Why Average Joes Should Get A Vote...

...but not a platform on which to speak.



Sadly, I think Joe the Plumber is representative of many "average" voters, Republican and Democrat alike, in that they believe something without having any ability to explain why. For some people it's simply the inability to articulate facts and analysis, and that's fine. The average voter isn't a trained speaker. But for many, far too many, it's more a case of simply regurgitating key phrases or overly simplistic ideas that they think they identify with. It's impossible to be fully learned on the nuance of each and every critical issue we face, domestic and foreign, but these last few weeks of the campaign have illustrated just how low the public discourse on issues has fallen.

The charge that Obama is a "socialist" is one of the best examples. Attempting to broadly label Obama's policies as socialistic is simplistic, pandering, and disingenuous. There is a conversation to be had about taxes, welfare and the various forms of economic redistribution that already exist in our country, but the branding of these concepts as something inherently anti-American makes that discussion impossible. Once you start beating the catch-phrase drum, the monotonous bass of base is all anyone can hear. Taxes are not a bad thing. Taxes that are unfair are. The conversation should be about what constitutes a fair tax, but because the "conversation" about taxes has been successfully reduced by the Republicans to a simple "taxes bad" talking point, it's impossible to have a real discussion about what constitutes a fair tax. The end result is people fearing socialism without having any idea what the fuck socialism is or is not. Socialism, to most "average" Joes, is the government taking your hard earned money and giving it to someone who didn't earn it. The bank bailout is socialism. Social Security is socialism. Farm subsidies is socialism. Progressive taxation is socialism. Does this make America a socialist nation? Only if you want to talk about things in black and white.

But back to Joe and the Israel-destroying Obama for a moment. I don't blame Joe for holding a view that's clearly ignorant and ill-informed. I blame Joe for willingly becoming a celebrated mouthpiece of ordinary America. Joe insists that people should go find their own reasons as to why Obama's election would destroy Israel, and on that he and I agree. FOX viewers, go forth and read! Read something from the right, something from the left, and something from the middle. Read something from here, and read something from over there---yes, even if there is in Paris, France. If you do so, you may still believe that McCain is better for Israel than Obama, but something tells me you won't be so idiotic as to think Obama would destroy it. Too bad Joe isn't taking his own advice.

It's entirely possible to have a brilliant intellect, be knowledgeable about the issues and still vote for McCain, but don't look at someone who does not have a brilliant intellect and is not knowledgeable about the issues and say, "Hey, that guy is just like me and I'm going to vote just as he will." Joe is not a bad guy. But Joe is a not a role model. If "liberal" is a bad word, so, too, should "ordinary." Who the fuck wants to be ordinary anyway? Do you want an ordinary doctor? An ordinary lawyer? An ordinary wife? Ordinary means unexceptional. There's virtue in the ordinary, but if praising ordinary comes at the expense of diminishing things that are exceptional, then I'll gladly condemn so-called Average Americans.

Let it out, people. Let it out.

My enlarged heart is depending on it.

The Stink in Farts Controls Blood Pressure

A smelly rotten-egg gas in farts controls blood pressure in mice, a new study finds. The unpleasant aroma of the gas, called hydrogen sulfide (H2S), can be a little too familiar, as it is expelled by bacteria living in the human colon and eventually makes its way, well, out. The new research found that cells lining mice's blood vessels naturally make the gas and this action can help keep the rodents' blood pressure low by relaxing the blood vessels to prevent hypertension (high blood pressure). ...

(Ed. Note: Wasn't this the premise for a South Park episode?)

This just in...

And the first person(s) to wish me Happy Birthday on my birthday? The "Facebook Team." Feeling the love. Feeling it strong.

Live Blogging: The first hour of my birthday.

12:01 am Staring at cell phone. It's not ringing. I've officially reached the age where people no longer consider it cute to call at the stroke of midnight to sing Happy Birthday.

12:04 am Still not ringing. Getting cold. And hungry.

12:09 am So far, only my stalker has seen fit to wish me a Happy Birthday...and that was three hours ago by text.

12:11 am (considers calling stalker)

12:12 am (decides to make an egg McMuffin sandwich instead)

12:25 am I wasn't kidding.



12:29 am Do I really need to clean up now? What was I thinking.

12:34 am Stole a Snickers bar from my roommate. She killed my cat. Revenge is mine!

12:35 am Now that my roommate is dating some guy, I guess she won't be baking me a cake for my birthday this year. Man, this is shaping up to be a miserable birthday.

12:39 am Checked my horoscope:

Your Scorpio’s ability to think deeply will be an asset today. Something may be bugging you: chances are it’s related to romance. If you’re attached and things have gone a little tepid then this is a great day to ignite those passions again, while singles could experience an encounter that ripples on for days!

Yes! Another romantic encounter that lasts only a few days! Score.

12:44 am Decide to Google "the age of 35," and the first hit is: Sperm Damage Rises from 35: Study. Jesus.

12:49 am Decide to Google "Kraig Smith," and the first hit is my Facebook page! Wait. No. It's some other douchebag Kraig Smith's Facebook page. Christ, I can't even have that to myself? But I have the #2 and #3 links, so I'm pretty sure that silver and bronze exceed gold.

12:54 am Only because the constitution finally allows me to do so, I hereby announce my candidacy for the President of the United States of America.

12:56 am Fearing that my stalker may now reside in a battleground state and might write me in on the ballot, I hereby withdraw my name from presidential consideration. 2012, baby. 2012.

12:59 am Throws phone against the wall. Decides to play Madden 09 on the PS3.

The beginning of the beginning of the end.

In less than an hour I'll turn yet another year older. Panic has just set in. To the people who gleefully say, "But you're only as old as you feel!"...I say, "but my feet hurt, I might be addicted to Advil, I pull muscles just by thinking of making sudden movements, my knees creak when I climb stairs, I purposefully consider the fiber content in the food I eat, loud music upsets me, I can't drink to excess without vomiting in other people's beds, and I seek out the company of seniors so as to throw off the scent of the encroaching grasp of death." I'm turning 89.

Note: Spending the last few hours prior to one's birthday with scantily clad teens is not a good way to make oneself feel younger. It is, however, a good way to make oneself invisible. This is my new super power.

If I can just make it to 90...

The Most Symbolic Story of the Campaign

Once the election is over I'll shift gears towards movies, books, sex, and people I hate, but until then...

Dozens Of Call Center Workers Walk Off Job In Protest Rather Than Read McCain Script Attacking Obama

Reason from the Right

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska on Sarah Palin:

"She knows her audience, and she's going right after them. And I'll tell you why that's dangerous. It's dangerous because you don't want to define down the standards in any institution, ever, in life. You want to always strive to define standards up. If you start defining standards down--'Well, I don't have a big education, I don't have experience'--yes, there's a point to be made that not all the smartest people come out of Yale or Harvard. But to intentionally define down in some kind of wild populism, that those things don't count in a complicated, dangerous world--that's dangerous in itself."

No doubt his decision to not seek reelection is freeing him up to speak his mind, but is there anything anyone could disagree with here? It's fine if you want to be plain-spoken, down-to-earth, and folksy, but can there be a bit of wisdom behind it, too? After eight years of a President proud to be void of intellectual curiosity, can't we have some leaders who read books and newspapers as part of a daily ritual of intellectual enhancement? Valuing intelligence, even your own, is not snobbish elitism. Denigrating is.

Mormonism: Sex bad, torture good. (like every religion ever)

Kevin Smith's new film, Zack and Miri Make a Porno, has been banned by Megaplex Theatres, Utah's largest chain of movie houses. Although it's an R-rated film, not NC-17, the owner of Megaplex says, "We feel it's very close to an NC-17 with its graphic nudity and graphic sex." Is there any doubt it's the title that's causing the problem here? The same theatre (their stupid spelling, not mine) screened The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up, so clearly they aren't too opposed to raunchy sex comedies. Evidently the word "porno" is now also pornographic.

Asked why Megaplex has no problem showing the R-rated, ultra-violent "Saw V," which shows a man forced to crush his own hands to escape a pendulum cutting him in half, Cal Gunderson, the chain's spokesman, said: "No comment." Once again, America's blood lust wins out over simple, basic, sexual lust. In the end, the good people of Utah may be the lucky ones. Kevin Smith hasn't made a good movie since...

(crickets chirping)

(tumbleweed)

...well, Chasing Amy didn't suck, I guess. But this uncensored preview has about two funny bits in the entire trailer. That doesn't bode well, no matter how likable Seth Rogen may be.

My first book acknowledgment.

My boss's newest book hit stores this past Tuesday, Lincoln President-Elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter of 1860-1861, a title matched in length only by the 623 pages of dead tree skin on which its words reside. Not surprisingly I received an acknowledgment from him which I will repeat here:

"I am grateful not only for his help, but also for the archival and computer research skills, not to mention tolerance and good humor, repeatedly demonstrated under deadline pressure by my full-time assistant Kraig Smith, as well as the additional help provided by..." and then he goes on to name two researchers, one of whom I believe to be functionally retarded and who frightens the women in my office when he makes the occasional appearance. I'm in good company.

A few notes. First, this is the point at which I'd like to remind people I work for The Metropolitan Museum of Art. And by "people," I mean myself. Second, the "computer research skills" he refers to is, in all seriousness, Google. While Harold is not exactly an old fogy who looks at the computer like a magical box of unimaginable wonders, he's not too far from thinking it's a "series of tubes." Third, the "tolerance" he mentions is because, quite frankly, the alternative is my death. The "good humor" is, of course, because I'm fucking hysterical. He's a very good writer and, if you like historical non-fiction, this is likely to be a great one. I'll be slogging my way through it over the next few weeks (months) as it has contemporary relevance for whomever ends up as our next President-Elect. (Obama)

Interestingly, while this is my first book acknowledgment, I learned about a month ago that I had received an acknowledgment in my good friend Matt's doctoral thesis from 2002. It has something to do with physics and particles and, I hope, big explosions. Why he failed to tell me this years ago, I don't know, but I accidentally discovered it while Googling something about him. Sure enough, he calls me a "friend" in his thesis. Not as eloquent as my boss's endorsement, but equally moving. Thanks, Matt.

(Ed note: I wonder if this blog will make its way to the book's publicists at Simon & Schuster. Probably. Their archival and research skills are matched by my own. Stupid Google.)

You gotta admire her dedication.

How far would you go to get your candidate elected? Hmm? Oh, sure, you'll knock on some doors and make some calls, maybe give a good chunk of your paycheck to the candidate's coffers, maybe write a blog entry or two in support of your choice, but would you beat yourself up and mutilate your face? No? Then you don't get to vote, you lazy no-good, all-talk, all-show, fair-weather voter.

http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html

I can't help but imagine her as the Narrator in Fight Club, her alter ego, Tyler Durdin, beating the shit out of her(self). She's not bad. It's Tyler who really wants McCain to win.

Who the F@#k Is That Guy?

Prediction: 8-10 years from now John Stewart will be asked, and will accept, the job of leading a new cable news network. Or so I like to dream...

Night at the Opera (and day, and night, and...)

If it's Wednesday, it must be...Lucia di Lammermoor? There are few things that can keep me from my weekly Wednesday night trivia jaunts. Last week it was a Presidential debate. This week it was complimentary tickets to the Metropolitan Opera. Although I was deathly ill for the better part of the day, I managed to summon enough health to make it over to Lincoln Center for the near 4-hour performance (just a bit longer than David Lynch's Inland Empire). While the opera was amazing (as operas seem to go), my favorite part happened during the first intermission.

The theatre at Lincoln Center is truly a majestic, awe-inspiring space. I've been to many elegant theatres in my lifetime, but The Met is simply breathtaking. Aside from the decadent beauty of the decor, the sheer size of the stage is just ridiculous with 100-foot-tall curtains and similarly-sized set pieces. Even if you don't like opera, the experience is one to behold. They also have behind-the-scenes tours which might be a meager, but somewhat acceptable substitute for those not inclined to drop good money on an actual show. In any event, after the massive curtain drops at the conclusion of the first act, I could hear the stagehands fussing about as they replaced the old set with the act two set. Somewhere near what should have been the end of the intermission, from behind the curtain men were heard shouting things like, "Shit!", "Look out!," and "Oh my god, oh my god!" This was followed immediately by a loud crash and a muffled scream of anguish. Needless to say, the intermission lasted about ten minutes longer than it was supposed to. I found this amusing.

As for the opera, it's about a woman who goes mad because she can't be with the man to whom she's betrothed. So, like every other opera basically.

Use your words...

...but use them correctly.

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:

liberal - one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways; an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

liberalism - a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

socialism - a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done (hmm...sounds a lot like the status quo, no?)

feminism - the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

Muslim - an adherent of Islam; Etymology: Arabic muslim, literally, one who submits (to God)

islam - the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet

I know as well as you do that these hot-button words have multiple meanings, especially amongst those who use them for political gain, but the actual definition is what people who call themselves liberals, feminists, socialists, or Muslims believe their ideas to represent more often than not. They are not bad words, and they certainly should not be used as insults against large swaths of diverse peoples. Using the word "liberal", for example, to besmirch people who support freedom and liberty is insulting to both liberals and conservatives. No liberal is identical to another, just as no conservative is identical to another conservative. And while certain specific beliefs may be more thoroughly associated with liberals (pro-choice), disagreement with specific applications of a well-meaning political ideology that few would disagree with in principle, does not justify its transformation into an all-encompassing dismissal. Words matter, so know them before you casually toss them around like grenades.

Tit for tat, and black for black.

Well, that didn't take long. Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama is already being reduced by many on the right to a simple racial preference, not an endorsement based on genuine belief. Obama is black. Powell is black. What choice did he have? Or so the argument goes in its bluntest form. It's impossible to divine just how widespread such opinions may be, but we've already seen Rush Limbaugh, George Will and Pat Buchanan, three of the most well-known members of the conservative intelligentsia, assert that race was more than a minor factor. And if those three are willing to say it out loud, you can count on a larger majority who might only be brazen enough to speak it in private.

Rush Limbaugh wrote, “Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race. OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.” A few thoughts here. First, if one listens to the arguments made by Powell in his endorsement, there is nothing that would give any reasonable-minded person just cause to believe that he arrived at this endorsement with anything less than careful deliberation of countless factors.

Second, while there are some blacks who will vote for Obama principally because he's black, and while there are some whites who will vote for McCain principally because he's white, it's downright offensive to accuse someone of doing so when they expressly claim otherwise and when no evidence exists to the contrary. This is as absurd as saying people who vote for McCain are racist. Some people who vote for McCain are racist, but there are far far far more people voting for McCain because they think he's the better candidate. Let's not foolishly conjecture as to which are which by besmirching them all.

Third, if Powell's decision to endorse Obama was racially motivated, might one care to explain to me why he's comfortable calling himself a Republican when there is not a single black Republican currently serving in either the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives? One would think he'd have clued in by now that the GOP is not as racially diverse as the Democratic party. Might he genuinely support conservative ideals? No, of course not. Because if he did, it's utterly inconceivable how he could cast a vote for a "liberal" Democrat...all those many reasons he listed be damned.

It's human nature to wonder if race was a motivating factor in Powell's endorsement. It crossed my mind, and if you've read this far, there's a good chance it crossed yours, too. There's no shame in that. What there is shame in is asserting that it was racially motivated...choosing to ignore the many good reasons offered for the endorsement to fixate on one awful reason which was not. Powell is not, nor has he ever been, an elected official. He's not as constrained by party politics as those who are dependent on the votes of their constituents and the support of fellow lawmakers. The assertion that Powell, a retired four-star General, a former National Security Advisor, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Secretary of State, would offer his endorsement to Obama on the basis of race identification is, for lack of a better description, deplorable.

The Real Maverick.

While the endorsements of right-leaning newspapers, columnists and radio talk show hosts continue to pour in for Obama this week, there is no Republican endorsement that carries as much weight as that of Colin Powell's. While certainly a moderate Republican, Powell's conservative credentials are strong on most issues and, as evidenced by his carrying water for George W. Bush as Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005, Powell is a loyal and honorable soldier who speaks his mind only when it serves the national interest---not his own. He is, in my estimation, the kind of Republican that the not-so-Grand and very-Old Party needs to help rediscover its ideological core and its fundamental integrity.

In many ways, Powell reminds me of the way I used to feel about John McCain. Aside from both being genuine patriots who have spent their lives in service to their country, McCain and Powell subscribe to fundamentally conservative beliefs, but do so without the need to accept each and every party line. Powell understands that being pro-choice does not make one a liberal any more than being pro-life makes you a conservative. Or he at least understands that it shouldn't. He knows that "reasonable" gun control laws are exactly that...reasonable. And unlike so many of his party counterparts, Powell knows that sunlight is the best disinfectant for what ails his party. Self-awareness is an invaluable quality for a leader to possess, and it's a quality which should be readily embraced by both parties. You shouldn't be considered a "maverick" for critiquing your own party. It should be mandatory...for both Democrats and Republicans alike.

Watch the following two clips of Powell from today, both mesmerizing for their thoughtfulness, earnestness, and eloquence. The first is his endorsement of Obama on Meet The Press, and the second is a more candid interview just outside the studio following his appearance.





I freely admit that Powell's refusal to run for President has no doubt helped to keep the shine on his star. We've seen what the rigors of an election have done to McCain, and perhaps Powell, too, would have sold off his integrity and hard earned reputation for a chance at the White House. Maybe I'm being naive, but I just don't think that would have happened. We've seen Obama, whether up or down in the polls, handle himself and his campaign with respect and class, albeit imperfectly at times. And seeing how Powell has comported himself these many years, both in good times and bad, I think there's every reason to assume his campaign would have matched or exceeded the constructive qualities of Obama's.

It's painfully obvious that the GOP needs men and women like Powell to take a greater role in redefining their party. The irony, of course, is that Powell's endorsement of Obama today makes that all the more unlikely.

Sheeeeet.

What's the correct protocol for when you throw up in someone else's bed? Anyone? They have to clean it up, right? Yeah, that's what I thought.

"Mixed Feelings" Headline of the Day

Headline: Harold Suffers Brain Swelling After Crash

The name Harold means only one thing to me...my boss. For a moment I thought I might have a snow day tomorrow.

I'm not very nice.

Tom Cruise is NOT dead.

And I know this for a fact because he and Katie Holmes are coming to The Met on Saturday. Just a friendly not-dead blog post for you.

Cruise Publicist: 'Tom Is Alive And Well'

16 October 2008 12:00 PM, PDT

Tom Cruise's publicist has slammed internet reports the Hollywood actor has fallen to his death in New Zealand, insisting the star isn't even in the country.

Rumours surfaced online on Thursday alleging that the Mission: Impossible star had perished after falling from the Kauri Cliffs.

But Cruise's publicist Jeff Raymond has moved fast to quash the false allegations, insisting the star is alive and well.

The spokesman says, "This is completely not true. Tom is not in New Zealand nor has he been there recently. This is erroneous and unreliable internet garbage."

The actor has been pictured out and about in New York this week (ends17Oct08) as his wife Katie Holmes took to the Broadway stage on Tuesday for the official opening night of the play All My Sons.

Cruise isn't the first celebrity wrongly reported to have fallen to his death from the Kauri Cliffs - Tom Hanks was the victim of similar vicious rumours in 2006.

Bob Schieffer for President?

With the third and final debate now in the books, there seems to be one thing that everyone who watched will be able to agree on: Bob Schieffer nailed it. If ever there was context to show just how miserable Tom Brokaw and Gwen Ifill were in their roles as debate moderators, this was it. Schieffer's questions did not exist in a vacuum, as so many of the previous questions in these debates had. He seemed very well aware of the flaws in the previous debates, and he seemed to know what the people really wanted to hear discussed. His pointed but fair inquiries cut through much of the flowery talk that pervades these meetings, and his insistence that the candidates address one another was artful. He allowed plenty of time for multiple follow-ups, giving each candidate a chance to rebut the other...if not once on the same issue, than two or even three times. There were plenty of platitudes and speaking points tonight to be sure, but there was far more meat on these bones to pick.

As for the debaters, while both candidates seemed to benefit from the more free-wheeling format, and while both had moments where they seemed better equipped to handle a certain issue than the other, this was Obama's best performance---if only because be rose to the challenge of a more aggressive McCain by being powerful, calm and, quite frankly, more presidential. Much has been made about the issue of temperament in this election. Some think that McCain is too erratic and too impulsive, while others think Obama is too relaxed and professorial. What Obama did tonight was show that you can be both calm and aggressive. Aggression does not have to take the guise of snarkiness or condescension. Methodical deconstruction of a policy position and insistence on correcting the record is an effective way to lead and build a consensus, and it's what Obama did repeatedly tonight. McCain, while having the right answer on more than one occasion, betrayed this progress by justifying the concerns about his temperament. He seems deeply flustered that he's losing and it manifests itself in obvious condescension, an almost plea of, "hey, look at me...now look at this guy...i mean, come on!"

Obama was at his best when dealing with the issue of ACORN voter fraud and with his "terrorist friend" Bill Ayers. He didn't shy away from either issue and he explained, quite unambiguously, why both are non-issues. The relevance of "associations" is not unimportant, and the association between Obama and Ayers is a valid topic for discussion. What's disingenuous, however, is what McCain/Palin intend the "question" of that association to imply. Credit Bob Schieffer with really getting to the heart of this latest line of attack, essentially getting McCain to undercut his own argument by calling Ayers a "washed-up terrorist,"...basically, an irrelevant person.

If you had been living in a cave for the last two years and crawled out to watch this debate, you'd be left with the unmistakable impression that McCain is losing this race. While he was far from bad, everything smacked of desperation. It feels like he's losing. I expect this debate to crystallize the current trend in the polls. McCain did nothing to energize his base tonight, and undecideds are likely to see this, as they have the previous two debates, as another test passed with flying colors by the next President of the United States.

Live Blogging: Obama v. McCain III

Obama v. McCain III: The Wrath of McCahn

After much consideration, I've elected to forgo my weekly trivia night in Williamsburg on Wednesday to instead bring you, for one last time, Live Blogging coverage of the final presidential debate. We had 5 people total for the last debate, replacing our most liberal commenter with our most conservative one. Based on the largely negative reviews of the second debate, including one written here, and based on McCain continuing to flag in the polls, there's actually a chance, albeit slim, that this debate will have something worthwhile by way of content. Pundits keep talking about how McCain needs a game-changer, and this is perhaps his last, best opportunity to do so in front of a national audience. But what might that "game changer" be?

Substantively, there's little McCain can do in terms of policy offerings that are going to make people sit up and take notice. Unless he unveils some magic plan to cure what ails the economy (emphasis on magic), he's going to have to attack Obama and attack him hard. I'll bet even money that Reverend Wright gets mentioned tomorrow, and Obama's "association" with Bill Ayers is also quite likely to make its way into the dialogue---if not from the moderator, than through McCain himself. Expect Tony Rezko's name to make an appearance. I also would not be surprised if McCain is brainstorming with his advisers some graceful way to bring Louis Farrakhan's recent endorsement of Obama into the debate somehow. Whereas McCain and Palin have used the stump speeches to do the dirty work of their negative attacks---largely playing nice in the debates--- that is likely to end tomorrow night. McCain has shown a willingness to do whatever it takes to win this election, and now that time is short, this is the moment where he must rise (or sink) to the occasion.

And I hope he does. If there's one thing that has endeared me to Obama, it's been his thoughtful, measured, and reasonable responses to controversial issues that have his name stamped to them. I welcome attacks from McCain, if only because it will provide 60 million people the chance to see Obama under pressure...and see him respond as he has for the better part of the last two years.

Join me Wednesday night...and let's watch for ourselves.

The bad seed.

For the first time since I moved to New York almost 39 months ago, my father, a native Brooklynite, has finally made his way up north from Texas to come and pay me a visit. He'll be here for a full week with my stepmother and, if day one today is any indication, it's going to be an interesting trip. Here's a brief list of the many things we accomplished on Day One.

1) Completely obliterated the concept of religion as anything remotely useful, relevant, or sane. I was aided in no small part by Bill Maher's Religulous, which I was surprised they were willing to see with me today, but they did, and it gave me a post-movie platform upon which I could assail not just the Jewish faith, but the very value of any faith in any organized sense. I do so love anti-religion conversations with my folks and have engaged them in this intellectual joust for well over 23 years now. Mind you, "anti-religion" is not anti-God or anti-spirituality---but I'll devote a longer post about all this in the future. Suffice it to say that by the time I was done with them, they were more open-minded about the flaws in their own faith than at any time previously. They didn't exactly denounce their faith and shake their fist to the sky, but the concessions I were able to win seemed more significant than in past "discussions" where they devolved into the utterly unacceptable back-to-the-wall defense of "well, that's just what we believe."

2) Gorged on several cupcakes from Magnolia bakery. Yes, I did have to endure endless comparisons to a Dallas bakery called "Sprinkles", but in the end they did so with their mouths full and their bellies content.

3) Refuted, with only limited success, their mostly groundless aversion to Barack Obama---even though they will be voting for him. Ardent Hillary supporters, they see Obama in much the same way McCain is currently trying to portray him, which is to say they find themselves also asking, "Who Is Obama?" Evidently a two-year long interview process is insufficient to get any sense of what this man is all about. There seem to be three main problems they have with Obama: First, he's not Hillary. Second, he's vague. And third, they seem genuinely put off--if not frightened--by the Obama supporters who look at him with mouths agape. Adding to this last problem was Louis Farrakhan's recent pronouncement of Obama as "A Messiah." This prompted my stepmother to say that she needed to know more about the relationship of Obama to Farrakhan. Of course, there is no relationship to speak of, and it's as unfair to associate Farrakhan's views with Obama as it would be to associate the Ku Klux Klan with McCain. People's votes might tell you about the voter, but it's a dangerous and foolish game when you start trying to divine too much meaning about a candidate based on certain supporters. Still, if these two Democrat voters are any indication, Obama faces a much tougher road to the White House than recent polls suggest.

4) Thoughtfully expounded upon my view of government paternalism and explained exactly how far it should extend. More on this in a later post, too. Amazingly, perhaps because they were so blown over by the sheer beauty of the day (or the unending wisdom spewing from my mouth), I was pretty much able to ramble along non-stop all the live-long day.

So much for the High Holy Days.

If it's Wednesday...it must be trivia night at Pete's Candy Store. It also happens to be Kol Nidre, the holiest night in the Jewish faith and the evening preceding the ominous-sounding Day of Atonement...something which should only be spoken in a booming voice, preferably with some reverb for maximum impact. As a devoted agnostic since the precocious age of 10, I haven't attended a high holy day ceremony since I was old enough to say the unknowingly ironic phrase "Never again!" to my parents.

The few times they were able to drag me to synagogue, I escaped for a bathroom "break"--the kind of break that lasts for most of the 3+ hour ceremony. On one such occasion I was joined by several like-minded delinquents who, like a well-coordinated terrorist attack, felt the need to "break" at precisely the same time and in precisely the same manner. We quickly rendezvoused and sought sanctuary in one of the many Hebrew school classrooms at the Temple. One of the boys who was slightly more coarse than myself then proceeded to entertain us by dialing several long-distance 1-900 sex numbers on the Temple's dime. That may have been the moment when I learned most about what I now call "sex and intimacy." This may also explain a great deal.

Seeing as how I live in the epicenter of American Judaism, I fully expected that tonight would be the ideal time to kick it up a notch at trivia. It's a diverse crowd, but I know a Jew when I see one...and several of them are usually on the teams routinely bashing my brains in with their superior powers of recalling useless and pointless tidbits of knowledge. I expected it to be empty. Turns out that hipster Jews in Williamsburg are about as dedicated to trivia night as the Williamsburg Hasidim are to their faith. In fact, I think the Jew from our team was the only Jew not in attendance tonight.

It was just me and Johnny against 20 other teams and, despite my ability to identify the Paul Newman film Absence of Malice from a recorded line of dialogue, the end result was predictable---12th place.

Which one?

Bow Before Your Leader!

Headline: Narcissists Tend to Become Leaders

It's only a matter of time, my loyal subjects. (twiddles thumbs evily) Only a matter of time.

And the loser is...

Obama. McCain. You. Me. Everyone. Let's face it---whether you're for Obama, for McCain, or somehow happen to be one of those hard-to-believe undecideds that may yet decide this election, these debates tell us very little about what we need to know in this election. Three 90-minute debates in a very scripted setting with limp questions and with limp moderators who function as nothing more than school crossing guards do not lead to elevated and enlightened discourse on the matters of our day.

The rules for these debates are haggled over and negotiated behind closed doors, all with the intention of giving their candidate whatever edge they can attain. If you're a better speaker...you angle for more debates. If you're folksy...you try for more town hall-style forums. If you're lacking experience...you might want a podium to give you added stature. The wrangling over the details is relentless. The end result ends up being a heavily-insulated atmosphere where no candidate is at much risk, and where each candidate has significant freedom to bob and weave their way out of a question they simply don't like. Sure, a voter can gleam some information from how a candidate elects to answer (or not answer) a question, but the substance is minuscule. To date myself a bit (since nobody else will--snap!), these debates have me sounding like Clara Peller and asking, "Where's the beef?"

I don't agree with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on much, but I do support his idea of having no fewer than nine debates between the respective nominees of each party with each debate focusing intensely on just one major issue. Too much? In a reality-tv-oriented-world that has the attention span of a spider monkey on crack, yes. It's too much. It's too wonkish. Too...(gasp)...informative. And yet, as the historic ratings for these largely uneventful debates illustrate, the American voter is thirsty for political discussion. Sure, a large part of that thirst is purely for entertainment value. I guarantee you a lot of people were watching the Palin debate for the same reason so many people watch NASCAR races. Hint---it's not to see her go round and round in a circle. But if the people want to see the candidates "debate" their ideas, then the candidates have an obligation to do just that. After nine one-hour debates on the important subjects of our day, it would be impossible to not know which candidate's vision for the future most closely resembled your own. Voters would be better informed. Candidates would need to rely less on empty talking points. And, most importantly, the culture of discourse would forever be changed.

While I have always been a fan of Meet The Press, I'd be the first person to admit that the late Tim Russert would often oversimplify a complicated subject...hammering away for a simple "yes" or "no" to a question that no sane politician would dare answer with one word. That said, going before Tim Russert was a true test for a politician because Russert was always prepared. He was ready to call "bullshit" the second he heard it, able to use the explicit text of a guest's previous words to contradict what they might be saying on that particular visit to the studio. He knew the talking points by heart and, more often than not, would not let his guests off the hook so easily. He was persistent. Dogged. The result was either the successful mining of a nugget of new truth heretofore untold, or the exposure of his guest as a talking head unwilling or unable to say anything substantive. If there's one thing this election needs right now (more than nine loosely-structured debates, I mean), it's a no-holds-barred sit-down with Russert and Obama and McCain all at the same table.

Failing a successful resurrection of Russert, these debates desperately need a moderator who is willing to take charge---not to enforce the rules agreed to by the campaigns---but to force the candidates to answer the questions they're asked...or pay the price by being made to look silly and standoffish. Honestly, what's the worst that can happen if the venerable Tom Brokaw grows a pair and on live TV deviates from the rules to call "bullshit" on one of the many false characterizations that either candidate routinely makes? Are the candidates not going to answer? In front of 60 million people? The worst thing is that Tom Brokaw is never asked back to moderate a debate. But since all he does anyway is read five-word questions sent in from the internet, what's the loss? It's an absurdity that these are the debates we as citizens get...and an even greater absurdity that we accept it.

To be fair, Barack Obama, the candidate for whom I will cast my vote on November 4th, was opposed to John McCain's suggestion of ten "town hall" styled debates. I won't parse his decision. I simply think he was wrong. Surely he could have negotiated something with McCain that would have been acceptable. Maybe eight? Or six? But no. After appearing in twenty-two debates during the Democratic primary he said enough was enough. Again, I disagree with that decision. There may be more to the story than I'm aware of, but if there's ever a choice between more debate or less, I'm going with more.

We get one more debate to see these candidates go head to head. You know what the exciting change is for the third debate? They sit at a table! Now we're really going to figure out what makes these guys tick.

Obama v. McCain---Live Blogging tonight

Obama v. McCain: Who Hates Who More---@ 8pm, LIVE

Just a quick reminder to join me for Live Blogging coverage tonight of Obama v. McCain II...The Humble versus The Grumble. The Scholar versus The Holler. The Thinker versus The Winker. Oh, wait---that one should've been for Biden v. Palin. Crap. That's a good one, too. The Liberal versus The Miserable. The Professor versus The Confessor. The Dem versus The Phlegm. The Fate versus The Hate. The Winner versus The Sinner. The Rocky Balboa versus The Ivan Drago (side note: Palin was able to watch Rocky train for that fight from her house and he even helped Todd Palin get his snow mobile out of a snow drift!).

Conservative? Come along. Liberal? Come along. You never know what to expect. In fact, one of the people at the last live blog has officially disowned me and refuses to ever speak to me again, calling me: "immature, egotistical, arrogant, obnoxious, and petulant." Boy Hates Girl. It's all about the love.

Mmm...pork.

More after the jump...

http://weirdynews.blogspot.com/2008/10/10-creepiest-old-ads.html

Nobody ever said I was original...

Just got this email notice from the President of CoveritLive--the software/server used for the Live Blogging. Looks like things should be much smoother for tomorrow night's debate, so please come and join.
--------
Hello, My name is Keith McSpurren.

I am the President of CoveritLive.

We have put the necessary upgrades in place to ensure that 100% of your readers will be able to enjoy/participate in your live blogs of the upcoming Presidential debate on Tuesday and beyond.

As some of you may have noticed, as a precaution during last weeks’ Vice Presidential debate, we held back any new readers at different times so that we could ensure the tens of thousands of readers and the writers using CoveritLive could stay online without interruption. Although blunt, it appeared to do the job. Based on our information, the systemwide readership could have been higher by another 30% had we not had this limitation. Of course, that number would vary depending on when your event started and when your readers wanted to join. We hope the times we need to use this technique are few and far between.

To be clear, this was a system wide capacity notification. No one, even our largest users, has ever approached reader limitations during one of their events. The issue was primarily due to: a) the incredible interest in the debate; and, b) the thousands of new users who have begun using CoveritLive in the past three months.

We always try to keep our available capacity at 3X our previous largest day which up until that date had served us well. We will continue to do our best to stay well ahead of our usage but will keep this safeguard ready to ensure that if this type of anomaly happens again, the impact will be marginal.

Please feel free to contact me directly with any additional feedback or questions.

Special thanks to the many of you who wrote in with supportive/constructive emails over the past week.

Keith McSpurren
President, CoveritLive
keithm@coveritlive.com
Follow me on Twitter (but only if you want to)
o: 416.535.7864f: 416.535.2161

The Death of Political Satire

The final question asked of Stephen Colbert on Saturday night at his appearance for the annual New Yorker festival was the same thing I've had on my mind ever since Sarah Palin was chosen as John McCain's running mate. The question was, since George Bush and the GOP had basically handed Colbert and John Stewart their comedic meal ticket on a silver platter, how could they possibly be as original and funny with Barack Obama as President? Colbert, as genius off-camera as he is on, responded rather succinctly and candidly by saying, "Because Barack Obama can't possibly be as good as I hope he'll be."

It's a wonderful point, and it's one many of my fellow Obama supporters would do well to keep in mind. It's fantastic that Obama has tapped into a deeply personal and transformative feeling for so many people, but he is still just a politician. He will still compromise his own values when the benefit of doing so overwhelms the alternative. He will make mistakes. He will take responsibility for good things that he had little to do with, and he will blame past administrations and Congress for matters he has very much to do with. Every President before him has done so, and every President after him will do so. That said, none of those illusion-shattering realities make him any less a potentially outstanding President. Just as in baseball (yes, more with the baseball metaphor), every year hope springs eternal and every year your favorite team starts out unbeaten. They never go undefeated---because there are simply too many games, too many variables, and too much opposing talent to run the schedule. Obama won't be undefeated, but a special "season" isn't out of the question either. Here's hoping.

But as for Colbert's answer? I strongly disagree. It's not that Obama is impossible to mock or imitate, it's that he's far less interesting of a politician to mock or imitate. It's not that he's a Democrat. Lord knows Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson and others were eminently mockable by both satirists on the left and right. The Democratic party will continue to provide a colorful cast of characters for John Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Saturday Night Live to lampoon, but if Obama wins the presidency? I don't feel it's for lack of trying, but I've yet to see the level of comedic skewering rise to what we've seen with Bush, Cheney, and now McCain and Palin. This point has never seemed more obvious with the dead-on imitation of Palin by Tina Fey. I'll be honest---there's a part of me that's sick knowing that Tiny Fey's Palin-impersonation may have but four weeks left to live. I wish it was possible to have an alternate-comedic-universe in which McCain and Palin win the Presidency...just so we can continue to see Fey do her shtick on a weekly basis.

If Obama wins, I predict most of the comedic focus will fall on the supporting characters...like Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and no doubt yet-to-be-named members of an Obama cabinet. Perhaps there's room for Palin in Obama's administration? (pretty, please) Secretary of Agriculture, anyone? The very future of political satire may rest in Obama's hands.

All Betty Boop needs now is a pair of glasses...

And Mr. Nobody is tall, thin, black and thoughtfully liberal. Hmm...

O.J. Simpson...it wasn't all bad.

There's news today out of Vegas that O.J. Simpson was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and ten other charges, a conviction which may very well send the Juice to prison for the rest of his life. I'm often accused of being a "negative" person, or a "downer" as some have said, so rather than focus on Simpson's negatives, like his brutal murder of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman, or his unerring douchiness since buying his way to freedom, I'm going to right my mean-spirited ways by talking about some of the good he's done---specifically him being a cast member in one of my all-time favorite films...Capricorn One.

Knowing most of the people who will read this, I'm fairly comfortable in my assessment that 90% of you have never even heard of this 1978 Peter Hyams-directed gem. The story, in short, is about a NASA mission to Mars which, due to budgetary and technical difficulties, ends up being faked. When the unmanned capsule burns up on reentry, the poor astronauts who were duped into going along with the sham realize they're utterly screwed. One of the astronauts is played by O.J. Simpson. It's worth noting that the first black American man into space wasn't until 1983 so, in a way, O.J. Simpson was the Rosa Parks of fictitious black astronauts. Or something.

Elliot Gould, back when it was cool to be Elliot Gould, plays a nosy journalist who singularly suspects that something isn't quite right. He mugs his way through this film like he's a private investigator in a 1940's noire flick, complete with a cigarette dangling from his mouth and several attempts on his life. He's like a disheveled version of Jim Rockford. He's pretty much awesome. Helping him along the way is none other than Telly Savalas, making a "special appearance" as a crop dusting pilot who thinks everyone is a pervert. I'm not making this up. Check out this scene and tell me you're not just a wee bit intrigued.



Capricorn One is, to say the least, an odd film. Any film with Elliot Gould and Telly Savalas flying a crop dusting plane while being shot at by heavily armed helicopters can't help but be odd. It also, much to my surprise, works. Peter Hyams, while not being a great director, is great at one thing. Pacing. He is, in my estimation, the master of well-paced mediocre movies: Outland, The Star Chamber, 2010, Running Scared, The Presidio, Narrow Margin, and several others. Some of those films are actually better than mediocre, but you get the idea. They won't be appearing on the AFI list anytime soon, but a well-paced movie can easily make up for many of its shortcomings...and Capricorn One is one such movie. It's exciting and offbeat, a thriller and a comedy. It also features a wonderfully aggressive score by Jerry Goldsmith, easily one of his best in his storied career.



Thanks, O.J.

Mission Accomplished! (mostly...sort of)

The Live Blogging experiment during the Biden v. Palin debate was an unqualified almost-success. There were some technical glitches at the outset, most likely caused by an overwhelming number of people who, like me, decided the debate would be the ideal opportunity to make use of the Cover It Live 2.0 software, but eventually it got off the ground and went mostly smoothly. We had a grand total of five people present---Scott, Brian, Romy, Dianna and myself, but evidently there were other people who tried to join but could not. Hopefully that will be fixed by next Tuesday when I'll be Live Blogging the second debate between Obama and McCain. That debate begins at 8pm, so check back then.

We all had a great time, but here are some thoughts about the experience:

1) It was a partisan crowd to say the least. When I'm the most moderate person in the room, you know it's a liberal crowd. I'd gladly welcome any of my conservative friends to join in to provide a bit of balance to the evening.

2) While I have editorial control over which comments to allow and disallow, due to the relatively small number of participants I opted to make it a free-for-all and let everyone comment at will. Provided we have more participants next Tuesday, and I suspect we will, I think I'll go a bit fascist and exercise more authority over what comments get posted. Be funny, be smart, or be both. Or just watch. Ten people posting simultaneously would just be too overwhelming, I think.

3) As some of you know, I don't have a television in the traditional sense. I watch all my stuff online--including the debate. The problem is, the two online feeds I tried watching were obviously several seconds behind the televised feed...making my comments a hair too late to be as relevant as I wanted them to be. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can get a real-time online feed?

Hope to see you on Tuesday night!

Stephen Colbert anyone?

It appears as though I will likely have an extra ticket to see Stephen Colbert interviewed at The New Yorker Festival tomorrow night. Anyone care to join me? If you're cute and single I'll throw in dinner and some unwanted pawing. If you're ugly and taken, congrats---dinner is on you. If you're a guy, no dinner---just beer, and you buy. If interested, send me a comment or a note with great alacrity.

Palin v. Biden: This is why they play 162 games.

There is no professional sport that takes longer to determine a regular season winner than professional baseball. The "marathon" slate of 162 games dwarfs the 82 played by the NBA and NHL, and it obliterates the 16 played by the NFL. It's one of the reasons people who love baseball love baseball, and why people who hate baseball hate baseball...finding it insufferable and interminable. But there's a very specific reason why those of us who love the "interminable" sport take great pleasure in seeing all 162 games played out. Quite simply, you can't fake your way to a pennant. A team might get hot for awhile and play beyond both its talent and its expectations, but as the summer wears on and the rigors of a long schedule take effect, the cream always rises to the top.

As a Texas Rangers fan, I was both stunned and thrilled to find my hapless Rangers in the thick of the wild card race in the middle of July! They were young, fun, energetic, scoring in bunches...and had the worst starting pitching in almost the entire history of the sport. It was a mirage. An attractive mirage, but a mirage nonetheless. They eventually went in the tank and performed as one would expect them to perform---inconsistent, with moments of both promise and reminders of why it's so damn hard to be the best at anything. They'll be better next year, and better the year after that, but after 162 games it was clear they were not worthy of a spot in the playoffs. And yet, if the season were about 80 games shorter, the Rangers would have been almost as valid a playoff team as anyone else! And that's why I like the long season. They didn't deserve it, and the 162 games they played left no doubt about it.

Baseball is an enduring metaphor of American life, and tonight's debate between Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska provided yet another perfect opportunity for its metaphor-rich application. In short, Palin had no pitching. She hit a few bloop singles, hustled and scrapped her way to an early lead, and managed to both surprise and energize her fans. But as the game wore on, and as this political season wears on, the mirage of her initial "success" became evident. The more talented and more experienced Biden eventually decided to stop looking at pitches passing him by and start taking his whacks. He did, and now she's out.

She is not without talent. She is not without charm. And she is not without intelligence. She is, however, out of her league. There will be brighter days ahead for Sarah Palin. She will learn more. She will experience more. She will train harder, and she will not go away. But she was, basically, promoted from A-ball to the big leagues overnight. And like any rookie not ready for prime time, everything moves a bit faster at that level. Fastballs zip by a bit faster, curve balls curve a bit steeper, and that strike zone which was so friendly in Wasilla becomes a bit larger, a bit less forgiving. As it should be. We don't tolerate mediocrity from our sports heroes, so why should we tolerate (or celebrate!) it in our leaders? Obama may have made the jump from AA-ball himself, but he can hit that curve. He can hit that fastball. And he's adjusted to that unforgiving strike zone. He's gotten better as the long season has worn on.

In this now-lengthy metaphor, John McCain is the entire NY Yankee franchise (sorry, Romy). He has a proud and storied history. He has had many, many successes. He has his detractors, but he lets the results do most of his talking. But...the Yankees sort of suck right now in case you didn't notice. And these Yankees of 2008 are not the World Series Yankees of 2000. They're old. They're slow. They foolishly trade away future success to cling to mediocrity in the present. They need to rebuild. They need to honor the past while looking to the future. Palin is part of that future, but promoting her from the minors and then expecting her to be an immediate star is a fan-pandering move that only George Steinbrenner could think was a good idea. John McCain is George Steinbrenner. George Steinbrenner is your President.

Biden is the grizzled veteran ballplayer who may not make it to the Hall of Fame, but he's the guy that every successful winner needs on its bench. He strikes out a bit too much, but he's clutch. He's skilled. He's a player/manager. Obama is the hot-shot rookie exceeding all expectations. We knew he was good, but we didn't know he'd be this good this soon. He's been in the league for only a short period of time, but he's already challenging for MVP. Sure, he could probably stand to gain a bit more experience, but he'd be wasted in the minors. He's proven he's ready. Put'em in, coach---he's ready to lead.

Technical Difficulties

This may end up being the most popular live-blogged event heretofore---as evidenced by the fact that the host site crashed as soon as it started. Stay tuned!

Live Blogging----tonight!

The Power of Context

Generic say-nothing nonsense can often sound fairly intelligent...until you do a side-by-side comparison of something that is not generic by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Luckily, in debates at least, bullshit doesn't exist in a vacuum.

My Trivia "Sweet" Spot

If it's Wednesday...it must be trivia night at Pete's Candy Store. The team, comprised this evening of only Jonathan, Vanessa and myself, struggled to an abysmal 9th place finish out of 21 teams. In a perfect contrast of what is my sweet spot and what is not my sweet spot, the Visual Round was 11 pictures of foreign paper currency (identify the country of origin). That is not my sweet spot. The top 10 round was a choice of naming the 10 wealthiest people in the world (if you think you know more than two of them, you're wrong) or the 10 poorest countries in the world. Again, not my sweet spot. But being able to identify the movie 9 1/2 Weeks based only on its sex scene music? Sweet spot.

Worst Analysis Ever

Here's the headline from an AP story I just saw:

Analysis: Bailout plan vote may have unforeseen consequences

Every action (or inaction) may have unforeseen consequences. That's why they're unforeseen. Duh.

"I can't believe I'm losing to this guy."

In advance of tomorrow's Live Blogging coverage of the Biden v. Palin Vice-Presidential Debate (to be rivaled only by Live Blogging coverage of when the Dallas Cowboys play the New York Giants, and later rivaled by Live Blogging coverage from an actual first date---automatically making it the first and last), I thought I'd offer some reasons as to why, despite my hopes, Sarah Palin will not in fact be as awful as many people expect her to be.

Some of my conservative and more moderate friends (countable on one hand) might question why I'd hope for someone to fail in the first place---judging that a rather petty and partisan approach. Quite simply, I am petty and partisan. Beyond that, however, the real reason I would hope for her to fail in the debate is that she is, by any sane assessment, beyond redemption as a candidate for the office of vice-president. There is nothing she can say or do in the debate that would justify McCain having picked her. There is nothing she can say or do in the debate that would justify her having agreed to be McCain's selection. And there is nothing she can say or do in the debate that would justify those whose support of her candidacy has been unwavering, no matter how many times she has demonstrated herself to be utterly unsuitable for this job. Except there is.

Debates, except in high school and college, are rarely about who wins or loses. The pundits love to grade the debaters and declare a winner or a loser, but debates are about expectations. The worse debater is, effectively, given a handicap to level the playing field, as in golf or bowling. It doesn't matter if Biden shows up and bowls a 275, because Palin's handicap is + 250. She just needs to show up and make sure the ball goes down the right lane to ensure a competitive outcome. Worse, Palin's handlers have insisted the debate be structured so as to have shorter Q&A periods and less interaction between the candidates. This would be the equivalent of the "baby bumpers" used to prevent gutter balls. Also, with just one 90-minute debate, there's very little chance that Gwen Ifill would be able to pick the one question that Palin has not been prepped for. Word has it she has been "cramming" these last few days, like a high school student studying for an algebra test. In short, the debate is likely to feel highly scripted.

And let's not forget about her style. She is, after all, a professional speaker. She has debated numerous times in other elections and is comfortable in front of cameras. She is in many ways the triumph of style over substance. This worked for me in high school debates with mom and pop judges. If I saw the judge was someone other than an ex-debater or grad student, I would just tone down the logos and up the pathos, like playing a Rhetorical Instrument. The reality is that there are far more mom and pop judges and those are the people she's going to wow.

If Palin can avoid major gaffes, and if she can remember the answers she's currently committing to memory, there's every reason to think her performance will be heralded as a major success---a performance that many of her supporters will use to try and whitewash her embarrassing appearances of the last few weeks.




Obama could probably skate under, but she just has to go over. The only way she could repeat the unmitigated disasters that were her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric would be if she tried to make up for all her previous mistakes in one super-duper-gee-whiz answer. Fortunately for her, she won't have that much time.

I'm not sure if this debate ultimately matters in terms of the outcome of the election. It will be lampooned (as much for Biden's performance as Palin's), written about, discussed, polled and referenced ad nauseum. But the most significant thing that could happen is that Palin redeems herself enough to have a viable political future. And that would be fine---provided that future is in local politics.