The earmarks stuff is all inside-baseball, make-the-reporters-nod-at-your-Seriousness horseshit.  And I think T. Boone Pickens's ads have undermined McCain's offshore drilling position.

In other words, McCain's whole offense went to shit, and all he had left was THE SURGE WORKED!@!#$$#$

I'm amazed it took him so long to play the POW card.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

He has little or no other foreign policy experience. He's been to Iraq a couple of times, but that's pretty much it.

The reality seems to be that his sole claims to 'experience' are a rather sketchy navy background which includes crashing planes, being shot down, being captured and tortured, and then running a training squadron.

So his foreign policy expertise is pure fantasy. He's spectacularly clueless and ignorant about basic facts, and there's no evidence that he's capable of diplomatic strategy.

It must feel to him like the last moments before wrecking his five jet airplanes, except it will be a wreck that is drawn out for more than a month more.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

Again, if the debate really was won by Obama, McCain may be in serious trouble.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

I hope we aren't indulging in some intellectual snobbery...:-)

Vote McCain for war without gain

Of course, he said it before the rise of the WWF cage fights.

The unreality of the grounds on which so much of the campaign and even the debates is fought makes it hard for me to watch ...

For most of these folks, the debates, and too a large degree politics itself has descended (ascended?) to the realm of spectacle--and in doing so it has precisely made it easier to watch. Watch being the key word.

Roland Barthes wrote a remarkable essay sometime way back in the 70s before wrestling was even remotely fashionable in which  he argued that wrestling was not about who wins, in terms of consequences, nor about whether it is 'rigged' or not,. He said something along the lines of 'what matters is not what one thinks about the matter at all, but what one sees'. The audience attended wrestling matches like they attended opera to experience the event as pure spectacle, an aesthetic pleasure devoid of practical implications and moral valuations--precisely because the 'morality' of the event Bart Bad against Dudley Doright (or whatever) was so obviously foisted up AS rigged.

I think what happened in last night's debate was John McCain playing spectacle to his right wing base, going on about sacrifice and 'dying in vain', etc... these are all sound bites that are so abused by the Republicans they've lost for many of us any moral compulsion--they have become theater. (Even Chris Matthews went off on McCain for pulling that one out again)

Obama rightly called him on it. But it was a quick counter stroke (I have a bracelet too), not so much raised as theater to make the audience 'feel' but to do the reverse, ground the audience into the actuality of what war so blithely entered into actually means.

In fact, maybe what we were seeing was the difference between a classic Jansenist sport like  boxing, a demonstration of excellence, getting in exquisitely executed jabs and then, backing off because the point isn't to destroy your opponent but appeal to the judges (the audience) regarding the execution of the matter and a prima donna of the wrestling arena who understands that his appeal lies largely in making a larger than life spectacle of the event, by, for example, appealing maudily to the audience without taking much note of his opponent at all--unless it's to quite dramatically try to trash him. Objective reality never enters into it from the wrestlers perspective--it's always rigged. Conversely, the boxer is made accutely aware of reality and knows that where he stands and what he's about must be accurately carried out or someone could --and probably will-- get badly hurt.  

Some messy ruminations with morning coffee :-)

Swear to God, Obama is writing THE book for how to run, and win, an Insurgent Campaign.  The man is impressive.

These tactics, with suitable changes for the particulars of the country, could be used by every Left political party.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

On dKos Eye Contact & McCain: Still Nursing a Grudge? by Werebear:

From Obama, February 2, 2006:

Dear John:

Thank you for inviting me to participate in the meeting yesterday to discuss lobbying and ethics reform proposals currently before the Senate. I appreciate your willingness to reach out to me and several other Senate Democrats to discuss what should be done to restore public confidence in the way that Congress conducts its business. The discussion clearly underscored the difficult challenge facing Congress.

Yup, this is a "Dear John" letter, because later on, it says:

I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing ethics and lobbying reform legislation that a majority of the Senate can support.

Hmm, I'm seeing a pattern. McCain wants a task force. Obama wants legislation. Which one will actually get results, faster? And it did result in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, a response to the Abramoff scandal.

How did McCain respond?

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere.

Ouch! Passive aggressive much, Senator McCain?

You commented in your letter about my "interest in creating a task force to further study" this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Well, I don't know about that. I think the fact that he's alluding to what he hasn't been accused of is telling.

Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues.

"New to the Senate." Subtle. And a tried and true tactic he's still using, as we saw on Friday's debate.

Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public's low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

I would guess so, since it was an exclusively Republican scandal. And there's Joe Lieberman again! Do they sit together at lunch, I wonder?

Per Wikipedia:

    Both 2008 presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain introduced and sponsored amendments to the act, although neither were official cosponsors of the final act. The uncontroversial bill passed easily by an 83-14 margin, with Obama voting for and McCain voting against.

So if it's not his ball, he won't play?

Obama even writes, back, with a "Dear John":

I confess that I have no idea what has prompted your response. But let me assure you that I am not interested in typical partisan rhetoric or posturing. The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem.

The other interesting take is from Josh Marshall on his blog Talking Points Memo in an article entitled Humiliated.  Referencing a Washington Post article by Jonathan Weisman How McCain Stirred a Simmering Pot.

The nut is from the Weisman article (emphasis added):

Pelosi said Obama would speak for the Democrats. Though later he would pepper Paulson with questions, according to a Republican in the room, his initial point was brief: "We've got to get something done."

Bush turned to McCain, who joked, "The longer I am around here, the more I respect seniority." McCain then turned to Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to speak first.

Boehner was blunt. The plan Paulson laid out would not win the support of the vast majority of House Republicans. It had been improved on the edges, with an oversight board and caps on the compensation of participating executives. But it had to be changed at the core. He did not mention the insurance alternative, but Democrats did. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, pressed Boehner hard, asking him if he really intended to scrap the deal and start again.

No, Boehner replied, he just wanted his members to have a voice. Obama then jumped in to turn the question on his rival: "What do you think of the [insurance] plan, John?" he asked repeatedly. McCain did not answer.

One Republican in the room said it was clear that the Democrats came into the meeting with a "game plan" aimed at forcing McCain to choose between the administration and House Republicans. "They had taken McCain's request for a meeting and trumped it," said this source.

Congressional aides from both parties were standing in the lobby of the West Wing, unaware of the discord inside the Cabinet room, when McCain emerged alone, shook the hands of the Marines at the door and left. The aides were baffled. The plan had been for a bipartisan appearance before the media, featuring McCain, Obama and at least a firm statement in favor of intervention. Now, one of the leading men was gone.

McCain, like everybody else, keeps forgetting Obama cut his political teeth in Chicago and has years of experience in the Illinois legislature.  Obama is a seasoned political player and knows perfectly well how to maneuver.  

McCain is notorious for his short fuse and inability to get over it.  He holds grudges.  I'm willing to be the farm he couldn't get over his mad at the "upstart senator" and carried it into the debate.  With the result that has already been well analyzed in this thread.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

The last I remember seeing is McConnell ahead something like 48/42.  What's going on in Kentucky?

From the link:

Lunsford polled strongest in the Louisville area, where he got more than 54 percent of the vote, while McConnell runs strongest in the Republican stronghold of south-central Kentucky, where he got 61 percent.

Looking at a map it doesn't look like very many people live in the south-central area whereas Louisville is THE city of the state.

H'mmmmm.

If Lunsford can drive his percentage up in Louisville he might take this thing.

(Wouldn't that be sweet.)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre