Advice

On a lighter note, I like thinking about what cabinet meetings are like for Hillary Clinton after this:

That's Not Debate, That's More of the Same!

If you liked watching Sarah Palin's RNC speech mashup, you'll probably enjoy watching this debate synchronization.

Um...what?

McCain on abortion, at last night's debate:

"Just again, the example of the eloquence of Sen. Obama. He's health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, 'health.'"

I mean, I know what he's saying - that, if Roe v Wade was struck down, making exceptions for "the health and life of the woman" presents a gray area, and that he views it as a pro-choice (NOT "pro-abortion," John) last-ditch effort to make abortion available - but I think he worded it really poorly. To me, it drives home the point that so many pro-lifers come off as valuing a woman's life less than driving down the number of abortions.

the aftermath

Katie, I think you especially will appreciate this well-crafted euphemism (in bold below) employed by NYT in its article "Candidates Clash Over Character and Policy":

"At times showing anger and at others a methodical determination to make all his points, Mr. McCain pressed his Democratic rival on taxes, spending, the tone of the campaign and his association with the former Weather Underground leader William Ayers, using nearly every argument at his disposal in an effort to alter the course of a contest that has increasingly gone Mr. Obama’s way."

Methodical determination? How about repeating the same disputed points over and over again while Obama attempted to clarify and defend his policies?

Yes, I thought McCain had to reach for "the kitchen sink and the plumber" to try to make his points in this one.

Palin debate flow chart

This is from Daily Kos, which is ....Daily Kos, so obviously break out your nugget of salt, but this is pretty funny.

Predictions for the debate

I saw the cartoon below and immediately became elated because Biden will not have to appear in public ever again before the election.





That said, I was hoping to hear predictions about the debate tomorrow night. I think McCain may attempt to continue the negative streak, but will hit a stone wall (perhaps a Stonewall is more appropriate, as many of us went to NYU) because of both Obama's ability to counter gracefully and also the town-hall style of the debate. Also because of the format, I feel it will be easier for Obama to do well; McCain is a zombie, after all. I don't really have anything else to add on this topic, so I will move on.

Question: why is there no debate closer to the election? Is this simply an effort to prevent a post-debate bump from deciding the election? Or, is it a vast, liberal media plot to prevent John McCain's sparkling personality and graceful way with words from winning over the undecideds and the weak liberals? Thoughts?

Discussion Topic: VP Debate

As much as I love talking to office cohorts about these things, I was hoping for some reasonable input. Gimme some thoughts on anything. Should Gwen Ifill step down? Who's going to win, and what does that mean? What does each side need to do or avoid? Can Biden get himself booted from the ticket by the end of the week? Can Palin?

Personally, I'd like to see them get in a more politically-well-phrased variant of the line "What's the difference between Sarah Palin and George W. Bush? -Lipstick," but I don't know if that's feasible with SuperGaffe at the helm.

Scattered Morning Thoughts

The corruption trial of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (R) moves forward today. Accused of accepting bribes in the form of home improvement work, his honest-to-god defense today is apparently going to be "I asked him to bill me every cent and that darned contractor only charged me X." Good luck, Uncle Ted.

Speaking of Alaska politicians who have no business running for election in 2008 - no, not Don Young, silly, but I've got plenty coming on him, too - Sarah Palin's debate chances are getting better everyday, the way I see it. Why? The moderator of the debate is Gwen Ifill.

Oh, that doesn't tell you the whole story? My fault. Allow me to explain. See, Gwen Ifill is a woman. That's good for us. The right wing can't complain about how sexist the moderator was. However, Gwen Ifill is a black woman. And not just any black woman. She's a black woman who's releasing a book on the day of Obama's (hopeful) inauguration as president that is titled The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. I mean, seriously? Everything she says is going to get criticized, but thankfully the American public has really turned on Sarah Palin. Gear up the spin machines, this one's gettin' ugly.

Speaking of Palin and the VP debate, it just occurred to me yesterday that I drive by the Field House at Wash U everyday on my way to work (in fact, I have to find a different way tomorrow because of the debate). I wish I could get a seat, but they're reserved for students. Apparently the CPD usually gives out about 150 tickets, and this year 7,500 students registered for them (Wash U has 6,000 undergrads). That's our record, and it's only for the VP debate. Holy cow.

Hey, when's the last time NYU hosted a debate? Because Wash U has been chosen for five straight elections. (Notice the careful phrasing - we didn't host one in 1996 because Bill Clinton decided there were too many so he cancelled)

(And speaking of the debate: I thought this was priceless)

Finally, 538 has an article today about favorability ratings and the debates. I noticed yesterday that there had been a sharp change in favorability ratings in the last couple days, and he shows that Obama didn't gain independents as much as harden his support among Democrats. I thought it highly likely, and later in the article he agreed, that this could be the Hillary Clinton voters (PUMAs) finally coming over to our side (in a separate article it turns out health care was one of his most significant lines - who knew?), which would probably throw the election into - my new favorite phrase - "minor landslide" mode. Perhaps I could use the phrase "Clinton landslide" since it looks like it may mirror Bill's EV figures, but either way, that's the path we're on at the moment.

First Debate

Alright, I'll chip in two cents. I don't know what the spin will do, but here's my read: basically, nobody really "won". Both candidates were pretty good, and both were rather boring.

But that's not what McCain needed. Any sports fan knows that, with his lead surging by any polling standard, Obama wants to run out the clock. And because Obama didn't look naive and because he didn't have a major gaffe, he essentially won because he's up by two touchdowns and a field goal, but now there's eight minutes left on the clock instead of ten. Same score, less time, McCain's in trouble.

(And, since this is the only foreign policy debate, you could argue that this is John's best chance, his only possession with a real shot.)

That's I'll I got.

Cause for Concern

I'll try and get to the point for once: one source of confidence we all have going forward is that on October 2 at Wash U, Joe Biden will spin circles around Sarah Palin so fast she won't even know if Russia is still the country next door to Alaska.

But I saw Biden on "Meet the Press" yesterday. Two things were clear: he knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't know how to talk about the stuff he knows. He ran his mouth too long and presented answers that weren't to the point enough and didn't seal the argument the way he needed to. Essentially, he may well have the same problem Kerry did: by the time he's done with his answer, those still awake won't have any idea what he was trying to say, and then his opponent will have the opportunity to make a quick jab and score the point.

Here's a conversation as I see it going down:

Moderator: Do you still favor negotiating with Iran without preconditions?

Biden: Well, look Bob/John/Steve/Chris/Tom/whomever, it's dangerous not to talk to these countries! It's dangerous to just push these guys around in the name of American ignorance and not give them a voice. And we're doing the same thing with Syria. And this president won't meet with them. And see Tom/Dick/Harry, that's our problem, we've got a ticket we're running against that actually thinks policies like this are a good idea. If we want to meet our goals, we have to talk to Ahmadinejad and see what he wants. (Optional 45 seconds more of unrelated ranting)

Moderator: Governor Palin, your response?

Palin: See what he wants?! You know, for all his experience Joe Biden is still living in a naive fantasy world. In today's dangerous times, when Muslim extremists are trying to attack our country, the Democrats just want to sit down to tea with these guys and see how they're feeling. John McCain won't be appeasing the terrorists, he'll be defending our country, which is what he'll always do, because he'd rather see John McCain lose than see America lose.