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

HOPE FOR THE REPUBLIC

Thank God that there are still a few honest members of Congress:



from CSPANjunkie.org via Eschaton

Kick her some cash if you can.

Adding -what exactly is this "700 billion dollars" figure based on? As far as I can figure it's pure conjecture amounting to nothing more than their asking for it. Why not as someone on the news said 75 billion with more to come if they need it and can justify it?

The reason is that the sober alternative presented by Rep. Kaptur above fails to accomplish their objective -breaking the government. As Grover Norquist is fond of splathering they want to shrink government to the size where they can drown it in the bathtub. They're running out of time to do that however so they're trying the nuclear option which will destroy any attempt to do anything that might actually help the American People.

This is a terrorist act. They simply don't get that we are the government and that any action that impacts us so dreadfully should be seen as a declaration of war. They should be tried for treason and put in f**king jail to rot.

UPDATE -OH DEAR ME

So it appears that Grampy's campaign manager didn't just receive money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -but did so AS RECENTLY AS LAST MONTH. Worse -it seems that they were compiling a secret cash stash about which the FEC might want to have a word with them.

No matter, the rest of the media will turn over and resume their nap.

OH DEAR

This is a huge story. It should completely obliterate the McLame campaign, but it won't because the MSM won't give it the attention it deserves. Meanwhile the Double-Talk express chuggs along to 1600 Pennsylvania ave.

To wit:

Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: September 21, 2008

Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

Scared yet?

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

This is the most straight forward explanation of the subprime mortgage crisis and its ramifications and implications that I've seen yet. It's pretty funny too -or would be if it weren't true. Whoever wrote this has my eternal gratitude!

Without any further ado we present: The Subprime Primer! (press the "plus" sign under the "down-arrow" menu on the right if you can't read the text)

CDO Powerpoint SubPrime Primer - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: CDO Powerpoint SubPrime Primer

So tell me that this doesn't need to be regulated?

It always floors me when you hear some (inevitably republican or "independent") jagoff criticize government practices or the administration of government programs by saying some tripe like "you wouldn't see that in the business world -a company like that (the government) would be drummed out of the market! harumph harumph."

Now we're (i.e. the taxpayers via the cavalry actions of the govt.) on the hook for the incompetence and thievery in the corporate world anyway -so what's the goddamn difference?!?!?!

Can we finally put that canard to rest as pure unadulterated horsesh*t? If anything it's WORSE in the corporate world. There are few enough regulations on competency and fewer all the time. Sarbanes-Oxley was a start -but it's easily gamed (BTW check McCain's record of voting on regulation -and please tell your relatives not to sue me if you then jump out the window given his latest "stance"), and the entire corporate sphere is ruled by the "take your piece and CYA" golden rule. Of course the markets are melting down -it's not like you couldn't see it coming.

Next time one of your "independent" or "libertarian" (i.e. republican who wants to keep his porn collection) friends loads this line of crap on you, tell em to STFU.

UPDATE -MCCAIN IS WORSE

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks "more of the same" isn't a strong enough message for Obama to campaign on -Frank Rich of the NYT agrees:

"This election is still about the fierce urgency of change before it’s too late. But in framing this debate, it isn’t enough for Obama to keep presenting McCain as simply a third Bush term. Any invocation of the despised president — like Iraq — invites voters to stop listening. Meanwhile, before our eyes, McCain is turning over the keys to his administration to ideologues and a running mate to Bush’s right.

As Republicans know best, fear does work. If Obama is to convey just what’s at stake, he must slice through the campaign’s lipstick jungle and show Americans the real perils that lie around the bend."

(OP attempts to break arm by patting self on back).

TIME TO OPEN UP A CAN OF WHOOP-ASS

Sarah Palin keeps telling her Bridge to Nowhere lies. Testament to the fact that these people really don't give a sh*t w/r they're caught in bold faced lies or not. As long as they're heard they'll stick for some people.

In her one unbelievably softball interview with Charlie Gibson she dodged every question and recited the GOP talking points that had been fed to her like a good parrot.

When she was asked about the single most important element of the Bush foreign policy "the Bush doctrine" (preemption) she demonstrated utter ignorance. "You mean his world-view?" The right are now trying to play it off as insignificant because "ordinary americans don't know what it means". This "she's just like us" crap is unbelieveably stupid -are ordinary americans competing to be leader of the free world? I'd rather have someone who is not like me but is able to handle the job in office.

Grampy has put out some of the most sleazy election materials ever, and is sticking by them. He continues to lie about Obama's words, plans for policy, and record and has yet to be truly slammed for it by anyone.

This is how they're going to campaign, and chastising them for it is like telling your dog how much better you are than him because you poop in a toilet -while there's still the stink of a load on the floor.

The rumbles in the netroots seem to be wondering when the hell Obama's going to slap the bejesus out of gramps (figuratively of course) -and rightfully so since he has yet to level a serious attack. His latest ad faulting grampy for not knowing how to send email or use a computer is a lame-assed attempt to show out of touch he is. Not good enough. "out of touch" isn't a strong enough message, and for that matter neither is "more of the same" because the glass-half-full folks will continue in their haze thinking "oh well, at least it's not worse".

Obama's camp needs to take a lesson from the nightly news magazine shows:

One thing 20/20 48 hours and Dateline NBC know how to do is pull in viewers via what I call the "watch this story because your life may depend on it" stories. Ever notice how they all have at least one story that is tagged as such? (inevitably it's the last story of the night) Disease warnings, terror alerts (something the republicans used to incredible advantage) Safety warnings, etc. all compel the viewer to watch.

Obama needs not only to warn about more of the same -he needs to show that McCain would be much worse. He doesn't have to lie or slander to do it either. He can do it by emphasizing the truth.

1. McCain has said that he doesn't mind if we stay in Iraq for 50-100 years.
2. He says there'll be more wars.
3. He's used agressive tones toward bigger enemies (Russia, Iran)
4. He says the fundamentals of the american economy are sound -and therefore implies and outright states he'll continue Bush economic policy -Bush had the Clinton surplus to work with (destroy). If McCain does it, from where does he start? From the current state of the economy -therefore the effect will be MUCH WORSE.
5. McCain is an even bigger believer in privitization than Bush - he doesn't believe in public education and wants to deregulate business even further.
6. He is a 72-year-old 4 time survivor of the most deadly form of skin cancer, yet his running mate has displayed a profound ignorance about even the most elementary domestic and foreign policies.
7. He isn't just a "maverick" but all through his life has had documented incidents showing him to be a tempermental "loose cannon" and he's not likely to mellow as he continues to advance in age.

You think McCain would be more of the same? Think again -he's much worse.

McCain needs to be punched in the face with his own words/policies with no mercy. High-minded above the fray policy debates aren't going to do it. People have to be made to feel that if they vote for McCain they'll be dooming the country. That's no exaggeration.

How you campaigned isn't going to mean a damn thing if you lose.

THE CHOICE IS STILL CLEAR

Never before has the choice we face in a presidential election been so clearly defined:

• Do we want to continue dumping 10 billion a month in Iraq with no forseeable exit, or do we want to withdraw our troops and use the money here?
  
• Do we want to address the healthcare needs of our citizens or continue to allow private corporations decide who gets to be healthy?
  
• Do we want to continue to let only the wealthiest among us benefit from the tax code, or do we want to reduce the tax load for the majority of us and make the wealthy pay more of their fair share?
  
• Do we want to lead the way in transforming the energy economy of the world, or do we want to bolster a dying industry for it's own short term benefit?
  

And finally,

• Do we want to keep the party in power whose policies have wrought failure catastrophe and ruin to the country for the last 8 years, or do we at long last want to say that we've had enough?
  

It's not as though I'm making any novel statements here, but I feel that this election has become so muddied that people feel that the choices are somehow closer than they are. They're actually still pretty stark.

Grampy and the Bim ("this fall on ABC!") have obviously noticed the above themselves and seen that when the choices are clearly defined -they lose, and so have resorted to obfuscating the truth and stealing Obama's message by telling a series of shockingly (to everyone apparently save the journalists ignoring them) bold-faced lies.

Will people be sharp enough and committed enough to sift through them and see the scam that's being pulled on them in plain sight? I honestly don't know.

THE SARAH PALIN NO COMMENT WATCH CLOCK

Courtesy of The Jed Report, this blog now features the Sarah Palin No-Comment Watch Clock!

Apparently the latest line from the republicowards is that, gosh, Sarah's just not ready to talk to the press yet.

And yet this is the person whom they feel is ready to lead the free world in the event that a 72-year-old 4-time cancer survivor for some reason can't fulfill his duties as President of the United States (all 50 of them) .

But, gee, she's just not ready to tackle talking to reporters yet. That might actually require her to do something like, oh I don't know, answer questions.

The clock at left tracks the time betwen their naming her the nominee and her first interview.

IT'S DONE

Even the truncated GOP convention was too long. The 3-day parade of sociopaths was particularly galling this year, perhaps because of the sheer number of bold faced lies that was crapped on the country without even blinking an eye.

That’s it really –they’re sociopaths: no conscience, no empathy, no humility, no humanity. Nada.

My wife and I are relatively recent fans of the Showtime Dexter series (ah the wonders of “On-demand”) and consequently the series of books by Jeff Lindsay. For the uninitiated: the protagonist Dexter is a serial killer who has been trained by his Cop father to use his sickness for “good” i.e. he only kills the most despicable criminals –and never the innocent. (Interesting quandary for anti-death penalty folks like me –good thing it’s only fiction) .

Dexter describes himself as a broken person incapable of any kind of human emotion, but who, after years of practice has been able to teach himself the proper appearance of emotion. Eg. He cannot feel compassion but he can fake it so that people don’t suspect.

My Friends ;-) that is what we just finished witnessing –an orgiastic exultation of sociopathy dedicated to the proposition that all rich whites are created equal and the rest of us are to be either utilized for their aggrandizement or destroyed. Looking into the eyes of the speakers, from W on down, revealed nothing but cold calculation. They’ll say whatever they need to say to grasp the reins of executive power –but only because those reins harness the greatest revenue-generating mechanism ever known to humankind. They don’t care a rat’s ass about governing, they don’t really even know what the term means other than “you have to do what I say” and in their case “do what I say” means “give me your money”, all the while complaining about taxes.

The irony that they’re using government to take even more money from the public to shove into the private is completely lost because seeing irony requires some understanding that hypocrisy is wrong, and like Dexter, they’re simply lacking that faculty.

Those cheering in the audience and across the nation are either equally broken, or too stupid to be able to discern after 8 years of ruin rained down upon them from these jackals, that they’ve been had. Examples of both were abundant on the TV this week: from the people who actually booed-down the Iraq and Afghanistan vets who protested inside the hall last night (shouting “USA! USA!” to even more palpable irony) to the dopey delegate who was, “gosh, just soo excited because Sarah Palin is a mother.” (BTW can we call sexism here? Can you imagine what the response would be if any male candidate for political office actually had the temerity to list the fact that he was a father as a resume qualification? He’d be laughed out of the race.)

Finally, what was on display and what has taken over their cult is a declaration that war is sacrosanct. No one dare question it or any thing that happens as a result of it. It is the trump card of all trump cards and it wipes clean any indiscretion –no matter how outrageous. The very idea that they were shameless enough to show a video praising our attack of Iraq as a response to 9/11 proves my theory. They’re simply broken beyond repair and they will suffer a long slow march into ignominy.

< /screed>.

STEPPING FORWARD?

p>

Portrayal Of Obama As Snob Hailed As Step Forward For Blacks

These guys are so good I wonder how long it'll be until "legitimate" news organizations start mistakenly citing them as sources.

TIME FOR SOME CAMPAIGNIN'

My Uncle forwarded this to me from jib-jab.

Time for Some Campaignin' | Funny Jokes at JibJab

RANDOM MUSINGS

So I was flipping my channels on my Sirius radio this morning and I stopped on the “Sirius Left” channel which was broadcasting one Lynn Samuels. I listened for a few minutes and came to the not so shocking conclusion that small but vocal portions of the electorate are just plain f**king nuts.

Listening to Ms. Samuels it became clear that she is a Hillary Clinton supporter who simply cannot come to grips with the fact that Hillary won't be the nominee, and that this has sent her off the deep end. Her sheer vitriol toward Obama and her utter sycophantic worship of all things Clinton was jarring, and what was even more disturbing was that caller after caller was ready to throw in the towel because Hillary is not the nominee, and if not support McCain, completely bash Obama based on nothing other than bitterness. It was adolescent and puerile, and because these people are supposedly on the same "side" I am, embarrassing.

It illustrated perfectly the difference between those whose political passions are based in stances on the issues and belief in policy, and those whose politics are a reflection of their own personalities and egos. Both parties are rife with both types and there are probably many points on the spectrum between these two poles, though I've seen more of the latter type on the right. In fact you could say that it's just this kind of "play my way or I'm taking my ball and going home" paradigm that has defiled the country for the last 7 1/2 years.

The Neocon cabal that hijacked the GOP could give a rat's ass about conservative values or idiology but did whatever the hell they wanted to do and only pandered to the "true believers" as insurance that they'd be able to stay in for long enough to complete as much of their objective as possible. And the objective was simple -money. It was all a giant cash grab. Sign on and we'll cut you in. Stand in our way and we'll eliminate you. Real conservatives believe in reducing government restraining spending and keeping their noses out of other peoples' business. These folks did the exact opposite in every area of endeavor and because they'd bought the press they were able to distract the public away from their having done so. It was all about them -their investments, their businesses, their rights, and f**k anybody who dared challenge them -whether from their own side or the opposition. You were either on their bus or under it.

That's the same attitude that I heard from Samuels and her callers. If they don't get their piece of the pie served their way they'd just as soon shit on it. It's no surprise though -look at the candidate they follow: she was willing to repeatedly bash a fellow candidate from her own party and praise the candidate from the opposition party for her own political gain. Didn’t matter that if she lost she’d have screwed the issues she alleged to support. Didn’t matter that she’d not bothered to actually wage a coherent campaign –damn it people had better give her what she wanted or they’d pay. Thank God she didn’t succeed. Moreover, it’s not as if this was some sort of new attitude she had –she behaved the same way with her healthcare plan during her husband’s administration and it blew up in her face then too.

Now –just as I’d predicted- the gramps campaign are using her idiotic slagging and lies verbatim in their ads, and her zombies are insisting that they get…what exactly? It’s insanity.

* * *

Speaking of insanity: I was at the gym the other day behind the Orange Curtain (this is a local expression referring to the fact that that Orange County next to LA is infamously conservative and mocking it as similar to the Berlin Wall.), and unsurprisingly FOXNews was on in the locker-room. The “discussion” centered on how somehow making fun of Gramps’ not knowing how many houses he owns is an attack on his wife because, poor thing, it’s not her fault that she’s rich. “Oh Waaah”, I said and some old guy –obviously only hearing my tone and not my comment and thinking he’d find a sympathetic ear said “What the hell does it matter how many houses he owns” and I said something like “well gee, I think it matters a hell of a lot seeing as though the housing market’s gone to hell in a handbasket and a rising number of folks can’t pay their mortgages”. To which he replied –well “it’s really gonna be screwed if that n----- gets in there.”

Yep, he actually said it.

I looked him in the eye and said “what did you just say?” and he looked a bit surprised, and then rattled off a litany about how Putin was going to push “that boy” around just the same way as [Khrushchev] did Kennedy and began shuffling out the door going on about how he’d trained to fight those “commies and g**ks” to which I replied “yeah I’m sure you did you f***ing racist”, and he was gone.

Reminds me that while we have a great deal to be proud of as a nation at this moment, we still have a lot of work to do. This guy actually thought it was OK to say the n-word to a total stranger in a public place.

SO IT'S BIDEN

Well I admit that I'm slightly disappointed that it's not Wes Clark, but I don't think he was ever seriously in the running.

It's been said that the first rule of picking a Vice President is "don't f**k it up" and it's pretty clear that Obama hasn't done that here. He could have done much worse.

Biden's a good choice for many reasons -perhaps the most important being that he can serve as an experienced guide for Obama through the entrenched ways of the beltway without overshadowing him. In this respect he's sort of the Anti-Cheney: an experienced politician and legislator but one for whom (unlike Cheney) there will be no fears of a "shadow presidency".

Biden's also a great surrogate: while he has a pretty fierce attack-dog mode, he's definitely not a loose cannon (to mix matephors). I.e. he can snark it up with the best of them but isn't likely to naively go too far, and will be able to say many of the things that need to be said for the campaign to suceed but which it would be impolitic for Obama himself to say.

In addition, being from Delaware, Biden shores up Obama's cred with businesses (most corporations in the US are incorporated in Delaware -for tax and other business-friendly reasons.) without necessarily being seen as a stooge for corporate america -Biden has perhaps the lowest net worth of any Senator.

And finally, it's pretty clear that Biden's foreign policy experience will strengthen the ticket as well.

Already the grampy mobile has released an "atack ad" showing a quote from Biden saying he "would be honored to run with or against McCain because the country would be better off"

Um... idiots at the Grampy campaign -"honored to run with or against" means that in either case Biden is on the ticket and therefore he's saying that the country would be better off ...with Biden. Just saying. I know you guys are desperate to climb out from under the "I don't know how many houses I own" rock that has crashed down on you all -but you might try actually thinking about quotes before you trot them out?

DEVASTATION

Bush to tour areas of the country destroyed by his presidency:



Sometimes you just have to stand in awe of The Onion

TEAM WHAT?

The Jed Report found this from a Republican blogger -who, understandably, didn't emphasize it (though to be fair he did point it out). A little "unintentional" editorializing from the Mineapolis Star Tribune?

THE HITS KEEP COMING

Newsflash: I was actually ready to cut grampy some slack on one in what has come to be an assembly line of geography gaffes.

I really was because, to be brutally honest, if I'd been given a pop-quiz I would have failed the "Czech Republic/Slovakia question" too. I know, I know "...but a sitting senator who touts his foreign policy cred should have known this!" But really I can't muster much outrage about goofing a reference to a nation not currently in the world spotlight -particularly since it was Czechoslovakia for so long.

However just when I raise my fingers before dropping them on the keys to pen a "y'know what I don't get?" column gramps saves me the trouble by screwing up even worse -and with a set of nations that everyone is watching.

Still reeling from the Maliki smack-down in endorsing Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months the old fart tried desperately to deflect a question about it and came up with this little gem:

Asked by ABC's Diane Sawyer Monday morning whether the "the situation in Afghanistan in precarious and urgent," McCain responded:

"I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border," said McCain, R-Ariz., said on "Good Morning America."

Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Afghanistan and Pakistan do.

Ok this is getting downright dangerous -he admits he doesn't understand economics, he changes his positions on domestic issues daily has deep ties to an industry that is only now imploding due its having rotted from the inside with corruption and incompetence and now can't understand basic geographic facts about nations in which we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars and stretching our military to the breaking point?

Gee, but he's an affable and avuncular old fellow. Serves great barbecue -just ask the press.

OH THIS IS TOO RICH

I've been too depressed lately to really blog on the FISA disaster. It's just too dark a day for America that the Congress (with the notable help of many Democrats including my own Senator Feinstein) actually passed a law that both allows the executive branch to warrantlessly wiretap American citizens calls abroad whether they're suspected of any wrongdoing of any kind or not, and immunizes a past executive branch spying program that neither the American public nor even many of the senators voting on the damn bill knows anything about. Not the end of the world but certainly royal bitch-slapping of the 4th amendment. Glen Greenwald has the best coverage/take on the subject.

But if you wanted a full out belly laugh to relieve the depression here's a story (courtesy Americablog) that'll fill the bill: Apparently grampy's a bigamist.

You read that right -he wasn't divorced from his first wife when he married his second.

(PC ALERT!!!!!) I guess that's the power of rich poontang. < /mysogeny>

Do you want an even bigger laugh? Picture what the news cycle for the last year would have been like if this had been done by any democrat!!

iokyar fidelis.