It's All About the Benjamins...Bernanke, That Is!

If we’ve learned one thing, and only one thing, from the federal government’s bailout package it is this: you can’t solve problems by just throwing money at them. It really, really is true. I mean, have you ever tried to throw money? It’s understandable if you haven’t: you are poor. I, on the other hand, have “throwing” money due to my fabulous wealth (and I should also just mention here that I’m also extremely attractive and smell like gold). You can take my word for it, throwing money at things just makes the money scatter in the wind, and then you’re surrounded by all sorts of deviants trying to catch the money. It’s not that I need the money, because obviously I do not. I wasn’t going to pick the money back up, but the least people like you could do is wait for me to walk away before going after my financial leavings so I don’t have to be near you.

I digress; you can’t throw money at problems. What we need to do is fire a rocket full of money at the problem. This “Money Missile” if you will (copyright Chris Fredda 2008) could easily get the money to it’s target (the problems) without having it scatter and inviting vagrants and other lowlifes (millionaires) to swarm. Obviously, this would require precision missle system so that you money doesn’t end up going to some other problem, saying curing AIDS, when really what you’re trying to do is rescue lenders from poorly regulated mortgages. So first, money has to be spent developing a computer system that can accurately target the problem. Caution: do not throw the money...place it in a sack - preferably with a dollar sign on it for easy identification - and then HAND IT to the computer programmers.

Next, we’ll need to make sure that the money doesn’t incinerate on impact. That’s important because how can the money help people if it’s on fire? (that is, unless the people are cold, which is also possible...note: make two missiles, one for flaming money) The best way to make sure the money arrives INTACT is to insulate it with something, and I would suggest flame-retardant foam. I know what you’re thinking: “Why would we want to make the flames retarded? Wouldn’t that just make them more dangerous, unpredictable, and likely to win Oscars?” All of these things are true, but you have to spend money to make money, and that’s where part three of my plan comes in:

SURROUND THE FOAM WITH MORE MONEY! Yes, it sees so obvious now, doesn’t it? See, if there’s money on both sides of the foam, then on impact, the fire will go after the OUTSIDE money, thus leaving the INSIDE money safe and ready to solve the problems. Just in case, you should hire a few firemen to stand by in case the flames hunger is not satiated by the outer money-barrier and it attempts to feast on the essential interior money.

Finally, the missile itself. We want the best of the best. Cheaping out on a missile that won’t even make it to the problem will only mean having to launch a third missile (remember, the 2nd one is for the flaming money, and also remember you don’t need the outer money shell for that one since we want the money to burn, so that saves us a few bucks right there). Like I said, you have to spend money to make money (did I say that? I meant to) so I say we go for a gold missile since, as we all know, gold is the best. We should probably spend the extra 90 bucks to get the extended warranty too... just in case. It seems like a lot now, but it’ll be worth it if something DOES go wrong.

So that’s that. Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions (re: the missile, the money shell, the foam, the money payload, or use of my copyrighted name for the missile) and let me know how it goes. You’re welcome, America.

(Final) Draft Aaron Sorkin

Our nation is at a turning point; economically, socially, politically, environmentally, technologically. From here on out, things are going to be different, and it's up to us to decide whether it is for our betterment or detriment. We've already taken the first political step. Al Gore used to say about the climate change fight that the only resource we lacked was political will. Well, that fight as well as many others has been given the green light by the election of Barack Obama, often times erroneously called the most liberal Senator, as well as a vitally important symbolic figure of change, in addition to the election of an even greater majority of Democrats in the House and Senate. Millions of people have been awoken from complacency, many finding out that they now have a lot of free time because their company has gone under and will no longer be needing their services. This Democratic revolution has been mobilized and now awaits instructions.

Unfortunately, we have too many big problems and almost none of them can be put on the back burner. If we focus on the economy, the environment will suffer even more destruction and inalterable damage. If we focus on the global terrorist threat, millions of Americans will be jobless and American companies will vanish in the turmoil. If we focus on health care, social security will be irreperable.

So, it's a good first step that Barack Obama has created from the most well-oiled campaign in history the most well prepared, organized, and funded transition team in history and that he's assembled a virtual dream team of Democratic executives for his cabinet to each lead a massive charge in each of their respective areas of expertise. Hitting the ground running is an understatement. Like a jet refueling mid-flight, they will be matching speed and altitude long before inauguration day.

Already they've been closing ranks and preparing for an accelerated agenda, even letting Joe Lieberman stay in the clubhouse so he'll keep quiet and not muck things up too much. Bureacracy, willingness, and know-how won't stand in the way, so now really the only thing that could derail these necessary actions is a faltering of the American will and the distractions that play so well on television ("Monica, have you met Joe the Plumber?"). Barack Obama has a lot to accomplish, and though he's already proven his media savvy and political transparancy with his podcasts and new weekly radio/webcast address, he simply doesn't have time to stop what he's doing to convince busy Americans to get on board with every proposal he makes.

So what we need, more than ever, is someone to present the issues to us in context, in easy-to-understand language that also doesn't cut out any of the complexity, and does so in an entertaining way so that we will actually pay attention. We need someone who can present both sides of the issue, much like the news, without feeling a false need to present all arguments as equal for fear of being labeled "biased." What we need, is The West Wing: The Next Generation.

Aaron Sorkin has had his troubles lately. Charlie Wilson's War wasn't as big a hit as he'd probably hoped, and Studio 60 couldn't help but collapse under the post-West Wing expectations and the competition of 30 Rock, not to mention his repeated plagarizing of his own material, a problem that also plagued his stage production of The Farnsworth Invention. Now is just the time to revisit one of his greatest successes and bring us a new West Wing. I think Jimmy Smits would be available to return as President Santos, and Bradley Whitford could probably clear his schedule.

The great thing about The West Wing was that every week it presented issues without making the show ABOUT those issues. In the normal course of their jobs, the characters would discuss and debate issues, taking every side, playing devil's advocate, and generally giving an excellent primer to the underinformed viewer. Now, more than ever, that's what we need on television. We need someone as poetic and persuasive as Aaron Sorkin articulating the debate on both ends of the spectrum with humor and drama and all in an easy-to-swallow capsule. Tell me NBC and Warner Bros. wouldn't be thrilled to have The West Wing back with it's original creator, especially during a time when Democratic values on experiencing a new vogue.

So, fade in, President Santos sits behind the Resolute Desk, awaiting his Chief-of-staff Josh Lyman who at that very moment is in his office talking to his serious, live-in girlfriend Donna Moss, who has just made a passing comment about marriage that has left the two of them in awkward silence. Just then, Sam Seaborn, Deputy Chief-of-staff walks in with Communications Director Louise Thorton in tow. They are in a heated argument...maybe about federal regulation of banking institutions or windfall profits taxes or possible even incentives for green technology producers. Just then, Congressman Will Bailey calls!

See, it practically writes itself, Aaron.

Boy, a Senate Seat Sure Would Come in Handy

I understand why Barack Obama has resigned his seat in the Senate, effective this Sunday. He is our President Elect, and while Congress is technically out of session, the crisis we face at the moment ensure a lame-duck session, and it falls into some dangerous areas if he is legislating his upcoming Presidency, thus bridging two branches in ways they were never meant. It’s rare that this would even come up, since while nearly all Senators hope to be President, only a few have ever gone directly from the Senate to the White House.

Except now Barack Obama is just two short months from having to take the helm, and there are some problems that won’t wait that long. For one, the $700 billion bailout is still being allocated, and some companies are already coming back to the trough for seconds. This week also brought forth more evidence that companies receiving bailout funds were often using that money irresponsibly, such as on executive bonuses, retreats, and over-expensive corporate events. You’d think that when giving out $700 billion dollars, money that you yourself are having to borrow, you might try to look after where that money is going. It’s a big economy, and a lot of people need help, and what sort of justice would it be to reward people who’ve squandered their earnings by giving them more to squander. That, however, is what we are doing, and there has yet to be an oversight committee or czar put in place to make sure that this money is being used wisely.

Also this week, Barack Obama has been pushing for Congress and President Bush to bailout American auto manufacturers, especially GM, who find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy. American auto manufacturers, for all of their problems in the marketplace, still sell half of the cars in the nation, and their collapse could lead to 2 million more Americans joining the unemployment rolls, at a time when unemployment is at a 14 year high. This would, according to Barack Obama, require a $50 billion bailout now to avoid their bankruptcy before he even takes office. Whether this came from the initial bailout package, or was a new package of it’s own, that’s also going to require some oversight, which Barack Obama also recommends.

The problems with the first bailout was that it was 1.) given to some companies who’d caused their own financial trouble and had a proven record of risky financial practices, 2.) their was little to no oversight to protect the taxpayers’ investment, and 3.) in order to get the thing passed, they had to tack on even more unneccessary spending that we can’t afford. This new bailout, however, if done properly, could be valuable in many ways.

With proper oversight, this money can be directed to these companies to not just keep them in operation, but to help them adapt their business to new, more fuel-efficient and green technologies that can compete better both here in the States and globally. In this way, we could help the cause of combatting climate change, get these companies back into the green thus creating more jobs and helping our economy, and we could become a global leader in new technology and alternative energy.

So yes, I’m on board with this bailout, and I think they would probably be able to get Republicans and President Bush on board. I mean, who wouldn’t give money to save the companies that basically invented the car and the American way of life? Still, it would be nice to have that Senate seat to keep an eye on proceedings and make sure this is done right this time. Yup, sure would be nice.

Necessities of the Unwinnable Fight

As the Bush Administration wraps up, and the Obama Administration considers how to best use their political capital, the question remains...what's to be done about George W. Bush and his cronies? Torture, wiretapping, abuse of power... these are just a few of the allegations laid at the feet of this President, and considering the shape he's left our nation in, many are calling for charges to be brought against him, Dick Cheney, and many of the senior members of his White House.

I'm of two minds on the subject. For one, I think he has commited crimes against the United States, it's reputation, and possibly even humanity in general. Like any American, when I see injustice, I want to see punishment. As an avid student of politics, and supporter of Barack Obama, I want him to tackle a broad and comprehensive agenda without being bogged down in partisan politics and the past. In a perfect world, he could both solve our economic problems and investigate the actions of the Bush Administration without having his public support diminished. Though most of the nation likes Barack Obama at the moment and a vast majority disapproves of President Bush, that could change if it looks like a partisan attack. Just ask Ken Starr.

The other problem being that as this term comes to a close, and President Bush clearly sees the writing on the walls, his crafty minions are already finding ways to push through last minute orders, and those could include blanket pardons for the people who perpetrated many of these criminal actions that would come under investigation once GW leaves office. So now the problem becomes that President Obama could be spending valuable time, resources, and political capital investigating crimes that no one would be held legally accountable for. You wouldn't write a traffic ticket for a man who died in a car crash, would you?

The fact is, though, that no matter what the cost in political capital, this is important. Maybe there will be no convictions, and maybe fear of political repercusions will have to mean a less aggressive legal process. Still, while there are many important issues to face in the coming years, it is first important to reaffirm what this country stands for, what is legal, and who is above the law (namely, no one). Even if President Bush is never convicted of a single crime, nor anyone who worked with him, it's important that they be held to a standard in the court of public opinion and in the annals of history. Otherwise, future Presidents will attempt the same abuses of power, secure in the knowledge that their is precedence for those acts and the subsequent evasion of responsiblity.

We the people need to know. We need to know just what the United States has been up to, and what the rest of the world has seen us do. We need to know just what damage was done so that we can repair it and prevent it. We need to know who's to blame of course, and they should be held accountable if only in our own opinions of them. More importantly, though, we need the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. As we've learend time and again, we can't just ignore the past and hope for a brighter future. Our first step towards the change we need is an understanding of the way that was.

The Myth of a Liberal Media

It is one often mentioned by so-called conservatives, and anyone who disagrees with what is presented on the news. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every television network is owned by a large coporation, some of them being giant multi-national corporations with interests in many different industries and markets. Their number one goal is to make profit, and the best way to do that is to not alienate any of their customers. They usually don’t buy television station’s in order to espouse a particular ideology, but to make a lot of money from it.

Where the tag “liberal media” comes from, oddly enough, is the right-wing media. It’s a term often used by Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, people who are incredibly popular media personalities with huge audiences. If the media were liberal, how would they find work? Another group who loves to use it is fear-monger Republican politicians. Why do they tell you that the media is liberal? Well, simply because the media reports the facts, and these politicians don’t agree with facts, or the facts prove just how wrong these politicians. So, rather than rethink their ways, they just tell you that the media reports these things not because they are true, but because the media is biased, so they can’t be trusted.

The evidence to the contrary is everywhere. Fox News, the misnamed “Fair and Balanced” network, offers most of it’s airtime to confirmed Conservatives, only offering space for liberals to come on and be berated or pummeled. Most of it’s coverage tends to emphasize the success of conservatives, and the failings of liberals. The man who owns and created Fox News is himself very conservative and owns networks all over the world, as well as 20th Century Fox, Fox Television, radio stations, and the Wall Street Journal. These are often #1 in their respective categories and represent huge market share. How are they not considered “the media.”

Then, look at the other big players. CNN gives airtime to Anderson Cooper and Campbell Brown, liberal leaning if you have to apply labels, but also Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck. MSNBC has both Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough. The majority of talk radio networks are devoted to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, while many newspapers have been complicit in support of George W. Bush’s policies. To me, this does not seem like a landscape overwhelming with liberals while conservatives are hidden away. Both viewpoints are represented, often disproportionate to their actual substance.

See, these corporations that own these entities don’t want to alienate their customers, so they often compell these networks/newspapers/stations/etc. to give equal time and equal weight to differing opinions. In this sense, it becomes and ideological affirmative action, causing them to give time and space to people based not on their abilities as journalists or commentators but based entirely on their politics. It also means that otherwise moderate voices then become drowned out by extremist pundits placed among their ranks, and that anytime a story is reported, the opposing party is given a chance to respond with little to no commentary, even when they are lying.

During this election, it was often claimed that the media was “in the tank” for Obama. If that’s true, how come McCain’s coverage was so favorable for much of his campaign, and he often jokingly refered to the press as his “base?” How come most networks official poll estimates placed McCain neck-and-neck with Obama even when the final election results should a tremendous lead for Obama? How come networks regularly ran stories, later proven false, saying that Obama had gone to a Muslim school, didn’t have a birth certificate, or was close friends with Bill Ayers?

What people meant to say when they said the media was “in the tank” for Obama was that the public was in favor of Obama, and the media was reporting it. They meant that Obama was running a mostly positive campaign while the McCain camp was running a mostly negative one, and the media was reporting it. They meant that Barack Obama has agreed to be interviewed while Sarah Palin and John McCain had refused interviews, yet the media still used the Obama interviews.

See, there is no “liberal media.” There is a media, made up of varying people with varying levels of skill, qualification, and objectivity. There are also facts and events and things that are newsworthy to be reported. And on top of all of that, there is a liberal majority of the populace, especially among the under-30 crowd suggest a growing trend. So what people like Rush mean to say is that they’re in the minority, most people don’t agree with them, and the facts don’t support them.

Participation to Anticipation

Every child remembers that interminable period between handing in your Christmas list and the day you actually receive your gifts. It’s a similar, though markedly different experience from when you get in trouble at school at you wait for your parents to arrive home to punish you. There are moments when the decisions have already been made, but when you have to wait before anything can be done. Right now, like that child before Christmas, in theory I have this great present I’ll be getting on January 20th, but I can’t enjoy it until then. After coming down from the high of Tuesday night, it’s difficult for it to feel real because while we’ve elected Barack Obama, he’s still not our President for two more months.

At least during the campaign, their was an energy of optimism propelling us forward, and at all times there were actions we could take to achieve our desired outcome. Now, we have that outcome, and while there’s plenty to be done in the meantime, those of us who elected Obama don’t have much to do except wait until that day when we can see the fruits of our labor in action.

It’s important to remember that there is an army of volunteers out here, people who spent weekends phone-banking, or canvassing their neighbors, or donating their money, all to achieve the historic victory we saw on Tuesday night. We’re all still out here, and ready to be mobilized. The DNC and Obama campaign shouldn’t forget that in all of the planning they have to do before January. In the meantime, we should do what we can to stay engaged and keep things moving in the right direction. Volunteer in your community, write letters to your representatives telling them specifically which issues are most important to you, keep canvassing your friends and acquaintances to get them on board with the new President. Sure, the election is over, but we can still win hearts and minds, and make it that much easier for the new administration.

Oppressed and Oppressor

Here's an upsetting fact: on the same day that one minority group takes a big step forward, another minority group gets knocked back. More upsetting is the fact that the two may even be related.

Due to the historic nature of this election, as well as the effective Get Out the Vote efforts of the Obama campaign, a record number of black people voted nationwide, oftentimes making up a larger percentage of the electorate than they represent in the general population. That wouldn't be a bad thing, except in California. California was one state that had a ballot initiative to define marriage as between between a man and a woman, effectively making gay marriage illegal in the state where it's been legal for the last 4 months. The irony that a lot of the money used to promote this bigoted agenda came from Mormon groups, who themselves are persecuted for their marriage practices, is not lost on me.

So what does this have to do with black voter turnout? In the state of California, white voters opposed this amendment 55% to 44%, while black voters supported it by a margin of 69% to 31%. This measure barely passed with about 52%. Now it's not as simple as saying that one caused the other, because of course that would avoid the other effect of this election. In addition to record black turnout, there was also record youth and first-time voter turnout, and those two groups voted overwhelmingly against Prop 8, including those first-time black voters. Really, black or white, the two groups that are to blame for Prop 8 being passed are older voters (the only age group that also went overwhelmingly for McCain) and religious bigots, which exist in all races. It's not as simple as a cause-and-effect, but it should give us pause that while people were able to overcome one set of prejudices, they were unable to overcome another. While I'm outraged that so many white people supported Prop 8, it's also upsetting that an even greater percentage of an oft-discriminated against group did as well.

So the empowerment of one group results in the disenfranchisement of another. Sadly, there was a time when there were laws on the books preventing people of different races from marrying, but so often we no longer have a sense of history. What is the cause of this? Is it religious? Is it cultural? Or is it simply that strange phenomenon that is fundamentally American? The Pilgrims left Britain to get away from religious persecution, and when they arrived here, they persecuted those who didn't agree with them. When newer immigrants began to arrive in our nation of immigrants, they were persecuted by the immigrants who arrived before them. African-Americans have suffered a long time in this nation, but this learning curve must be improved. If people who've been discriminated against can't see how wrong it is to discriminate against others, what hope do we have?

Not So Fast...

This morning, all over the world, people are celebrating and with good cause. I think we all deserve a day off (like the nation of Kenya...good for them) or maybe even a couple days to rest and collect ourselves while the final counts are done (and the recounts...Go Franken!) However, the election of Barack Obama is not the end, it is the means to the end. This is an historic moment, but it’s just a first step in changing the world for the better. We can’t let our guard down for a moment, because last night while history broke down one wall, it put up a security fence.

You see, while we were electing our first non-white President - finally living up to the full promise of our Declaration of Independence, abolition, and the civil rights movement - 4 states were turning their attention to one of the last socially condoned forms of discrimination.

In Arkansas, they passed a ban on gay adoption. These are many of the same people who also want to ban all abortion, which means more children being born to parents who don’t want them. If they had their way, there’d be even more kids being put up for adoption, but they also want to eliminate a huge pool of people who can’t have children of their own, so want to give all of their love and attention to an adopted child. Anytime someone talks about how children do better with a mother and a father, I just have to roll my eyes. Straight people don’t have to pass any test to become parents, and in my life I’ve met a lot of people and most of their parents were highly flawed in one way or another. Honestly, gay people couldn’t do a worse job than us, and at least they would be specifically choosing to be parents and not just stumbling into it. Also, they would know that every action they made was being scrutinized, and would probably be better parents.

Arizona, Florida, and California went a step farther. As much as I disagree with the people of Arkansas, it’s one thing to want to keep children in a certain environment, and quite another to reach right into people’s homes where they aren’t influencing anyone else and telling them what they can and can’t do. If tomorrow a constitutional amendment was passed banning all marriage, what do you think people would do? Many would riot, certainly. Some wouldn’t care. Overall though, they would continue to live their lives they way they always had. They’d meet, fall in love, move in together, maybe have children and open a joint checking account. The reason is because marriage as an institution is cultural, not merely legal. So gay people are still going to be gay, still going to fall in love, still going to pair up and have lives together. So all this amendment does, and this is the sinister part, is deny them legal rights and protections. Marriage is a legal, binding contract that provides many benefits, and can even provide financial incentives come tax season. These amendments deny those same benefits to people who want to get married, but who aren’t biologically attracted to the opposite sex. They can’t help that, and yet people in three states think they should either lie to themselves and others or forfeit their rights.

Next time someone talks about crazy, liberal California, remind them about this vote. And next time you think about how happy you are that the Presidency has finally broken that racial barrier, remember that in Florida, a state where gay marriage was already illegal, they decided to beat that dead horse with a constitutional amendment. Long ago we abolished discrimination based on race in our laws, but it took a long time for that to change in practice. There are still many barriers to freedom to be broken down. Last night we had one, but we have to keep going. It may be a Sisyphusian struggle, but we can’t stop trying to get that boulder to the top of the hill, because when we stop for even a moment, it rolls back down.

Yes, We Can

And so it goes. We hoped, we dreamed, and we went to work. What we’ve accomplished is a great thing, and not simply for those of us who supported Barack Obama. Tonight, our course has been set in a new direction, and already the eyes of history are upon us.

There will of course be more results to come in, more down-ticket races, and more analysis of just how this happened and what it’ll mean for the near future. But I’ll take John McCain and Barack Obama at their word, that we should all come together now as one nation, and pull together to solve our problems. I, for one, am excited for what’s to come.

All of the anger and hate and maliciousness of the campaign is past. Now is the time to get on board, or get out of the way. The choice is yours, but some of us are getting to work.

Election Day Predictions

What a beautiful day for an election. Birds are singing, the sun is shining (at least in my state). People are opening doors for each other and whistling happy tunes. For me, election day is what I assume Super Bowl Sunday, Christmas, or opening day of a Michael Bay movie are for other people. I was up late and woke up early, and I’m giddy with anticipation for tonight when the results come in. There’s an episode in season 7 of the West Wing that takes place on election day, and Josh can’t stop running around trying to make last minute changes, when really all there is left to do is vote and wait. That’s how I feel.

So now many people are filling the hours between when the polls opened and when they will close by predicting the outcome of the election. I’m not going to do that for two equally ridiculous reasons. First, though I consider myself a person of reason, I’m still not immune to the feeling that I’m going to jinx myself. There’s still a small part of me that blames myself for John Kerry’s defeat, all due to my optimism. Secondly, no matter what my prediction, the only thing that matters is what actually occurs, so I have nothing to gain and any semblance of intelligent analysis to lose.

Instead, let me make a broader prediction. I think that in the coming weeks, people are going to come down off their rhetoric, and start thinking about how we can come together and make things work again. People will once again pay attention to George Bush, so that hopefully he won’t get away with all of the last minute executive shenanigans he’s planning. I think all the hate-mongers will retire to their corners to fester in their racism, but will mostly leave the rest of us alone.

I believe that when historians look back on this election, much of the bitterness and mudslinging will be forgotten, but what will be remembered is that Barack Obama ran one of the most disciplined and effective campaigns in history. Win or lose, he has done the seemingly impossible. He’s shown us that a black man, from a mixed background and non-traditional family, with an unusual name and new ideas can overcome the politics of division and a history of bigotry in this nation to become President. He’s shown us that a good man can succeed in politics without resorting to dirty tricks and outright lies. Win or lose, he’s given hope to people that have given up on the idea that America can live up to the promise of it’s ideals. Inarguably, that hope will be better served if he wins, but no matter what happens, starting tomorrow there will be millions more people involved in their own government again.

I also predict that I am going to have either a very good night, or a very bad one. But either way, much like the end of The West Wing, I will be a little sad that this time is over, but also excited and hopeful for what’s to come. Good day and good luck.

This Just In: Obama Wins in Landslide (in Dixville Notch)!

Perhaps some of you saw that terrific episode of The West Wing (thought aren’t they all) called “Hartsfield Landing” about a small town in New Hampshire in which every citizen of voting age gets together at 12:01 a.m. on election day, votes, and the polls close a minute later. As fantanstic a writer as Aaron Sorking is, he did not invent this concept. There is a real town in New Hampshire which has operated this way since 1960, and it’s known as Dixville Notch. This morning, the first town to vote in the nation chose Obama over McCain in a landslide 15 to 6. That’s a full 71% of the vote for Obama, in a state where he is currently only ahead by a few points.

Why is this, or should it be news? Well, because of a trend it could spell for the rest of the country. See, in this small New Hampshire town, the Republican candidate usually wins...by a lot. Bush beat both Kerry and Gore by a sizable margin. Bush Sr. beat Dukakis 34-3, and Reagan beat Mondale 29-1. The fact that Obama is winning, and by such a large margin, could mean that formerly Republican strongholds may tip in his favor today.

We’ll shall have to wait and see, but I’m liking our chances. And, as Obama has famously said, in the unlikely story that is America, there’s never anything false about Hope.

It's the Final Countdown

So here it is. After an extremely long primary, and a seemingly long general campaign, the election is nearly past. Certainly, we’ll have the week’s of recounts, and complaints, and political post-game coverage on every network, but for all intents and purposes, it will all be over in 36 hours. Oh, but what a long, strange trip it has been.

Where did it start? John McCain was trailing among all of the Republican candidates. When faced with the options of people who don’t believe in evolution, people who don’t believe in global warming, and people who believe in magic underwear, the Republicans said “I’ll take any of them over John McCain.” Unfortunately, as the fell all over each other to vote for the least qualified candidates, John McCain played the slow-but-steady tortoise and inched by to become the nominee. Meanwhile, the Democrats showed people what a real Democracy looks like, by letting every vote count in every state, keeping the race neck and neck between two historic candidates.

But it wasn’t all wine and roses. We were told that black people would only vote for a black candidate, and that women would only vote for a woman. We were told that to criticize a female candidate is sexist, while also being told that when women don’t get their way, they take their toys and go home. Republican tried to sow dissidence in the ranks of Democrats, all while their candidate did litte and said less.

Then, while calling Democrats sexist for choosing the male candidate over the female, they cynicaly chose their VP based almost entirely on her gender. The two conventions stood in stark contrast: The Democratic convention showing tremendous unity, with thousands of people from every corner of the nation, every race, age, ethnicity, lifestyle coming together and giving a platform for everyone to speak their mind; while the Republican convention allowed fewer speakers, and showed less varied views and faces. The Democratic Convention swung open their doors to 80,000 average Americans, while the Republican convention could barely fill it’s hall with it’s elites. The Democrats showed media savvy and showmanship, while the Republicans had a presentation worthy of a middle management convention, with barely the energy of a watch battery.

And then the past few months. As Barack Obama introduced himself to more and more of America, and more and more of America came to know the real John McCain, the numbers shifted. In every one of the last 159 polls, Barack Obama has been in the lead; sometimes by 2 points, often by a dozen. In desperation, John McCain went 100% negative, lobbing accusations of “socialist” and “terrorist-sympathiser” through a bullhorn, while quietly admiting to reporters that he didn’t really believe these things. In interviews, he spoke of denouncing the hate-speech of his supporters, while at his rallies he neither stopped them nor gave any indication that he disapproved. Actually, no, one time he stopped a woman called Barack an Arab by saying that he, John McCain, thought Barack was a decent man. Yes, he didn’t say that Barack wasn’t an Arab, he just said that he wasn’t evil like, he implied, all other arabs are. Barack Obama has praised John McCain for his service both in the Navy and in the Senate, while the best John McCain can muster is to call Barack “decent.”

After all of this, our country is more polarized than it’s even been under George W. Bush, between two camps of people in this country: those that want to keep the ever-worsening status quo, and those striving for the America we want and not simply the America we have. If John McCain were to win tomorrow, what it would tell us is that despite 80 percent of Americans thinking we’re on the wrong track, and despite economic policies that have hurt our nation, and despite a foreign policy that has damaged our reputation and put our country’s security at risk, that we would rather play to the politics of fear and derision than get over our national bigotry. If Barack Obama wins, I’m certain there will be many crazy people awaiting armageddon, much like they did with Y2K or when the first gay couple married in Massachusetts, but when a week or a month or a year passes without the end of the world, they’ll quietly return to their subtle, silent racism. They’ll go home to their cleaner air, their new jobs, their social safety net, and their America that once again stands proudly as a city on a hill. Sure, they’ll decry every decision President Obama makes, they will speak ill of his policies, and look for any opportunity to knock him down a peg, never admiting they were wrong to think he was a spy, a terrorist, a secret muslim, a dangerous fanatic, or a marxist bent on destroying America. And, we won’t ask them too. We will rise above the poltiics of hate, and even if they never come, they’ll be invited to the party we’ll be having. We’ll have the government we chose, and once again they’ll be working for the people and not for the few. 8 years from now, maybe people will again become complacent and forget just how bad things were before the Obama administration, and they’ll be tricked into voting for whoever the Republicans have nominated (and no, it will not be Palin, not if they want to win). For now though, this is our chance to right the many wrongs that have be done to our nation these last 8 years. I, for one, like our odds.

So This is How You Want to Play This?

As I've said before, words matter. Cavalier use of language, throwing about words without care for the actual meaning, lowers both the quality of our discourse and the coherence of our culture. Words like "terrorist" are used interchangeably with words like "muslim," and it not only makes us look intolerant, it makes us look ignorant. This week, the buzzwords are "socialist" and "Marxist." I've already spoken about their misuse, but if some people think they can lob these as attacks and think no one will call them on it, they are sorely mistaken. Just this past Friday, while appearing on Larry King Live, Lars Larson referred to Barack Obama and other progressives as a "Marxist," to which Larry King responded by asking if he then thought that Conservatives were "fascist." Of course, Lars refuted this and then continued by falsely claiming that Obama is going to give tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes (apparently also confused about what a "tax rebate" is, since you have to pay taxes in order to get one back, and that it never exceeds the amount you pay in taxes.)

Well, let's examine this. I mean, since Glenn Beck, Karl Rove, and Bill Kristol all think that it's fair to call liberals "Marxist," then perhaps it is fair to call their right-wing counterparts "fascist." Let's take a look. Marxism is considered, politically, the extreme left-wing viewpoint in favor of collective ownership or the means and distribution of production. Fascism is considered the extreme right-wing viewpoint in favor of single-party and single dictator control of government and the economy. Well, under President Bush, the power of the Executive Branch has been expanded to hold more unchecked power (power that Sarah Palin said she would like to extend even more as Vice President than Dick Cheney has). He has also consistently used signing statements and claims of executive privilege to operate not as the law states but as he feels is appropriate, and has been backed up by his party who, for much of the last 8 years, have dominated the other two branches of government.

Fascism is also characterized by that party or dictator forcibly oppressing opposition and criticism. I think we all remember the firing of members of the justice department for refusing to investigate and prosecute Democrats for political reasons. I also seem to recall the constant attacks against liberals and Democrats for being "soft on terrorism," for "planning for defeat" in Iraq, and for "not caring about family values.' You need only check the news for the last few weeks to see how Democrats have been labeled "un-American."

Speaking of being labeled "un-American," fascism is known for emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. When Sarah Palin talks about liking to visit the "pro-America" parts of the country, that sounds like aggressive nationalism. When people complain about Barack Obama not wearing a flag pin (something that he actually did in all three debates while John McCain did not wear one) that sounds like ridiculous nationalism. When they complain about those socialist Europeans, and those terrorist Middle Easterners, and then talk about how America is the greatest and most powerful country in the world, blessed by God, and duty-bound to spread democracy unilaterally, that sounds like thoroughly aggressive Nationalism. As for racism, just watch a video of any McCain-Palin rally, listen to their supporters outside, and listen to Rush Limbaugh who characterized Colin Powell's nuanced defense of his endorsement of Obama as being "all about race."

Fascism promotes military preparedness and cults of unity, strength, and purity. Under Republican leadership, we spend more on our military than most of the world combined. Republican talking points are constantly and manipulatively espousing "supporting the troops," and attacking anyone who even suggest teaching anything other than complete abstinence from recreational drugs and premarital sexual activity.

What else falls under the label of "fascism?" An emphasis on corporatism is at the top of the list, which I think sounds a little like the Republicans. The Fascist government of Italy banned abortion and literature on birth control...that also sounds familiar. Fascist cultures also tend to reject multiculturalism, which springs to mind everytime I hear McCain supporters talk about how this is a Christian nation, and how they are worried about minorities ruining the culture. Fascist governments are also usually strongly opposed to homosexuals.

With them opposed to so many types of people, how is it that fascist regimes come to power? Easy, they appeal to the average person with an affectation of populism, which promotes the "average person" (Joe Six-pack perhaps) over "the elites." You know, like the elite media, that elite Barack Obama, those elite intellectuals and college graduates.

Do I think the Republicans are fascists? No. See, unlike some of these hate-mongers that will do anything to win elections or get on television, I don't just use slanderous labels against people I disagree with. Do I think some of the things they've done in the past decade and in this election share similar tactics with fascists? Yes, and that's something that they need to change. But here's the rub: if you want to label liberals as "marxist," not only is their equal evidence to support an argument that conservatives are "fascist," but their might even be more evidence to validate the latter hypothesis. Liberals are no more marxists than conservatives are fascists, so it's up to Rush, Glenn, Sean, Bill, Karl, John, Sarah, and all the rest if that's a name game they feel like playing.

It's Important to Own a Dictionary

When we have a national discussion, it helps to have a common vocabulary. Luckily, here in the United States, we long ago agreed on a common language. No, not “American.” It’s called “English,” because as some people seem to have forgotten, everyone in this country is from somewhere else (hey, even the Native Americans came across the land bridge.) Yes, just a few hundred years ago, those English border jumpers crossed the Atlantic to steal jobs and land from the real Americans, the Native Americans. Then some Dutch came to steal the English jobs, and then the Italians to steal theirs. Oh, and the Spanish were here too. It was the English language that won out, though, and since then we’ve agreed on a common vocabulary and meaning, and even published books to spell it out for the people who haven’t been able to pick it up just on context alone.

Some people, though, are real mavericks who don’t play by your “rule” of language. Who’s to say that “maverick” means “a lone dissenter who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.” I mean, if McCain and Palin want it too, why can’t it mean “a person who agrees with their associates 95% percent of the time” or “someone who adopts the opinions that their staff tells them will most appeal to their base?” “Maverick” isn’t the only word they don’t use properly.

How about “pal?” They say Obama is pals, or “a very close, intimate friend,” with Bill Ayers. I have lots of close, intimate friends who were full grown adults when I was 8, sit next to me in a room a couple of times, and whose actions I publicly denounce. I mean, really, not a day goes by that I’m not denouncing my close, intimate friends in the media. That’s what makes us such close, intimate friends.

They mocked Joe Biden for saying that paying your taxes is “patriotic,” which means “characteristic of a patriot.” For those who don’t know, a patriot is “a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.” Maybe I’m mistaken, but it sounds like paying your taxes, obeying the laws of this nation, in order to fund your democratically elected government and support it’s efforts around the globe and here at home sounds like “supporting his or her country with devotion.” Yeah, it does. It does sound “patriotic.”

But maybe that’s because Joe Biden is talking about The United States of America, and they are talking about the “real America.” Apparently the parts of the country where the majority of the people agree on issues and more than 50 percent of them support Barack Obama are “anti-American” and the parts where only a third of the people agree on anything and support John McCain are the “real” America. Really, what’s more anti-American than the majority agreeing on issues?

John McCain, Sarah Palin, and their friends, though, know that vocabulary goes by the wayside when dealing with someone like Barack Obama who’s a “terrorist,” “muslim,” “arab,” and “socialist.” Well since Barack is not “a person, who uses or advocates terrorism” I guess he’s not a “terrorist”. And since he’s not “an adherent of Islam,” he’s not a muslim either. Neither is he “a member of a Semitic people inhabiting Arabia and other countries of the Middle East,” since he was born in The United States and his parents were born in the U.S. and Kenya (a part of Africa, not Arabia.)

I guess that just leaves “socialist,” which is a word that they like to use to make you think “communist” and thus “Stalinist” and “brutal dictator.” Nothing could be further from the truth. See, “socialism” is “a system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” Does any of that sound like Barack Obama? Has he ever given a stump speech in which he’s mentioned wanting the government to own all the farms and produce all the food? Or where he’s talked about taking all of your land and redistributing for other uses? No? Well, that’s because he hasn’t.

See, they confuse “socialism” which is an economic doctrine with “social programs.” Socialism would be like the government owning and operating all of the hospitals, and controlling who gets what health care. What Barack Obama wants to do is offer you the choice of belonging to whatever health care program you want, including a cheaper program run by the government. You can go to private hospitals, buy private insurance, or skip the whole thing altogether and just pay as you go. In this case, the government isn’t controlling or owning the health care system, they are becoming another provider in that system. Neither he, nor anyone else in the Democratic party, advocates the government controlling our economy, they just want the government to participate in the economy like any citizen or corporation is allowed to do. The government can give loans, or buy stocks, or create financial incentives, all things that ordinary citizens and corporations can do in the economy. These are activities that Republicans support as well.

Their problem is not with what he wants to do, but who he wants to do it with. Barack Obama wants to fund schools that everyone gets to go to, while John McCain wants to give money to schools that only a few lucky people can attend. Barack Obama wants to invest in companies that are working on creating new, cheap, and American-made energy, while John McCain wants to invest in companies that are making record profits by importing expensive and unclean oil from foreign nations and selling it to us at a markup. Barack Obama wants the government to pick up the slack where the free market leaves gaps, while John McCain wants you to be entirely on your own unless you can afford to hire a lobbyist, a lawyer, or create your own industry. Both of them still want the market to be free to do it’s business. But Barack Obama wants to make sure that someone is keeping an eye on them so that average Americans won’t lose all of their investments or be tricked, while John McCain wants to wait until companies overextend themselves and go bankrupt before then giving them money to keep on doing what they’re doing.

But you can throw around words like “dangerous,” “socialist,” and “unAmerican” and scare people about your opponent so that they support you. Though, in that case, then you become a “terrorist.”

Things McCain Supporters Believe about Obama

1.) “He’s an A-rab!”
No, he’s really not. See, according to the Constitution, you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States in order to run for President. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, a State, to a woman originally from Kansas. He’s also not ethnically Arab either. His mother was white, and his father was from Kenya. Neither of those things is Arab. He’s white, and he’s African.

2.) “He’s a terrorist!”
Again, if he were a terrorist, do you think he’d have made it through a year and a half of campaigning and vetting? He’s a lawyer, educated in the northeast, who worked in Chicago, and then became a Senator. Along the way, he sat on a board with William Ayers, and they met a couple of times. William Ayers was a leading member of a terrorist group, the Weather Underground, here in the United States. They protested things by blowing up statues and buildings, avoiding hurting people in the process. Most of them were caught, convicted, and served jail time. Bill Ayers was on this board because he was elected to it, because since that time he has worked peacefully in the system to improve education, something that Barack Obama was also working on. So they ended up in the same place at the same time, and Barack wasn’t going to, nor should he, abandon that goal because one of the other people working towards the same goal had served jail time for his crimes and was now trying to be a productive member of society. They aren’t friends, and Barack Obama has publicly condemned William Ayers actions as a member of the Weather Underground, which occured at a time when Barack was 8, so he certainly wasn’t involved in them or even old enough to know about them at the time, plus he was in a completely other part of the country.

3.) “He’s a Muslim!”
No, he’s really not. His birth father, the man who essentially abandoned him as a child and he almost never saw was a Muslim, but Barack was raised by his white, Christian mother and grandparents, and has always been a Christian. Remember when you attacked him for what his REVEREND said? Yeah, it’s because he attends a church, with a Christian Reverend. You can’t attack him for what his Christian Reverend says and also call him a Muslim. That doesn’t work.

4.) “He Went to a Muslim School!”
Nope, wrong again. He briefly attended a school where many, but not all, of the children were Muslim’s. The story that he attended a Muslim school broke and was disproven in a matter of hours, even by Fox News who had to admit it was false. Saying the school he attended was a Muslim school is like saying every public school in America is a parochial school, because most of the students in them are Christian. It was a secular school, and Barack was not being taught religion there. Some of the kids were Muslims, but Barack was still Christian.

5.) “We Don’t Know Anything About Him!”
If you don’t, it’s because you’ve been living in a cave. He’s been a major player in the party for the last 5 years, especially since speaking at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He’s been campaigning for President for 2 years now, and received record coverage and investigation by several opponents and the news media during this contentious primary, and since then. John McCain has made it a point to make sure you know every tiny detail about Barack Obama. Barack, himself, has written 2 memoirs to let you know all about him, and has appeared on every major network and been interviewed by all the big name reporters. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, was unknown to most of the nation until about 2 months ago, and has refused to be interviewed by most journalists.

6.) “He’s the most liberal Senator!”
This oft-repeated fact is based on one source’s idea of liberalism, and even still, being the most liberal Senator is a lot like being the world’s classiest McDonalds - there’s not much difference between that and all the others. John McCain even pointed out that Barack has voted with President Bush about 60 percent of the time. So is Bush 60 percent liberal? John McCain has also voted with Barack on this bailout package...does that make McCain a fiscal liberal? No, exactly.

7.) “We wants to socialize health care!”
Not at all. He doesn’t propose free or mandatory health care. All he wants to do is allow people who want to be able to join the same plan that Congressman get, so that it’s cheap and effective. They’d still be paying a company for coverage, and anyone who wants to can buy it from any other company they want, and most people would still get it from their employers.

8.) “He Wants to Meet with Iran and North Korea!”
No, but he does want us to have diplomatic contacts with them, meaning that our low-level diplomats can talk to theirs. This is a strategy also endorsed by the UN, Europe, our military leaders, and President Bush. Because, ignoring them has only encouraged them to continue trying to build nuclear weapons so that we’ll take them seriously. Either we bomb them, or we talk to them to get them to stop, and if we bomb them, they’ll have no reason not to bomb us.

9.) “He Doesn’t Support Israel!”
He does, and he’s taken the exact same stance on Israel as John McCain has. If anything, Sarah Palin disagrees with McCain on Israel more than Obama does.

10.) “He’s Not An American!”
Again, check your constitution. You have to be a NATURALLY BORN American to run for President. He was born in Hawaii… a STATE in the UNITED STATES. Sarah Palin was born in Alaska and John McCain was born in… the Panama Canal Zone. Yes, at the time a U.S. territory, but if McCain is a citizen, how can you question someone born in an ACTUAL STATE. He’s lived in the United States, from coast to coast, his wife is from the United States, his children were born in the United States, he went to school in the United States, he served as a Senator in the State of Illinois, and then in Washington, D.C., the United States’ Capitol, as a U.S. Senator. He’s a Christian, like the majority of Americans. He’s half-white and half-black, the two biggest racial groups in the United States. He’s lived in rural areas and cities. He has lived the American Dream, and he is as American or more American than anyone else in this country.

Anymore atrocious accusations? I know fact-checking really slows down the hate-speech.

The "Real" America

When John McCain, Sarah Palin, and any number of Republican candidates are on the campaign trail, the like to score easy political points by talking about those "East Coast Elites" and "Big-City Liberals" who are out of touch with "real American values." The other night on The Daily Show, author Sarah Vowell made the excellent point that when Sarah Palin visited ground zero in New York, she reiterated how we would never let this happen again, yet as soon as she leaves New York, she's talking about what a cesspool it is and how it's not the "real" America. "If New York is America enough for al qaeda," Sarah Vowell said, "it should be America enough for [Sarah Palin]."

There is a tale of two America's that only exists in elections. People joke about "fly-over" states, and about the East Coast elites and West Coast liberals. People like Governor Palin and Senator McCain spend their time talking to the people on "Main Street" about how they represent real American values, and demonizing Washington, Hollywood, and the Northeast. What makes the south and midwest the real America, though? When the Pilgrims first came to the United States, they landed in the Northeast. When the American Revolution was sparked, it was in Boston. When the battles were being fought, it was in Concord and Lexington, Trenton and New York. The Founding Fathers were meeting in New York and Philadelphia, and all that existed of the America we know was on the East Coast.

All of our history and the people who founded our nation were East Coast elites, and yet at some point it became politically effective to trash Massachusetts, New York City, and Washington, D.C. They talk about how the people in rural Iowa are "real" Americans, and those of us in cities are all living lives of sin and depravity. Not only is this insulting to people like me, but it's insulting to anyone who understands the history of the United States. For instance, Republicans like to insult those Ivy-League liberals (even though many of them went to the Ivy League schools), but the prototypical Ivy League school, Harvard, was founded by the Puritans who landed in Massachusetts in 1630. They believed deeply in the Bible, but also believed deeply in education and learning from the ancient cultures of Greece, Roman, and others. From these earliest days, through to the present, when people first came to America, they came to the cities. This is where they integrated into American life, where they began to build there fortunes, and from where they then branched out to tame the west. If everyone in America came from somewhere else, then all these first settlers of the west and the south came from the East Coast.

And today, what can be more ridiculous than to claim that Kansas is the real America, and that Massachusetts is not. The most densely populated states are in the Northeast. In a nation that defines itself on the will of the majority, more than half of the people in the United States now live in cities. To say that they are not the "real" America is not merely wrong, but is an insult to America, because that is where most of Americans live. And, I assure you, they are all real. New York has our nation's oldest and most respected newspaper, and Boston has many of our most respected Universities. Washington, D.C. houses our nation's history in it's Museums, and our every branch of our federal government. Major cities from Atlanta to Nashville to Seattle are the sources of our culture and music, and Los Angeles creates the movies and television shows that all Americans watch and love. Yet, we in the city don't claim that the people out in the suburbs or on the farm aren't real Americans. We are all Americans, and it's time for people like Sarah Palin and John McCain to insult the majority of Americans in order to rile the affections of those who live in the sparsely populated states.

A Palin's History of the United States

There was something that outraged me a few weeks back while I was watching the Vice Presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. Well, actually, there were many things that outraged me, but one in particular that, at the time, I couldn't quite explain why it was important. Now that I've had some time to think about it, I know, so let me explain.

During the debate, Sarah Palin leaned heavily on prepared remarks and Republican party buzzwords, specifically invoking Ronald Reagan. At one point, she stated the following: "And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said..." Anyone who knows anything about Reagan would recognize this line, since he said it often. The thing that made me mad was that, Reagan didn't write that line. She was crediting Reagan with a line that he himself was quoting from someone else. At first, I assumed this bothered me because it was doing what Republicans often do: crediting Ronald Reagan with all manner of things that happened that weren't his doing. Really, though, this bothers me because it says something far more worrisome about Sarah Palin specifically, and a large number of people in her party generally. That is, that they have no true sense of History.

Sarah Palin and her supporters have developed a myth of America, in which everything they believe is confirmed by our founding fathers and everything the disagree with is wiped from history in Orwellian proportions. When Ronald Reagan refered to America as a "city on a hill," he was referencing a famous sermon by John Winthrop titled A Model of Christian Charity, who himself was referencing Matthew 5:14 from the Bible. Perhaps it doesn't matter where the quote came from, but it's a sign of a much larger problem that I don't think Sarah Palin is aware of who John Winthrop is, and probably doesn't know that the phrase is from the Bible. As far as she's concerned, Ronald Reagan created the line from whole cloth, and whatever he says is the final word on the subject, rather than him being in the middle of a long line of commentators.

Despite having no understanding of history, though, they so often rely on it to bolster their arguments. When we talk about the separation of church and state, an important concept put in place by the Founding Fathers of our nation, they talk about the Pilgrims and the Judeo-Christian (by which they mean, mostly Protestant Christian) foundation of our country. However, to know history is to know that this is a false affirmation. The reason the Pilgrims came to the New World is because they had suffered under a government that had established a religion, and they specifically preferred local congregations that were neither related to government nor even to a larger, national church. They would also probably be surprised to know that Governor John Winthrop, the man who referred to his new colony, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, as that proverbial "city on a hill," and who so inspired Reagan, in fact thought that democracy was "the meanest and worst of all forms of government." He also thought it was a violation of the Bible's Fifth Commandment. So, it's difficult to claim that our nation's values should be dictated by a group of people who think our nation's very founding could be sinful. These were people who, though they disagreed with the King's mistreatment of religion, they believed that he was owed due respect as an anointed representative of God. The King was the father of the nation, and as such, had to be respected as the Bible commands.

By misunderstanding history, they can claim that the founding fathers wanted all citizens to have guns, ignoring the fact that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when we had no army and needed militias, and at a time when gun violence was not a huge societal problem and guns couldn't be easily concealed and fire hundreds of rounds a minute. They can claim Mexicans are stealing our country while ignoring that the Europeans were the original immigrants, and they stole land from the people who were here, and then made the same claims against every wave of immigrants from the Irish to the Italians to the Russians, all of which now make up large and productive parts of our America. They can even deregulate the banks and blame the economic decline on Democrats while ignoring the Great Depression which was under a Republican President's watch and lead FDR to establish many of those regulations in the first place. And of course we can't forget the attacks of September 11th, which they tell you will be repeated if we allow a Democrat into office, even though they occurred with a Republican President and Congress, and with a Republican mayor in New York, and it was those same Republicans that have endangered us since by not finishing the job in Afghanistan and creating a hotbed for terrorists in Iraq.

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not understand history, doom the rest of us.

Things I Never Knew About John McCain

1.) Ronald Reagan is his hero.

2.) No, check that, Teddy Roosevelt is his hero.

3.) No, wait...not quite his hero, but he has a big boy crush on General Patreus.

4.) He is so ready to contest anything that Barack Obama says, that he furiously starts writing notes even before the debate has begun. It's because he can see the future, and is furious about what Obama is about to say about his economic plan. Spooky.

5.) His bedtime is 11 p.m. EST. That's why Cindy had to rush him out after the debate while Barack and Michelle took pictures, signed autographs, and spoke with people. Listen, if the American people want John McCain to address their concerns, they have to show up during office hours. And even then, he'll probably trail off into something about Iran and not answer your concerns.

6.) He thinks it's awesome that eBay is doing so well. Yes, for every person that loses their job in this bad economy, John McCain wants you to know you can have a successful career selling all of your possessions on ebay to other unemployed people who can no longer afford to buy things new from a store. Sure, our economy is crumbling, but the black market economy is on the rise! (Side note: John McCain thinks the CEO of eBay would make a great treasury secretary. The CEO of eBay just laid off 10% of her company.)

7.) John McCain is uncomfortable with human contact of any kind. Whether it's giving an awkward pat on the back to a veteran, or refusing to shake Obama's hand after the debate, or giving his wife the awkward one-armed-side-by-side hug that I usually reserve for my male friends or people I've just met.

8.) John McCain doesn't understand your question, and won't respond to it.

9.) McCain knows just how to fix the economy, how to win the war in Iraq, and how to capture Osama Bin Laden. But, he can't tell you. Vote for him on November 4th and he'll let us in on the secret. I bet the answer to all three is "with robots."

10.) You know that bailout bill that many Americans are opposed to, and that John McCain both voted for and then called for the President to Veto? He thinks we should get the country's money back by...buying all the bad mortgages that put these banks in trouble in the first place and then...renegotiate them lower. Yes, he wants to spend MORE MONEY to buy the loans that are LEAST LIKELY to be repaid, and then make a deal so that if they are repaid, that it will be for less then we dish out for them. So, to counteract the bailout that he said was terrible, he wants to expand the bailout and get even less of a return.

And see, after all this time, I thought I couldn't learn anything new about John McCain. I guess he really is a mavericky maverick.

Soon We'll Be Reading in the Future

Increasingly, we are moving to a digital world, and while downloading information straight into our brains a la The Matrix or Johnny Mnemonic (what’s with Keanu Reeves?) is a long way off, it still gives pause to someone who grew up with the analog. In some cases, it just makes sense. You can’t play a record in a car or on the go; you can’t bring a board game with you to play on the subway; you can’t keep everything in file drawers when you have limited office space. Television, the latest to join the digital revolution, is better in a digital form than in an analog form.

Sadly, though, the trend seems to be constantly towards the impermanent. Having shelves of LPs gives physical presence and value to the music, and the act of having to take them off the shelf, place them on the record player, and flip them halfway through turns listening into a participatory experience. You have to really want it. It’s for that reason that while CD sale decline, sales of Vinyl LPs are actually increasing for the first time in years. People don’t want just convenience, they want meaning.

Luckily, one medium that has resisted the switch to digital has been the printed word. Sure, you can read newspapers online and occasionally find a book on the web (or in an audiofile), but by and large, people still consume literature in book form. The e-book has been slow to gain acceptance, and it’s because of the very nature of books. They too are a participatory experience, requiring your active looking and page turning but also the active participation of your imagination and interpretation.

An iPod allows you to place thousands of songs in one small device. Songs go by quickly, and in the course of a day you might listen to several albums worth, and it’s simply not practical to carry around your whole physical music collection with you so that you can choose your next album or song on the fly. It would also be impractical to carry around movie projector and a series of reels, or a television with VCR and collection of tapes.

Books, on the other hand, take time. If you leave the house in the morning with one book, chances are you won’t finish it by the time you get home. At most, maybe you’ll need two books. An e-reader, in order to be comfortable to hold and read, as well as to have the proper storage and power requirement, needs to be a certain size to be practical, and that size is roughly the same as a short book. So it’s not necessarily more convenient than an actual book. In addition, a book requires no additional power source. Unless you’re in a pitch black room or out at night in the woods, the natural world provides everything you need to see that book, without you having to worry about finishing the book before the battery runs out. You can pick it up and start reading without having to open a program or scroll through pages, and you can do so in any setting without disturbing others with your glowing page.

Frankly, I like books because they are so analog. I can see at a glance how much I’ve read and how much further I have to go. I can, on a whim, skip ahead or travel back for a second to check something. I don’t have to turn off my book when the plane is taking off, and I don’t have to find an outlet to plug in my book. When I was a kid, I could hide my book in my lap and read during a particularly boring health class or assembly, and no one would be the wiser because my book gave off no sound or light and could easily be hidden amongst my other school-required books.

So feel free to convert everything else I own into a digital copy that can be attached to me at all time and hold everything I own, leaving me with the fear that one day it will crash and I’ll lose it all. I’ll keep my every increasing shelves with my collection of books taking up valuable space.

And All the Rest That Fits

Now that I've completed my overall analysis, and my guy reaction, of the Biden-Palin debate, I have a few points I'd like to delve into. To begin, something of a petty one:

We've had two terms of a President who has butchered the English language, setting a bad example for children in America and making us look stupid abroad when foreign leaders can speak our language better than our own President. I don't think it's elitist to suggest that we try a President who, with a team of people telling them on a daily basis, is able to remember that "nuclear" only has the one "u" in it. It's "nu-cle-ar" not "nuc-u-ler." Also, "Iraq" and "Iran" are not Apple products (though I hear the new iRaq has wi-fi). It's not "I- Rack." If we're going to invade a country and kill tens of thousands of it's citizens, let's not add insult by acting like we've never heard of the country before and don't know how to pronounce it's name in our own language.

Now, the real facts. Palin disputed Biden's claim that our commander in Afghanistan said a surge-like strategy wouldn't work. She said that "McClellan" never said that. Perhaps that's true, because our commander in Afghanistan is named "McKiernan" and he did in fact say that something like the Sunni Awakening wouldn't work in Afghanistan, because the tribal situation there is more complex than the situation in Iraq.

Palin refered to the Obama-Biden strategy in Iraq as a "white flag of surrender." General Patreus, who she repeatedly invoked as someone she thought could do no wrong, said recently that he didn't think "victory" was possible in Iraq. If our goal is to rid the world of terrorists, specifically in Iraq, you never can have a victory. Terrorists aren't an ethnic group that can be wiped out. Terrorism is a tactic, and it will be employed anytime you have dissidents. It's happend in Iraq, it happened in Africa, it's even happened in Oklahoma. Obame and Biden don't want to drop our weapons and run for the hills, they want to continue fighting for the next YEAR and a HALF, they want to keep training the Iraq army for a YEAR and a HALF, and then they want to keep some American troops in Iraq to support the 400,000 MAN Iraqi army to defend their own country (a policy that both President Bush and the president of Iraq now support). That's not a white flag. That's turning the country over to the people we said we were rescuing from a dictatorship. That, is victory.

When asked about what campaign promises they might have to scale back considering the financial crisis our country is in, Joe Biden was very straightforward. He said we might have to slow or scale back our foreign aid, something I would oppose but certainly won't cost him any points here. He also named other things that he would put on the back-burner while specifying all of the things he thought we couldn't afford to withhold money from, including health care and education. Sarah Palin's response? Nothing. In a time when the value of the dollar has dropped, the stock market has plummeted, unemployment has risen, job creation has decreased, and our deficit is at an all-time high...Sarah Palin and John McCain will both cut taxes (decreasing the money our government has to spend) and increase spending, thus ensuring that our deficit climbs higher, we have to borrow more money from China, and our dollar and economy continue to decline in power.

How about that health care? Obama and Biden want to make sure that all Americans can get it, because studies (and common sense) have proven that if our citizens can go to the doctor when they need to, they will get sick and injured less often and therefore not have to miss work or work at a diminished capacity, thus increasing productivity and growth in our economy. Sarah Palin and John McCain say they would like to increase payroll taxes, thus causing employers to be burdened and therefore decrease health benefits, and then they want to replace the average of $12,000 in benefits you get with a $5,000 tax credit. They claim this is "revenue neutral," meaning that it won't cost extra, but in fact it means it will cost the government $5,000 for each person, because that's 5k in taxes they won't be paying to the government but to a healthcare provider. I don't understand how they don't consider that socialism when they want to take tax money and give it right to the health care companies.

Palin again repeated the falsehood that Obama wants to sit down with our enemies without preconditions. His actual policy is that he wants to engage with these countries diplomatically. He's not saying that he personally wants to sit down with these leaders, or that he will do it whenever or however they dictate. He is merely saying that we can't just ignore these countries and think that our threats will change their ways. His idea is so crazy, though, that 5 former secretaries of state, our current President, and much of the rest of the world agrees with it. Meanwhile, she thinks we shouldn't even bother sending diplomats unless they agree to immediately disarm, something you can't get them to do until you send diplomats to convince them to do it, and she has no response for why McCain doesn't want to meet with the leader of NATO-ally Spain who has troops in Afghanistan fighting with us.

Palin again repeated the falsehood that McCain put country first and suspended his campaign to take care of the financial crisis. He "suspended" his campaign by continuing to do television interviews, continuing to run campaign ads, and not going to Washington until the following day, at which point he derailed that negotiation process for his own political ends. She also said she wouldn't answer the questions they way the moderator wanted, and that she wanted to talk straight to the American people without the media filter. As a filter take the toxins from your drinking water, or cuts the tar from you cigarette, does she not realize that the media filters bs from a candidate's mouth and tells us when they are lying to the American people. Yes, I think she does, which is why she wants to talk straight to us - so she can lie to us.

She doesn't believe an unstable Pakistan WHICH ALREADY HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT COULD HIT ISRAEL is as big a threat as Iran which merely wants Nuclear weapons. She states that America has nuclear weapons as a deterrent and that's a good thing, I suppose unaware of the fact that the reason Iran and North Korea want them so badly is so that they can use them as a deterrent against us so we'll negotiate with them and not invade. She said McCain knows how to win wars, even though the war he fought in is a war we lost and that as Senator, he presided over and supported several conflicts we fared poorly in, and opposed ones in which we succeeded. She said that, like Dick Cheney, she believes the Vice President is a member of Congress as well as the Executive branch, and that she wants to expand that role. She promotes placing our embassy in Jerusalem, a move that increase hostility against the U.S. and Israel from Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt. She supports a two-state solution in Israel, something most Israeli's are opposed to, but has no problem with the fact that Hamas won in the elections in Palestine, probably because she doesn't know what Hamas is.

And her solution to the lending crisis? She thinks Americans should stop borrowing money. Well, you see, since the United States' government can't stop, and her policies would mean that more people are out of work and have higher costs, how are they supposed to live if they don't occasionally put something on the credit card? Well, if average Americans are anything like her, they'll just have to live in their Governor's mansions instead of their private estates, and they'll have to sell their jets and instead take flights paid for by lobbyists. She said she doesn't think paying taxes is patriotic, but maybe that's because in Alaska she cut their taxes and made the federal government and the American energy consumer foot the bill.

Finally, a special note for both Biden and Palin. I know you're trying to win an election. I know that change comes slowly. I know that a lot of people in America aren't ready for real change. However, there is never an acceptable time for bigotry. You can say you support the right of a same-sex couple to have hospital visits and joint home ownership. You can say they should have the right to enter into contracts together. None of these, however, are rights you couldn't get through a lawyer or as partners in a corporation. The fact is, you can say you are "tolerant" as Sarah Palin did, but tolerance is not enough. "Tolerance" means that you'll put up with something. I hate bees buzzing around me in the summertime, but I tolerate it. When she says "tolerate" she means she thinks you are a sinner, a pervert, someone who made a terrible choice, and because of that she doesn't think you should have the same rights as anyone else in this country, but I guess that she won't actively try to get you thrown in jail or beaten up. That's her "tolerance." But Joe, you should know better. You fought actively for civil rights, at a time in this country when black people, like the man you are running with, still hadn't been afforded all of the equal rights of the rest of us. You can give gay people all the individual rights in the world, but as the Supreme Court proved, separate but equal is not what our country stands for. As long as they are treated as "other" they will never be equal, and we will as a nation will never be truly free.

Thank you for reading, and good night.

Past is Prologue.

Tonight, as I watched the Vice Presidential debate, time and again I was reminded of the past. No, it was not from Joe Biden, who Sarah Palin accused of being focused on the past and not the future. To address that, I say that the reason we are in the bad situation we are now in both Iraq and with our economy is because the Bush Republicans ignored the lessons of the past. No, I was reminded of the past by Sarah Palin's performance. Her caricatured folksiness, her inability to answer the questions she was asked, her reliance on memorized talking points, her mispronunciation of all words including "nuclear," and her attempts to pretend she's "just like you" despite being wealthy and powerful; all of these things reminded me of George W. Bush's debates.

It was a joke on the Simpson's that, to paraphrase, you can't be "cool" if you tell people that you're "cool." Well, tonight, Sarah Palin repeatedly tried to tell us that she was "an average American," that she was a "maverick," and that she was "a Washington outsider." So again, if you have to tell people repeatedly that you're a maverick, then you probably aren't one, or else they would think it without you saying so. As I watched the debate, though, I thought Sarah Palin did well in one important respect: she played to her base. She played to the people who care only about her as a persona and not her as a politician. She played to those who care more about what a person says than what their record proves. She played to the people who hear only the buzz words and forget the substance.

If the bar is set so low for Sarah Palin that she'd have to stutter and fumble, then yes, she just cleared it. She may have mispronounced "nuclear,"" Iraq," and "Talibani" but she gave that folksy twang that will blind those people to the fact that she's a wealthy, powerful, Alaskan separatist who's in the pocket of oil interests and other lobbyists. To think on substance, however, she had none. She repeated over and over that we had to take on "the greed of Wall Street" and that she came from a "team of mavericks," but nowhere in there did she state what they would do if they were elected, how they would be different from George W. Bush, or how she came to her false conclusions about the policies of Barack Obama an Joe Biden. Unfortunately, well the dust settles, though the news media will report the misstatements (or flat-out lies) she made, it will already be too late, and all people will remember is that she said Barack Obama voted against the troops.

By the one hour mark, though, she was winded and Joe Biden was just getting started. He called her out on her distortions of his record. He called her out on McCain's record. He called her out on the fact that she is not the only one on that stage who understands the needs of families. When he spoke so eloquently, in response to her harsh negativity, and choked up about knowing what it's like to struggle to care for your family, she responded without even an acknowledgement, going right into another prepared talking point that didn't even address the question.

Ultimately, I think much of the blame for the fact that she was allowed to ignore the substance and dodge the questions falls on the moderator, who seemed to haphazardly employ the rules of the debate, asking a series of questions but never seeking followup or allowing a chance for the candidates to stay on a topic beyond a single response each, meaning that she could suddenly jump to a prepared talking point about taxes or Afghanistan without addressing either what was asked, or responding to Joe Biden.

My view of Sarah Palin's performance can be demonstrated by what she did at the end of the debate; she brought her whole family up on stage, including her infant son that should have been in bed by now. The child was tired and probably annoyed by all those lights, and after using him as a prop for photo ops, she passed him off to her youngest daughter, barely big enough to hold him, and went back to glad-handing. Sarah Palin is all about the photo op, and not about the substance. She's about getting in the sound bite and not answering the question. She's about looking like she's a good leader (or a good mother) and not about being one. So when our country needs real leadership and real change, she'll keep us up past our bedtime, drag us through the political side show, and then pass us off onto cronies and people with even less experience. Well, Sarah Palin, I for one have been kept up way past my bedtime.

The Day After: Debate Analysis in the Sober Light of Day

Last night, expectations were high for this first debate. The campaign is often a constant barrage of soundbites and political ads, shading issues with hearsay and rumor, constantly barreling towards the finish line in November without concern for the praciticality of positions. Debates, on the other hand, and a bit of an anomaly. The two candidates are placed face to face, unable to just lob accusations or assaults without immediate rebuttal. A single journalist-moderator is given full control of the direction of the debate, choosing topics and questions at his on discretion. In the end, a roomful of commentators, spinmeisters, and pundits do their best to interpret the results of the debate, and the following days and weeks determine whether or not the public at large agrees. The idea of a winner or loser in the debate is, frankly, ridiculous considering that each person is swayed in different ways by different things.

So, any debate is a fascinating prospect, and one that could potential change the entire direction of the campaign. One slip up on live television becomes the media theme for the rest of the campaign. Too long a pause is replayed as a demonstratoin of your ignorance. A repeated phrase such as “lock box” becomes a verbal albatross that makes a serious proposal sound ridiculous.

This particular debate raised the stakes considerably higher. At first meant to be a debate on foreign affairs, it was Obama’s best chance to unseat McCain from his reputation as the better Commander-in-Chief, and to demonstrate that his short tenure in Washington does not preclude his ability to comprehend and tackle the big issues of State. Then, the immediate concerns of our economy cried out for a platform where these candidates could make clear to the American people how their needs could be met and problems solved. On top of all of that, McCain’s failed gambit to postpone or cancel the debate in his feeble attempt to appear “above” politics demonstrated his fear of the questions he might face, and piqued public and media interest in how the debate would proceed.

Yesterday, in the immediate aftermath of the debate, I thought it was perfectly clear that Barack Obama had come out on top. He was clear, concise, congenial, and above all, demonstrated a deep comprehension of the issues facing America both domestically and abroad, with many proposals to meet the needs of the future. McCain, on the other hand, was condescending, dismissive, and easily flustered. While Obama painted a picture of how we would turn things around, McCain seemed more apt to tell us where we’ve been, and who’s to blame for where we are, and gave vague promises of how he would act in the future.

Policy, however, is not what the debates are about. We can hear and read about their policies everyday, and they have been previously vetted so greatly that we are unlikely to hear anything new or drastically dramatic. Instead, the debates are an opportunity to demonstrate the ability to act “Presidential,” a rather undefinable quality that, like pornography, we know it when we see it. Barack Obama began the debate by graciously shaking McCain’s hand and wishing him luck, thanking Jim Lehrer and the school for hosting them, and then spoke directly to the American people by looking right into the camera. McCain, conversely, avoided looking directly at or speaking to Obama, began with a sullen tone by wishing Ted Kennedy well, and then awkwardly shifted at his podium while addressing his opening remarks to Jim Lehrer off-camera.

While his opponent spoke, Obama appeared engaged, listening intently, and remained calm even when falsehoods were stated about his positions. When he did interupt, he did so politely, and allowed the moderator the opportunity to take control. John McCain refused to look at Barack while he was speaking, and spent most of the time smirking and laughing with incredulity, or mumbling off-camera. His frustration would boil over with squiting grimaces and gesticulating with his arms in anger like a petulant child or a curmudgeonly old man.

On the issues, Barack Obama suggested investments in alternative energy, education, and health care, while John McCain suggested a budget freeze except for Defense, and cutting programs that amounted to a paltry 20-30 millions dollars, while also increasing our Defense expenditures and increasing our debt by cutting revenue. He hit all of the Republican buzz words; called Obama the most liberal member of the Senate, repeated the name “Reagan,” and talked of “supporting the troops.” While Obama spoke knowledgably about diplomatic solutions to dealing with America’s enemies and bolstering our allies, McCain stumbled to pronounce the name of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called President Zardari of Pakistan “Kadari” while calling his country a “failed state,” and called the volatile Prime Minister Vladimir Putin akin to the KGB which - true or not - is the sort of inflamatory statement that could make it difficult to deal with this former superpower over former Eastern Bloc nations joining NATO.

While, like I predicted, most perceptions of the debate’s outcome fell along party lines, and the pundits were overly kind to McCain, the biggest surprise is that undecideds and moderates had their opinion of Obama greatly improved. In nearly all the polls, undecideds declared Obama the winner and better prepared to handle economic issues, and in most of these polls, he also did better than McCain on foreign affairs issues. According to one CBS poll, he went from being 9 points down compared to McCain on the questions of whether he was “prepared to be President,” to being 21 points ahead of McCain. On understanding the needs of the American people, his lead jumped from 18 points ahead to 56 points ahead. If the other debates go like this, including the VP debate, his lead on McCain should only increase, and considering that the nielsen ratings last night for this debate were highest in the midwest, many swing states that just two weeks ago were considered no longer in play, could once again lean towards Obama, marking a dramatic shift in the predictable nature of our electoral map.

The Debates: Live!

Disclaimer: I am an Obama supporter (obviously) and whenever possible, I’m probably going to make a joke, so don’t read this if you want purely serious analysis.

9:01 And away we go…

9:02 Emphasis on the “global financial crisis.” I think we know what Jim wants to talk about.

9:03 Hey, look, they both showed up. I guess that means John McCain was able to fix our economy in time to make it down to Mississippi. Barack is all nice and friendly to McCain, who remains absolutely silent with a look of contempt in his eyes as they shake hands.

9:04 Nice. Obama gets the important “Thanks for having us at your awesome school” first question. Oh, and he’s answering directly into the camera. I think he’s looking right into my soul.

9:05 Ouch. Obama just laid the blame for the economic crisis on the policies of Bush supported by McCain. He comes out punching.

9:06 Okay…McCain starts out by wishing Ted Kennedy well. That’s weird. Both a downer and a pander to Democrats, and a way to delay answering the questions that he can’t answer.

9:07 McCain tries to make a joke which goes so flat that he literally clears his throat afterwards, like Rodney Dangerfield. He should try looking into the camera like Barack, because by looking at Jim Lehrer he just looks like he’s avoiding America’s gaze, like the guy who borrows 20 bucks from you and “forgets” to pay you back.

9:08 So the first question is done and Barack began by laying out specific idea, and McCain basically said “we need to fix stuff. No more foreign oil. I’m old.” Jim Lehrer lays down the gauntlet and asks the two candidates to “talk it out, bitch” (not an actual quote) and solve this problem in the next five minutes.

9:10 “Are you going to vote for the plan, Senator McCain?” Pretty straightforward question, right? Response: “I hope so.” You hope so? That’s another way of saying “I don’t know.”

9:12 Jim Lehrer is trying to start a rumble, and Barack gets the first laugh of the night. Charm will get you everywhere.

9:13 This feels awkward, like couples counseling. “Tell him how you feel, John. How has he hurt you?”

9:14 John McCain: “Our best days are ahead of us.” Oh, so you mean this isn’t the beginning of the apocalypse? How bold of you.

9:15 Finally, John McCain admits that the Republicans are neither conservative nor responsible. And apparently John McCain is so ready to cut the size of our government that he already bought a pen for vetoing everything.

9:17 John McCain keeps smirking and wincing when Barack Obama describes his policies. I guess words do hurt.

9:18 John McCain says he’s fought against earmarks his whole career…and also that they’ve tripled in the last 5 years. Clearly, his fight isn’t going well. That’s leadership.

9:19 John McCain: “The worst thing we could do in this economic climate is raise taxes.” Yes, if we’re going to dish out $700 billion dollars to corporations, we should make sure we bring in less money so that the government will be broke and then corporations won’t be able to ask us for money.

9:20 Jim Lehrer keeps trying to get them to respond directly two each other, and they keep avoiding it. It’s like an eighth grade dance up in here. Make eye contact, people.

9:21 John McCain keeps coming back to pork-barrel spending. Is that the entirety of his economic plan? Cutting 18 billions dollars. He also keeps mentioning that people have requested hundreds of billions in earmarks. It’s not like they were all at once. It’s not like Obama wanted a trillion dollars. When one thing gets rejected, they ask for something else. What’s so crazy about that?

9:23 John McCain cuts off the moderator to do what? That’s right, talk about earmarks again. He also wants to simplify the tax code by making a second code, and then you have to look at both and pick one for yourself. This must be a use of the word “simplify” that I’m not familiar with.

9:25 John McCain can’t stop interrupting Barack, and he keeps laughing inappropriately. That is not a comforting smile.

9:27 Barack just gave a shout-out to Ohio and Michigan. Hello electoral college.

9:28 Barack Obama is for alternative energy, broadband connections, and science education. He’s the future.

9:29 John McCain: “We’ve let the government get completely out of control.” He realizes that he and his party “are” the government, right? And he’s opposed to Ethanol.
Yeah, fuck you, Iowa.

9:30 John McCain saved us 6.8 billion dollars by cutting a Boeing contract. Thank god, that’ll take care of all of our deficits.

9:32 Jim Lehrer is getting very frustrated.

9:33 John McCain suggest a spending freeze on everything except defense. So in an election year, he’s promising the people…nothing. We refuse to pay for anything new, so forget it. Barack calls this “using a hatchet instead of a scalpel.” Nice.

9:34 McCain is really pushing for Nuclear Power. This is just like that West Wing live debate. Watch out, California, you’re about to have a meltdown.

9:35 This “foreign policy” debate has, so far, been all about the economy. That’s good for Barack, I think, but c’mon, let’s talk about foreign policy a little. It’s kind of a big deal.

9:36 I can’t believe it took McCain this long to talk about veterans. Oh, and he’ll cut spending, but won’t say how or what. He assures us he has plans though. I guess we should just trust him.

9:37 Obama: Bush’s “orgy of spending.” Damn, that’s incendiary, and sexy.

9:38 What? You mean McCain wasn’t elected “Ms. Congeniality?” Oh, and he finally said “maverick”… twice in one sentence, and called Palin his “partner.” She’s a woman but that doesn’t mean you’re married, John. I know it’s confusing since you’ve cheated on the women you’ve been with.

9:39 According to McCain, we’re winning in Iraq. I guess those were victory bombs exploding and injuring our troops.

9:40 McCain: We can’t leave Iraq because we might have to go back. But we’ll come home. What?

9:44 Obama: “Our troops have done a brilliant job” McCain: “(giggles)”

9:45 Obama lays into McCain on the war, and McCain just smirks and laughs. He’s going to jump over the podium and punch Obama in a minute.

9:46 Hey, they passed a law in Iraq! One law?! I guess we are winning. Thanks, John McCain.

9:48 Obama: “…capture and kill Bin Laden, and crush Al Qaeda.” He wins!

9:49 The look on Obama’s face while McCain rambles on is priceless. It’s the way you look at an old person who’s confused and trying to understand “these darn kids today.” So sad.

9:51 Barack Obama, unlike McCain, knows how to pronounce words, like “Taliban,” “Pakistan,” and “Iraq.”

9:52 John McCain admits that all of our problems began when people like him washed their hands of Afghanistan after we helped them boot Russia out. Thanks for taking the blame, senator.

9:53 McCain on bombing Pakistan, “You don’t say that out loud.” So you would secretly bomb Pakistan? Yeah, that’s better. How’d that work in Cambodia?

9:55 McCain guarantees that he will not “publicly state” that he will attack Pakistan, and then grins. How is that a good thing? Does he mean he will attack them, but it’s in bad taste to say it?

9:56 Based on his facial expressions, I think McCain will have a stroke by the third debate. He does not take criticism well.

9:58 John McCain runs us through his entire record, and keeps saying “I have a record.” It’s been two minutes and he hasn’t come to a point yet. Lucky for him Jim Lehrer isn’t being a stickler about time. This was all in response to a comment about him bombing Iran. He ends by talking about Iraq. Good job, way to get confused, John.

10:01 John McCain is staring off into the distance while Barack Obama tries talking to him. The silent treatment, that could work.

10:02 Ouch, McCain is literally gritting his teeth while he talks. I can’t wait for him to lash out.

10:03 Obama flatters Jim on his ability to keeptime, and Mr. Lehrer swoons.

10:04 John McCain wants to make clear that we “can’t afford another Holocaust.” Was that unclear before, John? Was Obama suggesting we should get one? John McCain also suggests a “League of Democracies.” It’s like the League of Nations meets the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Movie. Nothing but success.

10:05 John McCain is trying to be as vague as possible.

10:08 It took McCain three times to get the name of Iran’s leader right, and he still failed, and looked crazy doing it.

10:09 McCain looks fucking pissed. I swear, he’s going to punch someone, and if it’s Lehrer, it might just kill both of them.

10:12 Every joke Obama makes gets a laugh. Every joke McCain makes meets awkward silence. John McCain’s favorite phrases “By the way…, “I know that…,” “Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand.” And he refered to Kim Jong Ill as “our dear leader.” That’s weird.

10:15 McCain tries sarcasm. Once again looks crazy. Why does he keep waving around that sharpie?

10:16 Obama ignores the crazy, has another charming exchange with Jim Lehrer. Even if he were to lose this debate, he’s one Jim Lehrer’s heart.

10:17 Someone bought Barack a geography book…he just rattled off the names of most of the countries in western Europe, Asia, and the middle east.

10:18 Barack is hardcore.

10:19 McCain: “He doesn’t understand…” Man, this guy is a broken record.

10:20 According to McCain, Russian posters in Georgia are in English. Then he rattles off the names of Eastern European cities, and says we should “watch” them. Not take action, just watch.

10:23 Barack brings it full circle back to energy independence. I’m bummed he mentioned “clean coal” because it’s misleading.

10:26 McCain is almost stumped when asked what are the chances of another 9/11-type attack. He pauses wayyyy too long, and then says “less.” Then he shows off how tough he is by saying that he was “stymied” until some 9/11 families came along. Oh, and he fought for a commission. That’ll show those terrorists.

10:27 McCain stumbles again…couldn’t remember the word “sure.”

10:28 John McCain: “America is safer than it was on 9/11.” Well I should hope so. That’s like saying, “My house is less on fire than it was when it was on fire.” He’s essentially proud of the fact that we are just in danger, and not immediate danger.

10:31 Man, I have to go to the bathroom. Can’t McCain just storm out and end this thing. You know he wants too. Also, why bring up Reagan’s failed Missle Defense Shield? What’s that about?

10:34 Barack Obama seems to know he’s won this debate. John McCain again pivots back to “the surge.” Broken record. Also, he loves veterans. Doesn’t say how he’ll help them, just that he loves them.

10:36 “When I came home from prison…” That doesn’t sound good. It makes it sound like he was in Oz and not in a war camp.

10:37 And that’s the end of that. Barack looks pleased. McCain looks pissed. I wish his mic was still on. That sound guy is probably hearing some awesome snide remarks.

My first thoughts on the post-debate coverage on the major news networks. Were these people watching the same debate? They give McCain points for repeatedly mentioning the surge and earmarks. Was it not clear to them that he did that because those are the only talking points he has? He has no new ideas, no proposals, no ability to think on his feet.

My final thoughts on the whole debate. Obama was clear, concise, and had a lot of excellent and well-phrased proposals. John McCain was barely in control of his emotions, constantly stuttering, fumbling, fuming, and repeating the same three soundbites over and over while not actually answering some of the questions he was asked. I’m sure Obama’s supporters were pleased, but I’m just as certain that most of McCain’s supporters probably thought he did great. Early polling though, done of undecideds immediately after the debats, showed that the majority of ordinary Americans thought Obama won and think that he would be a far better President when it comes to the economy and the war in Iraq. Since those are two of the biggest issues right now, this should bode well for Obama. Now on to the Vice Presidential debates.