With Kaus, Corn, Wright, and Pinkerton, these two are the best of bhtv. More of them and less Jane Hamster please.

Quoting Swift: With Kaus, Corn, Wright, and Pinkerton, these two are the best of bhtv. More of them and less Jane Hamster please.

More Jane Hamsher, too, please. Hamsher rocks. Thanks for reminding me to mention that, Swift.

I'm new to Blogging Heads site. Great discussion about the debate. I really enjoyed the insights of these two gentlemen and am looking forward to their next post.

I thought Alterman had a decent rundown of the debate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ebate.election

Hmm, Bit of disappointment. Not as substantive as the usual McWhorter, Loury pairing. Plus, McWhorter missed out a few points about the debate. Obama did mention that Early Childhood care would not be jeopardized with a tax freeze. Neither would social security. And Obama looked at McCain many times while McCain totally avoided that. More thoughts later.
Will wait for some of the regulars - Wonderment, BJkeefe, and Kidneystones to chime in.

Halfway in and loving the diavlog. Thanks Bob, for getting these guys to cover the debates. Just made the debates that much more enticing.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/148...2:06&out=32:34 I thought the segment about Bill Clinton's advice was excellent. Hopefully Obama is listening. Special thanks to Mrs. Loury for helping to get Glen in line.

I think John is on to something with his analysis of Obama not wanting to appear as a bully if he stared at McCain. But he doesn't take it far enough. The fact is that Barack Obama does not have a confrontational personality. He has a wide repertoire of communicative skills that he uses well to avoid confrontation. This was clear in his debates with Hillary and the other Dems. as well as with McCain. Barack's non-confrontational nature can clearly work in his favor with a guy like McCain who is always looking for a fight. Or it can backfire if Obama is perceived as a wimp. In any case, Obama is who he is. His personality is not going to change. The rest of us need to get accustomed to his style because it will be his style of governance too.

Quoting Wonderment:
The fact is that Barack Obama does not have a confrontational personality. He has a wide repertoire of communicative skills that he uses well to avoid confrontation.

This was clear in his debates with Hillary and the other Dems. as well as with McCain.

Barack's non-confrontational nature can clearly work in his favor with a guy like McCain who is always looking for a fight. Or it can backfire if Obama is perceived as a wimp.

In any case, Obama is who he is. His personality is not going to change. The rest of us need to get accustomed to his style because it will be his style of governance too.

This message is approved by Ocean...

I disagree with John on the point that Obama should have appeared more soft spoken in the debate. He already has dems on lock he needs to go after the moderates. Hillary was always sayin how she was "fighting" for everyone. I think he was tryin to give the impression he is a 'fighter' for those middle class moderates who he needs in the GE. Those are the people who say he isn't tough enough especially vs a war hero.

Should there be more wine in BHTV?

For Glen Loury, yes...for Ann Althouse, no.

Dear My Ukranian and Georgian Friends John and Glenn, Thank you for your support. I have been off BheadsTV for a few days. But unlike my opponent, B. Hussein Obama, who has been AWOL from America, I've been busy maverickin' and reachin' across the aisle. Suzy Palin and me, we're shakin' things up, reformin', changin' the way they do business in Warshington. Here's some STRAIGHT TALK: I'm suspending my campaign and returning to Warshington tonight to shake even more stuff up. We are in a big pickle, My Friends, so I've decided to show them Wall Street predators and them ear-markin' congressmen, who's the boss. I may have 8 houses and 14 cars, but I spent 5 yrs in the Hanoi Hilton -- on Main Street, not Wall Street. I am hereby pulling all my TV ads until Nancy Pelosi meets me for a mud wrestling match to be held on the White House lawn. Forget Bush and President Cheney! Just me and Nancy. Winner gets the nuclear football and emits his or her decree for 700 billion million gazillion trillion dollars. That's the kind of change Suzy Palin and I are talkin' about! Amen!

Just say no, Barack.

Quoting John M: Dear My Ukranian and Georgian Friends John and Glenn,

Thank you for your support.

Here's some STRAIGHT TALK: I'm suspending my campaign and returning to Warshington tonight to shake even more stuff up.

Farewell, John M. You'll be missed... Be careful with the mud. It's slippery.

Hands down, consistently the best diavlog pairing on Bloggingheads.tv.

Please find someone who wants to see McCain win on....

Rara avis. An endangered species. Formerly native to the Southwest, South, Midwest and Appalachia, the last flock was reported in late September of 2008 in upscale suburbs of the Deep South, although there are unconfirmed reports of a few solitary specimens in Orange County, California.

How about "magic brownies"? On a serious note, it would be interesting to see a comprehensive drug screen on elected officials. Many jobs, even hospital privileges for Physicians demand a urine screen for drugs. In the case of Physicians and Nurses, only before starting, I am aware that in other jobs, there is regular screening for "drugs".

Quoting kidneystones: Yuk!

Shorter kidneystones:
.

Quoting TwinSwords: Shorter kidneystones:

.

Love those smilies!!!

Quoting SkepticDoc: How about "magic brownies"?

On a serious note, it would be interesting to see a comprehensive drug screen on elected officials. Many jobs, even hospital privileges for Physicians demand a urine screen for drugs. In the case of Physicians and Nurses, only before starting, I am aware that in other jobs, there is regular screening for "drugs".

Lots of us think there should be a law against that kind of thing in all but a few cases (MDs, air traffic controllers, bus drivers). Actually, I think there should be a law against it in all cases. It's perfectly possible to get drunk, stoned on antihistamines, or sleep deprived in all of those jobs as it is. If your employer needs a blood test to tell whether you're strung out on heroin, they're never going to know if you're showing up to work after a beer or two.

Glen Loury has either over analyzed the identification of African Americans with Obama or missed the point of ethnic identification entirely. See the extended clip here. For your next appearance take 10 minutes to put into context African American feelings for Obama and compare them to Irish Catholic feelings for President John Kennedy, Mormon feelings for Romney, Greek Feelings for Dukakis or even Alaskan feeling for Palin. It seems that Loury argues that African American support for Obama is a unique experience, digital in effect, that cannot not be compared with the experience Catholic support for President Kennedy or more to the point Irish Catholic support for Kennedy. Even conservative Irish Catholics must have had thier hearts swell with pride when he was elected. Similarly, Mormons of the left must have been rooting for Romney to win the Republican nomination and may have contributed to his campaign, even though they intended to vote against him in the general election.
I think that ethic identity is analog. John is right. Rooting for Obama to succeed or even Condi Rice or Colin Powell to succeed, notwithstanding a persons politics

Could it be my age, or some kind of regional preference? Because I don't at all understand the constant nagging for Obama to get more aggressive with his rhetoric. Is the rest of the country so used to bellicose populism that it hears Obama as soft? Do they really want him to smile harder and play up the smooth zinger angle, like John Edwards? The thought makes me shudder. He didn't seem sleepy to me, just patient. A good debate is a conversation, not 3rd down and 2. Not to blame John or Glenn -- I must be in the minority. But Obama's speaking style hits the bullseye for me. Most everyone else (left and right) sounds relatively unthoughtful, spastic, and ungenerous by comparison. Obviously, it's only an issue of style. But if it's the new style, I'm all for it.

Solid diavlog - although it was a little heavier on the crude punditry than most between these two gentlemen. Consider me one of the few Obama supporters who actually thought that McCain wiped the floor with our hero on Friday. Where Obama was hesitant and deferential, McCain was forceful and, at times, eloquent. (Stranger things have happened.) And, BHO's worst moment of the debate, when McCain described receiving a bracelet from the mother of a dead soldier, Obama engaged in some risible me-tooism. But most importantly, the entire debate was conducted on McCain's terms. How did a discussion of the economic crisis turn into a thirty minute stemwinder on earmarks and government spending? Earmarks have next to nothing to do with the credit crisis, yet Obama engaged McCain on the issue. That's a victory for McCain in itself. Obama also failed to answer an extremely serious charge from McCain; that Obama is simply not prepared to be the president. Now, John M: I am terribly sorry to hear about the demise of the New York Sun. It's a real shame. Hope to see your column elsewhere, someday soon!

Quoting DoctorMoney: Could it be my age, or some kind of regional preference? Because I don't at all understand the constant nagging for Obama to get more aggressive with his rhetoric. Is the rest of the country so used to bellicose populism that it hears Obama as soft? Do they really want him to smile harder and play up the smooth zinger angle, like John Edwards? The thought makes me shudder. He didn't seem sleepy to me, just patient. A good debate is a conversation, not 3rd down and 2.

Obviously, it's only an issue of style. But if it's the new style, I'm all for it.

I agree with you. I like his style. He is calm and thoughtful. He's clear and elegant in his delivery. His responses are intelligent and measured. However, I have long realized that what appeals to me in a political leader, doesn't seem to be the same that appeals to the average American. There is an imaginary model of how someone who would appeal to most people should be like. And we, rather unrealisitically, would like Obama to have all the possible qualities required to win this election. The reality is that he can only be who he

Quoting David Edenden: Glen Loury has either over analyzed the identification of African Americans with Obama or missed the point of ethnic identification entirely.

For your next appearance take 10 minutes to put into context African American feelings for Obama and compare them to Irish Catholic feelings for President John Kennedy, Mormon feelings for Romney, Greek Feelings for Dukakis or even Alaskan feeling for Palin.

I think that the trajectory from slavery, to the back of the bus, to being the President of the United States contains aspects well beyond what can be found in the other groups you mention. It isn't comparable to rooting for your home team. This is rising from the most extreme form of oppression to the top. It belongs in a different category.

Loury/McWhorter 2012? Not as substantive or as fascinating as the usual Loury/McWhorter diavlog, but perhaps that's because they're discussing a specific subject (the debate) that has already been the subject of much commentary elsewhere in the media. That said, I'm looking forward to their next discussion about the VP debate. Biden and McCain like each other well enough, don't they? The point (made by Glenn?) that it would be interesting to see two candidates who liked or at least seriously respected each other in a debate made me wonder what a McCain-Biden debate would look like. It also makes me wonder how the hell McCain and Obama would have pulled off 10 town hall meetings (had Obama agreed) without looking at each other.

Ocean: And we, rather unrealistically, would like Obama to have all the possible qualities required to win this election. The reality is that he can only be who he is. There's only so much that someone can push it. Beyond a reasonable point, it won't come out right. So let him be himself. You can't please everybody...

Yes, that is true -- we always tend to want people to be something other than what they are. The differences between all four candidate's personalities are stark and yet advice is constantly given regarding how they should each change in order to conform to some unattainable standard of normality. For those who are interested in the short history of McCain and Obama's professional relationship that may provide some clues re: the eye contact thing, check out "Rivals in Search of Trust" by David Broder, August 10 at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com

Wait, I thought all those earmarks that Alaska got under Palin's watch, were really reparations for the historical oppression of Alaskans. Irish catholics=Greeks=African Americans. Great analogy. Their stories couldn't be more identical ;-)

I'm a huge fan of these John McWhorter v Glenn Loury diavlogs. The news that this will become a semi regular segment after the debates is GREAT!

I agree. I think Obama's style is fine. Though there were some points i wish he would have made, I think McCain made something of a fool of himself with his nasty attitude, and Obama was wise to simply let McCain meltdown on his own with out getting sucked into the same thing himself. I admire the fact that Obama is acting in ways that really are a bit different than what we are used to seeing. I didn't think he looked shell-shocked or sleepy or disinterested at all. He looked classy and considerate (in the sense that he considered things before speaking.) I also think that Obama realizes this is a prize fight with many rounds. The first couple of rounds both fighters usually feel each other out. I think that Obama could have really hurt his image among undecideds by coming out and being too nasty in the first round. It amuses me that pundits want Obama to be "different" and then lament that he's not following the same old script that they profess to be so tired of. If Obama suddenly acted like every other politician, Glenn would

My intuition is that McCain's shallow-anger approach, and Palin's obvious cluelessness, are pushing more swing/Independent voters towards Obama, even if he's not their ideal choice.

I agree that Obama looked anything but sleepy, and if he did, John's prescription for Xanax and wine would not have actually improved things. I know John said that tongue in cheek, but Obama's tongue would literally be in his cheek as he slurred his words and forgot the questions before he answered. I am still not so sure Palin is clueless, although she may be. The long rambling answer she gave Katie Couric on the bailout was not necessarily a sign of bullshit or ignorance. She has a different kind of discursive style, which works a lot better in ordinary conversation than in oral exams like Gibson and Couric gave her. Palin throws the kitchen sink at the person she's talking to -- healthcare, the economy, unemployment, blah, blah, blah, and she sees what resonates with the other person. I know dozens of people like that. Democrats are doing the right thing strategically in treating her like a dummy and a fraud, but she may be neither. The quiz show format with its

Quoting rgajria: ... McWhorter missed out a few points about the debate. Obama did mention that Early Childhood care would not be jeopardized with a tax freeze. Neither would social security. And Obama looked at McCain many times while McCain totally avoided that.

Completely agree. I was surprised to hear John say that, especially the second part. I thought Obama looked at McCain quite a bit, and no question, a lot by comparison. John's criticism about Obama not itemizing points has some merit at least in one way: if John didn't hear them, then it's not enough that some of us did, and the lesson for Obama is he needs to work on punching point out when the occasion calls for it. Back to the eye contact: I'm sure media training has both of the candidates conditioned to look into the camera to emphasize their points and to connect with the viewers. The looking at each other thing is a second-order issue, mostly of interest to political junkies. For people who were tuning in to the debate to begin getting to know the candidates, I could easily imagine that they'd be more put off by

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/148...2:06&out=32:34

I thought the segment about Bill Clinton's advice was excellent. Hopefully Obama is listening.

I thought so, too. I read something yesterday along the same lines -- a defense of Bill Clinton against people who are upset by his frequent tepid-sounding endorsements of Obama. The point of that article, like Glenn's, was that as much as we Obama supporters would like Clinton to be more of a cheerleader for Obama (and a basher of McCain), we don't need to be won over anymore, and what's needed now is reaching out to the undecideds. Clinton's manner could be interpreted in this way -- giving voice to the doubts that those voters have. I'm not sure I buy it completely, especially in light of Glenn's criticism at another point that Obama doesn't do enough to identify himself with the Democratic Party. It seems to me that it works both ways -- the Party, has to embrace Obama just as much as he has to embrace them and their history. Given Clinton's position, this especially applies.

Special thanks to Mrs. Loury for helping to get Glen in line.

Yes. Nice to hear that Glenn's hearing it from his wife as

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I also think that Obama realizes this is a prize fight with many rounds. The first couple of rounds both fighters usually feel each other out. I think that Obama could have really hurt his image among undecideds by coming out and being too nasty in the first round.

I had this same sense. Better not to go for the KO in the first round, especially with so many people on the right itching to trot out the "angry black man" trope. Plus, there's a good chance that just steadily throwing jabs may cause McCain to fall on his face by himself. I thought McCain was close to having a tantrum a couple of times during the debate, and this was on his comfort ground.

It amuses me that pundits want Obama to be "different" and then lament that he's not following the same old script that they profess to be so tired of. If Obama suddenly acted like every other politician, Glenn would say "so how is he different? he's acting just like everybody else."

Good point. We're already seeing that from many on the left, not to mention it being an

Quoting Ocean: Farewell, John M. You'll be missed... Be careful with the mud. It's slippery.

Not to mention Katie "liberal media" Couric, and the whole "gotcha" left wing media. They don't dare abuse the lovely Sarah when you are in the room! Way to come to the rescue!

We are all nervous since the big dummy from Connecticut (Texas) "won" with nothing but swaggering longhorn droppings, but I think the Obama campaign is now just letting Mccain's desperation shine. Here's a good analysis.
I am gaining confidence by noticing how all our bull-headed talking-point "conservatives(?)" from this forum seem to be withholding posting, ever since the economic and GOP meltdown last week, maybe they are waiting for the VP debate before sticking the metaphorical fork in it, but unless a she literally kills a moose on the stage, my bet is, they won't want to look foolish with any more unsolicited chest thumping, simply becoming right-wingnuts, being wrong. Or maybe they are busy stuffing their mattresses?

Quoting handle: Not to mention Katie "liberal media" Couric, and the whole "gotcha" left wing media. They don't dare abuse the lovely Sarah when you are in the room! Way to come to the rescue!

Heh. I read someone yesterday characterizing that follow-up interview as the equivalent of a parent being called into school to meet with the teacher over the student's dismal performance. It was just embarrassing, I thought, how McCain first tried to play the "gotcha" card again, then interrupted Palin, and then after talking for several minutes, said, "But I'll let her speak for herself." Whereupon, of course, Palin parroted.

Quoting wonderment: Rara avis. An endangered species.

Formerly native to the Southwest, South, Midwest and Appalachia, the last flock was reported in late September of 2008 in upscale suburbs of the Deep South, although there are unconfirmed reports of a few solitary specimens in Orange County, California.

That's funny, but really? Most of the (decent) polls have Sen. Obama up 5-7 points, but surely you wouldn't argue that a sentiment shared by 40-45% of the American people is rare?

Quoting Exeus99: That's funny, but really? Most of the (decent) polls have Sen. Obama up 5-7 points, but surely you wouldn't argue that a sentiment shared by 40-45% of the American people is rare?

maybe he is talking about people who buy kidney's freddy mac meme when Mccain has been BUSTED!:

What we were learning — through The New York Times, Newsweek and Roll Call — was ugly. Davis Manafort, the lobbying firm owned by McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, had received $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac from late 2005 until last month. This was in addition to the $30,000 a month that Davis was paid from 2000 to 2005 by the so-called Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy organization that he headed and that was financed by Freddie and Fannie to fight regulation.

Liverspot's malignant Bash-Obama crap has been debunked over and over, and he just keeps posting it! Boooring!

Quoting Exeus99: That's funny, but really? Most of the (decent) polls have Sen. Obama up 5-7 points, but surely you wouldn't argue that a sentiment shared by 40-45% of the American people is rare?

I think it's fair to say that the overwhelming majority of those 40-45% don't so much want to see McCain win. Rather, they want to see Obama win even less so.

Wonderment, I shared your hesitation on her "cluelessness" for awhile. I know a guy who is a Harvard/Princeton grad but can be very difficult to understand (he's a lawyer of course) but his intellect always comes through even when he kinda loses me in a communicative sense. I have yet to see any real sign of critical thinking on behalf of Palin. Granted the sample size has been admittedly restricted, but EVERYTHING I have read or seen from her has been almost completely incoherent. Have you read the story about Palin not being able to name any other SC decisions besides Roe vs. Wade. Granted, it's still just a rumor, but if it's true it would seem completely in line with everything I've seen thusfar. I don't think a reasonably well informed person would be challenged by the format of a quiz-type interview. I mean, these questions weren't exactly hard to anticipate. Perhaps she'll surprise me in the debate, but I doubt it. Especially when her answers will be directly compared to those of Joe Biden, who whether you like him or not, always displays a strong grasp of the issues.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think it's fair to say that the overwhelming majority of those 40-45% don't so much want to see McCain win. Rather, they want to see Obama win even less so.

I don't know if it's "fair" to say that, but I'd bet you're right that a large-ish portion of that 45% isn't so much pro-McCain as anti-Obama--even if that portion were half, though, that'd leave nearly a quarter of the (responding) population, which still doesn't get us to rare.

Quoting handle: when Mccain has been BUSTED!:

Handle, I'm not sure that the linked information really refutes the meme you mention; at best it's a good tu quoque, but certainly it can be true that BOTH Senators and their inner circles benefited from entities now in great disfavor.

Quoting Exeus99: I don't know if it's "fair" to say that, but I'd bet you're right that a large-ish portion of that 45% isn't so much pro-McCain as anti-Obama--even if that portion were half, though, that'd leave nearly a quarter of the (responding) population, which still doesn't get us to rare.

Fair enough. although I might also say that a lot of this remaining quarter is more loyal to the Republican brand (and/or loath to anything labeled Democratic) then they are approving of McCain himself. Two good indications: the response at rallies when Palin isn't there, or after she stops speaking, and the plummet that McCain has experienced in the polls since the post-convention bounce. In other words, the people who still remain committed to voting for McCain at this point are really in favor of McCain/Palin or generic Republican over generic Democrat. Conjecturing, admittedly, but that's my sense.

That's funny, but really? Most of the (decent) polls have Sen. Obama up 5-7 points, but surely you wouldn't argue that a sentiment shared by 40-45% of the American people is rare?

Of course, I was joking. The point of the hyperbole is to illustrate the sharp recent decline in the popularity of the McCain-Palin ticket, however. A couple of weeks ago McCain was not only leading in the Poll of Polls (average of all the serious ones), but also was leading on InTrade and in most electoral projections. Now InTrade has him at 35.3%, while some map projections are hinting at an Obama landslide. For example, it's 330-207 at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com Of course, things can change fast. But the clock is ticking, and Obama can now play it pretty safe. It's hard to imagine a major game-changing screw-up on the Dem side. On the other hand, McCain and Palin have been screwing up all over the place. McCain's calling-off-the-debate stunt was ludicrous. The Palin narrative has morphed (however unfairly) from "She's a terrific breath of fresh air" to "She's probably dumb and dangerous."

Quoting handle: We are all nervous since the big dummy from Connecticut (Texas) "won" with nothing but swaggering longhorn droppings, but I think the Obama campaign is now just letting Mccain's desperation shine. Here's a good analysis.
I am gaining confidence by noticing how all our bull-headed talking-point "conservatives(?)" from this forum seem to be withholding posting, ever since the economic and GOP meltdown last week, maybe they are waiting for the VP debate before sticking the metaphorical fork in it, but unless a she literally kills a moose on the stage, my bet is, they won't want to look foolish with any more unsolicited chest thumping, and simply become right-wingnuts, being wrong.

Or maybe they are busy stuffing their mattresses?

Are you invoking the devils??? (I'm going to post as many silly messages as necessary until I can try all the smilies. Watch out!)

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Wait, I thought all those earmarks that Alaska got under Palin's watch, were really reparations for the historical oppression of Alaskans.

Irish catholics=Greeks=African Americans. Great analogy. Their stories couldn't be more identical ;-)

If you want to make a case for the oppression of Alaskans, you'll have to think about polar bears...

Quoting Wonderment: On the other hand, McCain and Palin have been screwing up all over the place. McCain's calling-off-the-debate stunt was ludicrous. The Palin narrative has morphed (however unfairly) from "She's a terrific breath of fresh air" to "She's probably dumb and dangerous."

Come on, Wonderment, courage! You're about to break that last barrier. Don't be afraid! It's OK! You can publicly acknowledge that Palin is an airhead!

Quoting Ocean: Are you invoking the devils???

(I'm going to post as many silly messages as necessary until I can try all the smilies. Watch out!)

I'm saying I already did... I put the most provocative wingnut bait out there over the past week and got none of the usual creepy meme-based talking points. I'm now conjecturing into the vacuum, that embarrassment may have set in, and as cute as your smileys are (I like the clappy one for twinswords) , and while I appreciate the feedback, seems like our more intellectual righties are not pushing back anymore.
Of course, who could blame them, under the circumstances?

Quoting Exeus99: Handle, I'm not sure that the linked information really refutes the meme you mention; at best it's a good tu quoque, but certainly it can be true that BOTH Senators and their inner circles benefited from entities now in great disfavor.

the point is not to refute, but point out the hypocrisy of the attack, and defensive nature of it, given the attackers are up to their necks in it, especially compared to the attacked. Maybe you missed this:
[quote]
The McCain campaign tried to pre-emptively deflect such revelations by reviving the old Rove trick of accusing your opponent of your own biggest failings. It ran attack ads about Obama’s own links to the mortgage giants. But neither of the former Freddie-Fannie executives vilified in those ads, Franklin Raines and James Johnson, had worked at those companies lately or are currently associated with the Obama campaign. (Raines never worked for the campaign at all.) By contrast, Davis is the tip of the Freddie-Fannie-McCain iceberg. McCain’s senior adviser, his campaign’s vice chairman, his Congressional liaison and the reported head of his White House transition team all either made fortunes from recent Freddie-Fannie lobbying or were players in firms that did. [QUOTE/]

Quoting handle: I'm saying I already did... I put the most provocative wingnut bait out there over the past week and got none of the usual creepy meme-based talking points. I'm now conjecturing into the vacuum, that embarrassment may have set in, and as cute as your smileys are (I like the clappy one for twinswords) , and while I appreciate the feedback, seems like our more intellectual righties are not pushing back anymore.
Of course, who could blame them, under the circumstances?

Ohhh! You wanted a serious response... For what I've seen so far, I'll divide our BhTV righties in three main categories: 1. Total nuts, irrational ones that post articles extracted from the most obscure, biased and ignorant sources. Those haven't stopped posting. They are rattling around. 2. A crowd that is more notorious for challenging technicalities, pointing out nuances, and making sarcastic "smart" remarks that are mostly annoying. Most of those have been quiet this month. Beggining of the semester. 3. The big shots. These write well, and come up with interesting but twisted ideas. Discussions get elaborated, sometimes ad nauseum. Until they throw a tantrum or start playing the victim role. Or, on occasion, they have a good point or two. They aren't around. These are, most likely, obsessively following the market, checking on their investments, or

Oh, there's not much doubt that the two Senators running are, like many Senators, up to their necks in money and favor-peddling with these and other interest groups, but this:

or are currently associated with the Obama campaign

is a pretty low standard, right? I will agree that Sen. McCain's penchant for casting problems in moral terms and himself as a crusader for good plays particularly poorly in this circumstance, but I think the reason Sen. Obama's campaign hasn't been able to make much of Sen. McCain's industry connections is that Sen. Obama and his advisors have many similar connections--they're both limited in their approaches by their vulnerabilities. Although if Barney Frank and Chris Dodd can get the media to take them seriously as saving the nation from this crisis they had NOTHING to do with, maybe I need to recalibrate my "shameless" settings.

Oh, I have a feeling you're roughly correct, it's just that I don't know how one disentangles support to the degree your statment requires--knowing WHY different portions of a politician/posistion's support exists is so difficult to know, so prone to bias (of all kinds), and so fluid (the support her today 'cause she's being attacked unfairly, they don't support her tomorrow 'cause she makes an unpopular statement) that I don't usually bother at all. As long as we're admitting up front that it's (fairly!) baseless speculation, I don't see much harm--my understanding is that some people even make a good living doing just that.

Quoting Ocean: There is a fourth group, but may not be "righties" proper: ...

I thought you were going to say the group of people with whom we can genuinely respectfully disagree. There are a few, too few, but they've been here. I won't name names at the risk of inadvertently omitting some, but I'm pretty sure they know who they are.

Quoting Exeus99: Oh, there's not much doubt that the two Senators running are, like many Senators, up to their necks in money and favor-peddling with these and other interest groups, but this:
is a pretty low standard, right?

I will agree that Sen. McCain's penchant for casting problems in moral terms and himself as a crusader for good plays particularly poorly in this circumstance, but I think the reason Sen. Obama's campaign hasn't been able to make much of Sen. McCain's industry connections is that Sen. Obama and his advisors have many similar connections--they're both limited in their approaches by their vulnerabilities.

Although if Barney Frank and Chris Dodd can get the media to take them seriously as saving the nation from this crisis they had NOTHING to do with, maybe I need to recalibrate my "shameless" settings.

You do an effective job of downplaying it, but the fact remains that the Mccain camp thought this was a great gotcha, and showed more poor judgment by calling attention to it when, even by the low standard, they were the ones clearing the bar.

Quoting bjkeefe: I thought you were going to say the group of people with whom we can genuinely respectfully disagree. There are a few, too few, but they've been here. I won't name names at the risk of inadvertently omitting some, but I'm pretty sure they know who they are.

It was a test to see if someone was paying attention... and use the opportunity to add a good comment. Can you believe that?

Quoting Ocean: It was a test to see if someone was paying attention... and use the opportunity to add a good comment.

Can you believe that?

Yeah. It occurred to me that you might just have been adding to handle's flame bait. Please pardon my stuffiness.

Quoting David Edenden: Glen Loury has either over analyzed the identification of African Americans with Obama or missed the point of ethnic identification entirely. . . .

John is right. Rooting for Obama to succeed or even Condi Rice or Colin Powell to succeed, notwithstanding a persons politics is as natural as rooting for your home team, even though they have not won the championship for years.

Glenn is also right about Obama running away from blackness in order to appeal to a white electorate. While it is certainly natural for blacks to want Obama to succeed and shatter the ultimate glass ceiling, it is not something blacks should imbue with too much significance as far as America transcending race.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: ... it is not something blacks should imbue with too much significance as far as America transcending race.

It all depends on how you think "race" can be transcended. If you think race (racism) can be transcended by having everybody become fully accepting of the stereotypical black person, then Obama may not achieve that milestone. If you think that race can be transcended by blurring the stereotypical notions of differences between blacks and non-blacks, then Obama would be living proof of that success.

You can publicly acknowledge that Palin is an airhead!

No es nada tonta a mi parecer. I'll bet you a nickel that she does fine on Thursday.

"The political landscape here is littered with people who have underestimated Sarah Palin," said Eric Croft, a former state representative who ran for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2006 and appeared with Palin during several early forums.

Quoting Wonderment: No es nada tonta a mi parecer.

I'll bet you a nickel that she does fine on Thursday.

Hmmm... I'll bet you a dime that she doesn't. But there is one condition: that we first agree on what "doing fine" means. Measurable, please.

Be careful Ocean, apparently she's REALLY smart: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...s.php#comments Reading ALL newspapers is a pretty bold claim. I mean, there's a LOT of newspapers out there. Although if she reads ALL newspapers, I'm pretty sure the expression "bush doctrine" would have come up at some point...

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Reading ALL newspapers is a pretty bold claim. I mean, there's a LOT of newspapers out there. Although if she reads ALL newspapers, I'm pretty sure the expression "bush doctrine" would have come up at some point...

It all depends on what sections of the newspapers she reads...

Quoting Ocean:
There is a fourth group, but may not be "righties" proper: those that don't like my smilies...

Who doesn't like the smilies? Maybe you would like Grampy to help you with those bad "gotcha" types. I'll let you speak for yourself, of course.

Quoting Ocean: It all depends on how you think "race" can be transcended.

If you think race (racism) can be transcended by having everybody become fully accepting of the stereotypical black person, then Obama may not achieve that milestone.

If you think that race can be transcended by blurring the stereotypical notions of differences between blacks and non-blacks, then Obama would be living proof of that success.

I think it also depends on the "race" in question, not to mention what one thinks of stereotyping in general. In the case of blacks, simply being black is problematic unless it is blurred, or to use Glenn's expression, held in the abstract; 'yes Obama is black, but he is also white' is the refrain I often hear from one white talk show host in my area. Its as if him being half white, or half-anything else, makes him more acceptable. The problem of transcending blackness goes beyond consideration of individuals in isolation from their "racial" communities. To much of the white electorate, being your 'atypical' black public figure means dissing 'typical' black representations on one level or another.

Deal. "Doing fine" means a bump in the Gallup and/or Rasmussen poll for McCain, attributable to the debate.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: I think it also depends on the "race" in question, not to mention what one thinks of stereotyping in general. In the case of blacks, simply being black is problematic unless it is blurred, or to use Glenn's expression, held in the abstract; 'yes Obama is black, but he is also white' is the refrain I often hear from one white talk show host in my area. Its as if him being half white, or half-anything else, makes him more acceptable.

The problem of transcending blackness goes beyond consideration of individuals in isolation from their "racial" communities. To much of the white electorate, being your 'atypical' black public figure means dissing 'typical' black representations on one level or another.

I agree. However, the origin of racism, discrimination, is based on stereotypical views of others. Since we are talking about Obama and blacks, we could say that the stereotype includes concepts about physical appearance, psychological and social attributes of blacks. The precursors of discrimination are "primitive man's" quick and dirty way of figuring out who is a friend (same tribe or group) from an enemy (the other group). This is very heavily "visual". That's why racism is so pervasive. The definition of race was originally based

Quoting Wonderment: Deal.

"Doing fine" means a bump in the Gallup and/or Rasmussen poll for McCain, attributable to the debate.

Fair enough. Deal.

Quoting Ocean: It would be desirable that people would accept those that belong to a different race, with all their attributes. That would include what they have in common with the rest of the members of their group and also the attributes that are pertinent to the individual. Perhaps Americans aren't there yet, and they can only accept a "modified version" of a black man. But I choose to celebrate that acceptance, even if partial, and interpret it as a first step to a more comprehensive process.

Yes, it would be another step forward. But there are times when a step forward is followed by two steps backward. I prefer to be the designated driver during this party.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: ... I prefer to be the designated driver during this party.

Fine. We'll take turns...

Of course, maybe she won't be horribly bad. She was much better in the Alaskan debates in 2006: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-B-OyQ-KI But still it's hard to discount the numerous silly statements she's made over the past few weeks. Of course the most striking thing about the above video, is HOW THE HELL DID SHE WIN??

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: ...HOW THE HELL DID SHE WIN??

I, the Hell, don't know! She has no clue about what she is saying. Her ability to organize her own ideas is just none. She keeps saying "it's a personal decision...", but she rejects pro-choice. So, it isn't a personal decision after all. And the same flaws in her logic apply to to the other questions. Her sentence construction is also missing. She doesn't end sentences. She puts a series of somewhat related fragments together in a string of speech and ends up close to meaningless. And then she brings one of her bible school principles and that's the only part delivered as a complete sentence.
The main problem is that her spontaneous speech is a reflection of her thought process. The way she talks is how she is thinking through the issue at hand. When you listen to the others, they present facts and ideas in an orderly fashion. They may backtrack and take perspective, but the listener is following with ease their reasoning. None of that applies to Palin. She is simply incoherent. How the hell did she win?

Check out this review of the debate by Prem Panicker of the Smoke Signals blog. Veteran Journalist, ace Cricket Writer, and currently editor of India Abroad. http://www.prempanicker.com/index.ph...y_dear_barack/ Page loading problems. Refresh if it doesn't work at the first attempt. BTW, Where have all our beloved right wing com mentors disappeared? Just one post by Kidneystones and another short one by another regular.

I should have typed spending freeze instead of tax freeze.

Good Lord. Loury is upset if people mention Obama's race and then accuses Obama of running from his race. There is really nothing Obama can do that will satisfy him. He's really predictable at this point, and pretty uninteresting. At this point, we could just have McWhorter talk to a tape recording of old Loury vblogs and it would bjust as informative. Obama bad, Obama bad, Obama bad. Sheesh.

Check this out: (who says computers can't simulate human logic) http://interviewpalin.com/

Quoting miceelf: Good Lord.

Loury is upset if people mention Obama's race and then accuses Obama of running from his race.

Good catch. You'd think Glenn could get behind incremental change, since it's the only change available. If he's holding out for President Jerimiah Wright, he's going to be waiting a while.

Quoting TwinSwords: Good catch.

If he's holding out for President Jerimiah Wright, he's going to be waiting a while.

LOL. I do like the image of Wright, at the end his convention nominating speech, solemly intoning, "God damn you, and god damn America."

Honest to God - the best election pundits on the net that I have seen so far - or in MSM (Andrew Sullivan, PLEASE! listen and learn) - but this time around, a peculiar misunderstanding on the part of both on why McCain and Obama could not look at each other - a clue - if two people like each other, but find themselves on opposite firing lines - well, the best thing is to impersonalize the friend/adversary. Otherwise, this diavlog has great psychological insights so totally lacking elsewhere - and this I find totally scary!

Why does everyone keep saying "THEY wouldn't look at each other?" Obama looked at McCain many times that I can remember (granted they weren't warm/fuzzy looks). McCain was the one who apparently couldn't swivel his neck or even acknowledge his opponent's presence. PS shame on you Glen for justifying this arrogant attitude of McCain. I don't care how much longer McCain has been around, there is something called "tact". And it is something to be expected at a Presidential level. Is this the way a President McCain would act towards adversarial world leaders? (sadly, the answer is probably yes...if he would deign to talk with them.) Even though I think she's a complete freakin' joke and intellectual light-weight, I hope Biden doesn't pull this attitude with Sarah Palin. We've had enough erosion of character in the white house over the past 8 years.

Quoting nikkibong: LOL. I do like the image of Wright, at the end his convention nominating speech, solemly intoning, "God damn you, and god damn America."

LOL! Funny. The idea of Wright damning the very people who just nominated him...

Quoting handle: Who doesn't like the smilies? Maybe you would like Grampy to help you with those bad "gotcha" types. I'll let you speak for yourself, of course.

You are not comparing me to... Nah! You wouldn't dare do that...Would you?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Even though I think she's a complete freakin' joke and intellectual light-weight, I hope Biden doesn't pull this attitude with Sarah Palin. We've had enough erosion of character in the white house over the past 8 years.

Let's hope for some balance. If Biden starts to look at Palin too much...

Or better yet, Presidential fireside chats and State of the Union's ending with "Thank you and Gawd DAMN America."

Quoting Michael: Honest to God - the best election pundits on the net that I have seen so far - or in MSM (Andrew Sullivan, PLEASE! listen and learn) - but this time around, a peculiar misunderstanding on the part of both on why McCain and Obama could not look at each other - a clue - if two people like each other, but find themselves on opposite firing lines - well, the best thing is to impersonalize the friend/adversary. Otherwise, this diavlog has great psychological insights so totally lacking elsewhere - and this I find totally scary!

This is the first time I've heard someone suggest that the reason McCain wouldn't turn his head 30 degrees and even once look at Obama was because he likes him. I am unaware of any evidence supporting that theory. McCain appears to feel a seething contempt for Obama, and I personally think he'd like to stomp on Obama's foot before shaking his hand. That sourpuss attitude of his is only going to be more manifest in the next two debates, especially if Obama's lead holds. It really is kind of a shame how McCain has thrown away the fairly decent reputation he

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Why does everyone keep saying "THEY wouldn't look at each other?" Obama looked at McCain many times that I can remember (granted they weren't warm/fuzzy looks). McCain was the one who apparently couldn't swivel his neck or even acknowledge his opponent's presence.

Well, yeah. Thank you for pointing it out. John must have been distracted while he was watching the debate, because his analysis was wrong just as a simple factual matter on a number of occasions, including this one. Obama looked at McCain regularly and throughout the debate, from their first minute on stage to their last. It's just bizarre how reality is rewritten like this.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: PS shame on you Glen for justifying this arrogant attitude of McCain.

That was sad, wasn't it? Glenn was clearly projecting: the reasons he gave for McCain's contempt were the very same reasons he's been giving for the last year when asked why he is so strongly opposed to Obama's success. As unfortunate as it is, it does seem clear that Glenn has big problems with Obama and his entire approach, and would rather see him punished (by losing) than rewarded (by winning). I hope I never find myself

Quoting TwinSwords: This is the first time I've heard someone suggest that the reason McCain wouldn't turn his head 30 degrees and even once look at Obama was because he likes him. I am unaware of any evidence supporting that theory, McCain appears to feel a seething contempt for Obama, and I personally think he'd like to stomp on Obama's foot before shaking his hand. That sourpuss attitude of his is only going to be more manifest in the next two debates, especially if Obama's lead holds. It really is kind of a shame how McCain has throw away the fairly decent reputation he had before this campaign, though much less of a shame than electing him to ruin the world would be.

I agree. This was not about liking Obama. The so-called cortical dementias, sometimes present initially with a progressive inability to inhibit unwanted thoughts, emotions or even physical reactions. It's not uncommon to see that people with this kind of problem will become more abrupt, make statements before thinking whether they are appropriate or not, show their likes and dislikes through facial expression and body language even when socially

Quoting TwinSwords: It really is kind of a shame how McCain has thrown away the fairly decent reputation he had before this campaign ...

Maybe. Another way to look at it is this: it's great to see people finally looking past his self-created image and becoming aware of the real John McCain.

Quoting TwinSwords: All day on the internets have been circulating videos of Palin's debate performances from Alaska, and she showed herself to be quite willy and fast on her feet. I wouldn't be surprised if she draws a tie with Biden, or even beats him.

That's my prediction, too, at least as far as the story the chattering classes will tell. I don't think it matters, though. She's got too much ground to make up. She might rejuvenate her base, but I'd be surprised if she was able to get anything more then a temporary bump in her approval ratings.

I don't know that I would agree with your assessment of the Alaska debates. I'd say she was decent and obviously had thought about the topics she was asked about. It still seemed like she was rotely spouting pre-concieved talking points (like abortion is a personal decision, except that the government should make it for the person) and that there wasn't a whole lot of "thinking" going on. I'm guessing that she will just attack alot and repeat whatever talking points that the campaign has given her. She wasn't brought onto the ticket to think on her feet, she was brought to attack from behind an "everyman-Christian-mother-of-retarded-kids" shield and throw a bone to the GOP base.

My guess is that it also has something to do with a certain woman whose name starts with an H, that Glenn decided to support. But I think you're right that the SouthSide Roots is the ultimate source. Even though, ya know, every white middle class Ohio voter really longs for someone who represents South Side Black Politics ;-)

Quoting Ocean: I agree. This was not about liking Obama.

The so-called cortical dementias, sometimes present initially with a progressive inability to inhibit unwanted thoughts, emotions or even physical reactions. It's not uncommon to see that people with this kind of problem will become more abrupt, make statements before thinking whether they are appropriate or not, show their likes and dislikes through facial expression and body language even when socially inappropriate. They can also have a tendency to be paranoid and belligerent.

It may difficult for McCain to control his facial expression of dislike if he were to make direct eye contact. I do wonder if there was something right in front of him, near the camera that served as a stimulus to maintain focus.

People may not realize that he is deteriorating very quickly...

Interesting summary. I wonder, have you seen the "McCain tongue jut" video? Does that mean anything to you? Or was he just wetting his lips? And what about this post from AmericaBLOG, where they suggest something else is medically wrong with McCain's face? Do you think they are just piling on or might there be something to the question? Normal speed video of McCain's face can be found here.

Bear in mind that most of the criticism of Palin comes from intellectuals. But most voters have not gone to graduate school. They may very much like the idea of a Jane Sixpack mother of five running for vice-president. Their reasoning may be, "What's so hard about being vice-president?" Palin was never meant to attract college-educated voters. She was there to energize the Biblical base (A+ on that) and appeal to all the non-college educated independents in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan who dislikes the "uppity" Obama from the git go. While Obama is now doing very well in those states, the jury is still out on how many voters Palin can draw. Biden will trounce Palin on intellectual points, but that may not matter to the undecided. They will go on "character" and likability. There also may be a gender-based Bradley effect at work in some of the polls: people don't want to admit they'll vote for the dumb redneck who can't name a newspaper she's read, but in the voting booth they'll express their gut-level resentment against "elitist" Dems. and males like Keith Olberman who mercilessly made fun

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I don't know that I would agree with your assessment of the Alaska debates. I'd say she was decent and obviously had thought about the topics she was asked about. It still seemed like she was rotely spouting pre-concieved talking points (like abortion is a personal decision, except that the government should make it for the person) and that there wasn't a whole lot of "thinking" going on. I'm guessing that she will just attack alot and repeat whatever talking points that the campaign has given her. She wasn't brought onto the ticket to think on her feet, she was brought to attack from behind an "everyman-Christian-mother-of-retarded-kids" shield and throw a bone to the GOP base.

Yes, but if she does this, she'll still have done way better than she did in her interviews, so by comparison, the Villagers will call it "a solid performance that went a long way to remove doubts" or words to that effect. There's no getting away from how low the expectations are for her going in. They're so low that it would take serious effort not to beat them.

Quoting TwinSwords: I wonder, have you seen the "McCain tongue jut" video?

When I saw Colbert do his piece on this Monday night, I thought it was hilarious. I'm surprised how many people have picked up on it since. I saw a semi-interesting article on this mannerism as a tell, in the poker playing sense, that McCain was showing when he was aware that he was lying, or happy that he'd gotten away with something. I think it's just an age thing. I know lots of old people who do this with their tongues, maybe just because they have problems with their lips drying out or something. But in McCain's case, I can only hope someone calls it to his attention -- another thing for him to be self-conscious and/or irritated about during the next debates might help.

Quoting bjkeefe: Maybe. Another way to look at it is this: it's great to see people finally looking past his self-created image and becoming aware of the real John McCain.

Well, yeah. I was kind of concern trolling with that "gosh, it sure is a shame how McCain has ruined his reputation." I agree: it's wonderful to see people turning on a dangerous and unstable demogogue who previously charmed them.

Quoting bjkeefe: That's my prediction, too, at least as far as the story the chattering classes will tell. I don't think it matters, though. She's got too much ground to make up. She might rejuvenate her base, but I'd be surprised if she was able to get anything more then a temporary bump in her approval ratings.

I hope you're right that she has too much ground to make up. I tend to think it's unlikely that people are going to keep changing their mind about her. Clearly a lot of undecideds started out liking her, and then were turned off. I don't think those people are going to all suddenly turn around and go back to liking her again. I think she's damaged goods, permanently, but then if I could predict with any degree of success, I would own yachts and ocean-front property. I think David Kurtz's cautionary note is worth keeping in mind:

A note of caution: This shift has happened fairly quickly, over a matter of just two weeks. The election is still five weeks away. As a leading union backer of Obama points out in an interview we just posted at TPM Election Central, there remains a great deal of volatility

Quoting bjkeefe: When I saw Colbert do his piece on this Monday night, I thought it was hilarious. I'm surprised how many people have picked up on it since. I saw a semi-interesting article on this mannerism as a tell, in the poker playing sense, that McCain was showing when he was aware that he was lying, or happy that he'd gotten away with something.

It sounds like you're referring to the Nate Silver blog post to which I linked above. Is this the post you're referring to?

Quoting TwinSwords: Interesting summary.

I wonder, have you seen the "McCain tongue jut" video? Does that mean anything to you? Or was he just wetting his lips?

And what about this post from AmericaBLOG, where they suggest something else is medically wrong with McCain's face? Do you think they are just piling on or might there be something to the question?

Normal speed video of McCain's face can be found here.

Great investigative report! Of all shown here, what I would worry the most about is his getting lost on stage. He just didn't get lost once and corrected. That could happen to anyone that's distracted for example. But he turned to one side and the other a few times and appeared confused. Then you add the abnormal movements and it makes you wonder. The tongue-jut, is very different from what is discussed on the site. In McCain's case appears to be more like a tic or a very dry mouth. Or both. The facial movement could be sequelae from his surgery, but if it's new, it could also be a tic. It would be interesting to compare these videos with similar ones from a couple of years

I'm not saying that we should necesarrily vote based on the VP candidate, but boy check out the difference in the answers: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/e...palin#comments

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I'm not saying that we should necesarrily vote based on the VP candidate, but boy check out the difference in the answers:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/e...palin#comments

Whoa. Even worse than I'd expected from reading about it. Not only can she not name any other SC decisions, it doesn't even sound like she's to articulate her objections to Roe v. Wade. I mean, I know she's against it, because she's a big believer in compulsory pregnancy, but you'd think if she felt so strongly about the issue that as a politician she'd be able to say something coherent about it. As for voting based on the VP candidate, I think it should be a non-trivial consideration at least, especially given McCain's age and health.

Quoting TwinSwords: It sounds like you're referring to the Nate Silver blog post to which I linked above. Is this the post you're referring to?

Yes. Sorry for not following your links. Too many other new comments to read. Although I should have -- every time I go to 538, I'm delighted to see Obama's win percentage is higher.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes. Sorry for not following your links. Too many other new comments to read.

See? It's that thing I was telling you about before, via email, that links (as easy as they are to click) are an obstacle, a hurdle that people simply won't jump a substantial portion of the time. People frequently conceive of their range of motion on the web as confined within certain boundaries; in the current case, you define those boundaries as "the comments in this forum." The point simply being that every time you put information behind a link, you lose a significant percentage of your audience that is unwilling to spend the time following the link, and diverting themselves from what they are trying to focus on. The internet is just so full of links that people have to draw the line somewhere. Every one of my browsing sessions ends the same way: with a dozen tabs open and not enough time to read everything I've clicked on. In our case, this conversation started when discussing links in email, but I believe all the same points hold.

Quoting bjkeefe: Although I should have -- every time I go to 538, I'm delighted to

Quoting Ocean: Great investigative report!

Of all shown here, what I would worry the most about is his getting lost on stage. He just didn't get lost once and corrected. That could happen to anyone that's distracted for example. But he turned to one side and the other a few times and appeared confused. Then you add the abnormal movements and it makes you wonder. The tongue-jut, is very different from what is discussed on the site. In McCain's case appears to be more like a tic or a very dry mouth. Or both. The facial movement could be sequelae from his surgery, but if it's new, it could also be a tic. It would be interesting to compare these videos with similar ones from a couple of years ago.

The cause? Various possibilities. Strokes are not likely, unless they occurred in less common parts of the brain (basal ganglia). These abnormal movements could reflect a primary neurological problem or be due to medications used to treat certain neurological problems. The bottom line is that when you put it all together with the poor judgment he's displayed in his public appearances, which is also

Quoting TwinSwords: The other thing about McCain that I haven't seen mentioned is the apparently problem he's having with his left eye. Often, lately, it's not as wide open as the other eye, and often seems like it's kind of dead. I've heard a couple of bloggers mention it, but it hasn't picked up much momentum as a story. Still, even in the video in this thread you can kind of see that he seems to be favoring his right eye.

I don't know. It's interesting speculation.

He had the tic (twitches) on the left side of his face. The eyelid involvement could be related to that. If there is a problem with the movement of the left globe, it's another nerve involvement. I don't think we should elaborate too much, except to say that there is most likely a neurological problem. Don't over interpret his getting lost in the stage. He was confused. There are a number of subtle abnormal signs that he shows. I noticed some a while ago. I'm a trained observer. This is actually my specialty. I have no doubts that there is "something" and it's progressing. What I don't know is the cause, because there are many possibilities.

Quoting TwinSwords: See? It's that thing I was telling you about before, via email, that links (as easy as they are to click) are an obstacle, a hurdle that people simply won't jump a substantial portion of the time.

As I did in my emailed reply, I agree with the existence of that hurdle for some peopl, but I don't agree that it applied here. I've already heard enough about McCain's tongue that I chose not to click the links because the thought of other things to read appealed more, not because I would have had to click a link. In other words, even had you blockquoted the entire article, I would have skipped reading it, at least past the first few lines as driven by involuntary response, and gone on to the next new post. In any case, I, personally, never don't follow a link just because it means clicking a link. Easiest thing in the world to do, now that tabbed browing exists. That the middle mouse button opens the link in a new tab just makes it even easier.

Quoting Ocean: He had the tic (twitches) on the left side of his face. The eyelid involvement could be related to that. If there is a problem with the movement of the left globe, it's another nerve involvement.

I don't think we should elaborate too much, except to say that there is most likely a neurological problem. Don't over interpret his getting lost in the stage. He was confused.

There are a number of subtle abnormal signs that he shows. I noticed some a while ago. I'm a trained observer. This is actually my specialty. I have no doubts that there is "something" and it's progressing. What I don't know is the cause, because there are many possibilities.

Again, very fascinating. And again, thanks for sharing your thoughts. That leaves me with one more question: Given that it's fairly clear that "something" is happening, do you have any sense of a timeframe before it becomes incapacitating? Or can this condition be treated or reversed? I know I'm asking a lot of you to answer these questions, but if you have a sense of a timeframe before he can no longer hide his condition from untrained observers, I'd be interested to hear it.

Quoting bjkeefe: As I did in my emailed reply, I agree with the existence of that hurdle for some peopl, but I don't agree that it applied here. ..........
In any case, I, personally, never don't follow a link just because it means clicking a link. Easiest thing in the world to do, now that tabbed browing exists. That the middle mouse button opens the link in a new tab just makes it even easier.

Sorry to interrupt your private conversation. But, are you and TwinSwords losing it? Or is it that I perceive it that way? Or maybe I should mind my own business?

Quoting bjkeefe: As I did in my emailed reply, I agree with the existence of that hurdle for some peopl, but I don't agree that it applied here. I've already heard enough about McCain's tongue that I chose not to click the links because the thought of other things to read appealed more, not because I would have had to click a link.

That's a fair point.

Quoting bjkeefe: In any case, I, personally, never don't follow a link just because it means clicking a link. Easiest thing in the world to do, now that tabbed browing exists. That the middle mouse button opens the link in a new tab just makes it even easier.

This is an area I've studied extensively; both in terms of reading the literature and conducting my own tests in laboratory settings. And there is simply no room for debate that links are an obstacle many users won't cross. (As you say above.) There are just a couple of other quick points: (a) The time to open the link is not the only consideration. You correctly observe that you can open a link quite quickly, but you still have to read the article at the

Quoting Ocean: Sorry to interrupt your private conversation. But, are you and TwinSwords losing it? Or is it that I perceive it that way? Or maybe I should mind my own business?

Hehe, why? What do you mean losing it? Yeesh, you're a trained psychol-/psychiatrist. It's not a good sign if you think we're losing it!

Quoting TwinSwords: Again, very fascinating. And again, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

That leaves me with one more question: Given that it's fairly clear that "something" is happening, do you have any sense of a timeframe before it becomes incapacitating? Or can this condition be treated or reversed? I know I'm asking a lot of you to answer these questions, but if you have a sense of a timeframe before he can no longer hide his condition from untrained observers, I'd be interested to hear it.

No clue. Let's recap briefly, because I want to make sure the limits of my statements are clear. I don't know what's wrong with McCain. A number of observations, some by me, many by others, suggest some deficits in cognitive functions, some desinhibition and some facial abnormal movements. At his age the possible causes are many and we don't know enough to speculate on that. Some of those causes are rapidly progressive and others are not. We don't have enough information to talk about timeframes. Perhaps in a few or several months it could be more obvious. I think that untrained observers have started to notice, as per your links.

Matt Yglesias has a good post about kidneystone's candidate:

The Palin No Interviews Policy

So to be clear on the McCain campaign’s official view of Sarah Palin, she doesn’t have what it takes to do interviews with the mainstream media. They’re too mean and unfair. But she does have what it takes to negotiate an international treaty or see the country through a banking crisis. Talk to Wolf Blitzer? No can do. Help make sure that an India-Pakistan border crisis doesn’t become a nuclear war resulting in the deaths of tens of millions? Sure. She’s up to it.

Quoting Ocean: No clue.

Let's recap briefly, because I want to make sure the limits of my statements are clear. I don't know what's wrong with McCain. A number of observations, some by me, many by others, suggest some deficits in cognitive functions, some desinhibition and some facial abnormal movements. At his age the possible causes are many and we don't know enough to speculate on that. Some of those causes are rapidly progressive and others are not. We don't have enough information to talk about timeframes. Perhaps in a few or several months it could be more obvious.

I think that untrained observers have started to notice, as per your links.

Anyway, very interesting, and thank you again for your insights. Before hearing from you, I'd have been inclined to think that some lefty bloggers were trying to scare up some suspicion about McCain with little basis. But now it sounds like it might actually be something serious. Especially considering that Sarah Palin could be the next president in short order if McCain's condition is serious.

Quoting TwinSwords: That's a fair point.

blah, blah, blah

I know I'm sounding argumentative, even though I don't think we disagree about this at all. It's just an interesting topic to me and I can't help babbling about it.

WOW! You are losing it!!!! OK, maybe not. For third parties, like me, who don't seem to have such a deep interest in the click-related delay time, your conversation sounds...off. But, my conversations about my topics are equally likely to sound crazy to others. So, I apologize for the interruption. And you have my blessings!

Quoting Ocean: WOW! You are losing it!!!!

OK, maybe not. For third parties, like me, who don't seem to have such a deep interest in the click-related delay time, your conversation sounds...off.

But, my conversations about my topics are equally likely to sound crazy to others.

So, I apologize for the interruption. And you have my blessings!

Well, in my defense, I'm a programmer and specifically a web application developer, so I have to think about this stuff .... daily. A bit more... just to show this isn't a strictly personal obsession.
Oh, and this: The Need for Speed

Research on a wide variety of hypertext systems has shown that users need response times of less than one second when moving from one page to another if they are to navigate freely through an information space. Traditional human factors research into response times also shows the need for response times faster than a second. For example, studies done at IBM in the 1970s and 1980s found that mainframe users were more productive when the time between hitting a function key and getting the requested screen was less than a second.

Unfortunately we are not getting subsecond response times on the Web any time

Quoting TwinSwords: Well, in my defense, I'm a programmer and specifically a web application developer, so I have to think about this stuff .... daily.

A bit more... just to show this isn't a strictly personal obsession.

Oh, and this: The Need for Speed

Interesting stuff. I can only figure out the general idea. But we all have our personal obsessions, just different ones.
OK, you passed the sanity test. (Part I only) (Complete test: Parts I-L) to be continued...

Quoting TwinSwords: [...]

I basically agree with your views on links, but I want to emphasize that these views must always include the word some before every instance of people. Not everyone is the stereotypical surfer that, say, Nielsen tends to go on about. For example:

(a) The time to open the link is not the only consideration. You correctly observe that you can open a link quite quickly, but you still have to read the article at the other end, and doing so not only takes substantially more time than opening a link, it also diverts you from whatever you are currently doing.

Minor point: I don't buy the fact that the reading of the (new) article itself takes a lot longer than clicking a link as any sort of support for the argument that links are bad. Since the time needed to read is the dominant factor, what difference does it make? As for the diversion, that's not true for me at all. When I'm reading an article or blog post that has links in-line as part of its argument, I just middle-click them. This causes them to be opened in new tabs while keeping the

Quoting bjkeefe: ...Could be that I'm odd in this regard, but so far, every time I've thought I was unique in any way, that has turned out not to be true.

There are so many jokes to be made about this. But, it isn't good to start the day by being vicious... (a nice smiley would be called for here, but I'll spare you the agony...) Have a great day!

John and Glenn give their guesses as to why McCain and Obama wouldn't look at each other, but they both miss the simplest explanation: Both are members of the Senate, and both (on a certain level) are trying to project the image of gentlemanly debate and collegiality. One of the rules of Parliamentary procedure, and a rule that is enforced fairly strictly in the Senate, is that you at all times avoid ad hominem statements. Note that I am not just talking about ad hominem attacks! Avoiding ad hominem statements means, literally, that you never, ever talk directly to your opponent, instead you address the chair of the Senate, or in this case, the moderator Jim Lehrer. McCain has been doing this for decades and it may have been instinct to stick to it in a debate, even when the moderator suggests otherwise. With Obama the instinct may not be ingrained that deep; still, he wants to show he is experienced, and one way to do that is to show he has assimilated the mores of the Senate, "the most exclusive club in the world" or so they say. Glenn and John touched on this

It was great to listen to them discuss the debate. I see Glenn still struggling to come to terms with Obama's candidacy, as I am myself. His example is a much greater draw to me than the confrontational, in-your-face exhortations of some of my friends. Listening to these two men talk, their honest give and take and willingness to entertain a variety of viewpoints with civility is always uplifting for me.

Quoting Wonderment: Deal.

"Doing fine" means a bump in the Gallup and/or Rasmussen poll for McCain, attributable to the debate.

Ehemm... I accept cash, checks or money orders. No credit cards, please.

Ehemm... I accept cash, checks or money orders. No credit cards, please.

Ok, I owe you a dime. But I think my original point was borne out by the debate; i.e., she dodged the idiot bullet. Biden won and she didn't persuade independents, but she didn't sound stupid. What she does sound is increasingly (post-debate) desperate and fascistic. Her rallies are beginning to have a Mussolini feel to them -- pumping up the racist hatred of Obama, appealing to the lowest common denominator of irate flag-waving morons. The McCain campaign has turned vicious in its death throes, and Palin has been called upon to be the attack dog. If she were really smart about her political future, she wouldn't let herself be used as a purveyor of hatred.

Quoting Wonderment: Ok, I owe you a dime. But I think my original point was borne out by the debate; i.e., she dodged the idiot bullet. Biden won and she didn't persuade independents, but she didn't sound stupid.

Is your stubbornness in any way related to your Mexican ancestry or is it the Jewish part? Gosh! How can you say she didn't sound stupid??? OK. I'll leave you alone. The dime will do.

What she does sound is increasingly (post-debate) desperate and fascistic. Her rallies are beginning to have a Mussolini feel to them -- pumping up the racist hatred of Obama, appealing to the lowest common denominator of irate flag-waving morons.

The McCain campaign has turned vicious in its death throes, and Palin has been called upon to be the attack dog.

I've been ranting about this since the beginning. They are using her energy and drive to rev up the most primitive instincts in unsophisticated people.

If she were really smart about her political future, she wouldn't let herself be used as a purveyor of hatred.

If she only were really smart... that's my point!

If she only were really smart... that's my point!

As Barack would say, She's smart enough.

Quoting Wonderment: As Barack would say, She's smart enough.

That's a good one!

Quoting Wonderment: ... but she didn't sound stupid.

Pardon my piling on, Wonderment, but I can't believe you honestly think this. Perhaps you have in mind a very low bar, and I'll grant that she wasn't quite as bad as in the interviews, but really, she said almost nothing that wasn't a slogan or a sound bite that didn't sound canned. She explicitly did not answer many of the questions. There was nothing in her entire performance that suggested she's qualified for any job above TV personality. If by "not stupid," you just mean "managed not to turn off a bunch more conservative comentators," then I guess I can accept that. Of course, what does that say about them?

Perhaps you have in mind a very low bar, and I'll grant that she wasn't quite as bad as in the interviews, but really, she said almost nothing that wasn't a slogan or a sound bite that didn't sound canned. She explicitly did not answer many of the questions.

No, I think you have an unreasonably high bar, and I think your judgment of Palin is clouded by your political views (views which I share). Given Palin's background and the pressures she's under, I think she's performed astonishingly well, and that her performance suggests a high level of intelligence. She had a mediocre backwater public school education, worked her way through college, had an early marriage while maintaining a full-time job, gave birth to five kids -- including a disabled infant -- ran for city council, mayor of her town and governor of Alaska, and in the middle of her first term and her hectic high-stress life -- she was suddenly thrust into the national media circus on a grueling non-stop presidential campaign schedule, in which she was required to catch up on dozens of issues which she previously only had an average-person knowledge

Quoting Wonderment: No, I think you have an unreasonably high bar, and I think your judgment of Palin is clouded by your political views (views which I share).

You're right. I have a high bar. I don't think "Joe Sixpack" or random "hockey mom" should hold the highest offices in the land. You're also right that my political views play a role -- I am not a conservative or Republican for many reasons, but key among them is that these groups have become dominated by those who take pride in being ignorant. You are dangerously close to embracing that same attitude to think that being a good president is all about people skills and doesn't demand knowledge, intellect, and intellectual curiosity. I don't know how in hell you can say that after eight years of George Bush. You're dead wrong to say that I'd support Palin if she had political views in line with my own. I never cared for John Edwards principally because he struck me as an intellectual lightweight. Ditto Jesse Jackson, from another decade, though neither of these guys were anywhere near as clueless as Palin obviously is. By contrast, I don't like anything about Hillary Clinton's personality, as far

I am not a conservative or Republican for many reasons, but key among them is that these groups have become dominated by those who take pride in being ignorant.

Do you think Kissinger, Bolton, McCain, Giuliani take "pride in being ignorant?" I vote against Sarah Palin for precisely the same reasons I'd vote against Giuliani or McCain: They are all right-wing hawks committed to the same executive policies, economic ideologies and judicial philosophies (give or take a waterboarding). I couldn't care less who has the Harvard degree or the decades in the Senate.

You are dangerously close to embracing that same attitude to think that being a good president is all about people skills and doesn't demand knowledge, intellect, and intellectual curiosity. I don't know how in hell you can say that after eight years of George Bush.

Again, do you think Kissinger, Bolton or Giuliani would have made better presidents than W? I don't, although they're all smart, curious and knowledgeable.

I never cared for John Edwards principally because he struck me as an intellectual lightweight. Ditto Jesse Jackson, from another decade, though neither of these guys were anywhere near as clueless as Palin obviously is.

Well, here's where we

Wonderment: This is getting beyond stupid now, but for the record:

Do you think Kissinger, Bolton, McCain, Giuliani take "pride in being ignorant?"

No, yes, yes (on some things), and no (but loves to preach that message to the choir). And no matter what my answers to those four were, a few counterexamples does not deny the reality that appealing to the proud-to-be-ignorant crowd has been key to the GOP's campaign style since at least Nixon.

I vote against Sarah Palin for precisely the same reasons I'd vote against Giuliani or McCain: They are all right-wing hawks committed to the same executive policies, economic ideologies and judicial philosophies (give or take a waterboarding).

Duh.

I couldn't care less who has the Harvard degree or the decades in the Senate.

Superficial. No one makes a decision based solely on that, except the dummies who vote against candidates for these reasons.

Again, do you think Kissinger, Bolton or Giuliani would have made better presidents than W?

Yes, no, and probably, especially when considering that neither the first nor the third would have allowed this to happen. But just because you can name one or two people not as clueless as Bush who

Lowryism

Gratuitous insult does not further the discussion.

I'll admit: I had the same first impression after watching the debate that Wonderment did. I thought she did amazingly well. Why? Because after her disastrous interviews, I was stunned she could string 3 words together in a coherent fashion. I was so stunned by her performance that I really did over-estimate how well she did. Within an hour or two, however, the truth became apparent. (E.g., polls showing that Biden won overwhelmingly.) For whatever reason, I don't think this truth has yet become apparent to Wonderment, however. You have to actually analyze her performance in the debate and figure out why she did so well. And you have to watch the debate again so you can properly evaluate it without the initial shock we felt upon seeing her speak in nearly complete sentences. Three points: (1) Palin seemed to do well because she didn't answer the questions. We knew from the convention that Palin could deliver a speech. So her strategy for the debate was to ignore the questions and just deliver rehearsed answers to whatever topic she felt like. But even so, she was still pretty bad. to some extent this worked because Republicans had cowed Gwen Ifill into

I listened to most of the debate on the radio so perhaps that's why I was thoroughly underwhelmed by Palin's performance. She did what i have been doing in job interviews when they ask me a question that I can't really answer: pretend they asked me a different question and answer that one. Biden certainly did his fair share of ignoring the question and steering his answer towards his pre-chosen talking point, but Palin was just completely deliberate about it. Hell, she even admitted she wasn't going to "answer the questions" the way it was expected. For the record- much of the argument made against attacking Palin (I made some of it) was that I didn't think Obama or Biden should attack her directly. Bloggers, commentors etc., however was another story. Although I still think most of the damage on her image has been straight from her own mouth rather than anything that her opponents have put forth.

And no matter what my answers to those four were, a few counterexamples does not deny the reality that appealing to the proud-to-be-ignorant crowd has been key to the GOP's campaign style since at least Nixon.

This would be a GREAT topic for a diavlog. It is something that disturbs me greatly, this championing of ignorance and villainizing of intellectualism. I would think that even some conservative Heads (Brink, Eli, Ross, Ramesh etc.) would be not-exactly-proud of this aspect of modern conservatism.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I listened to most of the debate on the radio so perhaps that's why I was thoroughly underwhelmed by Palin's performance. She did what i have been doing in job interviews when they ask me a question that I can't really answer: pretend they asked me a different question and answer that one. Biden certainly did his fair share of ignoring the question and steering his answer towards his pre-chosen talking point, but Palin was just completely deliberate about it. Hell, she even admitted she wasn't going to "answer the questions" the way it was expected.

For the record- much of the argument made against attacking Palin (I made some of it) was that I didn't think Obama or Biden should attack her directly. Bloggers, commentors etc., however was another story. Although I still think most of the damage on her image has been straight from her own mouth rather than anything that her opponents have put forth.

Some attacks really seem to get to the essence of things. Mark Kleiman posted the following - credited to KDoug on KOS. Perfect metaphors: Priceless.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I listened to most of the debate on the radio so perhaps that's why I was thoroughly underwhelmed by Palin's performance.

Interesting. I watched it the first time, but the next day I listened to it while I was working on some other stuff on my computer. I was amazed at the difference between the two experiences. I think there are three reasons for the difference: (1) The "wow, she didn't screw up" factor. That she was able to avoid a repeat of the Couric interview made it seem like she did well. (2) Her strategy wasn't clear at first. By the time the debate was over, we could see the stunt she pulled: ignoring the questions in favor of prepared answers. Once you realize this, she actually seems to do much worse, because for rehearsed answers, hers were poorly delivered. (3) The effect of looking at her while she speaks. I think human empathy -- pulling for the person to do well -- is less of a factor when you're listening. Plus, she sends out all sorts of visual cues and body language that I think work to her advantage. For what it's worth: I had the same experience with McCain. I listened to that debate after watching it

Awesome Aemjeff. Truly awesome, but to be fair I'm sure the McCain/Palin trains use clean coal. (voice of Palin) "I think I keeyn, I think I kee...ah fuck. Don't blink, Sarah, never let 'em see you blink. Winkin' is fine, but NO blinkin'. Big smiyul, big smiyul for the kyeameras. Everybody luvs ya, everybo...aw fuuuck."

Quoting Wonderment: Gratuitous insult does not further the discussion.

It wasn't gratuitous. It was an attempt to be funny. Sorry you took it as an insult. I do confess to some desire to ridicule you, though, because I think you're being ridiculous about two things here -- denying that Palin is clueless and denying that the Right is and has been dominated by people who embrace ignorance as a virtue. To the first point, in addition to Twin's recommendation that you listen to the debate again, I recommend reading the transcript.

Quoting TwinSwords: The Republican base eats up [attacks on the media]. Like McCain's seething performance at the Des Moines Register; if you're a wingnut raised on hate for the media, you delight in both examples (Palin ignoring Ifill; McCain seething at the DMR). But the base is only a small fraction of the electorate. If that's their strategy for winning the election, they are going to lose.

Wow. Yesterday we had McCain/Palin crowds calling for murder and calling Obama a terrorist. Now this:

McCain/Palin taking off the hoods

"Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her 'less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.' At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy.'"

-Attaturk

More and more, Republican mobs are a cause for concern. Ask yourself: Logically, what is the patriotic thing to do if you believe that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim bent on taking over the country? What does it say about the Republican Party -- not just Palin and

Quoting TwinSwords: What does it say about the Republican Party -- not just Palin and McCain, but the whole Republican Party; Giuliani was on MSNBC this morning saying that Obama was effectively a terrorist sympathizer -- is openly encouraging their followers to believe that Barack Obama is a traitor?

If I were a Republican politician right now, I'd be looking for every opportunity to distance myself (and my party) from this. It's not going to work, and the Republican brand is just taking on more damage. They keep this up, they're looking at the Dems getting to 60 in the Senate. Since I am not a Republican politician, I say, please: more crazy talk from McCain and Palin and Rudy and anybody else who wants to chime in. I love it. Gonna be a long time in the wilderness for the GOP.

Quoting TwinSwords: More and more, Republican mobs are a cause for concern.

It continues:

In the latest instance of inflammatory outbursts at McCain-Palin rallies, a crowd member screamed "treason!" during an event on Tuesday after Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of criticizing U.S. troops.

"[Obama] said, too, that our troops in Afghanistan are 'air raiding villages and killing civilians,'" Palin said, mischaracterizing a 2007 remark by Obama. "I hope Americans know that is not what our brave men and women in uniform are doing in Afghanistan. The U.S. military is fighting terrorism and protecting us and protecting our freedom."

Shortly afterward, a male member of the crowd in Jacksonville, Florida, yelled "treason!" loudly enough to be picked up by television microphones.

Twin: Regarding your blockquote from Attaturk ...

McCain/Palin taking off the hoods

"Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her 'less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.' At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, 'Sit down, boy.'"

-Attaturk

... I liked John Cole's response. Excerpt:

No doubt, by this afternoon, there will be a unanimous outcry by all the right-wing bloggers decrying the jack-booted thugs and this incipient fascism. After all, these are the same guys who got their panties in a bunch because… people called a radio show while Stanley Kurtz was on. Surely whipping crowds into a froth will upset them.

Never mind.

Quoting bjkeefe: I liked John Cole's response. Excerpt:

LOL! John Cole is great.

Another hilarious post from Balloon Juice.

Just a brief follow up on our previous posts. I didn't watch the whole debate, frankly I hate these debates and they make me feel anxious. But I did "peek" a few times and watched some segments. McCain appeared sharper today. During the segments I watched I didn't notice the tongue jut or the facial grimaces that had been noticed before. is thoughts were overall better organized. Did anybody notice the abnormal movements this time? If indeed he didn't have them, it's suggestive that what he had before may have been a medication side effect. There are other possibilities, but a side effect would be my first possibility to rule out. The question remains what medication and for what. And before someone asks, I don't have a crystal ball... Perhaps someone can follow up.

Quoting Ocean: Just a brief follow up on our previous posts.

I didn't watch the whole debate, frankly I hate these debates and they make me feel anxious. But I did "peek" a few times and watched some segments. McCain appeared sharper today. During the segments I watched I didn't notice the tongue jut or the facial grimaces that had been noticed before. is thoughts were overall better organized.

Did anybody notice the abnormal movements this time?

If indeed he didn't have them, it's suggestive that what he had before may have been a medication side effect. There are other possibilities, but a side effect would be my first possibility to rule out. The question remains what medication and for what. And before someone asks, I don't have a crystal ball...

Perhaps someone can follow up.

Interesting. Like you, I didn't watch most of this one. I had it on in the background, so I didn't get to observe his physical movements.

Quoting TwinSwords: Wow. Yesterday we had McCain/Palin crowds calling for murder and calling Obama a terrorist. Now this:

More and more, Republican mobs are a cause for concern.

Ask yourself: Logically, what is the patriotic thing to do if you believe that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim bent on taking over the country? What does it say about the Republican Party -- not just Palin and McCain, but the whole Republican Party; Giuliani was on MSNBC this morning saying that Obama was effectively a terrorist sympathizer -- is openly encouraging their followers to believe that Barack Obama is a traitor?

If McCain/Palin are still behind for the rest of the election frustrations from their supporters will increase more and more and these incidences will increase in frequency and amplitude. This combined with fact that Palin ( the offspring of the unholy coupling of Anita Bryant and Pat Buchanan ) can whip up the males into a hormone intoxicated mob waiting to shower her with "terrorist pelts" ( skins of non-cuacasians or the citizens of "large towns" ) to gain her adoration, gives me the feeling that things might get a little dicey for the Secret Service detail assigned to Obama.

Quoting thouartgob: If McCain/Palin are still behind for the rest of the election frustrations from their supporters will increase more and more and these incidences will increase in frequency and amplitude.

This combined with fact that Palin ( the offspring of the unholy coupling of Anita Bryant and Pat Buchanan ) can whip up the males into a hormone intoxicated mob waiting to shower her with "terrorist pelts" ( skins of non-cuacasians or the citizens of "large towns" ) to gain her adoration, gives me the feeling that things might get a little dicey for the Secret Service detail assigned to Obama.

I am hoping that we are not contributing to some last minute desperate tactic of creating fear before the election. I wouldn't want to see people who are undecided to end up deciding to vote McCain in order to avoid some form of violence by the most reactionary groups. I think it's worth reflecting on this before getting carried away posting our comments here. Just saying...

Quoting Ocean: I am hoping that we are not contributing to some last minute desperate tactic of creating fear before the election. I wouldn't want to see people who are undecided to end up deciding to vote McCain in order to avoid some form of violence by the most reactionary groups.

I think it's worth reflecting on this before getting carried away posting our comments here. Just saying...

Shades of Blazing Saddles: "Vote for me or the n-word gets it" Seriously I didn't see this as much of a possibility ( didn't think of it either ... ) but I do believe that much more trafficked right-wing websites will be agitating for a more ... hands on approach to dealing with "those who consort with terrorists". I wonder which brainiac at the Corner is going to finally ask that Obama be arrested for treason.

Quoting thouartgob: I wonder which brainiac at the Corner is going to finally ask that Obama be arrested for treason.

You're right; it won't be long. By the time he is inaugurated, republicans will have already started their call to impeach him. Those calls will be the proof of the theory that wingnuts refuse to accept the legitimacy of opposition rule. The same happened with Clinton: the calls for him to be impeached started in 1992, and picked up momentum with each passing year. Finally, all they could find was the affair with Monica Lewinsky, and they attempted to ram through an impeachment on that basis in the last two years of Clinton's 2nd term. What it really was was an attempted coup. Granted, it was non-violent, but the goal was the removal of America's democratically elected president. They simply abused the legal mechanism of impeachment in order to depose a leader whose legitimacy they never accepted. Obama, if he's elected, will have a Democratic Congress for at least 2 years, so he won't have to worry about it, but if Republicans gain control of the US House of Representatives, we can be sure they will pursue

Twin, I wrote a comment earlier today about this issue. I can see you have strong feelings about what happened and perhaps legitimate reasons to be concerned for the future. I can share with you the sense of outrage about this. However, do you realize that this is not the best time to be publicly denouncing a threat of violence? It can intimidate many people and discourage them from voting Obama, simply out of fear. I would expect the Republican campaign strategists to start spreading this as a rumor, but I'm surprised that, as an Obama supporter, you are indulging in writing about this now. I will assume that you disagree with me as to the possible impact this threat could have. I still don't understand what the purpose of "advertising" this could be, at this particular time. If you could only wait until after the election...