Look, DMN has a nit to wrangle!

I mean, she's GOVERNOR of a state, for God's sake. You don't get there by accident. You get there because you've spent years in politics gaining experience at how to, you know, govern.

That's the theory, anyway.

You get there because you've spent years in politics gaining experience at how to, you know, govern.

Not true for Arnold or Jesse, though. Who'd have thought when Predator came out, 2 of the cast would end up being governors?

Who'd have thought when Predator came out, 2 of the cast would end up being governors?

I thought it might be a possibility, but I thought Carl Weathers would have been one.

Not true for Arnold or Jesse, though. Who'd have thought when Predator came out, 2 of the cast would end up being governors?

Or W., who didn't exactly have a wealth of poliical experience when he became governor in '94. I probably overreached with my statement, but I stand by my assertion that Gov. Palin is a "career politician".

Not true for Arnold or Jesse, though. Who'd have thought when Predator came out, 2 of the cast would end up being governors?

Don't forget The Running Man.

Or W., who didn't exactly have a wealth of poliical experience when he became governor in '94. I probably overreached with my statement, but I stand by my assertion that Gov. Palin is a "career politician".

Perhaps; it depends on one's standard. But to me the phrase implies not just that one enters politics early, but that one stays there forever. That's where the difference between her (so far) and Biden is stark; she's been in politics for (defining it most expansively) 16 years; he's been there for more than twice that.

So how did Palin become governor?

She's both good and fast at blowjobs.

As I said before, the apalling tragedy of an Obama presidency will be the silencing of nearly all dissent to Amerika Uber Alles, and the cheering by Democrats of the same basic policies they hated under Bush.

So, back to teh Clinton years, then?

Put another way, she's been primarily a politician for 70% of her adult life, while Biden has been primarily a politician for 84% of his adult life. I am not sure that that makes for a considerable difference.

Clearly, what does make for a considerable difference is that Biden's political experience has certainly been of greater impact and closer to the centre of political power. He's a lot more "insider" if you want to create degrees of these things. At 31, Biden was featured in Time magazine as a promising U.S. senator with a bright political future; at 31, Sarah Palin was lobbying Wasilla staff and her fellow councillors to ban Daddy's Roommate from the local public library.

But to me the phrase implies not just that one enters politics early, but that one stays there forever.

She's been there forever, in terms of her own life. Her working career consists of one year as a sportscaster, and sixteen years in politics.

2. She's obviously good at learning, memorizing, and regurgitating "talking points" (i.e. a script) in a reasonably clear fashion. All you lawyers know how hard this is with your opening and closing arguments. I'm currently struggling with Shakespeare.

I actually don't think she is very good at this at all. She has a certain charisma and presence, but she doesn't express herself clearly, needed index cards to remember her talking points and can't integrate her talking points into a reasoned response well enough so that it isn't transparently obvious that she is not being responsive to the question. Given that she had a week to prepare for this and didn't have to deal with any questions or challenges that could not have been easily anticipated, I'm unimpressed. Good lawyers or debaters generally have various responses that they can use to answer any particular question or directions in which they can take their argument that they believe will be most effective given the circumstances. Maybe Palin can in fact follow a "script\" but that ability is wholly inadequate to meet even the limited challenges to which she has exposed herself in this campaign, except to the portion of the electorate comprised of conservative men to whom she gives a starburst.

Perhaps; it depends on one's standard. But to me the phrase implies not just that one enters politics early, but that one stays there forever.

I certainly see your side of it. I guess I'm just using the term "career" more literally. Politics is Palin's career. She is a politician. Period. She didn't have a long stretch as a broadcaster, or banker, or restaurant manager before she got into politics.

To put it another way: Gene Hackman has been an actor a lot longer than, say, Edward Norton, but it's fair to call them both "professional actors", and to refer to their "careers", don't you think?

Good lawyers or debaters generally have various responses that they can use to answer any particular question or directions in which they can take their argument that they will will be most effective given the circumstances. Maybe Palin can in fact follow a "script\" but that ability is wholly inadequate to meet even the limited challenges to which she has exposed herself in this campaign, except to the portion of the electorate comprised of conservative men to whom she gives a starburst.

I agree with you that I don't think she's acquitted herself very well in the sphere of national politics, but I was just trying to say I think she can read a script well, based on her ability to make her pre-planned points on her timetable (regardless, as you pointed out, of the question actually asked), and her reading of the speech at the Republican Convention.

I certainly wouldn't ask her to do improv, either. ;)

I actually don't think she is very good at this at all. She has a certain charisma and presence,...

I don't even see the charisma or presence. She's so obviously doing schtick, and she's so obviously forcing it, that I can't see the appeal, only the hard sell. Reagan was a genial pitchman for the nutball right whose sole gift was the ability to work from a script while sounding extemporaneous. Palin always sounds scripted, and like she's selling something.

She's been there forever, in terms of her own life. Her working career consists of one year as a sportscaster, and sixteen years in politics.

Yeah, but what sense does it make to use her own life as the denominator when we're comparing her to someone of a very different level of experience? BJ Upton has spent a much higher percentage of his adult life in professional baseball than, say, Sparky Anderson, but nobody would say that Upton is therefore more of a career baseball guy than Anderson. (And why her "working career," as opposed to her total adult life? If someone is a housewife for 10 years and then a teacher for 1, would we call that person a "career teacher" simply because 100% of her working career has been as a teacher?)

Palin is not, obviously, Ross Perot, someone who just stepped into electoral politics suddenly and abruptly late in life. But she's also not Joe Biden, someone who has spent 40 years in politics to the exclusion of everything else. (She may become Joe Biden, of course, though I doubt it. Unless by some miracle McCain pulls this out, she'll most likely be back in obscurity in Alaska. Even if he does, she'll be vice president, which rarely is a stepping stone to a long political career thereafter. The last time one party held the WH for more than 12 years consecutively was FDR's fourth term/Truman's first. I suppose she could lose, go back to Juneau, and then run for Senate in 2/6 years, but if she's perceived as contributing to McCain losing, it may not help her much.)

I don't even see the charisma or presence.

Yeah, and I don't get why anybody thinks Obama is a great speaker, let alone why he's inspiring. But since neither of us are exactly fans of the politics of these people, we're not exactly objective. (Not that being a pro-Palin partisan would make one objective, but when the person represents the exact opposite of everything you want, you're going to have a hard time seeing his/her appeal.)

Yeah,...

I do take your meaning even as I happen often not to find Obama much of a speaker, either. He was strong in the early going, but the occasional tremble in his voice now sounds forced and for a long stretch, when he was talking about the plight of "regular folks", he sounded bored. Lately he seems to have some real vigor when pounding McCain for this or that, and it seems like it's because he believes the criticism. He may also be figuring out how to talk genuinely, day after day, about something he really cares about, namely the economy. Or maybe he's just becoming a better actor. As for her, Palin may also simply be nervous, and may find that the necessity of acting a part she really feels is strangely difficult. Who would not find it so?

Right now Palin sure has the smell of a budding career politician, but a fairer measure of that would be how she deals with defeat. If McCain loses, and you then start to see her popping up in the short list for 2012, and if she doesn't immediately tell her fans to lay off---she ain't no Ross Perot. OTOH if she serves out her term as governor and then goes back to private life, I think that some of us would admit that our fears were realized. (/snark again)

As for Obama's speaking ability, the point that fairly screams about this is that he is always going to be working with one hand tied behind his back. He never can ignore the elephant of race, and the stereotypes that arise anytime a liberal black public figure is seen as a bit too eloquent.

Part of it is admittedly that he may not be as great a public speaker as his reputation seems to say. He pauses. He "uhs" and "ahs." He stutters a bit. He even commits the cardinal sin of thinking before he answers a tough question, something that neither McCain or Palin will ever be accused of. And this leads many people, including me, to think that his eloquence is a bit overrated.

And perhaps it is. But perhaps it's also in part the fact that he recognizes that as a black man within reach of the American presidency, about 10% to 20% of his support could evaporate overnight if he uttered just one misspoken sentence that would seem to cast him as the sort of stealth radical or secret black militant that the Republican ads will be typecasting him as. Unlike Ronald Reagan or George Bush (pre-2000), he doesn't have the luxury of having a population who understands instinctively that he's "one of us," even if they disagree with his political philosophy.

To illustrate this point: Ronald Reagan could speak about "state's rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi, and while many of us still see that as a shockingly cynical example of playing up to the racist vote, few of us concluded from that that Reagan was a "racist." Even if we never voted for him, we were able to put that incident (and others--his welfare queen comments, for example) in the context of his overall biography, which suggests that he was NOT a racist, but merely one more conservative politician who has no sense of what it's like to see the racial divide from the other side, and who essentially doesn't care.

And that speech sure as hell didn't cost him many "Reagan Democrats."

Barack Obama has no such luxury. Imagine a YouTube clip of him, lasting for no more than 30 seconds, where he appeared to slip into the "angry black man" mode. His candidacy would be dead in the water. For all of his poll numbers on October 5th, he's still in completely unchartered waters. That he's managed to come this far, even while granting the natural advantage that the Republican economy has brought him, is a testament to the soundness of his strategy of maintaining his "boring" demeanor. If not using his full rhetorical repertory is the price that he has to pay to get elected in an overwhelmingly white (and still conservative) country, I say that's a tradeoff only a fool wouldn't make.

Andy, I can tell you one thing. Obama had to overcome a prejudice amongst blacks, especially black women, that he wasn't really "one of them". My own wife told me that. And he's won her over so...

No question about that, Kevin, but let's just say that a lot more blacks than whites understand what Obama's had to do to get to this point. Much of his lack of early (i.e. pre-Iowa) black support was due to a psychological guarding against overly high expectations, based on centuries of experience. But I do acknowledge the point you're making.

BTW when during the campaign was your wife convinced that Obama isn't an oreo?

Well, part of it was me. I confronted her about her own prejudice. And part of it was his staying power.
But what finally did it was when Hillary started attacking him. That was the nail in the coffin, the real page turner.

This argument about the definition of a "career politician" is ridiculous. Who cares?

Nobody except Nieporent.

This argument about the definition of a "career politician" is ridiculous. Who cares?

Nobody except Nieporent.

And Nieporent's current dance partner, the Governor of Alaska, who only looks in mirrors to adjust her makeup.

Yeah, and I don't get why anybody thinks Obama is a great speaker, let alone why he's inspiring. But since neither of us are exactly fans of the politics of these people, we're not exactly objective. (Not that being a pro-Palin partisan would make one objective, but when the person represents the exact opposite of everything you want, you're going to have a hard time seeing his/her appeal.)

I find that a good barometer for whether somebody I vehemently disagree with has some ability is whether they make my skin crawl. This isn't a perfect indicator as there are some other factors involved, but I have never been so agitated watching a Republican speak as I was during Palin's convention speech. On the other hand, whenever Mitt Romney speaks, I can't help but laugh.

(And why her "working career," as opposed to her total adult life? If someone is a housewife for 10 years and then a teacher for 1, would we call that person a "career teacher" simply because 100% of her working career has been as a teacher?)

That would be a worthwhile comparison if Palin had been in politics for one year rather than 16. And since the operative phrase is "career politician," I thought it made sense to look at her career.

But let's do it your way. Sarah Palin graduated from college in 1987. She entered electoral politics in 1992. So she spent five years of her adult life out of politics, and has spent 16 years in it, and is angling to make it at least 20. Does that make her look like less of a career politician?

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I have no problem at all with career politicians. I prefer to have people in important positions who know what they're doing. I would never go to see a doctor who just dabbled in medicine and sneered at the "career physicians" down the street.

I have never been so agitated watching a Republican speak as I was during Palin's convention speech. On the other hand, whenever Mitt Romney speaks, I can't help but laugh.

I have the opposite reaction, because Romney was elected in a much more diverse and populous state than Palin was. Palin hasn't been elected to anything substantial yet, and I don't see it happening for her in November.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I have no problem at all with career politicians. I prefer to have people in important positions who know what they're doing. I would never go to see a doctor who just dabbled in medicine and sneered at the "career physicians" down the street.

And I wouldn't go see a doctor who got his job by winning a popularity contest, either, so I'm not really sure your argument accomplishes anything other than helping to demonstrate that the analogy itself is bogus. (Of course, if the analogy held, I wouldn't even have any choice as to whether to see this doctor; once he got picked in that popularity contest, he'd be my physician whether I liked it or not.)

And that illustrates why the analogy is flawed; a "career politician" is someone who has been seeking power over other people his (or her) whole life, while a career physician is not.

Moreover, the analogy is also flawed because a physician may get better at physicking by doing it his whole life; that doesn't mean a politician does. (The politician may get better at the technical aspects of politicking -- raising money, getting elected, shepherding bills through the legislature, whatever -- but that isn't the same as getting better at the substantive aspects of governing/legislating. As a concrete example, let's take something current: would having been in the Senate for 30 years make you more qualified to decide how to 'bail out' the banking system than being an economist with little or no political experience?)

I have the opposite reaction, because Romney was elected in a much more diverse and populous state than Palin was.

Yeah, but Romney's speech was kind of surreal in terms of substance. You've got the multi-millionaire former (moderate) governor of the most liberal state in the union (which also happens to be on the east coast) spending his entire speech railing on liberal east-coast elites.

This argument about the definition of a "career politician" is ridiculous. Who cares?

So does Palin strike the perfect balance of "experience" (i.e., "as much as/more than Obama") and "political outsiderness"? (Seems to me that's walking a mighty fine line...)

I find that a good barometer for whether somebody I vehemently disagree with has some ability is whether they make my skin crawl. This isn't a perfect indicator as there are some other factors involved, but I have never been so agitated watching a Republican speak as I was during Palin's convention speech. On the other hand, whenever Mitt Romney speaks, I can't help but laugh.

I don't think this test works for me; Obama isn't substantively any different than any of the other Dems of recent years, so I don't vehemently disagree with him any less, but he doesn't make my skin crawl. Neither do either of the Clintons. But Gore and Edwards, yes. (Kerry falls more into the 'laugh' column, like "People thought this guy was most electable? Really?") Biden, no. Huckabeee, no, even though his politics are just about the antithesis of mine. Rudy, closer to yes. Romney falls in the laugh column. I like McCain "personally" in spite of his views. Paul comes closer to my views than most, and yet the skin crawl factor is lurking nearby.

I find that a good barometer for whether somebody I vehemently disagree with has some ability is whether they make my skin crawl.

Rudy's speech at the convention made me want to vomit. That was not a reflection of polished speaking skills.

Kerry falls more into the 'laugh' column, like "People thought this guy was most electable? Really?"

The sad part is that they were probably right about that. I don't think Dean, Edwards, Clark or Gephardt could have done any better than Kerry did. Dean was too angry at a time when the country wasn't ready for that level of anger. Edwards was too much of a pansy. Gephardt has never been remotely compelling. Clark never quite figured out how to campaign. I admire something about each of those candidates, but I don't think any of them get the election to come down to Ohio as Kerry did. Kerry at least had a biography and the ability to clock Bush in the debates.

Rudy's speech at the convention made me want to vomit. That was not a reflection of polished speaking skills.

I don't know - Rudy can hold an audience and deliver a pretty good punch. I think his failure in the Republican primary is more due to the fact that he was a kind of wacky, liberal NYC mayor with a checkered personal life who offered nothing more to the primary electorate than noun, verb and 9/11.

I think his failure in the Republican primary is more due to the fact that he was a kind of wacky, liberal NYC mayor with a checkered personal life who offered nothing more to the primary electorate than noun, verb and 9/11.

He also has a bit of a grating and authoritarian personality. He was a great mayor in NY (almost as good as Bloomberg) but everyone, except for Rudy, wanted him to leave when his term was up.

I would have liked to have seen an election between a healthy Rudy and Hillary Clinton. (for Senate a few years ago)

Rudy was a fascist who got elected at the right time. He rode the economic prosperity train and milked that cow for all it is worth. I'm really really glad the right did not nominate him. Last year I thought for sure he was going to be our next president.

Dean was too angry at a time when the country wasn't ready for that level of anger. Edwards was too much of a pansy. Gephardt has never been remotely compelling. Clark never quite figured out how to campaign. I admire something about each of those candidates, but I don't think any of them get the election to come down to Ohio as Kerry did.

You should have voted the Edhardt Clarkean/Carlos Voltron ticket.

I don't know - Rudy can hold an audience and deliver a pretty good punch.

Yes, he can. But at the convention he was acting as a sort of hit man. Mocking Obama. Spewing fake indignation. With an awful smarmy look on his face. He seemed to get more and more hunched over during the speech, as if debasing himself was having an actual physical effect on his body.

I don't think this test works for me; Obama isn't substantively any different than any of the other Dems of recent years, so I don't vehemently disagree with him any less, but he doesn't make my skin crawl. Neither do either of the Clintons. But Gore and Edwards, yes. (Kerry falls more into the 'laugh' column, like "People thought this guy was most electable? Really?") Biden, no. Huckabeee, no, even though his politics are just about the antithesis of mine. Rudy, closer to yes. Romney falls in the laugh column. I like McCain "personally" in spite of his views. Paul comes closer to my views than most, and yet the skin crawl factor is lurking nearby.

Funny thing here is that in spite of being nearly 180 opposite of everything in the way of political philosophy, I can see where you can have just about every one of those reactions, with three partial exceptions: Kerry, Romney and Edwards. Kerry because I have a good friend who told me that whenever he used to come into her toy shop in Brookline he was incredibly cold and brusque to everyone who worked there, always demanding some sort of preferential treatment. Romney because---well, he just strikes me as perhaps the phoniest politician I've ever seen. I'd almost rather see Sarah Palin herself run the country than him. And while I liked Edwards up to a point, what he did to his wife was beneath contempt. I'm a sucker for southern accents and progressive politics when they're combined in the same skin, but one Clinton-like Back Door Santa (heterosexual branch) is enough.

But damn, there were plenty of times that I wish that Huckabee had been a Democrat.

And while I liked Edwards up to a point, what he did to his wife was beneath contempt. I'm a sucker for southern accents and progressive politics when they're combined in the same skin, but one Clinton-like Back Door Santa (heterosexual branch) is enough.

Edwards always reminded me of a complete jerk I used to know - same plastic haircut and fake smile. Of all the candidates that either party has put out over the last 20 years, he's the one I've hated most. Of course, since he went and did pretty much the same thing that the jerk I knew did, it's good to know that my ######## detector was working correctly.

I don't care what a person's politics are - if they can't treat those closest to them with a proper level of decency and respect, I want nothing to do with them.

This suprising passage from fivethirtyeight.com

So suppose that by tonight, black voters have increased to 30 percent of Georgia's registered voter pool. Plugging that 30 percent number in, McCain's advantage is a mere 1 point.

Think these numbers sound unreasonable? Early voting is underway in Georgia, and according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, black voters do not represent 30 percent of Georgia's early voter turnout. Instead, they represent almost 40 percent. Although early voting figures can be idiosyncratic , Barack Obama certainly seems to be having little trouble getting his vote out. Indeed, Barack Obama is winning Georgia right now.

Georgia? That Georgia?

I see that McCain is now calling Obama a liar. Will McCain continue to do so during the next debate, and how will or might Obama respond?

My recollection is that that hasn't happened before in a televised presidential debate. As ugly as it gets before and after, the debates themselves are comparatively civil.

McCain's in a rough spot. If he doesn't do something dramatic, he'll lose. However, most dramatic things one could do would drive him further down. After all the analysis, at the end of the day, lousy economy equals death to the party in power.

Between the two of them, McCain is probably the one with the thinner skin and the hotter temper. If Obama could find a way to set him off without it being too transparent, that might be the end of the election right there.

I hope that Obama is working on a set statement that is a variation of: I have known John McCain for a few years now, as a man of decency and integrity who always swore that he would never take the low road in an election. It breaks my heart that I don't see that man in this room tonight.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/06/cho.snl.politics.cnn

Will McCain continue to do so during the next debate, and how will or might Obama respond?

Obama needs to avoid gaffes, and counterpunch while showing McCain personal respect. As I said several months ago, it was inevitable that whichever side saw it slipping away would start getting nasty inside the 30-days out mark. Palin was talking about Ayers and Wright today as well.

I'm knocking on wood as I write this, but this election is pretty much over. Obama is up 6-8 points nationally, and two polls that came out today have him up by 10 or more in Virginia. Nothing short of a terrorist attack will change the fact that the economy will be the primary issue in this election, and McCain simply cannot win a contest on the economy.

Georgia? That Georgia?

Well, given that it's only the early voting contingent, and that Obama seems to have a much larger and better organized ground team, I'd bet that it's a disproportionate number of Obama supporters who are voting right now, and not at all reflective of the general voting population.

Sarah Palin: "Hockey moms and Joe Sixpacks... Barack Obama HATES AMERICA! HE TOTALLY HANGS OUT WITH TERRORISTS, YOU GUYS LOL!!1111"

Yeah... this is getting desperate.

Between the two of them, McCain is probably the one with the thinner skin and the hotter temper. If Obama could find a way to set him off without it being too transparent, that might be the end of the election right there.

I hope that Obama is working on a set statement that is a variation of: I have known John McCain for a few years now, as a man of decency and integrity who always swore that he would never take the low road in an election. It breaks my heart that I don't see that man in this room tonight.

My gut says that I like that, but even here Obama has to make absolutely sure that it comes at an unambiguous moment, one immediately following a point where even William Kristol himself (or at least David Brooks or David Broder) would say that McCain has gotten unquestionably personal and nasty.

And if no such moment arises, better for Obama to hold his fire and continue systematically to confront McCain on the real issues. You don't want to be drawn into a pisssing contest with a skunk, no matter how watered down the pissss.

------------------

As I said several months ago, it was inevitable that whichever side saw it slipping away would start getting nasty inside the 30-days out mark.

You were right about that, at least WRT McCain, and I was wrong---brother, was I ever wrong! But I also said that Obama's demeanor and positions were going to isolate the wingnuts more and more, the more and more McCain let the wingnuts capture his campaign.

Which is exactly what's happening now. McCain is reducing himself to a humorless version of Bob Dole, circa 1976. All that's missing is references to the "Democrat Party" to bring him back to Richard Nixon, circa 1950. It's genuinely sad to see such a seemingly honorable man lose his honor right before our eyes.

You're right, Moscow (Andy?). The setting has to be perfect, the timing just right. I think McCain will give him an opening.

A las barricadas!

It's genuinely sad to see such a seemingly honorable man lose his honor right before our eyes.

I think he is honorable. I also think the best of us, when desperate, are capable of terrible things.


Anyway, are you actually Andy?

he is

Well, I think it's dishonorable to suddenly change your name. Come on, Andy. Come back!



Or, at least tell me why you changed.

About a week or two ago Dan** was having one his usual rants about the leftwingBTFcirclejerkyadayadayada, or something like that. Nothing out of the ordinary there. But this time he referred to it (us) as "Moscow In The Bleachers."

I couldn't stop laughing for about half an hour, and I said to myself----I want to be that man. I want those full page movie ads to announce to the world---"He IS---MOSCOW IN THE BLEACHERS."

Or something like that. Anyway, I like the moniker, and that's that, at least until Caracas makes me a better offer.

**via another Primate whom he in turn got it from

**via another Primate whom he in turn got it from

Jon Daly, (a Repub) 2004 election night, according to Dan.

Heh. That's funny Andy. It was just weird - I kept seeing posts from people addressing you, but you were nowhere to be found. It makes sense now.

Obama needs to avoid gaffes, and counterpunch while showing McCain personal respect. As I said several months ago, it was inevitable that whichever side saw it slipping away would start getting nasty inside the 30-days out mark. Palin was talking about Ayers and Wright today as well.

Yup--it's going to be all smears all the time from the right. I was correct, that McCain was going to make it ugly early in the campaign, and wrong thus far about Obama being able to stay comparatively clean. Your prescription for Obama looks right. It's similar to what worked (to my surprise) for him in the first debate, and I can't think why it wouldn't work in the second. Obama will probably do well if he takes 10-20 seconds to deflect any attack by McCain, then go into "...the American people need to hear us tell them our plans for the economy. Here's my plan: ..." That blunts the attack, doesn't overly dignify it, then gets him right into what matters to voters. Wow--is the America where W. got in twice on the verge of electing to the presidency a black man named Barack Hussein Obama? Last night Nate Silver had Obama with an 87% chance of winning.

Wow--is the America where W. got in twice on the verge of electing to the presidency a black man named Barack Hussein Obama? Last night Nate Silver had Obama with an 87% chance of winning.

If this is correct--and I will believe it on November 5, not before--we should note what MCoA has said about "structural factors" being highly determinative of national election outcomes. This is a note from 538 today about Indiana (attach all ideological bias caveats if you like):

but here in Bloomington we learned from Obama student GOTV coordinator Jim Snaza that nearly 11,000 Indiana University students have registered to vote since August 15. Approximately 1,000 came in just today (pictured)

I don't know if this is unusual or significant, but there is a lot of this kind of stuff going on "on the ground." One would think these types of things favor Obama on 11/4.

I don't know if this is unusual or significant, but there is a lot of this kind of stuff going on "on the ground." One would think these types of things favor Obama on 11/4.

It's happening all over. Falwell's university is giving the students a day off from classes and arranging for buses to take them to the voting stations in Virginia. Voter turnout is going to be much higher than usual this year.

Falwell's university is giving the students a day off from classes and arranging for buses to take them to the voting stations in Virginia.

They better be from Virginia or else the IRS is going to screw their parents.

Falwell's university

Hmmm. Likely not a hotbed of Obama support.

the IRS is going to screw their parents.

So's your mom.

They better be from Virginia or else the IRS is going to screw their parents.

Liberty University - located in Lynchburg, Virginia.

There's got to be a joke in there somewhere, but I'm not going to look for it.

but here in Bloomington we learned from Obama student GOTV coordinator Jim Snaza that nearly 11,000 Indiana University students have registered to vote since August 15. Approximately 1,000 came in just today (pictured)

I always knew that there had to be at least one more good reason why IU has always been one of my two favorite universities.

located in Lynchburg, Virginia.

It's only about 35 miles from Blacks Run. In it's defense, it is a great place to get pot wholesale.

I don't know if this is unusual or significant, but there is a lot of this kind of stuff going on "on the ground." One would think these types of things favor Obama on 11/4.

I remember a lot of stuff like this in the last election. Reports that 75% of newly registered Iowa voters regeistered Democratic, etc.

Hmmm. Likely not a hotbed of Obama support.

Not at all. It's just interesting to see how much larger the turnout is likely to be when compared to the last election - especially in a lot of states which were usually disregarded by the candidates, since they were considered to be sure things.

It's only about 35 miles from Blacks Run. In it's defense, it is a great place to get pot wholesale.

Boy, I picked the exact right moment to drop into this thread.

Boy, I picked the exact right moment to drop into this thread.

Be glad you went to school in VA closer to the coast.

If this is correct--and I will believe it on November 5, not before--we should note what MCoA has said about "structural factors" being highly determinative of national election outcomes.

I'm not making the connection, rr, in that McCain has run an absolutely godawful campaign, has bungled just about everything, and could still pull it out. My feeling is that "structural factors" play a much smaller part than Matt believes they do. What's your feeling wrt to them here, specifically?

Too bad the Patriotism thread seems to be dying. Here's a gem:

From msnbc.com:

"And [Palin] laughs off criticism of her performance in interviews with CBS News by saying she was frustrated with the questions Katie Couric was asking."

Because they required, you know, answers?

I think he is honorable. I also think the best of us, when desperate, are capable of terrible things.

In what sense is he honorable? To me, being a person of honor and integrity means doing the right thing even when it's really, really hard. McCain hasn't come close to that standard.

That's a fair assessment. I'd say it then means that most of us aren't honorable either, as we haven't faced the dilemma of doing the right thing when it's really, really hard.

He's honorable in that he has behaved honorably through much of his life. Through other parts he hasn't. Honorable/dishonorable aren't, to me, binary.

I don't believe he's run an honorable campaign. I'm not going to condemn him in total for that. I'm just not going to vote for him.

Boy, I picked the exact right moment to drop into this thread.

Be glad you went to school in VA closer to the coast.

Yeah, CP. How do you know that? There has to be a story in there somewhere.

That's a fair assessment. I'd say it then means that most of us aren't honorable either, as we haven't faced the dilemma of doing the right thing when it's really, really hard.

He's honorable in that he has behaved honorably through much of his life. Through other parts he hasn't. Honorable/dishonorable aren't, to me, binary.

I don't believe he's run an honorable campaign. I'm not going to condemn him in total for that. I'm just not going to vote for him.

Fair enough.

I always knew that there had to be at least one more good reason why IU has always been one of my two favorite universities.

What's the other, Andy? UNC?

FWIW, the Washington Post ran a 5 page story yesterday on McCain's private life, the dissolution of his first marriage, and his leaving the navy at the age of 43.

good stuff.

To me, being a person of honor and integrity means doing the right thing even when it's really, really hard. McCain hasn't come close to that standard.

I see. And being offered the opportunity to return home because you are the son of an Admiral, and turning it down to stay with your comrades in arms -- I guess that does not meet your standard.

Too bad the Patriotism thread seems to be dying. Here's a gem:

From msnbc.com:

"And [Palin] laughs off criticism of her performance in interviews with CBS News by saying she was frustrated with the questions Katie Couric was asking."

Because they required, you know, answers?

I like some of the articles RCP has been linking, almost every other day there's one complaining about how Couric asked unfair "gotcha" questions.
Really?

I always knew that there had to be at least one more good reason why IU has always been one of my two favorite universities.

What's the other, Andy? UNC?

Do you really need to ask?

But if you've never been to IU, you should go there sometime. It's just like what they say about Carolina---a little bit of heaven.

Obama will probably do well if he takes 10-20 seconds to deflect any attack by McCain, then go into "...the American people need to hear us tell them our plans for the economy. Here's my plan: ..."

Yes. Now, if only he had something to fill in after that second ellipsis.

I enjoy these political threads so much. Seriously. They entertain and educate at the same time.

I see. And being offered the opportunity to return home because you are the son of an Admiral, and turning it down to stay with your comrades in arms -- I guess that does not meet your standard.

That was honorable, sure, but it was also 35 years ago. How is it relevant to his behavior now? his behavior as a POW doesn't give him a get-out-of-jail free card for the rest of his life.

his behavior as a POW doesn't give him a get-out-of-jail free card for the rest of his life.

Man, if only I could come up with a way to connect the "get-out-of-jail free" concept with the POW concept that wasn't incredibly offensive. Or was funny enough to cover for that. But I got nothing.

I enjoy these political threads so much. Seriously. They entertain and educate at the same time.

Agreed, Vaux. I wouldn't know half the stuff I do because of these threads, people bringing their own perspectives and providing illuminating links. I talk to the other guys in the office and they are way more uninformed and behind the curve than I am.

his behavior as a POW doesn't give him a get-out-of-jail free card for the rest of his life.

Sure. it didn't even get him a get-out-of-jail free card that same day.

Sure. it didn't even get him a get-out-of-jail free card that same day.

Touche. Should have used a better metaphor.

Yes. Now, if only he had something to fill in after that second ellipsis.

You mean other than voting for giving away our billions and getting little back? He'd have to be more forthcoming and combative if the election were closer. As it is I suspect the strategy will be like it was versus Hillary after North Carolina: Play it safe, avoid blunders, run out the clock. Interesting, that the general is starting to look a lot like the Democratic primary season.

Speaking of which, the stock market sure has taken to the bailout, eh?

Speaking of which, the stock market sure has taken to the bailout, eh?

TARP was Wall Street's pony, the market's just demanding its own rate cut pony.

meanwhile, britain is getting it right with preferred equity and nationalization

Slate had a amusing little article where someone took various comments that Palin made during interviews and reconfigured them as poetry ... they still don't make sense, but they work better as bad poetry.

"On the Bailout"

Ultimately,
What the bailout does
Is help those who are concerned
About the health care reform
That is needed
To help shore up our economy,
Helping the—
It's got to be all about job creation, too.

Shoring up our economy
And putting it back on the right track.
So health care reform
And reducing taxes
And reining in spending
Has got to accompany tax reductions
And tax relief for Americans.
And trade.

We've got to see trade
As opportunity
Not as a competitive, scary thing.
But one in five jobs
Being created in the trade sector today,
We've got to look at that
As more opportunity.
All those things.

(To K. Couric, CBS News, Sept. 25, 2008)


"Challenge to a Cynic"

You are a cynic.
Because show me where
I have ever said
That there's absolute proof
That nothing that man
Has ever conducted
Or engaged in,
Has had any effect,
Or no effect,
On climate change.

(To C. Gibson, ABC News, Sept. 11, 2008)


"On Reporters"

It's funny that
A comment like that
Was kinda made to,
I don't know,
You know ...

Reporters.

(To K. Couric, CBS News, Sept. 25, 2008)

It's like Walt Whitman never died.

It's like Walt Whitman never died.

It both amuses and depresses me that, despite a minor in English, the only thing that comes to mind when I hear the name Walt Whitman is "Leaves of Grass, my Ass!"

Man, if only I could come up with a way to connect the "get-out-of-jail free" concept with the POW concept that wasn't incredibly offensive. Or was funny enough to cover for that. But I got nothing.

You mean, like, "anyone who wants to go home, raise your hand?"

Ok that was weak.

I've read Casey Stengel, and Sarah Palin,you're no Casey Stengel.

Fiirst observation: Brokaw is an idiot.

I know Stone Phillips and he told me that Brokaw is a backstabbing prick, who got ahead by undermining his rivals, rather than on his own talent rising to the top.