The perfect nexus of progressive politics, current events, and the indecipherable world of sports. With three regions represented, think of it as "Around the Horn" without Reali. Except in a blog form. And except also covering political topics. So not really like "Around the Horn" at all.
I have spent the morning scouring the media reports of the debate along with the major columnist's reactions. The general consensus is this: That among the writers, McCain won, if only be a small margin. Among the people, according to the three main polls conducted on the event, Obama won handily. The media thought it was one of the best presidential debates in may election cycles, the population as a wholes, less so.
Who do I think won? You win a debate by delivering one-liners, and I thought McCain had more of them. You also win a debate by memorable exchanges, and Obama's "John, you were wrong" exchange was probably the best of the night.
The debate, which focused heavily on foreign affairs, may have actually confused viewers and listeners. Foreign policy is not a particularly strong subject in a country where many citizens have trouble locating countries like Georgia or Azerbaijan on a map. In a way, the debate’s omission of many polarizing domestic issues like abortion, gay marriage and immigration may have served to calm the race.
Due, perhaps, to the lack of polarizing issues, both candidates seemed to develop their own, broader personalities on-screen. The depth of the debate led to a deeper understanding of each candidate’s individual character: Obama was no longer the ‘celebrity’ or novelty because of his race, and McCain was no longer, well, McBush.
Based on projected ratings that are supposed to be stratospheric, along with the general sense that no one lost it, we'll call the debate: a draw
[UPDATE: See below, Obama's camp is playing up the polling results, while McCain is playing up Obama's responses]
If you are, like me, one for analogies... try this:
Three days ago, the twins started their "playoff series" against the Chicago White Sox. Given the importance of the "series," it was, of course, a 7-game series. By virtue of their 2.5 game lead with just 6 to go, let's say the White Sox were up 3-0. The Twins had their backs against the wall and couldn't lose.
"Game 4," on Tuesday, saw an offensive explosion and a great pitching performance from Scott Baker. Twins win easily, still down 3-1 in the "series."
"Game 5," on Wednesday was a true game 5 nail-biter. The Twins led early and relied on an oft-shaky bullpen to close the deal and keep their hopes alive. The Twins, still down 3-2, were just setting up the "Game 6" drama which I will never, ever, forget.
As you can see in the picture above, we sat lower deck down the third base line, and joined nearly 50,000 other crazy, raving, adrenaline filled fans to cheer on the hometown boys (they're filled to the rafters in the upper deck at the dome!). It's not often that you get to see Game 6 of a playoff series when it's make or break time...
In 1991, a certain Twins' centerfielder who was a barrel of monkeys to watch and full of love for the game, put the Twins on his back for Game 6 of a crucial series when they were also down 3-2. On that night, Kirby Puckett stole the hearts of kids from Burnsville to Bimidji, from Beckett to Brainard -- he made a great catch and hit a homerun to score one of the most dramatic wins in Twins history.
Last night, a different Twins' centerfielder (also a barrel of monkeys to watch and full of love for the game) put the Twins on his back in this "Game 6," and played the game of his life. Go-Go Gomez, a fan favorite, took my breath away and nearly brought tears to my eyes as he flew from first to home in the bottom of the eighth to tie the game. He finished the game with four hits -- including two triples -- and, of course, an unbelieveable catch. What else would you expect from the Twins CF in a crucial game 6?
With their win last night, the Twins have essentially tied the series with the White Sox at 3-3. "Game 7" will be drawn out -- just like it was in 1991. 9 frames will not be enough. We will have to play extra innings (7 or 8 games) to determine the winner of this Game 7. If history tells us anything, though, it's to never count out the Twins.
Last night was a game that will stick with me for as long as I live. To be there, and feel the energy in that dome helps you to realize why they Twins are 52-26 with the "dome-field advantage." I went crazy, I went bonkers, I nearly lost it when Alexi Cassila won it in the 10th. Thanks to the Twins for reminding me why I love them so much.
So now the debate is officially back on. However, it should have been a clue that it was going to take place, when a McCain staffer accidentally started an ad buy on the WSJ a day early ... ooops!
According to Wikipedia, the University of Kentucky Men's Basketball program had three legendary teams during the Rick Pitino era. They were the "The Unforgettables": the 1992 team, "The Untouchables": the 1996 team, "The Unbelievables": the 1997 team.
Personally, I have always called the 1992 team the "unforgivables" because it was unforgivable that they lost that game to Duke and unforgivable that they didn't at least attempt to block Christian Laettner's game-winning shot. Mostly I did this to tease Left Wing Jumper (whose name does little to hide the fact that he is über-wonkish on all things college basketball), who has always retorted with some explanatiopn of just how improbable that it is that the 1992 team even made it that far, considereing when Eddie Sutton left, the NCAA was one vote from giving the death penalty to the program.
As you probably are aware, last night the Minnesota Twins completed the sweep of the Chicago White Sox and pulled into the lead in the AL Central. Based on the sheer unlikelhood of a sweep happening, StarTribune writer Jim Souhan has dubbed them "the Improbables."
The problem for me is that it has taken all of my best efforts not to get sucked back onto the Twins bandwagon. I've never been one for roller-coasters, and the thought of them blowing their play-off chances (or making the play-offs, and getting swept by the Rays) has kept me from being a full on die-hard fan. Well, I guess last night changed things a bit. Now I have to root for them.
But I swear, if they lose ... they are the new "unforgivables."
I loved Fridays in elementary school because every so often we would get to have a movie day. Well folks, on the blog today, its movie day!
First we have Gov. Palin second-guessing her statement that she would never second guess Israel. Will someone PLEASE tell me, whether she would or would not, ever second guess Israel?
Next we have Gov. Palin explaining why it matters that her state is near Russia. I think she loses me when she starts talking about Russian planes coming to attack America. Is anyone else confused? Does she make sense at all?
I know, I know... It's been said before. That doesn't mean I don't get to say it again. It's time for Obama to start throwing some punches that hit McCain where it counts -- in the media gonads.
Last week, the Obama camp tried to shift away from their "even keel" approach and launched two "sort of" negative attacks on McCain. The first suggested he was old because he was unfamiliar with e-mail, and the second focused on the number of former lobbyists who volunteer or work for the McPalin campaign. Barack, is that the best that you've got?
McCain on the other hand, launched scathing attacks that hit at the core of the American pschye, comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Moses, accusing Obama of supporting sex ed for 5-year-olds, and of referring to Palin as a pig wearing lipstick. It's not surprising which ones the media jumped all over. Obama has had to spend the last few weeks on the defensive, spending more time dealing with McCain's statments then spreading his message of "hope and change," which is quickly losing its grip with the undecideds.
McCain is playing a classic game: Get mad, get angry, get votes. Throw some real punches, and if they hit the media, they hit your opponent.
Consider this, from Time Magazine's Michael Scherer:
It didn't matter much if [McCain's] outrage was fueled by fact — better if it was fueled by emotion, which would tweak the fury of his base, leading to exciting exchanges on cable television and fresh chatter around the watercooler. Unlike health care or foreign policy, the emotional charge of outrage has a magnetic effect; voters are forced to take sides and respond, shifting the debate.
It's time for Obama to start hitting hard. His base is behind him, he doesn't have to worry about pushing people away if he strays a bit from his "above the fray" or higher ground approach. What he needs to do is go out and grab those undecideds by making McCain take some real knocks:
Call McCain out for being a feminist (why won't he let a woman speak for herself)?
Run to the highest hill and askeveryone who will listen: McCain is scared to debate... what does that say about his ability to run this country?
Expose his Karl Rove-style tactics and lies
It's time to get mad, Obama... about something, ANYTHING! You've got your people rallied around hope and change. We're hooked.
Now you need to go out and hit McPalin where it counts...
When I was in college, I returned to my high school to watch my brother, Left Wing Jumper, play in a basketball game against my high school's arch-rival. While not great, our high school team was scrappy, gutsy, hard-trying, and hustled a lot. (In other words: we had a lot of white players). As the 4th quarter began to wind down, we found ourselves down by more than two baskets, and the crowd had definitely begun to lose interest. The situation began to look hopeless.
There is one thing though, that riles up any high school basketball crowd ... and that is a dunk. At that very moment, one of my brothers high school classmates (who had been relegated to either textile manager or H2o specialist) turned to me and said, "We need a momentum dunk." And he was right. But for anyone who knows anything about basketball, you cannot just will a momentum dunk. The situation must present itself, and it must be a natural part of the game. Anyone can film their friend throwing down nasties in their backyard and put it on you tube, but it's the momentum dunks that are the game changers.
When John McCain said that the "economy was fundamentally strong," he committed a text-book turnover. Obama had been playing defense for much of the previous two weeks, and McCain had pulled even (or ahead) in the polls. And then, on the day that the DOW tanked, McCain made his blunder. With that, Obama took control.
And he dunked.And he dunked. And he threw down tomahawk after tomahawk after filthy dunk on McCain. Pretty soon, when McCain's team looked up at the scoreboard, things were looking very ugly. So he called a time-out. Now, there are two types of timeouts. The first is merely to stop the bleeding, and refocus your team on the game at hand. But the second type is far more consequential to the outcome of a game.
Unlike what Left Wing Jumper posted below, I think McCain's time-out has totally deflated Obama's momentum. It shifted the focus from the economy as a whole to the economic bail-out of this bill. By doing what he did, he forced Obama to become part of the solution in Washington. Why is that bad for Obama?
Because what I expect to happen is that the Congress and the President will come up with some bi-partisan bill. It will meet the congressional demands, but it will be pricey. Somewhere between $700 Billion and $2 trillion. And tax-paying Americans are going to be on the hook for it.
I believe McCain is setting up a scenario in which he will vote against the bill, then spend the next five weeks campaigning on a platform of saving every American close to $50,000. He will rally fiscal conservatives and moderate democrats to his side and, most importantly, distance himself from both President Bush and Barack Obama.
See the second type of time-out is where you draw up plays. I am pretty sure Mr. McCain's staff has a white board, a dry erase maker, and a plan.
[For those of you sports fans who have no idea what a momentum dunk looks like: click here]
John McCain may have learned the hard way, you don't call a 'timeout' when you don't have one to call.
His decision to 'suspend' his presdiential campaign may be looked back upon as one of the single greatest blunders in the long and storied history of presidential politics in America. Years later, McCain's move may be lumped together with 'Swiftboaters,' "I invented the internet," 'What's a supermarket scanner?', and this:
Yes, President Bush may have immediately saved McCain from complete embarrassment by calling both McCain and Obama to Washington to help pass the 'Bail Out' bill. But, there is little McCain can do now to prove that he isn't scared to debate Obama on Friday. Americans want to hear from their candidates. They need to hear from their candidates. There is nothing more infuriating to independents (those who will really decide this election) than not getting a chance to make an informed and honest decision when chosing who to vote for. McCain has, in escence, told those voters that the democratic process doesn't matter. "You don't get to hear from my running mate or me, but trust us when we say, 'we're bringing change to Washington and we're putting America first.'" Sorry John, but that's not how it works.
McCain was immediately rebutted by the Commission on Presidential Debates, one of the most stringently non-partisan organizations. They released the following harcame forward with this hard-handed press release yesterday afternoon:
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is moving forward with its plan for the first presidential debate at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss. this Friday, September 26. The plans for this forum have been underway for more than a year and a half. The CPD's mission is to provide a forum in which the American public has an opportunity to hear the leading candidates for the president of the United States debate the critical issues facing the nation. We believe the public will be well served by having all of the debates go forward as scheduled.
America will hear from all four of the candidates for the highest two offices, whether McCain likes it or not. That's what we deserve, and that's what we'll get.
There are no 'timeouts' in this campaign. When things get tough for McCain in the White House, is he just going to 'suspend' his presidency? Maybe let Nancy Pelosi take over for a while? Campaigns have gone forward in the face of far worse calamaties that what America is experiencing right now. This one will go forward as well. It's too bad for McCain that burning a TO he didn't have may have decided this campaign early in the fourth quarter.
Let's state outright a few obvious points. Bringing the presidential candidates and their press entourages back to Capitol Hill won't speed or improve the process of coming up with a good bailout deal. It will politicize it. That's so transparently obvious that it barely requires stating. And of course that is the point.
By going public with his 'suspension' announcement as a breaking news statement McCain intended to make any agreement between the candidate impossible. Contrast that with Obama's campaign, which apparently tried to get both campaigns to agree on a common set of principles privately before going public. Finally, there's no logical reason there can't be a presidential debate while a bailout plan is being negotiated.
Finally, does anyone think that McCain would have come up with this gambit if his polls were where they were two weeks ago instead of where they are today? Of course, not. This isn't a reaction to the national financial crisis but to the McCain polling crisis.
The McCain supporters who are cheering this aren't doing so because they think it's the right thing to do but because they hope it's ingenious politics.
If anyone can think of any reason why these points are not incontestably accurate, I would be obliged if you could let me know.
He's desperate and reckless. This is what it appears to be: political stunt dressed up as vainglorious self-sacrifice. In other words, typical John McCain.
Everyone, say hello to America's newest populist. The voice of the PEOPLE. The pride of the MIDDLE CLASS. The voice of reason and regulation against the fat cats of Wall St.
John McCain is suspending his campaign because he just can't bear to wage political battles when Americans are suffering. Oh the hummanity!
In the past, campaigns have continued in the face of mere blips on the radar of American history, such as the Great Depression and World Wars.
But now, in the face of a true disaster - Wall St. honchos are fearful of loosing the millions they've garnered under an era of deregulation - we must react. We Must Not Go Forward. And only one man can lead us through this challenge.
McCain. The TRUE Populist. The only candidate that cares enough to suspend his campaign in the face of CRISIS. America FIRST!
Read McCain's press statement from earlier today:
Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.
I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.
We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.
Edited to add my own thoughts: McCain thinks that it's more important for two Senators to work on an economy that 48 other Senators are working on than for Americans to get to know the man they will be electing to lead the country for the next four years.
[UPDATE: I think Obama agrees, "He's suddenly a hard-charging populist," Obama said. "And that's all well and good, but I sure wish he was talking the same way over a year ago, when I introduced a bill that would've helped stop the multimillion-dollar bonus packages that CEOs grab on their way out the door."]
I am a law school student, so I only have time for rudimentary math - but I thought I would weigh in on tonight's big Twins game.
My advice for Nick Blackburn tonight is THROW STRIKES.
For those actuaries out there, this may seem like weak math, but, again, it's all I have time for.
In Nick Blackburn's 15 starts this season where he has thrown 66.6% strikes or LESS, he has a 6.38 ERA
In Blackburn's 16 starts this season where he has thrown 66.7% strikes or HIGHER, he has a 2.80 ERA
Moreover, in the 8 starts where he has thrown at least 70% strikes, he has never posted more than 2 earned runs.
Tonight, we should know early on which Blackburn we're watching. If he's throwing strikes, he should be on top of his game. If not, it could be an early retreat to the Florida golf-courses for the Twins.
For those who have not read his column today, I strongly encourage you to read George Will today. He offers a critique of McCain that only a a Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative American newspaper columnist, journalist, and author has the credibility to offer. While I would encourage a reading of the entire column, I have posted several of the key passages below.
Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
He goes on to say:
In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people.
And closes with:
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?
I think he hit it right on the head. Or, in his own Chicago Cubs parlance he hit it out of the park.
Based on a recently flurry of new polling that can be observed here, here, and here, Obama has now pulled into a one electoral vote lead. Michigan and New Mexico look fairly safe for him, and the newest Quinnipiac poll in Colorado shows Obama with a 4 point lead. Pennsylvania, Nevada, Virginia (where polling has been all over the map), and New Hampshire are still too-close-to-call. Based on tightening in Minnesota, it is the nest most likely state to move into the toss-up category.
In a trade very reminiscent of "The Trade", the McCain campaign agreed to flip-flop the debate topics in exchange for allowing a rigid structure to the Palin-Biden debate.
At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden, will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates. McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.
I think this works out to be a huge victory for the Obama camp. Barring some international catastrophe between now and Friday, the debate on foreign affairs should be straightforward, and while McCain should come in with a perceived strength on the subject, Obama merely needs to show he is competent in world issues to pass.
The advantage Obama gained by switching the debate topics is obvious: he saves the best for last. While it is impossible to predict what will happen over the next four weeks, the economy figures to be a major issue no matter what. For Obama, this is the issue that has lead to his refocused campaign and the resurgence in the polls. If he can focus the election on economic terms, he will be riding a very big wave into election day.
For Biden the flip-side of the trade is actually a perfect concession. While he would love ample time to demonstrate why he s such a superior debater than Ms. Palin, he is probably best just sticking to the issues. This will prevent him from veering too far off-topic, and will allow the audience to focus on the sharp contrast between their respective positions rather than the soap-opera battle of the sexes the media is hoping for.
In 1988 in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, an incredibly close contest for one seat on the Governor's Council came down to a difference of 5 votes.
Weeks after the election, the Suffolk Superior Court ruled that Herbert L. Connolly, the incumbent who had sat on the council for eight terms, had narrowly defeated his opponent Robert B. Kennedy 14,702 to 14,697. 5 votes, or less than 2 hundredths of a percent. Here's the kicker: Connolly got incredibly lucky. After a long day of door-knocking and campaigning, Connoly got to the polls too late to vote for himself. He never voted.
Mr. Connolly later said, ''Every year, I vote first thing in the morning. This time I reversed my plans. That's when I got confused. I think in my mind I thought I had voted.''
That's when I got confused! Granted, Connolly did win -- but how do you forget to vote in your own race? If just six more people had turned off their TVs, put on some golashes, made their way to the polls, and pulled the lever for Kennedy, Connolly's own confusion would have cost him his ninth term.
Now, judging by the graph above, who is more likely to forget to vote, McCain or Obama? I'm no scientist, but at 72, McCain has a 65% chance of forgetting to vote for himself (or something like that). As for Mr. Barack, he's a strapping whipper snapper at 47, with less than half that chance of forgetting to vote for himself (only a 29% chance or something like that).
So, if you didn't already have reason enough to vote, here's some fuel to your smoldering "vote-fire:" MAKE JOHN MCCAIN PAY FOR FORGETTING TO VOTE.
McCain's other problem is that Sarah Palin may no longer be an asset to the ticket; in fact, she may be a liability. Averaging the candidates' favorability scores across four recent polls -- as one should always try and do when looking at favorability numbers since they can vary greatly depending on question wording -- Palin now has the worst net scores among the four principals in the race:
Palin's average favorability score is now a +7 -- about 10 points behind Joe Biden's numbers. Perhaps more importantly, these numbers are 10-15 points behind where Palin's numbers were just a week or so ago. If voters come in not knowing very much about a candidate -- and the more they see of the candidate, the less they like of the candidate -- this is a major concern.
The queen of moose stew may not by McCain's golden girl after all
For a blog that is supposedly about the nexus of politics and sports, I can think of nothing better to share with you than the news that at 2pm Central time, the Big Ten Network will be airing the results of the first "Big Ten Battleground Poll." Obviously every one of the eight states that are home to the Big Ten Schools are 'battleground' states with the exception of Illinois (although a recent poll indicated that the race there is tightening also).
According to the network release:
Poll results will be reported during a television program titled Big Ten Battleground: Campaign 2008 that will air on the Big Ten Network on Sept. 18, at 3 p.m. CDT. Faculty experts with first hand knowledge of the dynamics of the race in their respective states will appear on the show to analyze the results. Video from the program will be available on this Web site following the show.
I am fascinated that they might be using the Big Ten Network for something other than sports. While I don't expect them to be showing The Nobel Conference anytime soon, I think that the network's desire to branch out into other fields is worth watching.
P.S. To Left Wing Jumper and others who do not get the Big Ten Network, ignore this post, and return to whining about how you haven't gotten to see any of Northwestern's undefeated season.
As the pace of polling picks up in the Presidential race - about 40 (YES FORTY) state and national polls were released yesterday - I thought it might be useful to consider what these polls may be missing.
According to Pew Research, back in 2004, according to exit polls, 7.1% of voters were cell-phone only voters. That number is expected to double or more for this election.
So, what effect would adding the cell-phone voters have on the polls? On the overall numbers of the poll, according to Pew, the effect may be small. In a recent survey they conducted, when cell phone-only individuals were blended with the land-line individuals that typically respond to the major surveys, the mean difference among a range of questions was only 0.7%.
The problem is that, among certain demographic groups, that number changes dramatically. As one might suspect, most of the under-represented groups in land-line only surveys lean or lean heavily toward Barack Obama. According to the most recent government estimate, more than 25% of those under age 30 use only a cell phone. Other demographic highlights from a 2007 SF Chronicle article:
-- Latinos at 15.3 percent were the most likely of ethnic groups to sever their landline and rely on cell phones exclusively,
-- Fifty-four percent of unrelated adults with no children went without a landline compared with 10.5 percent of adults with children.
-- Renters (26.4 percent) were more likely than homeowners (5.8 percent) to use wireless.
Let's see. Under 30 population generally expected to support Obama? (check) Latinos generally expected to support Obama? (check) Renters expected to support Obama? (check)
Heretofore [the polling] industry has dismissed the cellphone-only population with a troika of "yes, buts." Yes, they're undercounted, but 1) they don't vote anyway; 2) their numbers are still small; and 3) we can find acceptable substitutes in the land-line population.
And to be honest, there is a fourth, still more powerful rationale that remains unstated: "Yes, they're undercounted, but it's too damn difficult and expensive to reach them."
As Salon points out, there is, of course, the fear that these groups - especially young voters - won't vote anyway so leaving them off of polls isn't that big of a deal. But if the primaries showed us anything about Barack Obama, he inspired the young people to 'prove 'em wrong' on election day. Turnout among high school and college voters and caucus goers was essential to Obama's success this spring.
The Salon article I quote above estimates that the inclusion of the cell-phone only crowd could boost Obama by 2-3 percentage points. Even if it's not that great - even if it's at 0.7%, as Pew conservatively estimates (afterall - some conservatives are 'wireless' as well) - those voters could well prove the pollsters wrong.
Then, with a comical glint in his eye, Ozzie Guillen launched a commentary in which best-selling posters or bumper stickers are made:
"We have to win. We don't have to hope for somebody to beat Minnesota.
"Those little piranhas are out of teeth now," quipped Guillen, referring to the nickname he gave the Twins two years ago for their pesky style. "I got the feeling they don't have any teeth left. They've been fighting and grinding all year long. They should have little teeth now."
"You know, rather than bemoaning the low voting rate in this country, we should be astonished that anybody goes to the polls at all. We’re saddling the American voter with too many imponderables. For instance, you think that Obama would run an administration like his campaign but McCain would run one that’s completely different. What if it’s the other way around? Or what if McCain decides to be completely different by running an administration composed of no one but former members of the Green Bay Packers? The problem with being unpredictable is … well, you can’t predict.
Most voters grow up being told to vote the man, not the party. Out of all the biographical data and psychological insights we [the media] throw at them, they’re responsible for deducing who would be wisest when something terrifying happens overseas, who would be canniest about wheedling Congress into passing sensible energy legislation and which guy’s platitudes about reform would actually turn into something useful.
And given the fact that the current president came into office promising bipartisanship and no risky nation-building projects overseas, said voters could reasonably conclude that they have to make these judgments while completely discounting everything the candidates tell them.
No wonder people decide to base their entire choice on one issue, like abortion or guns or the preservation of Yucca Mountain. It’s all too big of a burden."
That being said, in the face of plummeting stocks and international financial stress, a falling dollar, and diminished relationships abroad, we're going to potentially turn to PRESIDENT Sarah Palin because of her stance on social issues like women's rights (or the lack thereof), gun rights, and a working operative of "Drill, baby, drill"?
I may not have invented the Blackberry, but I say "Thanks, but no thanks" to Sarah Palin.
The one thing that I think Gail Collins, the author of the above quote, misses, is that we DID know what we were getting with W. Bush. We knew he would do whatever it took to fill the pockets of his fellow oil cronies, we knew he would appoint smart, but ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justices, and we knew his ego and selfishness would strain international relations.
One can argue that a history in legislative work history doesn't ready someone to be an executive who has to make snap decisions at 4am when the country is under attack, but are you expecting me to say I am surprised that Bush's response (despite the fact the he had so called legislative experience) to 9/11 encompasses some of the most deplorable displays of decision-making that this country has ever seen. I DID know that that was a risk we would face with Bush in office and I DO know that is a risk we would face if McCain takes office in support of the same failed policy stances of Georgie-porgie.
I don't mind if you say that many (or even most) people vote on single issues. But you can't say that we (as a people) can't know what to expect with the candidates. It's actually surprising how politicians act incredibly predictably once they get in office -- even if it doesn't match up to what they say.
Yes, by now it's old news. Obama raked in $66 million in August. Quite an impressive feat and a new record for a Presidential campaign.
Yet, I suspect that the recent tightening of the race may have actually HELPED Obama, and he will have a substantially larger fundraising month in September than he did in August. The buzz surrounding the Sarah Palin VP announcement and convention speech in St. Paul produced a 24-hour period in which the Obama camp raised $10 million. Yes, the GOP suceeded in firing up its own base, but the selection of the neocon Palin fired up the liberal base as well. As a Politico article pointed out yesterday, a lot of the big liberal donors are now worried as this race become unexpectedly tight. Many supporters figured Obama to run away with the race.
Said one bg-time Hollywood supporter: “People are really scared that McCain is gaining. In my 20 years here, I have never seen folks write checks like this.”
This comes on the heels of a NYT article that was printed last week that stated:
The signs of concern have become evident in recent weeks as early fund-raising totals have suggested that Mr. Obama’s decision to bypass public financing may not necessarily afford him the commanding financing advantage over Senator John McCain that many had originally predicted.
But overconfident supporters may now feel a sense of urgency because the race is so close, and many recent polls have even shown McCain ahead. Trailing in the polls might be just what the doctor ordered for Obama's fundraising division.
Even during the summer months when Obama looked to be coasting to a 5- or 10-point victory, the leadership of the Obama campaign said they were expecting a closely faught battle. Now they've got one. Potentially, it couldn't have come at a better time.
Just to piggyback off of Official Scorer's post, I thought I would add my own thoughts with 50 days left in the race. Although, as Official Scorer correctly points out, Obama has been on the national stage for 10 months, it is only now that most independents in America are truly starting to pay attention to this race. According to the latest Rasmussen battleground state polls, 1 in 5 voters say they could still change their mind before election day.
Toward the end of 2007, Obama was facing a similar problem in the polls in Iowa as he is facing nationally today. But even as the fall passed along, many Iowans weren't paying too much attention to the race. If Democrats were forced to say who they were voting for, Clinton (see: Most powerful family in Democratic politics over the last two decades) or Edwards (see: second place finish in Iowa in 2004) were the default choices.
Yet, once it got close to election time, people HAD to pay attention. As the date neared, Obama's stock skyrocketed and he ended up winning with a comfortable 7 point margin. When caucus goers started paying attention, Obama surged to the lead. The key factor (and I'll say this time an again) was that Obama had an incredible field operation in place to capitalize on the shift of momentum as people were getting to know who he was.
On Nov. 10, Obama gave an incredible speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa. Looking back, it was significant that this speech was given LATE in the race. Just as his supporters were giving up hope that there was anything he could do to shift the momentum, he busted out a monster. But timing was everything. I think he knew he had to wait until people were paying attention. And, he knew that he didn't want to peak to soon. As Hedi Klum says of fashion, but is equally true with politics, "One day you're on, the next day you're out."
In the General, Obama is still relatively unknown. Yes, those of us that have been paying attention incessantly for the last 20 months know everything about Obama and McCain. But most independent Americans wait until after the conventions and Labor Day to make up their mind. McCain may be up in the polls - his convention did an incredible job of rallying his base and their presence in the polls as supporters has given him a boost - but until we get past the first debate or two, and people have had a few weeks to pay attention to the candidates, we won't know where independents are shifting. As Official Scorer pointed out, the hope is that, the closer we get to election day, more people will start paying attention, and Obama will become less of an unknown. People will start to feel comfortable with Obama. As this happens, as in Iowa, the momentum will shift. But I don't think Obama wants this to happen too soon. No trainer of a three-year old dirt horse in America wants his charge to peak in April when the Kentucky Derby is in May.
As he did in Iowa, if momentum starts to shift, Obama will have the resources (see: $66 million raised in August) and the field operations to capitalize.
So for a while now, my brother and I have been arguing/discussing the issue of where Obama stands in the Presidential race, and where he should be. You have obviously read about this on other blogs, and in other parts of the MSM. The argument goes something like, "A generic democrat would win handily this year, why is Obama struggling?"
There are obviously two sides to the coin. Obama is actually way ahead of where Kerry was four years ago. On September 16, 2004, John Kerry was trailing Bush in the estimated electoral college (EEC) 311-223. As you can see looking at the graphic to the right, currently Obama trails McCain by a much smaller magin, 252-238. However, as pollster Scott Rasmussen points out, the Democratic candidate almost needs to get to 50% in the popular vote to win the presidency (without Ross Perot involved). Even in the most favorable tracking poll, the left-leaning DailyKos' Research 2000 survey, he has only 48% support.
It is usually at this point when I snap into my chicken little routine and my brother has to talk me off the ledge. His main comeback is that it took Obama from February of 2007 to December of 2008 to finally connect with Iowa voters, and that he was down by 10 percent with a month to go before winning by 7-percentage points. He argues that Obama peaked at the right time in Iowa and will do it again in the general election.
Iterestingly enough, it took Barack 10 months to connect with Iowa voters, the same amount of time he has from his Iowa victory (when he was thrust onto the national stage) to the election in November. And if there is any doubt that he connected with the Iowa voters, a look at recent state polling compared to Iowa (a state that went for Bush in 2004) polling, shows that Obama is running very strongly there and has connected with the 94.6% white population.
But does the argument hold water? Specifically, is there any reason why Obama is less than 50 days away from the election and still failing to connect with voters? There is one obvious issue, and it does not take an episode of the Cosby show to explain it.
Just today, on the front page of Drudge, under the headline 'Race War!' Matt Drudge links to an article by Fatimah Ali of the Philadelphia Daily News where she references a previous article where he again linked to her with an inflammatory headline. Simultaneously, CNN links to an article on Time Magazine's website about what it calls the elephant in the room.
Over the past 18 months, Obama has been attacked as a naive novice, an empty suit, a tax-and-spend liberal, an arugula-grazing élitist and a corrupt ward heeler, but the only attacks that clearly stung him involved the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — attacks that portrayed him as an angry black man under the influence of an even angrier black man. White America has shown an abundant willingness to support no-demands blacks like Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey, Colin Powell and Will Smith, but a race man like Malcolm X would be another story ... Obama's opponents want him to look niche, like BET or Chris Rock or the NBA; his challenge is to prove that he's also attractive to the ABC and Dane Cook and MLB crowds.
While I personally believe that NASCAR-dads should have been substituted for "MLB-crowds," I think his basic point is a valid one. America does not wan't some crazy Black guy running amok in the White House. Grunwald closes with, "White America already embraces black celebrities ... But it has never really warmed up to an angry one."
That's what changed in Iowa. They got to know Barack. They saw him, and heard him, and touched him, and he touched them. They realized that he is the one who came from a single-parent family, that he is the one who has worked for the middle-class his whole life. That unlike McCain, whose father gave him everything, Obama is someone who had to overcome significant hurdles to get where he is today. (And I am in now way diminishing McCain's POW status, that was obviously a hurdle, but by his own admission, that was the only adversity he ever faced as a young man.)
But mostly, the Obamas were able to show the Iowans that despite the color of their skin, they were JUST LIKE THEM. From the middle-class, for the middle-class. Race was irrelevant. In Iowa that took hold, propelled Obama to a victory and a significant lead in the general election. In other states there is still work to do. The moment West Virginians begin asking themselves, "If there was a candidate who grew up in the middle-class, with a single-mom, spent most of his adult life helping factory workers, and is now endorsed by every major union in America and he was White, would I vote for him?" Obama has won.
As our readership continues to grow exponentially, I have decided to post two quick maps to show you all where our visitors are accessing the pages from. I am personally thrilled with the international audience (as small as it is)! We hope to keep up the good work (or whatever it is that you read the blog for), and plan to announce a few new changes in the coming weeks.
EDIT: The maps don't appear that nice, but click them and they are crystal clear.
John McCain promised a campaign that is "Respectful."
Said McCain on April 4, 2008: "This will be a respectful campaign. Americans want a respectful campaign. They're tired of the attacks. They're tired of the impuning of people's character and integrity. They want a respectful campaign. And I'm of the firm belief that they'll get it."
Thanks to some love shown to our blog by 3bluedudes.com (Awesome website by the way!), I have gone ahead and updated the electoral map. No major changes, although the next two states to turn very well might be Michigan and Pennsylvania (to gray). Currently we have it, 259-252 with 17 electoral votes in our toss-up category.
This is NOT a prediction of what will happen in November, this is a estimation of what would happen if the election were to be held tomorrow. Feel free to use it as a guide of where to call and how often to phone bank.
[UPDATE: Based on a recent Zogby poll showing McCain up by nearly 5 points in Pennsylvania, I think its fair to say that state is now "too-close-to-call."]
Two of the best comments I have seen about the Gibson/Palin interview:
"She had me at hello Charley-- had me scared to death....a series of knowledge and logic gaps that ought to shake every foreign policy specialist, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, to his or her roots." -- Norman Ornstein
"We’ve seen what happens when 'the average person' becomes president. The world is simply too complex to do that again. She wants to be a heartbeat away from becoming the leader of the free world behind a 72 year old man with a recurrent deadly illness and she gives answers like she’s in a beauty pageant and hasn’t even followed the news enough over the last 6 years to know what the Bush Doctrine is. It’s fine for the average person not to know, but it’s not fine for someone who could become President at any moment, any more than it’s fine for your pediatric oncologist to say, 'Ah, gee whiz, I don’t read what’s in those fancy medical magazines—I just give it my all and pray a lot when I see a sick child.' Time for a second opinion." -- Drew Westen
U.S. Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean, 21, who was arrested in Mexico in April, will be returned to Onslow County, North Carolina, within a week, to face charges of killing Marine Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, who was likely pregnant with his child after he raped her. She threatened to turn him in, and her charred body and that of her fetus were found beneath a fire pit in Laurean's backyard near Camp Lejeune after he had a pig roast with friends while her body was buried below the roasting pig.
Because Laurean holds citizenship in the United States and Mexico, he could not be immediately deported and had to go through the extradition process, which means he will likely not face the death penalty.
I have followed this case closely since Nancy Grace first reported the disappearance of Lauterbach from a Marine base not far from where I was stationed in North Carolina. OS and LWJ probably know that his apprehension and, finally, extradition, bring me great joy. That being said, let's save the gas (we need all of it that we can get!), let him live, and let him wallow in the misery of the Wallens Ridge Federal Prison in Virginia. I wish the best to you Ceasar... don't drop the soap!
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
This just in: Zimbabwe's opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and President Robert Mugabe have reached a deal to share power and control of the country.
After mediating four days of talks in Harare, South African President Thabo Mbeki said the deal would be signed and made public on Monday. The government and MDC had earlier agreed that Mr Tsvangirai would be PM and Mr Mugabe stay as president. He said the exact composition of the new government was still being worked out but refused to be drawn on details.
This got me to wondering, if these two can share control of Zimbabwe, why can’t we figure out who controls the Minnesota Twins starting rotation?With the absence of a Brad Radke or Johan Santana, our rotation is a bit like a leaderless nation… who will we turn to when it really counts? Since Zimbabwe gets two leaders, I figured the Twins should as well.
I set out to answer the question: What pair should start the playoffs for the Twins?
I took a look at each of the starting pitchers last 5 starts – some when the Twins were winning, and some during this horrid stretch of late.I don’t think you can include the entire season because hot (or cold) pitchers can often change the face of a playoff series (anyone remember k-rod circa 2002?). I focused on certain statistics, which I outline below, but tried to stick with stuff that could be attributed to the pitching, and not something else…
The twins defense, often vaunted as one of the best in the business, has the third most errors (99 in 145 games) in the American League, only the Tigers (105) and Rangers (119) fielders have been statistically worse this year.For that reason, looking at runs allowed, along with several other categories, was out.In addition, based on no statistical data at all, my own bias has led me to the conclusion that manager Ron Gardenhire goes to the Twins bullpen too early, too often, and with inconsistent predictability.For that reason, I focused on pitching averages or ratios, without letting matter the numbers of innings that he allowed his starters to pitch in a given outing. I threw out things like Win Loss record and ERA because I don’t think they are good predictors of what will happen in the future.
I tried to focus on the things over which pitchers had the most control: Walks, Strikeouts, and Homeruns are the only things in which no fielder has any real control over.These three things received the most consideration.Secondary things were WHIP, batting average, and slugging percentage.The “range” of fielders behind the pitchers matter for these, but Gomez and Span have been great for everyone, and Delmon Young has been all-around clownish in left field no matter who is on the mound.
The results leave Liriano and Slowey far and away the clear choices to share the title of Twins “Ace,” and they should go 1-2 (in that order) if we make the playoffs.My personal favorite, Glen Perkins who has the best season record, actually finished at the bottom of the bunch in the statistics that matter, leaving Blackburn or Baker to start game three:
In a new Insider Advantage poll, it appears McCain has taken a 8 point lead in Florida. While that somewhat correlates with the 7-point lead that Quinnipiac shows, there is something amiss about this poll.
The fact that it reports that of adults 18-29 Barack Obama is only leading by 3 points. Within the margin of error?!? Doubtful to impossible. What is actually occurring is the problem with land-line phone polls. What upwardly-mobile 18-29 year-old do you know that has a landline. I know zero.
That's right. Of my 110 Facebook friends, the only ones that have landlines are those that live with their parents. Think about that sample size. Even if Barack only has a 10-point lead among the cell phone crowd, with over 1 million people have reached voting age in Florida since 2004, how many of those one million are cell phone users?
I will never forget where I was that morning. I was a senior at Southwest High School. I had forgotten my wallet in my football locker the previous evening after practice. On my way to school, I swung by the football field to grab my wallet. I had "Dave Ryan in the Morning" playing on the radio of my trusty 1990 Chevy Celebrity. Just as I was pulling up to the football field, Dave Ryan came on the air, and mentioned a news brief, just coming across the AP Wire about a plane crashing into one of the World Trade Center buildings. At the time, they, as I, couldn't figure out what had happened. There were a few jokes about a prop plane gone astray. "How could a pilot not see a skyscraper?" That sort of thing.
Less than 30 minutes later, all of our lives had been changed. I remember running into my adviser's room (Mrs. Sexton) and telling her she had to turn on the TV. Something was happening. There was President Bush getting the news (He gets the news at 1:02 but doesn't move for another 5 minutes even after two planes had crashed into the two World Trade Center Towers). We all would spend the rest of the day sitting in front of televisions. We moved from class to class, almost like zombies. Not sure what to think. Was this some sort of anarchist revolution? There were planes crashing into buildings, and fires on the D.C. Mall (later proved to be a false report on CNN). Greta Van Sustren reported helicopters crashing at the pentagon (Also later proved false - it had been an airplane). What was happening?
Well, it's 7 years later, and we are no closer to Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. As CBS points out:
Seven years after Sept. 11, 2001, in spite of President Bush's vows, the mastermind of the deadliest terrorist attacks on American soil, Osama bin Laden, is still at large and leading a resurgent al Qaeda.
Since that day, al Qaeda has struck in Madrid, London, Bali, and Casablanca. The group has claimed more than a dozen terror attacks around the world and many hundreds more in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving thousands of dead and wounded.
John McCain would continue the failed policies of the Bush administration. At least, the Bush administration before the Bush administration started adopting Barack Obama's foreign policy positions over the past few weeks.
Incredibly, Bush has conceded to opening up some channels for lower level dialogue with Iran. Hmmm...Wasn't it Barack Obama who was skewered by the right and the center-left for his insistence at the CNN-YouTube debate on keeping all dialogue options on the table for dealing with Iran?
Bush too has decided that he is willing to work with Iraqi President Al-Malaki who has insisted on a time-table for troop withdrawal. Sec. of State Rice has even stated that the U.S. and Iraq are coming together on the issue of a timetable for troop withdrawal. Again, haven't we heard Barack Obama calling for this for months? Years?
Most important, considering today's anniversary, President Bush is finally starting to see it Obama's way on Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda. Obama was slaughtered by the media (are we sure it's his base??) for his statement that if he had the opportunity to take out high level Al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, he would do so with or without permission from the government in Islamabad. Well, just this past week we learned that U.S. forces have commenced airstrikes aimed at targeted Al-Qaeda leadership within sovereign Pakistani territory. Actually, these tactical strikes may have been going on since February, just after Obama made is ill-fated statement. John McCain, in his victory speech when he claimed the presumptive nomination of the GOP this spring, attacked Obama for his position, calling it inexperienced. What would he say now?
Obama has been right time and again. It has just taken a long time to convince the Bush administration. Obama has been calling for years for a stronger presence in Afghanistan to allow us to go after the real perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. As Obama puts it, the war in Iraq has distracted us from the real war on terror. This is from a speech that Obama gave in August. Of 2007.
By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.
...
After 9/11, our calling was to write a new chapter in the American story. To devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad. We were ready. Americans were united. Friends around the world stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We had the might and moral-suasion that was the legacy of generations of Americans. The tide of history seemed poised to turn, once again, toward hope.
But then everything changed.
We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists' base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.
Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century's stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda."
The political winds were blowing in a different direction. The President was determined to go to war. There was just one obstacle: the U.S. Congress. Nine days after I spoke, that obstacle was removed. Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war, giving the President the broad and open-ended authority he uses to this day. With that vote, Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war. And we went off to fight on the wrong battlefield, with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create, and no plan for how to get out.
Because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11.
...
It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11.
As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban...Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.
Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the border to safety.
This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to violence. It's a tough place.
But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.
As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
Now Bush finally seems to be agreeing with Obama. Again. Bush is set to draw down the troop levels in Iraq and shift resources to Afghanistan. It's about time.
Let's get the right man for the job into the Oval Office. Obama '08.
