"You'd actually be comfortable with that bitch Palin being only a heartbeat away?" she asked, the anger rising in her eyes, which got me to thinking that it's too bad I dislike her so because, god damn it, I could really like this girl.

"No, not particularly," I answered. "But neither would I be comfortable with that blowhard Biden being only a heartbeat away and I'm definitely not comfortable with Obama being no heartbeats away at all."

"He's the better choice," she replied with a defiance that made it clear that words for her at this moment were a poor substitute for spit. My heart raced. "A fool could see that."
"You mean of course it would take a fool to see that."
"You're an asshole."

"Hmmn. It's possible. What's not possible is, given the options, to make a good choice here. Although one very much so can make a bad choice..."

"... one could say, could contend, that the whole point... crux of this election... is the potentiality of a coming to power of a political ideology that distrusts... or outright dislikes... hates the erstwhile American way... hell, the way of empires in general... and believes that a new age is dawning where raw power, expressed most practically in military and economic terms, but also more figuratively as a cultural ethos defined, amongst other things, by its relation to certain aspects of the nation state, that such is of diminishing relevance and thus prone to having its place in world affairs usurped by... reason... cooperation... a sympathy for others most commonly made manifest by a joyous communion with amorphous internationalism. In short, the whole point of this election is that if Obama represents the coming to fruition of such a thing... and there's nothing in his past to suggest that at the very least his most ardent supporters don't view him as such... then what emerges darkly from this shadowy confluence of events and conditions is a scenario where America will both appear to be weak and in fact be weak ... a disquieting combination for us but a rather welcome realignment for those that wish us ill... assuming of course that said zealotry of the young ideologues is misguided... which I for one most certainly believe it is..."

"... leadership... what does it mean to lead... when Caesar, as a young man, was taken hostage by pirates and held for a ransom, and he, possibly with what would seem unwise intemperance, swore to his captors that once released he would hunt them down and crucify them all... and then, when released, did exactly that... well... how do we know the roots of great leadership are not to be found there? Sure as hell can't see Obama doing such a thing... and I say that only half in jest..."

As the election winds down and an Obama victory practically assured I think it useful to remind that although the economy dominates now it is with foreign policy that Presidential decisions are most dramatically felt. Sure, republicans and democrats have different approaches to economic issues and those differences matter; and sure, there's a strong likelihood that Obama will have a super majority to work with in Congress and that could skew expected outcomes - but the economy in general, especially given the global nature of it now, tends to have a mind of its own and rises and falls independent of political meddling - and even if one is generous in factoring in meddling the President's role there is a little hit and miss, somewhat superficial. Yes, monetary policy by the Fed and bits of legislation enacted by Congress played significant roles in current economic meltdown, but would any of that not have been the case had there been a different President? I don't see it. Economics is such a specialized discipline that most Presidents are entirely dependent on the specialists in their cabinet - and with those specialists then being pretty much dependent on the views of the business community... well, you see, I tend to believe a President's impact on the economy is limited - although all bets are off if Obama gets his super majority.

No, it's with foreign policy that a President's legacy is largely made and his effect on the well being of the country, both present and future, most strongly felt - that is, when we're talking about great countries, super powers, empires - and that of course is what we're talking about here. And so it is that an Obama presidency troubles me deeply - or, maybe more accurately, that the near delusional enthusiasm lavished on such a prospect by his acolytes troubles me: they've convinced themselves, without any corroborating evidence, that he is ready to lead - but to lead properly he's going to have to disappoint them, possibly bitterly disappoint, because their idealized enthusiasm is too far to the left to meet effectively the hard realities that necessarily will present themselves - and so, what will Obama do then? Lead or cave? Be decisive or equivocate? Will he seek to protect his popularity or make the tough decisions that imperil it? Will he reveal himself to be an enlightened moderate comfortable with the sometimes cruel dictates of realism or a benighted ideologue serving the naive idealism of a left wing agenda? These are the questions people should be asking - these are the questions that could come back to haunt.

"... records show that backbone of Obama's huge money advantage is comprised mainly of large donations coming from California... which pretty much validates and reaffirms my dislike... dislike possibly too harsh... distrust of the man and the insufferable mob following after him... insufferable... yes, well, apparently dislike not too harsh after all... "

Then again, the Ayers attack does in essence become a smear if you don't frame the argument properly - and having just watched McCain on Letterman it is clear McCain doesn't have the ability to frame the argument properly - it's becoming clear that McCain lacks the skill of coherent, nuanced, well reasoned verbal argumentation. Without this skill you're never gonna break down the Obama facade. I believe Hillary definitely had the ability, but she was constrained by the limitations of the Democratic primary, ie to break down Obama's bullshit she would have had to attack the too liberal sentiments which define the extreme left of the party and that of course would have cooked her chances. For example on the war, she was constantly being forced into a position of essentially apologizing for her vote; she resisted, because she knew the yes vote was the right thing to do and Obama's opposition was self serving, shallow and not especially logical - but she couldn't make this argument because it would have doomed her.

That McCain, operating without such restraints, can't make the argument is revealing - and that's why he's losing. The Ayers attack is a perfect example of his flawed approach - you have to frame the argument as being about Obama's associations with, not Ayers in particular, but the extremes of liberalism in general, and it's an argument that cannot be made without referencing Wright, because you have to demonstrate a pattern to Obama's associations, and that then allows you to break down the Obama facade - because once you've established a pattern there are only three plausible explanations of it: Obama's association with these groups had nothing to do with ideology - a specious claim; Obama sympathized with their ideology, which would be bad; Obama used them to promote his political career - which would be fine, but also of course completely contrary to his message.

But McCain refuses to discuss Wright. That's stupid - absolutely no point talking about Ayers if you're not gonna talk about Wright.

... yes, of course - press reports polls indicate public doesn't like 'attack' ads and 'negative' campaigning, such doing McCain more harm than good etc etc. Of course - just by reporting such you emphasize, lend credence to the real point of the story - you essentially affirm and give distinction to a dubious public perception that McCain is bad, bad because he's losing and desperate, bad because it'd be wrong to criticize Obama because Obama's... winning, he's good, because we want him to win - don't make us think bad thoughts about the thing we want...

I don't wanna defend McCain against this nonsense - he's run a horrible campaign, he's done virtually nothing to make me think he'd be a good president - but regardless this stuff is nonsense. The media wants Obama, their cheerleading is barely disguised at this point - to run a story on how polls suggest people don't like 'negative campaigning' and point a finger at McCain without asking why people may feel that way or what negative actually means in this context, if indeed it means anything at all, is scurrilously prejudiced reporting - it's not far removed from running the headline, in bold print, 'Obama good, McCain bad. Debate over'.

Again, this bothers me not because I'm a McCain supporter - it bothers me because I find it quite disturbing how many people have so completely bought into Obama, a man of meager achievements [relative to the job], potential 'character' issues [which we're not allowed to talk about because that would be negative and possibly even racist], no leadership experience and no convincing plan for the future. Like I've said before, he may turn out to be quite good - but the huge gap between his slim resume and the enthusiasm his candidacy has engendered is flat out disturbing --

If I may be allowed to express my skepticism by referencing football [oh, c'mon]: it'd be like a troubled franchise drafting a quarterback number one, with all kinds of fanfare, because, even though he had only one really good game in college, gosh darn it he looks good and sounds nice - he seems to be everything a savior quarterback is supposed to be - in short, he's Tom Brady and will eventually date super models. Now, sure, it's possible the guy may turn out to be another Tom Brady and eventually bag his fair share of super models - but history shows probably not - and remember, Brady was drafted in the fifth round [6th even?], with no fanfare, no hallelujahs trumpeting the salvation of the franchise. There's a lesson in there somewhere, no?

True, most seem to be conceding election to Obama and certainly I'm not going to disagree with that; and true, I no longer have a preference [did I ever? besides Hillary of course] even if preceding statement were not the case since it seems McCain was like to prove as bad a president as I believe Obama will be, if only judging by the near incoherence of his campaign. But - that being said and all - why is it the press is acting as if it's a received truth that McCain bringing up Ayers is a smear? Obama has ties to the guy and, more importantly, to that specific community [what for fairness sake we will yclept the left's version of the wingnut right] he is representative of - how is it a smear to ask what that means? I'm trying not to believe that the press is playing favourites - but they seem to be deliberately confusing the issue by insinuating that it's all and only about Obama's links to Ayers [which, if too tenuous, may indeed verge on smearing] when the true salient point to be made is really all about the radical communities which Ayers and his possibly more significant adjunct Rev Wright [who is no longer mentioned by anyone - you see how well Obama has played the race card?] are members in 'good' standing and passionate advocates of and, by way of logical inquiry consequent to etc etc, what that says about Obama's politics - etc etc. That is not to smear, that's to ask a pertinent question. Obama is a largely unknown quantity and, more over, what little we do know of him lends one to believe he's quite liberal; the country presently cohabits with and will certainly in the near future be in full rut upon what we shall call for the nonce with no doubt abounding understatement troubling times; he'll likely have a Democratic majority to work with in Congress, an emboldened Democratic congress flush with the belief that it is and will be utterly right in everything it does because the country apparently believes that Bush was so utterly wrong in everything he did, in short their world view will have the appearance of being entirely validated - given such it's not a smear to try and figure out what the fuck it all may mean, nor is it a smear to ask the public to pause and consider what the fuck it all may mean before pulling a lever or checking a box or closing fucking eyes and tossing a dart.

quite shocking how many, including spot polls, are declaring Obama the winner of the debate - the thing was a fucking travesty! To attempt to name either a winner is to trample common sense, hell, common decency, underfoot.

Having said that, my dislike for Obama has forced me into a position of trying to convince myself that McCain would be a worthy enough alternate to my preferred choice, Hillary. Can give up that illusion now. McCain was awful - he's supposed to be a risk taker - he needed to take one last night and instead he fumbled around incoherently - if in the middle of that travesty he'd stood up and said what any sane person was thinking, that the debate was anything but a debate and so for the sake of the country's best interests he suggests they toss the format, kick that moron Brokaw off the stage, and have a real discussion about the issues - well, that would have been a game changer. What were his people thinking even agreeing to a format that was so obviously flawed?

Makes you realize that, sure, a candidate needs to be appealing, but elections are won by the managers, the game planners. The one good thing I can say about Obama is that his staff seems to have a clue. Hillary lost to him because her staff dropped the ball - and it's now clear that McCain's staff ain't up to the job of stopping him either.

So, I guess time to sit back and see if my predictions concerning what a disaster an Obama presidency would be are accurate. If how I'm doing in my football pool is a reflection of my sooth saying abilities, I guess that's a good thing for the world. On the other hand, when it comes to judging people, I fancy myself having something of a knack for that...

Finally got a chance to see a debate for myself and so don't have to rely this time on some third party observer, whose sympathies may not be particularly pure, to pass judgment for me - and I have one word for what I witnessed: gibberish. Using the debate as the sole evidence by which to judge them one can only conclude that they're both idiots, spewing simplistic and yet even then still barely coherent ideas which amount in the end to shabby packages of nonsense shamefully proffered as policy. Not surprisingly Obama's the better speaker but what he says is gibberish nonetheless - he's smooth, and I guess measured against McCain's stumbling, scatter shot approach one can then in some meaninglessly provisional way pronounce him victor - but to call either of these guys a winner is to abuse the term utterly. To look forward to either as President would be like being lost and turning to a group of blind men and asking if the least blind among them would be kind enough to show you the way home. It's quite sad, really.

"... the economy? Hell, I don't know nothin' about the economy. Well, I know this: couple of years ago friend of mine was thinking of selling his home since its appraised value had shot through the roof and I said to him 'if you're gonna do it better do it now cause trouble is brewing in the housing market... could see valuations decline by 20, 30 percent... economy reeling in the wake...'. I said that, I knew that, just by being somewhat well read, and all I can say is if I knew it the pros obviously knew it and with much more insight and nuance than I could ever hope to muster. So why'd it happen? Why'd they let things get so bad? Cause that's what people do..."

ok - wait - now this is interesting, well sort of interesting - but I read that after McCain was ridiculed by Obama and his lapdog press corps for suggesting that he'd fire the SEC chairman when it ain't in the presidential toolbox to do such a thing - oh, what a senile fuss bucket that McCain is, don't even know the laws - I read now that the President does in fact have the authority to whack yee SEC chairman? And not one newspaper et al has bothered to correct themselves? That blithering idiot Olberman over at Obama central ie MSNBC essentially spent two days on the supposed blunder, stopping just short of calling McCain an enfeebled quack. I mean, what the fuck? What's going on here?

Now, like I've said, I don't really think the press, in general at least, is actually in the tank for Obama - on the other hand it is quite clear that many people have fallen into the habit of believing, to the point of taking for granted, that two truths or givens are at play here: one, that Bush's decision to go into Iraq was the worst, most ill advised presidential act ever [which is entirely the wrong way to look at the war] and that therefore Bush is the worst president ever and has infected the nation with evil spirits; and two, that an erstwhile junior law professor with a decidedly left wing palette, an otherwise thin resume, no significant leadership experience, no public service record of any particular merit, a seemingly unhealthy obsession with himself and the arrogance to see that obsession as perfectly justifiable - that this shaman is going to rid the country of said evil spirits simply, it seems, just by showing up and all because, ya know, well, he's black but talks like a really nice white guy who maybe went to Harvard or something grand like that, and heck, that's change we can believe in. Can I get a hallelujah.

That seems clear to me.

Not that I'm a McCain fan, enfeebled quack. [now, c'mon - you think he'd be better than BO - sure, maybe, who the fuck knows at this point - it's just that whole Sarah thing - not that I don't like the girl at least a bit - theoretically of course, as a curiosity to be considered - but ya get distinct impression that whatever good she has brought to the campaign is the result of serendipity - you get the impression that the vetting process involved some guy saying to McCain, hey there's this cute but feisty chick up Alaska way that looks like she might be fun, why don't we invite her to the party and McCain said sure, why the hell not - one gets that impression].

Hell, does it matter anyway? With economy most verily toilet bound Obama would have to commit a serious misstep to lose this thing. McCain is gonna have to get very negative and I just don't see that working in current environment [although, to hedge bets, there are some seriously ugly skeletons in Obama's closet - if McCain goes there who knows how people will react. I'm just pissed off that McCain seems unable to coherently demonstrate how Obama's opposition to the war is/was illogical, full of holes - I don't understand why he can't seem to make that point - and that he can't make that point leaves me thinking one of two things: his political skills and possibly the skills of his campaign staff are not up to the task of defeating Obama; I'm wrong in my estimation of the war - not likely it's the latter I should think... no, not at all...].