President Barack Hussein Obama. President Barack Hussein Obama.

I never get tired of saying it.

For the last 8 years, every time I heard the word "president" in a newscast I cringed and tigntened for what followed. It wasn't until I had the same conditioned response the other night and then felt an enormous wave of release when I realized that they were talking about Obama that I even realized I'd been doing it.

It's wonderful to be genuinely curious to hear what the president has to say again.

I was telling my wife that one of my desires in the next ten years is to go to Europe and that that felt all but impossible until now. I had paraniod flashes that I'd be snatched off the street unless I spoke with a non-american accent. Silly, I know, but now that fear is gone (and I'm sure the risk, however actually low it was, is lessened).

The inauaguration speech was perfect. Humble. Realistic. Directly pointed at the failures of the Bush administration without actually insulting Bush as he sat there (Bush looked beautifully uncomfortable though). And inspiring. I've never felt that. Ever. The first president I remember being conscious of is Nixon. Carter was fine and did a few good things but was uninspiring. Then the hell of the Reagan years. Bush I who was reagan without the personality. Clinton who made you feel good and in retrospect was a good leader for his time, but still not inspiring. And then Bush II who made the Reagan years seem tame.

I don't know what'll happen to Obama, but I know that the country (me included) is in his corner more than any president in my lifetime.

And that's before I even take into acount the historical significance of his election to the office.

It took someone like him to break that barrier.

Boy oh boy was I wrong.

However, contrary to the majority of politicians, I am willing to admit it and apologise.

I was laboring under the misaprehension that the fact that we just elected an all but ironclad Democratic majority to the Senate and House meant that the Democratic leadership might actually take it as a sign that they could at last grow a pair and assert themselves -or at least back up something -anything- they assert.

Apparently they are still perfectly willing to roll over and take a "f**k you byatch" from even the most ridiculous locally elected executives.

It never fails to stun me how weak the Democratic leadership can be. So Burris is now the junior senator from Illinois and the Democratic leadership looks like the same bunch of round-heeled milquetoasts they always do.

Understand, for me it was never about Burris' qualifications. I'm sure he was plenty qualified, it's just that there was the appearance of impropriety in his selection. Moreover, Reid's attempt at digging his heels in made him look even more weak when he caved. Too hasty a decision AND a crappy example. No leadership. Just because you're next in line doesn't mean you can lead.

NEW YEAR SAME OLD PROBLEMS

Happy New Year!

Here's hoping that yours (and please God OURS) is a more happy healthy and prosperous one than any of the last eight.

So long has passed and there are so many issues to address that I guess I'll attempt a scattershot drive-by. Here goes:

BLAGO-GATE

Well gee the euphoria of one Chicago politician's ascendancy sure was drowned out for a moment by the ascendancy to scandal of another wasn't it? Can you believe this guy? It never ceases to amaze me how the phrase "appearance of impropriety" is completely lost on some public figures. I mean, OK, let's assume for a thinly-stretched moment that Blagojevich was doing nothing legally wrong and that he wasn't really trying to sell Barack Obama's vacated senate seat to the highest bidder -wouldn't you want to make damn sure that you couldn't EVER be misinterpreted as doing so? Wouldn't you want to do everything possible to appear to be open and honest and to fend off any possibility of a federal investigation? Now look at the charges against Blago? WTF? I guess these guys who do this kind of stuff really are that stupid.

And the latest twist is that he still actually thinks that anyone will let him appoint Obama's successor. Unbelievable. So he simply pretends that his selection of Roland Burris will be honored and that that's that? Burris talks as though it's a done-deal and he's already the senator? What the hell are these guys thinking?

Article I Section 5 of the Constitution reads: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members". That last "and Qualifications" pretty much puts the nail in Burris' senatorial coffin doesn't it? I.e. if the senate decides that the taint of the Bagojevich scandal disqualifies Burris' appointment, what text are they going to use to refite it?

And why oh why would Burris let himself be appointed under these circumstances? Doesn't he realize that if he hitches his career to the Blago train that he's committing political suicide? Either he doesn't really care or greed has made him stupid.

The legal challenges are just warming up so pop some popcorn and find a comfy-chair.

THE ECONOMY

Oh boy.

Well gee that Wall street bailout package Congress rushed to pass worked great didn't it? Apparently they weren't really trying to save the banks -just the bankers. No oversight. Read that again. No oversight. None. Nothing to say how the money was supposed to be spent. No guidelines. No restrictions. Nada. Great.

And now they want to bail out the automakers? HA!

The housing market isn't improving any. Unemployment is at its worst since the 80's. The stock market has lost almost 6000 points since last year. (I've never been so happy to be too poor to be a part of the investment class!)

Obama seems really ready to push this stimulus package hard. I guess the idea is to do the Bush stimulus the right way? I.e. more tax cuts but this time for the "right" people.

I'm honestly conflicted about this: in the short run it might give the intended boost -but things are so tight that I have a hard time imagining that unless it's a huge chunk of change that it'll do more than make a few weeks easier for the majority of paycheck-to-paycheck folks.

In addition I've been hearing (and am starting to believe) that tax cuts (even for the middle-class) have a negligible effect on the economy because what really drives the economy is not how much money the government takes or doesn't take, but wages, jobs and GDP etc. none of which tax cuts or even raises helps. In fact you can make a pretty decent argument that RAISING taxes is better in the long run for wages because if companies have to pay x amount of money to employees (with the assumption that a percentage will go the govt.) and taxes go up the companies have to pay more to offset the taxes so that the take home pay is the same and so over time the general salary for the job raises. Conversely, if you cut taxes, the employer is paying the same but the employee takes home more, and the employer doesn't have to raise the employees wage so that over time wages stagnate.

If the government really wants to goose the economy it should make health care universal to alleviate the expense from individual families and corporations and spread the resources over a larger pool (as Obama is planning on doing) and make raising the minimum wage to a livable (not luxurious, but livable) wage.

Both of these could be done without tinkering with the tax code which frankly needs merely to be rolled back to where it was before Bush took office and then left alone. My humble two cents.

ARE WE STILL AT WAR?

Gee weren't we supposed to be at war on two fronts or something? Seems like we've gotten so caught up in the wave of change that's coming that we've forgotten that ghastly fact. The nightly news is all but bereft of coverage and frankly I can't remember when the last time was that I saw a news story on either Iraq or Afghanistan on any of the major three networks. Maybe I'm just missing them but I'm a news junkie so what does that tell you?

Spoke with a friend over the holidays on leave from one of those fronts and he said (albeit in a tight-lipped manner) that things are getting better over there. That's good news, really. I just hope that means we can leave now. It's not like we could use the money or anything.

The inauguration can't be over soon enough IMO we need to new pols to get to work.

Cheers, you lot. -OP

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION / PROP 8 THE MUSICAL

It's been too long, I know.

So the Obama administration is filling out nicely. I think Hillary's a good choice for Secretary of State -she already has the relationships with many of the world leaders she'll be meeting with which allows her to hit the ground running. She'll be locked into doing Obama's bidding as his diplomatic face (the job has less policy creating power than even senator) so there's no worry she'll go rogue. Great choice. I just wonder if there's a place for Wes Clark in there somewhere he would have made a great Secretary of Defense -maybe Gates is just a place-holder? Richardson as Sec of Commerce is great too. All in all I'm impressed with everyone so far. Folks need to stop carping on the man before he's even sworn in.

In other news: I'm probably the last person to see this, but it's damn funny and has some pretty heavy hitters in it.

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

WHAT IS THIS?

Oh wait -I know I know! Correct me if I'm mistaken but it looks like it's a presidential press conference with a president who knows what the F$%k he's talking about and can actually string a sentence together!

I'd forgotten what that looked like.

Aaaahhh.

HALLELUJAH! / OH NO!

President Barack Hussein Obama.



Wow.

Just wow.

It's still settling-in how significant this is.

I was reading headlines from foreign newspapers yesterday and the overwhelming feeling from the rest of the world seems to be a huge sigh of relief. As though the rest of the world is thinking "Oh thank God, America is back". After all we are in many ways like the world's big-brother (one of them at least -the favorite one?) and I don't mean that in an Orwellian way -that's how the Bush administration sees it- I mean it more literally. The last 8 years must seem like the first time you see your big brother do something that horribly embarrasses you.

The margin of victory for Obama has proven to the world that we weren't irretrievably lost, just ill for a time, and that the very freedoms we champion allow for the possibility that unsavory elements can rise to power. Let us take that lesson to heart, as we did after the McCarthy era, and be vigilant against it.

The sentiment domestically has come to be that finally we can begin the new millennium.

*********************************************************************

Sadly, here in California the tears of joy were mixed with tears of anguish as the bigoted proposition 8, which bans gay marriage and overturns a state supreme court decision interpreting the California constitution to allow and protect it, passed.

The haters after several tries finally figured out that they couldn't simply pass the ban in CA via statute, and they were right -any statute that discriminates against a classification of people and denies them rights available and protected for other people can't withstand judicial scrutiny without a compelling (dire) or at least important reason -and no, offense to a religious moral code doesn't qualify. Therefore they had to amend the state constitution because amending the constitution means that the statute becomes a part of the constitution and therefore cannot -by definition- be unconstitutional.

Interesting too the historical timeline of the "enlightenment" of these troglodytes: First they passed the federal Defense Of Marriage Act which has only stood for as long as it has because the majority on the SCOTUS has refused to take up the issue. The reason for that is that the precedent is so clear that if they did take up the issue they would either have to allow gays to marry or ignore the entire history of Equal Rights Jurisprudence in this country which would tar their legacy forever and make them look like idiots for antiquity. As long as they can the majority 5 jackbooted thugs on the SCOTUS will therefore ignore the issue.

The bigots however realized that their days are numbered (and a look at the poll results this week confirms the writing on the wall: overwhelmingly voters under 35 voted NO.) so they began working toward a federal Constitutional amendment. The problem is that the Founders were too smart for them and made it exceedingly difficult to change the Constitution without overwhelming support. The Federal Constitution cannot be amended unless 2/3rds of BOTH houses pass the amendment and it is then ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Interestingly, the bigots having grasped the enormity of their task, suddenly embraced federalism and opined that it is an issue best left to the individual states.

Which brings us to today: The bigots have now passed a constitutional amendment to the California constitution banning gay marriage which means that the measure cannot be stricken down as unconstitutional.

But not so fast.

A few lawsuits have been initiated against the validity of the initiative and they appear pretty solid. I have to admit that I was pretty shocked at first to find out that the state constitution could be amended so easily -by a simple majority vote on a ballot initiative. The founders warned against a "pure" democracy because it could lead to a tyranny of the majority, and therefore placed protections for the minority into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A simple majority is too easy to achieve and amending a constitution shouldn't be so easy.

However is appears that my concern has already been addressed: The California constitution CAN be amended via the initiative process for little stuff, but NOT for things that would majorly change the underlying principles under which it was organized. Major changes to the underlying principles of the CA constitution must pass by 2/3 in both state houses AND THEN they can go before the voters. Protecting the rights of minorities is a major principle under which the CA constitution was organized therefore simply putting it on the ballot is improper.

Moreover prop 8 bypasses the Courts and therefore deprives them of performing their essential function of protecting those same minority rights. This is a MAJOR change in the way the courts and the government function in CA and therefore cannot be determined by a ballot initiative which only requires a simple majority.

Additionally I think the CA Supreme Court is going to be a little pissed that their decision was given an end-around by a bunch of out of state religious and in-state wingnut groups and will have a serious desire to slap them back and strike it down. And BTW we need to have a serious discussion in this state about whether we want to continue to allow out-of-state groups to meddle in our state affairs with their money.

So the good news is that this isn't over -not by a long shot, and Jerry Brown the CA Attorney General has stated that the marriages that were performed before the ban are still legal and valid.

**********************************************************************************

Back to the WOW!

ALASKAN RAPE KIT SALE

MAD CRUMPIN'

This is funny as hell:


Unbelievable McCain Vs. Obama Dance-Off - Watch more free videos

THE GRAMPY CAMPAIGN IN 30 SECONDS

I'm pretty forgiving about slips of the tongue -but COME ON! This is quintessential gramps (courtesy TPM):

IT'S STARTED ALREADY

It's started already.

Did you think that Obama's chances were pretty well settled by now? Think again:

WINFIELD, W.Va. -- Three Putnam County voters say electronic voting machines changed their votes from Democrats to Republicans when they cast early ballots last week.

This is the second West Virginia county where voters have reported this problem. Last week, three voters in Jackson County told The Charleston Gazette their electronic vote for "Barack Obama" kept flipping to "John McCain".

In both counties, Republicans are responsible for overseeing elections. Both county clerks said the problem is isolated.

They also blamed voters for not being more careful.

"People make mistakes more than machines," said Jackson County Clerk Jeff Waybright.

Shelba Ketchum, a 69-year-old nurse retired from Thomas Memorial Hospital, described what happened Friday at the Putnam County Courthouse in Winfield.

"I pushed buttons and they all came up Republican," she said. "I hit Obama and it switched to McCain. I am really concerned about that. If McCain wins, there was something wrong with the machines.

"I asked them for a printout of my votes," Ketchum said. "But they said it was in the machine and I could not get it. I did not feel right when I left the courthouse. My son felt the same way.

"I heard from some other people they also had trouble. But no one in there knew how to fix it," said Ketchum, who is not related to Menis Ketchum, a Democratic Supreme Court candidate.

Ketchum's son, Chris, said he had the same problem. And Bobbi Oates of Scott Depot said her vote for incumbent Democratic Sen. John D. Rockefeller was switched to GOP opponent Jay Wolfe.

"I touched the one I wanted, Rockefeller, and the machine put a checkmark on the Republican instead," Oates said of her experience Thursday.

She said she caught the mistake, called over a worker in the county clerk's office and was able to correct her vote. But she worries other voters may not catch such a mistake.

(MORE)

Oh sure this could just be an anomoly and maybe I'm just being paranoid. The point is that we can't ever rest. Can't ever take a breath. We have to completely destroy the ideology that created the mess we're now in or it will rise again. The election, even if we're successful, is just the beginning.

MISSING OSCAR PETERSON

I love this video for so many reasons. Enjoy:

3-AND-OUT

A few observations from the final debate last night:

1. How great are those snap-polls? Used to be that the narrative re who won the debates was fashioned by the commentary from the pundits afterward. Kerry was slaughtered this way in 2004 -it didn't matter how people'd orignally perceived the debate the "opinion-makers" plowed on with their narrative anyway. The snap polls are a beautiful way to bitch-slap the chatterers back into reality, and it's a riot watching them fumble all over themselves back-pedaling from their declarations in the immediate aftermath as the snap-polls come in.
2. McCain is now 0-3 -when's the last time you even heard of that in a presidential race?
3. Debate prep 101 -let your WORDS make your arguments, and try to communicate as little non-verbally as possible. No one scores positive points for their reactions to the other guy's points as he's saying them. Textbook display last night -Grampy's eye-rolling, grimacing, and huffing made him look like the asshole he is.
4. Last night had to be a grand-slam, slam-dunk, game-changing smack-down or other mixed sports metaphors for Gramps, and it definitively was not.
5. Putting quotes around "health of the mother" probably wasn't a very smart move.
6. Don't set yourself up by asking your opponent to give "one, just one" example of anything, because if he does give one, just one, you look like a dork. McCain asked for one example when Obama bucked his party leaders and he gave three. Oops.
7. Joe the Plumber -it appears is a Republican plant. I expect to hear more of this in the coming days but suffice it to say that even if he's legit and McCain was just using him as a bullsh*t story it was a miserable failure. Maybe they should have asked Bob the Builder instead -oh wait his slogan is "Can we fix it? YES WE CAN!" bad idea, nevermind.

This isn't over folks. Can't let up, gotta keep the pressure on -and not just until the election -until the change we need happens and is chiseled into the American statutory framework. Think the GOP is just going to roll-over and let Obama skate once he's in the door? Think again. Look what happened to Clinton from the moment he assumed office. Can't rest. VIGILANCE!

CLARIFICATION (?)

I feel I should clarify my last post, because I re-read it and I think it could appear that while I think same sex marriages should be legal I somehow don't think they are valid. Personally and emotionally to the spouses and their friends, and legally in society they are valid in every way, and anything that adds more love and stability to the world cannot IMHO be invalid.

I was merely trying to point out that that the folks on the political right want to have it both ways -they want to use church doctrine to make secular civil law but would never allow secular civil law to determine church doctrine so their arguments are false.

I.e. I can comfortably assert that if the government were for some reason to ban the Catholic Church (or Mormon or Baptist or whichever) from marrying its parishioners, they'd still do so and recognize the marriages irrespective of the civil law. The Catholic Church e.g. sees marriage as a Sacrament that is both coexisting and separate from the civil contract, and will sanctify marriages based on their own principles regardless what the civil law says. Other churches may or may not consider same sex marriages a sacrament based on their own doctrine, but that is irrelevant to the issue here -which, make no mistake, is one of civil rights.

Therefore talk about "saving" marriage as an "institution" is legerdemain. The religious beliefs are not under attack and can be held regardless what the law says, and yet they want their religious beliefs to substitute for the law in this one instance, regardless whether it tramples the civil rights of others and thus contradicts the civil law.

Finally, I have to say that I find the fact that it's so easy to change the constitution of a state unsettling. There are two ways to change the CA constitution 1) if 2/3 of the state legislature propose an initiative, or 2) if a ballot initiative receives a majority vote. Doesn't that seem contrary to the protections of the minority embodied in the federal Bill of Rights because the Founders feared just such a tyranny of the majority? Scary.

Anyhow I hope the above clears up my position.


OTS: Here's some humor courtesy of the dailyKos:

"John, would you please go in the kitchen and fix me a ham sandwich?"

"Let me say this, Cindy. I know how to fix a ham sandwich, and I will fix a ham sandwich when I'm elected president. For starters, I know where the kitchen is and I know how to find it. I know where the plates are. I know where the bread is, and I will be the one to pull out the right number of slices and place them on the plate in such a way that the mustard can be spread. Yes, my friends, I know where the mustard is and as president I will have a plan to spread it effectively. I know this stuff because I am a maverick. I can do it and I will do it. Let's talk about lettuce. My opponent is inexperienced on this issue. I've been around long enough to know about Romaine, butter, iceberg, bib, Boston and celtuce, as well as loose greens like mesclun. But I promise you this: I will fight every day against the advancing red tide of commie cabbage and I'm not afraid to use force if necessary. I know how to lead this nation in these dangerous leafy times, my friends. Now, I see the yellow light on my lectern is blinking, but if I may for a moment address another critical issue facing this country today, and that is the thickness of domestic pre-packaged ham slices. When I was a POW, we didn’t have ham, my friends, or even a chair..."

"Oh fer god's sake, never mind. I'll have the butler do it."

TWO CENTS (AGAIN)

It's reared its ugly head again. Coincidentally (yeah right) the "religious right" has raised the "same sex marriage" issue during a presidential election year. Now you and I know that the real reason for this is to put a fire under the asses of the fundies to get them to the polls so they'll vote for the republican for president, but others may actually think this is an issue on its own, so I'd like to summarize a few points I blogged in 2004 -the last time the "govt.-out-of-your-life-conservatives" decided to shove government into the lives of some.

1. As far as the government is concerned ALL marriages are technically "civil unions". The separation of Church and state in the 1st amendment prevents any other possible arrangement. The fact that the title "marriage" has survived to name the bundle of rights governments protect is due to "tradition" (habit) and (in)convenience. The title however does not change the nature of what it is -a protection of a bundle of civil and legal rights granted to honor/encourage monogamy. Constitutionally, all civil and legal rights must be granted and protected equally for all and for the government to deny them to anyone based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality or sexual orientation is invideous discrimination and cannot stand. Personally, I think government should get out of the business of "marriage" all together and simply call ALL marriages "civil unions" regardless the gender of the couples.

2. I believe that last sentence to be true because (and here we go) I believe that "Marriage" is a *religious* institution. For this reason marriage needs neither to be "saved" nor "protected" because it stands irrespective of the actions of government. My Catholic faith teaches that "marriage" is the union of one man and one woman into "one flesh" and that the union and is granted/sanctified by God. That doctrine is simply unaffected by whether or not civil authorities decide to grant same sex couples civil and legal rights. Moreover, our constitution makes it impossible for the govt. to determine how churches define marriage. My wife and I got both a license from the state and a certificate from the Catholic Church, however the former was not dependent on the latter and the latter cannot be compelled by the former. Governments can no more force churches to perform or recognize same sex marriages than churches could force governments to enforce church doctrine. Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". Separation. of Church. and State.

3. Voting down a legislative measure that would allow discrimination is completely consistent with my faith because it is preventing an action not initiating one. Here in California the latest incarnation of this fad is Proposition 8 which was originally called the "California Marriage Protection Act" but was more accurately renamed "Eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry" by Attorney General Jerry Brown to reflect the fact that the California Supreme Court has held that same couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. This measure would change the California constitution, in contravention of the Court's decision to recognize the right, to divest that right only for certain individuals, therefore voting "no" on it doesn't establish any right or action that hadn't already been granted or done -i.e. it doesn't "sanctify" the court's decision because the court was merely reaffirming the state constitution.

Let's be clear -the only reason the gay-bashing crowd have proceeded in this manner is because if a measure is proposed as a mere statute, it must be "tested" against the constitution (federal and state -the federal is the "floor" so states can grant more rights than the federal constitution, but they cannot grant less). If it is determined to be unconstitutional it must be stricken down. Any measure added to the constitution however becomes a part of it and by definition cannot be unconstitutional.

A lot of money has been poured into the "Yes on 8" campaign and a lot of lies and deception have been alleged by that group to further their cause -let's hope the people of California aren't as stupid as they were when they were conned into enacting the 3-strikes law. (but that's another story. )

IT'S THE IDEOLOGY STUPID

Sweet music reported by the NYT yesterday:

"Strategists for both parties say Republican House and Senate candidates are being hurt by the dip in support for Senator John McCain at the top of the ticket, frustrating Republicans who had initially viewed Mr. McCain as a strong asset who could appeal to independents and even moderate Democrats and protect Republicans in a tough year."

This is after the shunning that guppies have given W for the last year ("Bush? Bush who?").

Why?

Because the ideology these buffoons subscribe to is bankrupt, phony, immoral and unpatriotic, and they know it and can't find a rock low enough under which to hide.

Let me reveal one of my core beliefs (which I'm having trouble putting into a succinct maxim --any ideas?): You're going to pay somewhere along the "line".

Somewhere in the normal arc of a person's life -you (we) will be forced to contribute financially to that persons well being. Think about it, these are just some of the ways you'll have to pay (depending on the person's life-path):

pre-natal care
neo-natal care
SCHIP
Preschool
school
juvenile detention/treatment facilities
college scholarships/grants/subsidies
military/medical/veteran/funereal
govt. backed loans
hospitals
drug treatment
occupational therapy
Psychiatric facilities
disaster relief
food banks
increased health insurance premiums to offset non-prevention and indigents
business/agricultural/ tax subsidies
arrest /prosecution
prison
social security
medicaid/medicare
burial/cremation

This is just a cursory list and doesn't even take into account infrastructure costs to get us all around. At some point on the continuum whether we like ot or not, we will collectively pay for one or more of the above. I.e. somewhere along the line you're going to pay -even if it's just to dispose of a person's corpse.

Any ideology which ignores this fact is to put it politely -kidding itself. (putting it impolitely requires too many expletives for this page's sensibilities). Even if you claim we as a people shouldn't be paying for "those (insert your favorite sin/epithet here)" because of their life choices, we will. Some of these services can of course be privatized but without government support they are only available to those who by hook or crook can afford them -and it's nearly guaranteed that those who can afford them "on their own" are able to do so because of the labor/sacrifice/charity of those who couldn't.

Moreover, economically it's more efficient to pay for them preventively than as a solution to a crisis when the costs are exponentially more.

Now don't misunderstand me -I'm not saying that those whose industry or ingenuity has made them money don't deserve it or that all should have the same level of services -that would be communism. I'm saying that in a society in which we've decided that all people are created equal and in which we've agreed that all have inalienable rights we have a moral and logical imperative to ensure that the above services are available to all regardless of their income, and any idiology that seeks to redistribute wealth by depriving some of access to the above is not only doomed to failure, but selfish unpatriotic and should be criminal.

We now see the results of this ideology daily as headlines, and try as they may they can't hide from it anymore.

Anyone who decries the inevitability of taxes and the providing of these of services is therefore not only a hypocrite, but a traitor. We are the government. Ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, therefore if you hate "government" you necessarily hate We the People.

The Republicans are finally being called on this and that's why it doesn't matter who is at the top of their pyramid -it's toxic and they can't escape it anymore.

SHE WANTS TO PLAY?

She wants to play?

Fine, let's play:

HE ASKED FOR IT

Grampy is getting desperate:

• The Alaskan Bimbo is parroting anew the William Ayers bullsh*t.
• The introductory speaker at her rally in FL dropped the Hussein-bomb today
• Bill Kristol tries to reintroduce the Reverend Wright lies. Asshole.

So Ok. that's the way Grampy wants to react to his numbers circling the drain? It's not as if he doesn't have a past that warrants questioning. So here we go:

I STAND CORRECTED

I stand corrected! I don't think that any reasonable interpretation of the debate last night could come to the conclusion that Sarah Palin won.

The short version is this: yes she was better than expected but, unfortunately for her, so was Biden, which means that on balance Obama wins, because it wasn't a game-changer, so Grampy continues his slide without anything intervening to prevent it.

The longer version is that Biden masterfully threaded the needle. As I last posted, Biden needed to follow Andrew Halcro's advice and respectfully ignore her. He played it exactly right and made his performance all about attacking McCain. She clearly didn't answer the majority of the questions -and even said outright that she wouldn't! In a debate!

Her performance consisted solely of giving speeches parroting talking points and peppered with attacks on Biden and Obama too obviously fashioned by her handlers. This meant that she (unsurprisingly) was unable to answer not only the questions put to her, but the major implied question of the night (and indeed the whole race for her): could she be president? Even the most positive reviews have to answer no to that question, and her performance did nothing to convince anyone otherwise.

Therefore, since Biden had a clear and facile command of the facts and was to all perceptions speaking from his OWN mind, the victory goes to Obama. Last night had to be a game-changer for McCain and it wasn't.

WHY SARAH PALIN WILL "WIN" THE DEBATE

Jed Lewison of the Jed Report and the Huffington Post has a nice compilation of past debate moments from Sarah Palin that should send a chill down the spine of any Democrats feeling that Biden will "wipe the floor" with her:



In the accompanying article he quotes Andrew Halcro, an Alaska legislator who has debated Palin a few dozen times, saying that Palin is the master of the non-answer. I.e. when she's asked a question, she generally answers the question by saying how important the issue is and giving examples of why it's important but not anything about where she stands on the issue. If you think back, that's what she's done with every interview so far. The problem has been that, in a one-on-one interview, it doesn't generally fly -interviewers bristle when they ask a question that they've worked hard to prepare and the interviewee sluffs it off and talks about something irrelevant.

A debate structure is different however, because the moderator is less likely to call her on it (and in fact the campaign has been laying the groundwork for that all month, with their whining about "gotcha" questions and the like) and the time constraints structure the responses more so that she'll be able to use her response time to great scattershot effect by lobbing major attacks and filling up the rest of the time with folksy non-answers and soundbytes, forcing Biden to use more of his response time to answer her attacks and less time to answer the questions himself. In the end if she merely doesn't completely expolde, she wins because the expectations game has lowered the bar to such an extent that she only needs to be perceived as having the ability to complete a sentence, and regardless the opinion you have of her you have to admit -particularly with the evidence above- that she can at least do that.

So that leaves Biden with an unexpectedly narrow path to victory. The only way to defeat her in this scenario is, as Katie Couric revealed, to make her answer the question -or somehow point out that she's not. This is difficult because saying it outright will ensure he's labeled as a bully.

I agree with Halcro that Biden needs to "ignore Palin in a respectful manner on the stage and answer the questions as though he were alone" but my take is that he needs not only to give thorough succinct answers but purposely go overtime. When he's inevitably wrangled by the moderator he should say something like - "well you've asked a complicated question and I want to make sure I give a thorough answer" or "do I have time? -I want to make sure I answer your question". Moreover he should point out as much as possible that he's in fact answering the question e.g. "the answer to your question is...", "good question I'd like to answer it by...", and "does that answer your question?" etc. This will contrast that she's not answering the questions and reveal her weaknesses.

Don't think for a second that the image that has come out of her as a bumbler in the last month is accidental -this is exactly the same tactic they used in 2004 when Kerry was expected to destroy Bush in the debates. They down played Bush and propped up Kerry so much that all Bush had to do was not completely blow it to be declared the winner. It's classic rope-a-dope.

Finally -Biden has the ability to turn on the charm a himself and can level quite a backhanded compliment when he wants to. Let's hope he times it right and gets the quote of the night.

MY TAKE