well, there's a shock- left leaning media outlets declare Obama winner of debate [generally with appeal to rationalization that in event of a tie advantage goes to him - which seems to me an argument that undermines their claim that Obama's reputed 'good judgment' is qualification enough for the job of Commander in Chief, ie it's an admission of weakness] and right leaning outlets declare McCain the winner. It's gotten to the point where commentary is so tainted by bias now that there seems little reason to pay attention. I do still read Politico.com though, my feeling is their coverage is pretty evenhanded - they seem to think McCain won the day so I'll go with that. Not that it matters much I imagine: if Sarah bombs next week the race is over. Conventional wisdom would hold otherwise, noting no one votes for the VP, which is true - but she's gotten so much attention and is such an object of curiosity that I think you can toss conventional wisdom out the window: if she doesn't do well it will reflect badly on McCain and that'll be the ball game. Their trying to shield her from the press is a bad sign - although I hold out hope that it's part of a cunning scheme to lay a trap for Biden, get him thinking she'll be a pushover and then out she comes, guns a blazin'. Not very likely, sure, but what the hell - I mean, when you think about it, keeping her locked away has to indicate either that she's in way over her head and they're panicked or that they're setting a trap - can't be that they're trying to lower expectations in order to eke out some kind of moral victory, they'd want to increase exposure in that case, no?

I don't know why the hell McCain went to Washington to get all hands on with the Wall Street bailout - theatre, deft strategic move, desperation, who knows at this point - but one motive I think we can pretty much rule out was to avoid a debate with Obama on a subject, foreign policy, which represents McCain's only clear advantage. So why are so many lefties insinuating or outright suggesting that's the reason? Two things: either they're entirely brainwashed at this point and actually believe this silliness; or they worry that it indeed may prove out to have been a cunning move and they're trying to regain control over the economy narrative.

Exactly why is it I'm noticing so much liberal bias in media these days? Has my dislike for Obama revealed unto me this long obscured truth? Or have I bought hook, line and sinker this cherished conservative mantra? There are shows I no longer watch, blogs I no longer read and newspapers I now merely lightly skim through because I find the bias in them so irksome - and yet I have no clear idea if this new found awareness of the putative bias is real or not. I mean, I accept that coverage is going to be slanted one way or the other regardless - people have ingrained sympathies and it would be foolhardy to think they can completely suppress them no matter their intentions: but I wonder if what's happening is that left leaning types are so troubled by Bush - offended better word - and consequently, in a directly proportional way, so invested in the idealism of Obama that an abiding although possibly until now largely muted or one might say reasonable liberal bias has completely come unglued - lost its head as it were. I get the distinct impression that if Obama loses this election the entire left wing of the country is gonna throw a gigantic hissy fit.

"We need to be extraordinarily cautious. First, I don't see how anybody who is not directly involved in these presidential campaigns can treat them with anything other than contempt. You have two very good candidates trapped in a theatre of the absurd where they have to constantly posture and attack each other politically and issue sound bites as if they were plans and policies. Any adult who can take that seriously is either mentally defective or emotionally disturbed. And this is particularly true in the case of Iraq. I would hope that everyone realizes that whoever becomes president next January is going to have to start coping with reality rather than slogans. None of us knows what is going to take place in the course of the next year."

That from Tony Cordesman, fairly clued-in foreign policy analyst. Smotes nail most verily - although I may take issue with his assurance that "we have two very good candidates": I obviously don't much like Obama, but as well my estimation of McCain is in serious decline. One takes a few steps back and left wondering what the charade is about, how does one make sense of it, and what exactly does it mean to be qualified for the job? It's as if one can only say a candidate is qualified for the process of getting the job - but for the job itself? Who knows.

Which beings me to Palin's big[?] interview. I tend to agree with one reviewer that people will think what they are predisposed by political affiliation to think about it. Then again, what I was really looking for was evidence of a supple, subtle mind behind the celebrity. Didn't see it. The fuss over her hesitation vis the 'Bush doctrine' is only half fair: there are several separate but related elements to the so called doctrine so her asking for clarification is not unwarranted; that being said she quite obviously went deer in headlights over question - although, on plus side, did not panic, kept her cool, which is something. Her answer to the NATO/Georgia question, which also is being criticized, was essentially I think on the mark although not well nuanced, so the left's jumping on her comments as if she were engaging in war mongering is entirely misplaced. That being said, her comments lacked substance and sounded like they had been memorized. It wasn't a disastrous performance, but neither was it impressive. Bereft of her rote answers I have trouble believing she would have had anything thoughtful to say - unfortunately, one could probably say that about a lot of politicians. I was left with the impression that she doesn't yet know how to sound like she knows something when she in fact doesn't: she's gotten where she has on the force of her personality and good ol' American styled gumption - but in venues that were not, policy wise, very demanding relative to the national stage, and therefore venues that were much more manageable. Completely different game at the top and saw nothing in interview to suggest she's especially up for it - except, as mentioned before, you definitely do get the feeling she's cool under pressure and a rather fierce competitor, which suggests you may see a marked improvement in her next interview.

In short, the clouds threatening to overwhelm her still somewhat sunny nomination linger unabated.

Tend not to make much of liberal media bias stuff - of course it's true - media is biased by its very nature - could one really expect anything else? But when it's explicit and therefore at very least seems politically motivated - what then? And so when I read that McCain's bounce from the convention has vaulted him ahead of Obama, which is very big news and has got to have some liberals wiping tears from eyes, and yet no mention of this on home pages of both NY Times or Washington Post this morning, what's one to make of that?

"... Palin... what do I think of Palin... ahh... interesting and risky choice - if it pans out she'll win the election for McCain is my guess... appeals strongly to the middle of the road blue collar demographic that is Obama's biggest vulnerability... with much irony she's a right wing version of Obama: very light on relevant experience but great performer at podium with seeming innate knack for identity politics... and also apparently quite ambitious... but surrounded by serious question marks that could prove to be her's and therefore McCain's undoing over the coming weeks... is reportedly a staunch social conservative but that so far kept firmly under wraps and for good reason: any appearance of fanaticism on social issues would undercut her appeal. Not at all clear that McCain actually wanted her as his choice. A fascinating creature but, should something happen to McCain, does not appear to be at all qualified for the most difficult job in the world... but then neither does Obama... which leaves one to wonder on the nature and state of democracy in the 21st century. Possible she scares me as much as if not more than Obama does... but enjoy idea that if she proves capable Democrats will be getting their just desserts: they picked a demagogue over a much more qualified Hillary - now a demagogue of a different sort may be rising from the mists to piss on their dreams. Has potential... assuming possesses the brains to compete... no one has a clue about that yet... but potential to become a very dangerous sort of populist. If democrats under estimate her because she seems light weight get the feeling she'll crush them, and enjoy doing it... this woman's life and 'can do' attitude and natural, unaffected, down home way of speaking - if matched with a high intelligence - could take her a long way fast... already has of course... but her lack of intellectual bonafides and her possible doctrinaire social conservatism and what that may say about her view of the world gives one much pause. She's been hunting moose since she was a school girl and yet was runner up in a beauty contest - have no idea what I'm supposed to make of something like that. You look at her education and immediately you think no fucking way she can be president - and yet there she is. Possible she's quintessentially American and voters will recognise that in her and such a thing could invest her with much power - but for better or worse? Who knows... possibly McCain does and cunningly sees her for what maybe she really is: an appealing woman who will enjoy a brief period of political celebrity - just long enough to get him elected... "

well - guess other shoe has most decidedly fallen: apparently there's a video out there of Palin telling the troops they've been sent to Iraq to do God's work, specifically to do God's work. That's wonderful. Guess I don't have a horse in this race now. Will it matter? - think this proves she wasn't properly vetted, which makes McCain look weak and foolish - I mean, the base is gonna love this god shit but will be hard to convince independents to hold their noses over such nonsense - so have to believe McCain is toast.

Why are conservatives not picking up on reality that if it is revealed or becomes manifest that Palin was not properly vetted by McCain, no matter how 'good' a politician Palin turns out to be, McCain will look weak? What am I missing?

Is it true she supports teaching creationism in schools? How did I get to point of supporting someone like that? I hate Obama that much? No - I distrust immensely his 'base' - and I fear that in him the far left sees the coming to fruition of all its dreams - but is it possible Palin represents the same thing to the far right? Fuck. None of this would be a problem if Hillary was the candidate. So do you blame Bush for fucking up the war or the lefties for exploiting so expertly that fucking up? Both I guess. I mean, if Bush had been successful we'd have a right wing autocracy now, but because Bush failed we may end up with a left wing autocracy [autocracy? really? well...]. What happened to the middle? Democracy is supposed to be all about the middle, about mitigating extremes, not creating them for fuck sake!

So if you get to the point of believing no matter who wins the result will be negative what positive thing then comes out of it? Moderation? If Obama loses the far left will try to blame it on racism [high profile articles have already been written preemptively making that case] - but the reality will be that because of animus against the war the left wing of the Democratic party was allowed to dictate terms to the the candidates which made opposition to the war the de facto litmus test - ergo Obama. Forgotten now, but remember how Hillary was raked over the coals for refusing to apologize for her vote? If the dems lose when victory should have been all but guaranteed you can start with that.

But if McCain loses when it is clear many voters just don't trust Obama to lead the country? The GOP isn't expected to win so would a loss really inspire any kind of authentic self reflection? Dubious - they've played this shell game with their wacko base for a while now - Reagan was very good at it, Bush wanted to replicate but failed badly - but, really, how long can they continue to go to that well? They way the social conservatives seem to love Palin starts to look like the way the far left loves Obama - that can't be good, right? It's as if Americans need moral extremes. Is it possible - was it ever possible - to have leaders who are not beholden to specific agendas? It seems impossible to imagine right now a leader who is a moderate on social and domestic issues but something of a hawk, a hard-nosed realist on foreign policy ones - it seems to me to run counter to the whole idea of democracy that one has trouble imagining such a thing.

So - Palin already toast? Her 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant, and you can point a finger right at Palin's social conservatism somehow convincing advocates that abstinence equals birth control [which makes me think these religious fanatics love teenage pregnancy because it binds youth to the church - try being 17 and raising a baby without some significant support group] - abstinence is not birth control, it's a denial of reality that ends up producing more pregnancies than it inhibits - common sense and statistics both indicate such. Hey, if it's Palin's personal choice to raise her kids that way, fine, I have no problem with that - but if she believes her personal beliefs can or should be imposed as a universal conviction - well, no fucking way. As stated, she can be a big help to McCain amongst undecided, blue collar, middle of the road voters - but not if she's a social conservative ideologue.

But beside this drawing attention to my belief that the repressive ideologies that control the bases in both parties are bankrupting the political process and destroying the country - big question becomes: is this evidence that McCain did not properly vet Palin? Liberals say yes of course, but they're working hard to sell story line that McCain really wanted Ridge or Lieberman but, in a forced sellout to the base, went with Palin at the last moment. McCain camp denies this and say they knew about the baby etc - but fact is if they didn't do their homework it will become very obvious in coming weeks and then both McCain and Palin will be toast.

I'm struck by hard line conservative response to it, as if this is actually a good thing, that it embosses her social conservative credentials etc. That may be true, but anything that helps the base weakens independents and I don't see Rove's strategy of using wedge issues to pry independents over to the right working this year - the GOP brand is too sullied. Not to mention that it now occurs to me that social conservatives welcome unwanted pregnancies because it creates desperate people and desperation leads people to god - I doubt the ignorant rank and file think in these terms, but the suits who control the agenda? Very disturbing - can't believe it took me so long to figure this out.

seconds thoughts on Palin: not intended I think to go after women voters - liberals all in a snit about this ie insulting to women to think they'll just vote for a woman because she's a woman [even though Obama's key constituency are blacks voting for him simply because he's black] - Palin reminding disaffected dems that Obama snubbed Hillary is a bonus but believe they see her mainly as appealing to blue collar voters, the very voters Obama had so much trouble appealing to in later primaries; her lack of relevant experience troubles me but possibly less or at least not more so than Obama's lack of experience, and she's just running for VP - so that remains a problem but probably is a wash that slightly favours McCain - Obama can't really bring up the experience complaint, even in response to McCain attack, without reminding people that he himself is light viz experience - in fact they may have calculated that Palin's inexperience will keep the issue always at the forefront to the detriment of Obama; her social conservatism will motivate base but if she is or is perceived to be a doctrinaire zealot viz social issues this will alienate the middle of the road voters they want to go after - I see this as a bigger problem than her lack of experience - she's an interesting question waiting to be answered but her social conservatism reminds me that the person I thought best qualified to be President was Hillary; they have in effect, by choosing an unknown with an appealing back story and pleasant looks, created another political celebrity not to rival but at least in part to counter Obama's celebrity - the interesting dynamic is that his persona is idealistically highbrow and appeals to Hollywood starlets, left wing professors and wild youth, her's more down to earth, appealing to soccer moms and NASCAR dads - curious to see how that plays out.