine, and not even a very good one. <a href="http://danieldrezner.com/blog/?p=3929">Serious conservatives in the foreign policy establishment understand this</a>.<br /><br />Obama picked Biden because he thought Joe would be a good Vice President. McCain picked Palin because he thought Sarah would get a few more votes.<br /><br />UPDATE: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091203324_pf.html">No, no, no, Washington Post</a>. While it's true that there is legitimate disagreement about the Bush Doctrine and the legacy of his foreign policy, etc, the fact is that Sarah Palin <i>simply had no idea what the heck it was</i>, and had probably never heard of it before. On WaPo's part, this is the equivalent of crediting a broken clock for being right about the time twice a day.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-69381453382625167412008-09-11T14:56:00.000-07:002008-09-11T15:18:29.268-07:00Palin: War with Russia!Via <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/215931.php">Marshall</a>, I see that ABC has posted the initial transcripts of <a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5778018&page=1">Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin</a>. These are partial, of course. Not that I'm holding out hope that he'll ask Sarah about <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014669.php">forcing women to pay for their own rape-kits while mayor of <strike>Blaine</strike> Wasilla</a>.<br /><br />Anyway, from the interview excerpts provided by ABC, we find that Palin and McCain are two peas of the same bellicose pod:<blockquote>GIBSON: <b>And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia? <br /><br /></b>PALIN: <b>Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.</b><br /><br />But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.<br /><br />We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.<br /><br />GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.<br /><br />PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries. <br /><br />And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.<br /><br />It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.<br /><br />His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.</blockquote>This is certainly in line with the McCain platform of More Wars. Just what this country needs!<br /><br /><a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/215936.php">Says Marshall</a>, "[This] sort of shows the consequences of taking a freshman governor with no experience in foreign policy and giving her a ten day crash course with Randy Scheunemann and the rest of John McCain's neocon brain trust that got booted from the Bush inner circle for being too nutty."<br /><br />In this way, Palin is something of a political blank slate, a Manchurian Candidate meets Chance Gardener: a dress-up doll for rabid neoconservatives. Obviously the campaign thinks McCain's bellicose bravado in the aftermath of Russia's recent incursion ("We are all Georgians now") is a political winner, and they're doubling down on that with Palin, whom they hilariously argue is some sort of expert on Russia <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/politics/animal/main4414663.shtml">because Alaska is near Siberia</a>.<br /><br />Obviously I'll have much more to say about Palin, and the man at the top of the ticket (you know, the guy who <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/09/10/mccain-finds-it-tough-without-palin/">can't get people to come to his rallies without her</a>) in the coming days.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-55049770351451468172008-09-11T14:42:00.000-07:002008-09-11T14:47:41.843-07:00Why is this old blog back?If you watch enough cable news, you get a pressure-cooker phenomenon in your brain, and the following 54 days are the evacuation of said head.<br /><br />I'll be blogging primarily about the 2008 campaign, including the Presidential election, statewide elections around the country (Senate, etc), and California (my home-state) and local issues, including the slate of ballot initiatives up for a vote in November. An added focus here will be on the media's coverage of the various races, notably television and print media.<br /><br />I'm an Obama partisan, but I will do my best to be an objective voice in the middle of all this madness.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3796399.post-57966557778306609262008-09-11T14:32:00.000-07:002008-09-11T14:33:47.355-07:00Aaaaaand we're back!The Facts Machine returns for the duration of the 2008 Election campaign!<br /><br />All posts below this one date back to 2006 and earlier, so disregard all that.<br /><br />More to come soon!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0