Serious question here: Is this bigotry or not?

I'm having a hard time with this one. Some woman on the Apprentice apparently just lost her real-life job because of something she said on the show when it was taped months ago. At first I'd read that she referred to two women as "jewish old fat ladies" and I went, wow. Then I read the entire story. Read this first, then let's discuss:

Crisafulli's troubles began Wednesday night--in front of 14.7 million TV viewers.

In the third installment of The Apprentice 2, Crisafulli was shown the boardroom door by Trump after her team, Apex, botched a restaurant opening.

In his usual personable style, Trump told Crisafulli she was hated by everyone on her crew.

"Jennifer, this is really easy," Trump said, per the NBC Website. "You're fired."

But other words would come to haunt Crisafulli more. In the episode, Crisafulli complained that Apex's restaurant reviews were sabotaged by a pair of customers: "It was those two old Jewish fat ladies...jaded old bags."

Apprentice player Stacy Rotne, an attorney, took note, if not offense. "I'm Jewish and I'd like to understand Jen C's motives behind saying this," Rotne said on the show, per NBC.

According to Crisafulli, she didn't mean anything by the remark--especially nothing hurtful.

"I'm a New Yorker," Crisafulli is quoted as telling the Post. "I call an Italian an Italian...a Jew a Jew.

See, here's the thing. I'm from Chicago, and in that city, you ARE your ethnicity. You have a Polish cleaning lady, an Irish guy who's putting in the new kitchen, and the Italian family down the block. And yes, you even have the black guy who cut you off on the road (or who helped you change a tire).

Now, I don't know how New York is, but in Chicago, while sometimes those comments are rooted in prejudice, more often than not they're simply innocent ways of describing people. In Chicago, at least, you ARE your ethnicity. Probably the biggest thing I miss moving from Chicago to DC is that I stopped being Greek once I got to DC (though, ironically, everyone here thinks I'm Jewish - but that's another story). Back home, I was always the Greek guy. Here, well, here I don't know what I am.

So, when a woman refers in anger to two old Jewish fat ladies, would we react the same way if she'd mentioned the two old Russian fat ladies? Maybe she did mean it as a slur. But I can't help wondering if this isn't all just a bit overblown. Then again, I'm not Jewish - so maybe I just don't get it.

Help anyone? Read the rest of this post...

Oh, so now the spin is that FOX News screwed Bush?

Riiiiiiiight. That's why Bush lost, because FOX News tried to make him look bad by breaking the rules.

And the Easter Bunny ate my homework.

U.S. television networks refused to play by rules restricting camera angles and reaction shots during the presidential debate and that may have given a boost to John Kerry, analysts said on Friday....

"Cutaway" shots showing either Bush or Kerry while they waited their turn to speak were expressly forbidden in a 32-page agreement negotiated by the two campaigns to govern conduct of the event.

But from the start of the 90-minute telecast seen by at least 62.5 million Americans, the networks defied the rules by making ample use of split-screen shots allowing viewers to see the two candidates side by side as one was talking and the other was listening.

Under a rotation system established by the major networks for covering political events, Fox News Channel operated the "pool" cameras that supplied the broadcast feed for all the networks on Thursday.

Fox News executive producer Marty Ryan said the cable network tended to use a split screen when the content debate became especially pointed.

"We weren't looking for somebody taking a drink of water or adjusting their coat," Ryan said. "We looked for occasions when they specifically referred to the other, especially when the criticism in both directions was a little more harsh. That's when you want to see the reaction of the other candidate."

You gotta love that before the debate the pundits were bitching about the "rules" being absurdly strict, making this a non-debate, yada yada yada, and now that the "rules" were broken they're whining. Not to mention, Bush did his fair amount of rule-breaking by constantly interrupting, talking to Kerry directly, etc. (Remember when Kerry turned to Bush and said he was happy to continue chucking the rules if Bush wanted to?) Big media has a big hard-on for Bush, and God knows why. It's our job to keep them clean. Read the rest of this post...

[Insert caption here]

Read the rest of this post...

The media rewriting of history has already begun

David Brock's organization, Media Matters, does a great job of showing how the "mainstream" media is already rewriting history with regards to last night's debate. Before the debate they were all talking about this being a crucial moment, a decisive moment, a moment that could make or break the entire election. From Wolf Blitzer, to Jeff Greenfield to Bill Schneider they all went hyperbolic. But now that they all agree that Kerry won, they're saying "heh, no big deal."

I'm already seeing similar things in other articles I'm reading. One newspaper, God only knows which one (I've read so many online) said that the debate was won only slightly by Kerry. The story then went on to report that its own polls showed Kerry the victor by over ten points! Slight winner, indeed.

The other, and perhaps, bigger danger is that we not let the media start proclaiming - which they already have - that the debate was a bust for Kerry because, sure it kept him in the race, but he got no significant "bounce" from it (sound familiar?) Remember how Kerry got "no" bounce from his convention, even though the average bounce was actually on the order of 5-6%, about the same bounce Bush got if not a bit more? Well, now they're saying "sure, our polls show Kerry won, but they don't show anybody changing their minds."

A few points on that:

1. It's too early to tell. It'll take a good several days for the debates to sink in. For people to go to work and hang out at the water cooler and start discussing the debate with their friends. Once that happens, their minds and their votes start changing.

2. More importantly, I don't expect Kerry to surge in the polls even though he kicked Bush's ass, and here's why. Yesterday, before the debate, the undecided voters, for the most part, didn't like Bush or Kerry. They also probably figured, like a lot of us feared (though we didn't admit it), that Kerry was likely toast and that Bush was going to probably win. Thus, their undecidedness also led to more than a bit of apathy. Their votes didn't count because the election was already decided. Last night that all changed.

Last night the undecideds realized two things. First, that Bush just might lose. And second, that Kerry wasn't as bad as they'd heard, and he was actually not bad at all. That means those undecideds are now looking with renewed interest at the candidates since they realize their vote now DOES matter, and they realize that it may actually not be a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Does that mean the undecideds are ready to sign up for the Kerry campaign? I doubt it. They only just realized this was still a real race. But it does mean that they're now giving Kerry a serious second look.

Don't buy the media's BS, which may come to a head this weekend, about the first debate not helping Kerry because he didn't surge 10 points (though I still think we'll see a bump soon). That debate just made this a whole new ball game. All Kerry has to do is look presidential in one or two more debates, and he has Bush beat. Read the rest of this post...

A true story from one of our readers

Dear Folk:

I think you (and maybe your readers) will be interested in a personal experience I had last night while watching the debate.

My 19 year-old (former foster) son, who has never been interested in politics, sat down with me and began silently watching about 10 minutes into it.

About half an hour later he turned to me and said, "Dad, am I able to vote?". I told him he would have to register but that yes, he could vote. I asked who he wanted to vote for, and he said "Kerry's the tall dude, right?". I said yes, and he said, "I'd vote for Kerry".

I asked him why, and he replied, "Because, I can tell if they were both captured by terrorists Kerry would keep telling them to go f*** themselves, and Bush would cry like a baby and tell them anything they wanted to know".

Today we registered him to vote.

-- Proud Dad

And yes, this is a true story.

You can read more about this from the Proud Dad here. Read the rest of this post...

Bush-Kerry Debate Draws 62.5 Million Viewers

Reuters:

At least 62.5 million Americans tuned in to President Bush's debate with challenger John Kerry on Thursday, surpassing the number who watched Bush's debates four years ago with Al Gore.

The 62.5 million did not approach the record of 80.6 million who watched in 1980, when President Jimmy Carter debated Republican challenger Ronald Reagan, according to figures released on Friday by Nielsen Media Research.

Thursday's TV audience easily eclipsed both televised debates in 1996 between then President Bill Clinton and Robert Dole of just over 36 million each.

It also squeaked past the viewer tally posted for the first of three debates in 1992 between Bush's father, Clinton and independent candidate Ross Perot (62.4 million).

Read the rest of this post...

Says it all

Read the rest of this post...

The undecideds liked Kerry

"Many undecided voters liked what they saw from John Kerry and were more than a little concerned about President Bush's performance in the first presidential debate — but they still had questions about what Kerry would do in Iraq." - AP

Read the rest of this post...

Success

"Dems' Online Coup D'état." The poll-pushing worked last night. Yeah! Read the rest of this post...

Business Week calls Bush "Elmer Befuddled"

"Last night, he looked for all the world like a sputtering screwup..." Yes, you gotta read this one :-) Read the rest of this post...

GOP post-debate conference call goes BADLY for Bush

Oops. From JackPineSavage blog:

I'm not going to say a whole lot about this, but one of those candidates looked like a President. I'm going to let you figure out which one.

A humorous side note, the GOP held a "conference call" with Ken Mehlman in which campaign "Team Leaders" call in to be told what to think and get their talking points for the debate. Atrios, bless his heart, posted the number and the password to be accepted to the conference call. I got in without a problem and, after enduring ten minutes of painful smooth jazz, got to hear firsthand how the Bush campaign was going to spin this.

Mehlman said Kerry started with a credibility gap and ended with a credibility canyon, and babbled in and around this point for five minutes or so. Then they announced that they were going to take three questions. The first was from a "young Republican in Washington." She proceeded to say that Kerry was very credible and that she had decided to vote for him. The second caller said she thought Kerry would make a credible Commander in Chief and the third call took Bush to task for not mentioning the al Quida members not captured.

Mehlman apologized to the Bush supporters listening and acknowledge that the call had obviously attracted some Democrats. We had, essentially, hijacked their own spin distribution and thrown it in the GOP's face. A small, yet hilarious victory for the blogosphere.

Read the rest of this post...

READ THIS: Wall Street Journal reporter says Iraq is lost

THIS IS LONG, READ IT. THEN SEND IT TO YOUR FRIENDS. IT'S THAT IMPORTANT.

This is a real email sent by a Wall Street Journal reporter in Baghdad on September 29, 2004. It details the all out disaster that is now Iraq. I mean ALL OUT DISASTER.

This email was published on the presitigious Poynter Institute's Web site. More importantly, the Wall Street Journal confirmed today to the NY Post that the email is legit. (You can also read the reporter owning up to the email here.)

Read this entire thing - it's long and horrifying. Then send it to everyone you know. Tell the world what George Bush has done.

WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends
9/29/2004 2:58:10 PM

From: [Wall Street Journal reporter] Farnaz Fassihi
Subject: From Baghdad

Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference.

Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.

It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.

Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."

What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.

Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.

A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive, cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to signal to the locals this is booby-trapped. He said on the main roads of Sadr City, there were a dozen landmines per every ten yards. His car snaked and swirled to avoid driving over them. Behind the walls sits an angry Iraqi ready to detonate them as soon as an American convoy gets near. This is in Shiite land, the population that was supposed to love America for liberating Iraq.

For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted from their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back near the neighborhoods.

The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating.

I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly told our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping chain once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes: criminal gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has been missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still alive.

America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.

As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18 billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chuck has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here.

Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq?

Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.

I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.

Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the importance of voting. He said, "President Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all is lost."

One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.

The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.

I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

-Farnaz

Read the rest of this post...

Who's Dukakis now bitch?

(Caption & photo courtesy of Rising Hegemon blog.) Read the rest of this post...

A Personal Note: Bush Lost!!!

My father is slightly to the right of Pat Buchanan politically. He thinks Singapore is a good way to run a country -- let the little people vote on dog catcher but all the big decisions are made by a strong man in power. He gets all his information from Fox News and right wing talk radio and the New York Times is filled with lies, etc., etc. You get the picture -- if Fox News said 1 plus 1 is 3, then you're a dirty commie for suggesting it might be 2, in my dad's view. I have never heard him say one negative thing about Bush.

For kicks, I called him up and teasingly asked, "What did Fox News tell you to think about the debate?" He paused and said, "I was disappointed." Huh? In the debate in general or Bush?

"Bush just slouched too much. Kerry won the debate on looks. He told 21 lies [I let that slide] but Bush didn't...he was alright at first. But he kept attacking Kerry -- flip flop, flip flop -- and he didn't say anything. He just kept repeating the same things.

"And he kept stopping before time ran out! I couldn't believe it. You can rest your arm on the podium and look folksy at a rally, but this is a debate -- even though it's not a real debate -- and stand up straight! Look presidential! He just didn't seem to have anything to say. He should have said, here's the situation in Iraq and here's my plan. But he just kept attacking Kerry and saying 'hard work' and 'misleading.'"

You could have knocked me over with a feather. Did my father change his mind? Of course not. Will he still vote? Probably. But Kerry just lit a fire under his base and Bush deflated his. That means fewer people rarin' to get to the polls and drag their friends with them.

But don't forget your talking points: Bush is going to do a LOT better at the next debate and learn from his awful performance here and Kerry will be doing well to just hold his own against the President because Bush has never lost a debate so he couldn't possibly lose two in a row. Blah blah blah.

Got any stories of far right family members and friends being disappointed and disillusioned? We'd love to hear them.
Read the rest of this post...

US cybersecurity chief abrupty quits because of Bush inaction

Why does George Bush hate defending America?

The government's cybersecurity chief has abruptly resigned from the Homeland Security Department amid a concerted campaign by the technology industry and some lawmakers to persuade the Bush administration to give him more authority and money for protection programs.

Amit Yoran, a former software executive from Symantec Corp., made his resignation effective Thursday as director of the National Cyber Security Division, giving a single's day notice of his intention to leave. He kept the job one year.

Yoran has privately confided to industry colleagues his frustrations in recent months over what he considers the department's lack of attention paid to computer security issues, according to lobbyists and others who recounted these conversations on condition they not be identified because the talks were personal.

Read the rest of this post...

Now the Republicans are blaming Jim Lehrer for Bush's debate fiasco!

This tops it. The Republicans are so irate over Bush's loss in last night's debate that now they're attacking PBS' Jim Lehrer as being too tough on chimpy.

Here's Newsmax take on it that I just received by email - love it, love it, love. Newsmax's story can mean only one thing - they're admitting Bush lost and now are trying to find scapegaots. Love it!

From Newsmax:

Lehrer on Defensive Over Biased Questioning

PBS host Jim Lehrer was challenged Friday morning on claims that he went easy on Sen. John Kerry during Thursday night's presidential debate, while tossing verbal hand grenades in President Bush's direction designed to keep him on the defensive.

"I don't know what in the world you're talking about," Lehrer told radio host Don Imus, in his only post-debate interview.

"I would argue that my questions were right down the middle. There were some hardball questions for each candidate. There were some softball questions for each candidate. But for the most part they were just terrific."

The bias complaint, said Lehrer, was more of a commentary on his critics than a valid criticism of his own debate performance.

Still, some observers noted that Lehrer's questions largely focused on negative aspects of Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq - while avoiding Sen. Kerry's waffling on the issue, not to mention the top Democrat's long record of opposing measures to strengthen U.S. intelligence and national security.

At one point Lehrer claimed that over ten thousand U.S. soldiers had been killed in Iraq, before quickly revising that number to 1,052.

At the end of the debate, the PBS anchorman shook Sen. Kerry's hand - with some debate watchers claiming he gave the top Democrat a knowing wink.

In 1999, the president of Lehrer's network had to resign after admitting that 53 PBS affiliates had been sharing their donor lists with the Democratic National Committee for years.

In 1997, then-White House aide George Stephanopoulos revealed that President Clinton's reelection team thought it was a major coup when Lehrer was chosen to host one of the presidential debates, boasting that "our moderator" had been picked.

Honestly, I'd swear I saw Lehrer grab Kerry's ass and give it a BIG squeeze, and when they kissed, did you see tongue, I swear I saw tongue. Read the rest of this post...

Consumer sentiment sags, again

Let's see if Bush continues to tell Americans that everything is OK, despite what they see in their own circle of friends and family. Why let facts get in the way of the message? The only answer he has is "tax cuts for the rich" and corporate welfare for financial supporters. I'm sure they're going to eat that up in PA and Ohio.
Read the rest of this post...

The ONE BIG QUESTION they forgot to ask Bush last night...

Just one. Read the rest of this post...

The Faces of Frustration

The DNC has a great new silent video simply highlighting all the faces Bush made last night during the debate. It's classic. Read the rest of this post...

LOCK UP!

It seems Mr. Bush isn't the only Republican deer freezing in the headlights after the debate. Bush-Cheney campaign manager, the very-single-37-year-old Ken Mehlman, sent an email to "supporters" this morning that not only contained the less-than-enthusiastic title "Reflections on First Debate," but even better, in the middle of the missive Mehlman suddenly stopped mid-sentence and the email ended! A classic case of art imitating life:



Which actually got me thinking: Maybe this locking up thing is part of some grander Bush-Cheney strategy. Hmmm... Read the rest of this post...

The outburst video clip and voices in his head

Yikes! Easy there fella. You're falling apart at the seems on us and the race isn't even over. Check out a few tasty clips from last night including the famous "of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us" moment. Talk about coming un-glued...

I'm still scratching my head over Bushies "let me finish" snipe as well. What the hell was that about? He still had plenty of time and it didn't appear as though anyone interupted him. Is the guy hearing voices in his head? (It's someone around the 43rd minute +/- a minute or two during the question of Examples of Bush not telling truth about Iraq.)
Read the rest of this post...

My Three Cents

Wow, this post-debate coverage is heady stuff. I've forgotten what I seen and only remember that Kerry won! Kerry won! He's got the momentum! Yep, it's not really about my own personal analysis, it's about how the general public saw it and how it plays out in the media.

Day One looks great, with most people saying Kerry won the debate. Bush's tired repeating of one or two talking points wore people out. His body language and facial expressions were a catalog of indifference, pettiness and a man deeply uncomfortable in his own skin. It's probably the worst debating night of his life.

Now how do we keep the Bushies from setting up debate two as his chance for a comeback? Keep repeating what John said: all Kerry has to do is look presidential.

Keep saying, "Oh George Bush had a terrible night so of course he's going to do better the second time." Beat them to the comeback story so that even if Bush shines it's only what the Dems insisted all along was the least we can expect from Bush. "Remember, he's won every debate of his career before these so of COURSE he'll learn from his mistakes and end all that wretched body language (weren't those grimaces of his a hoot, Matt and Katie?) and do much, much better. Frankly, we're just hoping Kerry can hold his own, Ted. You know Bush is going to improve dramatically in the next debate."

Raise the expectations to grandiose heights and then watch him fall short and admit, gee, maybe he really is in trouble.
Read the rest of this post...

"The look". Thanks for helping George

Read the rest of this post...

My Two Cents

Okay, most everyone has gone to bed so I'll throw in my slightly off-message comments. I was at a Yankee game and came home at midnight so I had the typically surreal experience of watching the debates, discussing it with a friend and then absorbing the post-debate coverage on ABC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX and elsewhere. As often happens when you isolate yourself, my reaction to the debate was quite different....

But don't stop cheering Kerry. We're winning the post-debate spin and that's what really matters. ABC News was all pro Kerry on substance and style, (though Nightline had really lame guests and seemed to be more wishy-washy about who'd won). Everyone described the Kerry camp as jubilant and the Bush camp as defensive. Jon Stewart (duh), Chris Matthews, Larry King all were quoting poll after poll showing Kerry had come out best, looked presidential and had the big Mo (momentum) in his favor. Great!

Personally, however, I was disappointed though not disheartened by Kerry's performance. He held his own -- as John so astutely predicted it was all he needed to do -- but I thought Bush was so weak that Kerry could have skewered him even more.

Bush, of course, was bad. He looked like Alfred E. Neuman of Mad magazine, sounded petulant, gulped down water, struck his fist on the podium in a very annoying way, and -- though few have mentioned it in the general media -- he had NUMEROUS deer in the headlight moments where he couldn't think of what to say, lost his train of thought, got confused, and so on. All par for the course for Bush, naturally.

But he gave so many openings that Kerry didn't exploit. I cackled with glee at times when Bush said stuff and then was disappointed Kerry didn't dive in. My main complaint is that Kerry spent too much time on the issues, too much time defining himself instead of going after Bush. This election is about Bush and the (terrible) job he's done. Kerry should pound away at the mistakes of Bush, not waste time define himself ("I was not misleading..." Oy!) or explaining what he'd do. Just show again and again how Bush has made a mess of things.

Part Two Below


Read the rest of this post...

My Two Cents II

I guess I'm the only one who didn't think Kerry fought back on flip-flopping. He shouldn't have defended himself; he should have catalogued all the ways Bush has flip-flopped on nation building, the 9/11 commission, the intelligence czar, and so on.

Onto Bush's many weak moments that Kerry might have skewered more but didn't.

1. Bush repeated "hard work" and "mixed messages" so many times I was hoping Kerry would move in for the kill. It didn't take me but a second to come up with one quip: "If George Bush was the captain of the Titanic and he saw an iceberg dead ahead, he'd say we can't change course because that might send a mixed message. When I see a crisis, I'm going to fix it, not pretend it doesn't exist."

2. The dead soldiers -- Bush had the nerve to say he honored dead soldiers. I wanted Kerry to say, "You haven't attended the funeral of one dead soldier that served in Iraq. That's a purely political decision and it's shameful and it certainly doesn't comfort the families.When I'm President, I'll never hide from the very real and very painful human costs of the decisions I make."

3. Trained Iraqi troops -- I couldn't believe Bush said we had 100,000 trained Iraqi troops when both Rumsfeld (90,000) and the State Dept testifying to Congress (50,000 -- depending on how you define trained/fully trained) have given conflicting, lower estimates in the last few days. But I was even more stunned Kerry didn't jump on it as another example of Bush refusing to talk straight with the American people.

4. Bush on the war -- "I get casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is." Everyone's pointed this whopper out already. He's seen by watching TV how hard it is?

5. Bush on never dreaming of going to war in Iraq -- okay, Kerry landed one of his strongest punches by pouncing on Bush's defense of invading Iraq by saying "the enemy attacked us" in the very same response where he said it never occured to him that the President might have to go to war. But really, Bush didn't dream of invading Iraq?

"You didn't dream of invading Iraq when you were running for President? You are surrounded by top aides and advisers who have spent the last decade scheming and dreaming of invading Iraq and then snapping their fingers to turn the Middle East into democracies. Your advisers ahve published papers and given speeches and worked in think tanks devoted to the idea of invading Iraq. They wanted to invade Iraq long before you even decided to run for President. They wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11. If you don't know that many of the people around you dreamed of invading Iraq, then you don't know the people you work with."

But anyway, Kerry looked Presidential and kept it punchy and tight and boy, did we win the post-debate spin.
Read the rest of this post...

Bush and Body language

I had a 2:45AM wake-up last night so I could see the debates live and damn and I glad that I did. I couldn't fall asleep until after 5AM because my wife and I were talking and talking about how impressed we were with Kerry and how off Bush was. Both of us love to follow body language and have used it a lot in our careers and Bush provided a constant flow of surprising material all night.

John's earlier message about Kerry really made me think about who had what to win or lose going into it and despite what everyone in the media was saying about Kerry needing a homerun, I don't think that he needed a homerun. He needed to look like a guy America could trust and feel comfortable with for the next four years. On that account, he may not hit a homerun but he did everything necessary to make people believe in him. Kerry put Bush on the defensive from the start which sent Bush into a tailspin for a while. Kerry clearly angered Bush who tends to give away his feelings via his facial expressions and body language. In that department, Bush was a disastor. The cut-away shots on Bush told the story of Bush being a hot head and out of control. If you followed Kerry in those shots, he looked completely in control. Bush was rattled and it showed over and over at the beginning and near the end of the debate. Excellent job by Kerry in prompting those reactions by Bush.

The other thing to keep in mind is that this was Bush's chance to hit the homerun and put this race out of reach for Kerry. On that, he failed miserably. This was supposed to be his strongest moment in the debates and he looked like an angry, confused person while Kerry was looking the opposite. Hell, look at the moment that Bush is moving his notes around and it looks like he has pages and pages of scribbled notes that he was shuffling around in site of the TV cameras. If last night didn't get you excited about Kerry, you don't have a pulse. The man put his stamp on the campaign last night and little Georgie was frazzled.
Read the rest of this post...

National Review SLAMS Bush!

Read it and weep, baby:

I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly — much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy — not Joe Political Junkie — I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate.

And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less.

Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything — were a political naïf, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time — I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate....

Friends, I have no doubt that this little reaction column of mine will disappoint many of you. I'm sorry. I have called George W. Bush a Rushmore-level president. I believe history will bear that out; and if it doesn't, history will be wrong. I think that Bush's reelection is crucial not only to this country but to the world at large. I not only think that Bush is the right man for the job; I have a deep fondness — love, really — for the man, though I don't know him.

But tonight (I am writing immediately post-debate) did not show him at his best. Not at all. He will do better — I feel certain — in subsequent debates. I also worry that they count less.

Read the rest of this post...

Even the Washington Times is sweating!

Remember, this is the Moonie paper that is like the FOX News of newspapers in its pro-GOP-ness:

The strategists said the outcome probably will give a minor boost to Mr. Kerry who has been flagging in recent polls, but also will buffet Mr. Bush's reputation for steadfastness that has been credited with swaying undecided voters to his camp.

"I think both have done well," said Republican political consultant Frank Donatelli. "Both were well-prepared and had good command of the facts. Most people's views probably won't be changed by this debate. Partisans will find plenty of reasons for reinforcement for their present biases."....

"We're up against a master of debate," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said before last night's encounter at the University of Miami. "We know that John Kerry has spent his entire life preparing for this moment."

A master debater? Ok... Read the rest of this post...

MEOW from the NYT

From a news analysis article, to boot:

The more immediate question is whether voters will continue to follow a president who insists the war was right, in the face of polls suggesting widespread doubt about whether it was worth the cost. Mr. Bush is banking almost everything on his belief that they will, as long as they believe he is clear and resolute.

It is too soon to know whether Mr. Kerry, trailing in pre-debate polls, accomplished what Mr. Bush did four years ago when he came out of his first debate against Al Gore stronger than when he went in (or what Ronald Reagan did when he leapfrogged ahead of Jimmy Carter). But he is hoping that voters will agree with his own succinct assessment of Mr. Bush last night: "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong."

Read the rest of this post...

Andrew Sullivan's take

Say what you will, Andrew is a good writer and has an interesting mind. And in this case, he's right :-)

Afterward, only the Bush supporters seemed concerned that their candidate had lost ground. They should be. Watching Bush last night, I saw a president who sometimes didn't seem in control of his job, a man who couldn't and didn't defend the conduct of the war except to say that it was "hard work," who seemed defensive, tired, and occasionally rattled. He had some strong points; and I agree with him on the basic matter of whether we should have gone to war. But the argument that we might be better changing horses in the middle of a troubled river gained traction last night.

In some ways, this might turn out to be a version of the 1980 Carter-Reagan match, when Reagan was able to convince people, by his persona and presence, that he was up to the job. Yes, Bush is not as bad as Carter and Kerry is, of course, no Reagan. But the dynamic was somewhat similar. In other words, Kerry gets back in the game, reassures some doubters, buoys his supporters, and edges up a little. Oh, and one young man in the audience had just returned from serving his country in Iraq. Yes, he'd seen the war upfront. He knows what were doing over there first-hand. And he's voting for Kerry.

Read the rest of this post...

Conservative bloggers say Bush sucked

At our debate party, several of us were asking what the conservative bloggers were saying about the debate, and whadayanknow - DailyKos pulled their quotes together for us. And you know what? They all agree, Bush sucked :-)

Read the quotes on DailyKos.com here. Read the rest of this post...

Did Bush whiten his teeth for the debate?

Several of us thought so at our debate party, and I just noticed that Atrios mentioned the same thing. Dare I say, our little president tried to pretty up for the debate? Read the rest of this post...

Bush vs. his temper

Now THAT'S a headline (or part of one).

President Bush has thrown Sen. John F. Kerry's words back on him during nearly every speech of the campaign, but he rocked back in irritation during the first presidential debate Thursday night when the Massachusetts senator did the same thing to him.

Bush's aides knew that his temper was a potential vulnerability, and his debate coaching sessions included practice in not getting rattled. But the camera shutters started snapping as the president shot a look into the University of Miami Convocation Center when Kerry seized on Bush's refrain that "the enemy hit us" and to point out that was not Saddam Hussein....

Even though it was the White House that had insisted on most of the restrictions, Bush was the one who seemed to chafe at them, jumping in when he was ready to answer and at one point prompting Kerry to joke that he was happy to change the rules.

At the end, Kerry was the most visibly pleased and the most effusive in thanking his opponent. Kerry walked up to the front of the stage, shaking two fists victoriously as he summoned his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, to the stage. Bush barely mentioned his opponent and went over for a hug from first lady Laura Bush.

Bush's apparent annoyance at the idea of Kerry as the commander in chief was perhaps the debate's clearest emotion. Bush even used the phrase he uses to rebuke offending journalists: "Let me finish."...

Read the rest of this post...

Chicago Trib analysis of debate:

Chicago Trib:

Whether John Kerry won the debate with President Bush Thursday night is an open question that voters will decide, but he almost certainly won a chance for a second look....

Instead, Kerry painted a contrast with the president over the war and challenged an aspect of Bush's character--a sense of moral certitude--that could be the president's greatest electoral liability, especially among women and independent voters....

The senator from Massachusetts proved himself plausible and credible as a commander in chief during the debate.... in so doing, Kerry clearly gave himself a new opening to frame the debate about the war. He has something to say, and it is quite different from Bush. And he did it before the largest audience he is likely to have....

The good news for Kerry is that he proved himself on the big stage. The race is far from over.

Read the rest of this post...

NH focus group gives Kerry a win

Reuters:

A group of citizens in the swing state of New Hampshire, including Democrats, Republicans and one undecided voter, gave a slight edge to Democrat John Kerry in Thursday's first presidential debate.

Before the debate began, three of the seven voters who gathered at Saint Anselm College, a small Catholic university near Manchester, said they were leaning toward Kerry, but without any great enthusiasm. The three who said they supported President Bush were all passionately behind him.

After the debate, all three Kerry supporters said they were much more encouraged and heartened by the Massachusetts senator's performance. The Bush supporters remained solidly committed to the president.

Adam Schibley, a politics student at the college and the group's sole undecided voter, said he was now leaning strongly toward Kerry.

"Kerry answered a few questions I had that were open-ended before the debate started," he said. "Bush struggled more to verbalize his beliefs while Kerry found it easy to put into words exactly what he felt."....

Dentist Lawrence Puccini, a Bush supporter, said that viewed purely as a debating contest, Kerry was the winner.

"Bush had a sour look to him. Kerry showed himself a real polished debater. He kept attacking but he didn't really convince me about what he would do differently. But in terms of the debate, he cleaned Bush's clock," he said....

Others in the group said Kerry scored a solid point when he highlighted the decline in U.S. international credibility by recalling how during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 French President Charles De Gaulle had accepted the word of the president of the United States without the need to see proof.

Henry Wenta, a distributor for a major beer company, was totally committed to Bush before the debate began and remained so after it was over. But he said there was no clear winner to the encounter.

Read the rest of this post...

You guys gave $3500 tonight to help Kerry's election via AMERICAblog - way to go!

Feel free to give more! I think I just saw President Kerry tonight for the first time, and I liked it :-) Read the rest of this post...

Bush wants to put a leash on women

There's already been feedback on the blog that some independent women were not very pleased with Bush's comment about putting a leash on his daughters. Not to mention, leash, Abu Ghraib - hello? We may have an issue here...

KERRY: And so I acknowledge that his daughters -- I've watched them.

KERRY: I've chuckled a few times at some of their comments.

(LAUGHTER)

And...

BUSH: I'm trying to put a leash on them.

(LAUGHTER)

KERRY: Well, I know. I've learned not to do that.

Read the rest of this post...

Great line from Terence Hunt of AP

"Bush appeared perturbed when Kerry leveled some of his charges, scowling at times and looking away in apparent disgust at others. Kerry often took notes when the president spoke. Some networks offered a split screen to viewers so they could see both men at the same time and watch their reactions." - AP

Not very presidential, chimpy.

Read the rest of this post...

VOTE IN THE ONLINE POLLS NOW - IT MATTERS

Dozens of polls via this one link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address;=132x927474

ARG: http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/debatei/.

MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6123733/

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

NBC in Philly: http://www.nbc10.com/index.html

Norfolk Virginian-Pilot: http://home.hamptonroads.com/guestbook/guestbook.cfm?id=180

SF Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/09/30/politics2117EDT0812.DTL

AOL News: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/elections/article.adp?id=20040930112609990001

Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com (Look for "survey: Who did better in the debate?")

CNBC: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Promos/P95958.asp

Newsday: http://www.newsday.com (Look for "Poll: Rate the candidates") Read the rest of this post...

POST-DEBATE OPEN THREAD

So, what did everyone think? I think Kerry won, was presidential, and that Bush must have forgotten to take his ritalin before the debate. He squirmed, he winced, he smirked. The man could not hold still without looking angry and squirmy. But Kerry, Kerry rocked. He was better than okay. He rocked. He had the facts, he knew what he was doing, and the post debate polls on both ABC and CBS (real polls, not online polls) showed Kerry won by a wide margin.

Let's all make sure the Bushistas don't win the spin war now. Read the rest of this post...