Saturday, October 04, 2008
Kat's Korner: Aimee Mann ain't smiling
Aimee Mann, while few were looking, reached over and grabbed the honor of best living songwriter who is too young to have been invited to Woodstock. More and more these days, that just makes her our best songwriter period.
In June, she released @#%&*! Smilers which only confirmed her gifts. The first track ("Freeway") works on the kind of groove many of us hoped the Breeders' Mountain Battles might stumble across but didn't. But what will probably stand out the most is Aimee's ticked.
The cover makes that clear beyond the title as one look at the drawing of the angry red face sticking out a tongue will make clear. The lyrics only elaborate on that anger.
"Get Up" is sung to someone who refuses to live their life but seems intent upon dragging Aimee down ("You stay, she's bringing the poison apple to you") and, in a similar vein, "Cause Nothing Can Wait Forever" finds Aimee counseling "they don't give unlimited chances in life." "The Great Beyond" finds her washing her hands of that person (or people) as she opens with, "Go, honey go -- into the ocean, Go, honey go -- into the great beyond til you're good and gone."
When not offering that and similar sentiments, she's exploring her own faults/blame, confessing that "it's hard to know when to cut and run" ("I've Had My Fill"), "I thought my life would be different somehow, I thought my life would be better by now but it's not" ("I Don't Know Where To Turn") and "I want you ... But baby the price is high."
In one of the most effective tracks on the CD, Aimee sings (and writes):
I turned stranger into starman
In the Sunday New York Times
Like Anne Sexton and her star rats
Working backwards til it rhymes
For the love of God
You can't tell me again
The song is set to a spark arrangement and over in the blink of an eye (one minute and thirty-one seconds). It's the second track on the CD and grabs you in a way that some tracks which follows may not immediately. "Borrowing Time," for example, with it's bouncy beat, is in direct contrast to the lyrics long before the horns are added to the arrangement.
Which brings up a criticism I've heard regarding Aimee Mann for some years: She's too smart.
Generally that means her lyrics are more complex than bubble gum but it's also true that sometimes she's too smart for her own good. An argument can be made on the latter for this album because she's got some heartbreaking tunes and, very often, they are disguised by a production that is in complete contrast to what she's actually singing.
On "Freeway," which is a finger pointer as well, the groove's so strong who can argue with it? But track five ("It's Over") may be one of the few times where the production perfectly fits a full blown song. Paul Bryan is the producer this go round and it's hard to tell whether this is a fault of his or Aimee's own creative direction?
With the band 'Til Tuesday, Mann (and her songwriting) found immediate success and what followed would not be described by the participants as "great fun." After the first album and the mega hit "Voices Carry," the band manage to turn out two follow ups which make up some of the strongest music of the period. On her own, Aimee initially struggled with labels in a way that was much more conflicted than anything that happened in the days of 'Til Tuesday. She set up SuperEgo Records to go the do-it-yourself route and it's what not only saved her career but also gave her one.
If you're among the faithful (I am), you'll love this album. You'll appreciate the grace and skill with which she writes songs. But if you're one of the uninitiated and stumble across this CD, you may listen (and sing along) for months before you grasp how dark the sentiments expressed truly are.
The day you left and you called me bitch
I called you selfish, better pull that switch
Put my son on amphetamines
He came home crying and there's your proof
Crying but nothing but a missing tooth
You shade the truth almost every day
Phone calls at night, it's gonna be okay
"I Did The Right Thing" is the excerpt above and it's another effort where the production matches the point of the song. It's also the one that had me wondering, "Is Mann's marriage breaking up?" No, it turns out these are character sketches.
And possibly the various characters are captured in the production?
Maybe so but the thing that gets me came from calling up a friend who interviewed her this summer and he told me one of Aimee's big sub-themes of the interview was how this album's sales were half of what they should have been and that, his opinion, this disappointed her.
Which makes me wonder if she's attempting to challenge the audience or internalizing her days at Epic? The big battle then (during 'Til Tuesday) was over the sound. Epic was perfectly fine with Mann's lyrics and singing and, even, the band's sound but could they possibly make the songs sound 'prettier' and 'less dark'? They refused on Welcome Home but fell into the trap on Everything's Different Now.
@#%&*! Smilers is a lyrically dark album so the sheen and uptempo production on many songs is confusing. It may be an artistic statement and may capture the mood of the characters she's sketching. It could be Aimee attempting to challenge her audiences. It could be Aimee working off the eighties advice from Epic. But if you're complaining about the sales of your latest album -- at length -- and it contains multiple tracks where the production is hugely at odds with the point of the song, you need to stop scratching your head over the sales.
Aimee's also been on the road talking about her column in the New York Times last year where she dissed Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club and how she burnt out on it and now thinks there are many other better Beatles album. She's taken to a defensive posture that the friend I noted above and another friend interviewing her for her tour found confusing. Possibly the answer is something that her solo albums have long suggested: Brian Wilson is her own super ego? "God Only Knows" is an amazing song and it's the most misproduced single the Beach Boys ever had -- spit-polished until the last emotion is gone and a lament is turned into a laundry list.
I happen to love @#%&*! Smilers and strongly recommend it but if you're going to complain about your sales, you might want to try avoiding releasing an album that feeds into the "too smart for her own good" image. That's my suggestion for Aimee. My suggestion for you is buy the CD, it's one of the year's best.
aimee mann
the beach boys
til tuesday
kats korner
the common ills
You can splash Brute on a pig, but it's still a pig
Toward the end of the vice-presidential debate, Senator Biden momentarily choked up while talking about raising his two children. He became a single parent when his wife died soon after he was first elected to the Senate.
But it wasn't completely clear to me in context whether his emotion was triggered by the memory of that time or by the realization that one of those two children was soon to be deployed to Iraq. It was an awkward moment, one that Sarah Palin could have responded to with sympathy because her own son has now gone to Iraq or because of the challenges she has faced in her family.
That's George Harris attempting to justify Joe Biden's actions in "Biden's Emotional Debate Moment" (Kansas City Star). For those who missed it, far less resulted in Hillary being called out for weeks and months -- the New Hampshire moment. For the record, Biden broke down in Pennyslvania and openly wept while speaking in public. Harris doesn't know about that?
Then maybe he shouldn't bore us all with his bad writing.
Strangely, he has a topic. He can't find it, but he has one. Ava and I have debated whether or not to include it in our commentary at Third. Now we will because of dumb asses or liars like Harris.
Biden has now been "emotional" twice in public (not the topic we'll be addressing) and it's past time that those not "alarmed" by it explain why it's "alarming" when Hillary's eyes well up but Biden can't even make it through a debate without choking up?
As for Palin, there's nothing she could have done. Had she said, "It's okay, Joe" (or anything milder), it would have been turned into, "Palin Mocks Biden As Crybaby."
Repeating, one incident, where Hillary talking about the state of the country causes her eyes to well up, is endlessly jaw boned on and yet Biden's now wept in public in Pennysylvania last week and choked up in the debate. At what point do the ones attacking Hillary in January start wondering whether he's fit to hold office?
And at what point does Jesse Jackson Jr. show up screaming, "He never cried over Katrina!"?
Let's all play stupid and pretend like it was "alarming" when Hillary's eyes welled up but it was perfectly understandable for a grown man running to be the vice president to weep onstage at a campaign event and to have to get his emotions under control (visibly) in a televised debate. Candidates have been run off the campaign trail for much less.
Typical, the writer wants to find a way to make Palin the fall guy for Biden's inability to conduct himself in the way that the press says candidates must conduct themselves.
Dumb Ass ends his column with, "But it is clear that he is a man with deep, close to the surface emotions about his children. Which is a good foundation for any politician." I'd say someone emotional about the state of their country might be "a good foundation for any politician." Someone emotional about their children? That's really got nothing to do with the public office he is seeking.
But let's get it straight, if a woman's eyes well up she's lacking, she's not worthy. If a man weeps in public and then again at a debate, it's time for us all to say, "It's just like sitting through The Fisher King all over again!" (For those who've forgotten, the meepies failed at the box office.) And if a male politician is choked up and the female candidate doesn't rush to reassure him, then there's something lacking in her. So for those trying to follow the ever changing double standard, it breaks down as: Woman cries bad; Man cries good; Man cries and woman doesn't comfort him she's bad.
That's twice now in two weeks for Biden.
If he were a woman, they'd be saying she's unable to keep her emotions in check and unfit for office. Bill Moyers would be gas bagging about the "moisty moment" and smugly grinning while he said he didn't know if the moment was sincere or not. And Jesse Jackson Jr. would be screaming his head off about how Joe Biden didn't cry for Katrina (and, needless to say, Jesse would wrongly be stating that Biden cried over his looks).
(The pig is George Harris, for any wondering. I am not calling Joe a pig. McCain's response, should Barack get angry in the next debate, should be, "You're not going to start crying like your running mate, are you?")
In Iraq news, Poland is now officially out. In this morning's New York Times, Sam Dagher offers "Baghdad Thorws a Party, Ignoring Recent Bombings:"
Since Sunday, bombings in busy markets and mosques in Baghdad have killed more than 50 people and badly wounded scores more. On top of that, the country's religious establishment could not even agree on a unified date for the start of Id, which hinges on the sighting of a crescent moon but is subject to certain theological interpretations. Sunnis and some Shiite clergy members declared Tuesday as the start of Id and other Shiite clerics said it was Wednesday, while the most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, said it was Thursday.
The government, anticipating the problem, had decreed that the holiday would run from Tuesday to Sunday, and everyone was out in full force on Thursday evening and Friday
[. . .]
Underscoring the fragility of the security arrangements, the U.S. military on Friday completely closed off the main entry point in the concrete barrier that it had erected along Al Quds Street, a barrier intended to seal off the southern quarter of the district and turn it into a haven.
"This checkpoint is closed because of the recent attacks. It will remain closed until the attacks against the security forces cease," was sprayed in black in Arabic on freshly installed concrete slabs.
And the US State Dept's diplomatic push on the treaty masquerading as a SOFA continues with John Bolton's Baghdad arrival yesterday. Dagher wrongly concludes his article with this: "This paves the way for local elections before the end of January in all of Iraq except in the hotly contested northern oil-rich city of Kirkuk." Three provinces in the Kurdistan region will not be participating. The three provinces not included are Arbil Province, Dohuk Province and Sulaimaniyah Province.
Iwana raised the issue of a bad article and I'm carrying that over to Third in the hopes that it will be one of those "short pieces" that Dona's always encouraging.
The following community sites have updated since Friday morning:
Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty's Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
Ruth's Ruth's Report;
and Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZ
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the new york timessam dagher
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
Friday, October 03, 2008
Iraq snapshot
Friday, October 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Rosa Clement (Green Party) and Matt Gonzalez (independent) take part in a vice presidential debate this morning, Sarah Palin (Republican) and Joe Biden (Democrat) took part in a vice presidential debate last night, what got signed in Iraq today?, and more. Megan Feldman (Dallas Observer) notes the suicides of war veterans Andrew Valez, Ted Westhusing, Nils Aron Andersson, Jeff Lucey, Derek Henderson and Chad Barrett and explains: A series of recent reports reveals that record numbers of active-duty troops are committing suicide, raising concerns about the military's ability to adequately screen, diagnose and treat soldiers with mental health problems. An Army report released in May showed that at least 115 soldiers killed themselves in 2007, the highest rate since the Army began keeping records in 1980. One of the officials to present the study cited extended and multiple deployments, frequent exposure to "horrifying" experiences and easy access to loaded weapons. This year's suicide tally among active-duty troops -- 62 confirmed and 31 other deaths still under investigation -- is on pace t surpass last year's and push the rate of suicides per 100,000 service members above that of the civilian population for the first time ever, Army officials announced in early September. The reports follow the controversy that enveloped the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs earlier this year when the agency was caught deliberately hiding high suicide rates among veterans. An e-mail to colleagues from Ira Katz, the VA's head of mental health, began "Shh!" and estimated the unreleased number of suicide attempts at 1,000 per month. "Is this something we should (carefully) address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles on it?" he wrote. That was after the agency told CBS there were just 790 suicide attempts in all of 2007. After a three-month investigation, the network reported "a hidden epidemic" of suicides among veterans, especially the youngest ones who had served most recently. In November of last year, CBS News aired a story entitled 'Suicide Epidemic Among Veterans.' On April 21, 2008, CBS News aired a story 'VA Hid Suicide Risk, Internal E-mails Show.' The reports (Armen Keteyian reported and Pia Malbran was the producer of the reports) were noted in an May 6th hearing of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee entitled "The Truth About Veterans' Suicides." The chair of the committee is US House Rep Bob Filner who pointed to these reports in his opening states and reminded Dr. Ira Katz (one of the witnesses appearing before the hearing) that not only had CBS News reported on this after being misled by the VA in November, but that Katz had told Congress in December 2007 that "from the beginning of the war through the end of 2005 there were 144 known suicides among these new veterans." Katz' e-mail that Feldman refers to in her report was replied to by Ev Chasen (VA's chief communication director) who declared, "I think this is something we should discuss ourselves, before issuing a release. Is the fact that we're stopping them good news, or is the sheer number bad news? And is this more than we've ever seen before? It might be something we drop into a general release about suicide prevention efforts, which (as you know far better than I) prominently include training employees to recognize the warning signs of suicide." In July, the VA was stated that their suicide hotiline had received calls from more than 22,000 veterans (the number is 1-800-873-TALK). And, apparently keeping Ev Chasen's words in mind ("Is the fact that we're stopping them good news, or is the sheer number bad news?") declared that their work had prevented 1,221 suicides. The May 6th hearing would include testimony from Dr. Roger Maris (University of South Carolina) where he would note that "the vast majority of VA facilities, in fact, do not have suicide coordinators." Monday Mike Mount (CNN) reported, "The U.S. Army is establishing a suicide prevention board to examine the mental health of its recruiters around the country after the fourth suicide in three years by Houston, Texas-based recruiters, according to Army officials. The board will look at how to handle the high-stress climate facing recruiters who may be both under pressure from their job and victims of post-combat deployment stress, according to Douglas Smith, a spokesman from the U.S. Army Recruiting command." CNN refers to a recent suicide in the article and states they've chosen not to name the victim. AP reports there were two recent ones (Staff Sgt. Larry G. Flores Jr in August and Sgt 1st Class Patrick G. Henderson in September) "from the same Houston-based battalion" for a total of five from that battalion. Linsay Wise (Houston Chronicle) quotes Texas Tech's psychology chair David Rudd stating, "Clearly, there's a problem. Somebody needs to look and see if there's a broader national problem outside of this one battalion. Is it a problem placing these combat veterans in recruiting positions?" Wise also notes that US Senator John Cornyn has asked the Secretary of the Army "for a briefing on the ongoing investigation and on the policy of returning soldiers from combat and reassigning them to a recruiting office." Today Kathlyn Stone (Twin Cities Daily Planet) reports on the work of Penny Coleman who runs PTSD workshops (and states, "It's not a disorder, it's an injury") including one in August at the Veterans For Peace conference and notes, "The VA is in denial about PTSD contributing to the high suicide rate of combat veterans, she says, adding that official counts aren't accurate. Speaking of Vietnam vets, Coleman said, 'There are more suicides than names on the [Vietnam Memorial] wall.' Veterans For Peace members agree that the United States must be better prepared to provide not only care for physical wounds but also better mental health support for soldiers now serving or just returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Coleman cited figures released by CBS News documenting over 6,256 military suicides in 2005." At the start of the week John C. Bersia (McClatchy-Tribune) observed, "Most Americans are familiar with the official Iraq toll -- as of last week, 4,169 U.S. dead, along with a several hundred from allied nations. Missing from that list, though, are Americans who fulfilled their duties and returned home unable to cope with the complexities of life after Iraq, often compounded by post-traumatic stress disorder. One such person died last week; his name was Dominic D.H. Pritchard, a resident of Ovideo, Fla. He was a U.S. Marine, a student, a citizen-soldier who volunteered with the Florida Army National Guard because of his desire to serve his community in times of clamity, and an emerging writer with a particular passion for history, military affairs and art." Meanwhile retired Army Col and retired US State Dept Ann Wright pens a column for The Fayetteville Observer: As a former army officer who once served proudly at Fort Bragg, I'll be returning here Wednesday. I'm going to join in a commemoration of the deaths of three military women, and the suffering of the many other victims of military-related domestic violence and sexual assault. The commemoration will start with a vigil at the Yadkin Road gate of Fort Bragg at 11 a.m. The vigil will be followed by a luncheon-discussion at 12:30 p.m. at the Quaker House and conclude with a wreath-laying at the grave of another victim of military spousal homicide. We invite the military and civilian communities of Fayetteville and Jacksonville to join us. We'll be especially mindful of the three women soldiers who were murdered in this area in the first six months of this year, allegedly by male GIs: Army Spc. Megan Touma, who was seven months pregnant; Fort Bragg nurse 2nd Lt. Holley Wimunc; and Marine Lance Corp. Maria Lauterbach, who had been raped and also was pregnant. And AP is reporting that arrrests have been made in the death of Sgt Christina E. Smith ("the third off-post killing of a Fort Bragg servicewoman in four months") -- her husband, Sgt. Richard Smith, is "charged with first-degree and conspiracy to commit murder" and "Pfc. Matthew Kvapil, 18, faces the same charges, and [Theresa] Chance [spokesperson for Fayetteville police] said he was hired by Smith to kill the wife as the couple walked together Tuesday evening." In Iraq today . . . confusion. Corinne Reilly (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the presidency council "has agreed to approve a long-delayed law that will allow most of the country to hold provincial elections early next year, officials said Friday." However, China's Xinhua reports that the "presidential council had not approved the provincial election law passed by the parliament, local media reported Friday." Al Jazeera does not say that they have agreed to pass it, Al Jaezeera states that it is passed. AP also states it has passed and, in fact, signed into law by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani: "Firyad Rawndouzi, a Kurdish lawmaker, told The Associated Press that the three-member panel led by President Jalal Talabani had signed the law Friday and asked the parliament 'to solve the minorities problem'." Article 50 issue was never addressed. It is the one that has been called out by everyone from Iraqi Christians to Moqtada al-Sadr and puts minority representation at risk. Nouri al-Maliki did express some public statements and there is said to have been concern on the part of the presidency council. But if it's signed, it's the law. The Parliament can try to fix it but the law is what was signed by Talabani. Erica Goode and Mohammed Hussein (New York Times) report on Samarra and among the details provided by the reporters is that the reconstruction of Askairya Shrine (after the 2007 bombing) is not only expensive (expected to cost $8 million), the reconstruction is being done "without blueprints." Samara, like everywhere in Iraq, suffers from the same problems: "few jobs available, that the water is not potable, that the electricity is intermittent at best, that they have not received their pensions and that there are shortages of medicine." At Baghdad Bureau Blog (the paper's blog) Mohammed Hussein has written of the journey taken to report that story and notes, "The Awakening and National Police and Iraqi army all manned different checkpoints. It took one and a half hours to drive only 70 miles. There was some risk along the whole journey, but during the 90-minute drive I was really worried for only five minutes, near Meshahda. Five minutes can be a big deal." Hussein shares impressions of all the areas they traveled through, by the way. Wednesday, the US 'handed over' the "Awakening" Councils to the puppet government in Baghdad. Scott Peterson (Christian Science Monitor) reports today: "Fresh concern is washing over Iraq of a new wave of insurgent violence as the bands of mainly Sunni Muslim Iraqis, trained, armed and paid by the US military to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq are now coming under the control of a skeptical Shiite-led government. While the group called the Sons of Iraq (SOI) has been critically imporant in improving security, the US military and many leaders within the SOI worry that their foot soldiers -- many of them ex-insurgents -- will simply return to their old ways if they are not paid or brought into Iraq's official security forces." The Charleston Post and Courier editorializes on the same topic, expresses similar concerns and notes: "Doubts about the ability of the two sides to quickly develop a satisfactory relationship is a major reason why the Pentagon on Wednesday announced plans for sending additional forces to Iraq next year. The reinforcements, if needed, would maintain U.S. troop strength in Iraq at the present level of about 152,000 through 2009." Meanwhile UPI reports on the female branch of "Awakening" (also called Daughters of Iraq) and states that "is taking on a new role under U.S. financing as part of the counterinsurgency strategy there, officials said." They are paid 20% less than males and that wage discrimination was put in place by the White House. On the issue of counter-insurgency, Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus (Washington Post) report on the US Defense Department's latest contracts ("up to $300 million") which will "produce news stories, entertainment programs and public service advertisements" in Iraq aimed at Iraqis in a program called "information/psychological operations" that is part of the counter-insurgency strategies. The US has a lengthy history of attempting to use the media within Iraq to propagandize to the Iraqi people. For an earlier effort, you can refer to Borzou Daragahi and Mark Mazzetti (Los Angeles Times) explaining the process in 2005 which noted the US military penned articles and that many were then "presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounced insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country." It's Friday so little violence gets reported but some of today's violence includes:. Bombings? Reuters notes a Sulaiman Pek roadside bombing which resulted in two people being injured. Shootings? Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Center Soldier was killed when an improvised explosive device exploded near his vehicle south of Amarah Oct. 2." That is the first announced death for the month and brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq to 4177 since the start of the illegal war. On Democracy Now! today, a vice presidential debate took place between Matt Gonzales (Ralph Nader's running mate) and Rosa Clemente (Cynthia McKinney's running mate). During their debate, they were shown clips of GOP v.p. nominee Governor Sarah Palin and Democratic v.p. nominee Joe Biden weighing in on various topics from last night's debate. JUAN GONZALEZ: Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Biden, talking about the war in last night's debate. Rosa Clemente, Green Party vice-presidential nominee, what's your viewpoint on the war? ROSA CLEMENTE: Well, the Green Party's viewpoint -- and Cynthia has been very clear, and the party has been very clear -- an immediate end to the war, an immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan. And, you know, one thing Cynthia agrees with a former colleague of hers, Dennis Kucinich, is that we now have to talk about creating departments of peace. And we have to also talk about withdrawing troops wherever they reside in other people's homelands. I always found it interesting -- or, you know, the fact that we, as the United States government, and we, as the people in this country, allow our military to be placed in other people's homelands. And being from Puerto Rico, I'm very clear on why the military does what it does. But we would never allow another country to have a military base there. And that might be a little simplistic kind of thing to throw out there, but I also think it speaks to the way we want to move forward in the future. And I don't think that either party is planning on ending the war. I think that the Democrats are more about transferring troops to Afghanistan and potentially preparing for a war in Pakistan. And even yesterday, Joe Biden talked about the possibility of putting troops in in Darfur. And I think that's something that we have to say immediately is unacceptable and that the majority of young people in this country have been clear for the last five years that we want an end to the war right now. AMY GOODMAN: Independent vice-presidential candidate Matt Gonzalez? MATT GONZALEZ: Well, I certainly -- and Ralph Nader supports getting our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. I think the problem with a lot of the rhetoric that we're hearing is that if you concede that the surge is working, which we do not concede--but the moment you do that, you are going to run into a problem with the so-called timetable. Are the Democrats going to stick to a timetable if, as they start to draw down troops, there's increased sectarian violence? And I think the answer to that is really unclear, and probably no. I think the only way that we can successfully get out of this country is if, at the outset, we make it clear we're going to -- we're going to work quickly to get our troops out of the region, that we're part of the reason why the region remains unstable. And we'll also note this section of the debate: AMY GOODMAN: Matt Gonzalez, I know you have to leave, so I'm going to give you the first stab at this, as you catch a plane. And also, a correction: in 2004, yes, Ralph Nader was an Independent candidate, as well. He was, 2000, the Green Party candidate. Your comment on same-sex marriage? MATT GONZALEZ: Well, obviously, Nader and I support marriage rights for all. I think it's insulting to hear these candidates want it both ways. They're essentially trying to appeal to both conservative voters who are opposed to gay marriage and somehow also appeal to progressive voters who want to see equality. You know, I think Ralph Nader, you know, when you step back and look at his history, he is somebody who is an enormously important voice against the growing corporate greed in this society and what concentrated capital does when it's left alone. And I think he's not somebody who has decided to fight against the two parties. You know, he has, his entire life, been fighting against these parties -- it's not a recent conversion -- on a host of issues. And I think he should have been in this debate. I think he has a legislative record that's stronger than the candidates that we saw in that debate. I mean, Joe Biden should have been asked about his support of credit card companies in Delaware, of the federal sentencing guidelines that he helped pass in the 1980s that, you know, has disproportionately hurt people of color. These were things that were absent. And I think if Rosa and I had been in that debate, it would have been a better debate. AMY GOODMAN: And, Rosa Clemente, your perspective on gay marriage? ROSA CLEMENTE: I mean, full 100 percent equal rights for everybody. I also take it a step further for it being about human rights. LGBT people are human beings, and they have a right, like anyone else, to get married, to get divorced, to not get married. But if I could just quickly just say, yes, Cynthia did leave the Democratic Party after twelve years, but while she was in there, it was Cynthia McKinney that had a hearing on the issue of political prisoners, the first-ever congressional hearing on that. It was Cynthia that pushed the envelope about what happened on 9/11. It was Cynthia that wrote the articles of impeachment. And I think that speaks highly to someone who will leave a party, finally, based on principles and values and then pick someone that truly represents what the majority of this country is going to look like. I think if me and Matt were on there, and if Cynthia, Bob Barr, [Chuck] Baldwin, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader were allowed to debate, the presidency on November 4th would look radically different and would represent the majority of American people. I, Cynthia McKinney, pledge to use my candidacy, whenever feasible, to advance the preservation of democracy. I will officially challenge the results of the election as provided by law if the combination of election conditions, incident reports and announced election results calls into question the reliability of the official vote count. I will wait until all valid votes are counted and all serious challenges resolved before declaring victory or conceding defeat. I will involve my campaign volunteers in actions to enhance the accuracy and verifiability of the election in which I am a candidate. I will speak out publicly during the pre-election period about the importance of fair, accurate and transparent elections and about this pledge. I will designate a liaison between my campaign and "Standing For Voters" so that "Standing For Voters" can alert me to any red flags they are aware of regarding my election. Meanwhile independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader weighs in on the economic bailout. Click here for his post before the House voted today (it passed) and here were his thoughts prior to vote: People often ask me -- what forces shaped you, Ralph? I reply simply: "A lucky choice of parents." Among other things, my parents passed down many traditions. Traditions that were handed down from generations before them. Traditions that served as a counterweight to the addictions. And fads. And technologies. Of modern life. Traditions such as: The tradition of listening. The tradition of scarcity. The tradition of discipline. And the tradition of civics. A couple of years ago, I sat down at my manual Underwood typewriter and wrote a book titled The Seventeen Traditions (Harper Collins, 2007). It's about growing up in my hometown of Winsted, Connecticut (above is a picture of me standing next to my mother Rose). And it details the seventeen traditions of my youth. It's the only book that I've written that everybody loves. When you get a copy, you'll know why. Flipping through a copy of the book the other day, I asked myself -- If the majority in this Congress was governed by the traditions that we grew up with in the New England of my youth -- wouldn't they have acted to prevent Wall Street's "sustained orgy of excess and reckless behavior" -- as Richard Fisher, the president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank put it last week? Surely they wouldn't then turn around and reward that behavior with a $750 billion bailout? By now you know that McCain, Obama and Bush all support the bailout. And Nader/Gonzalez are opposed. And we again urge all members of the House to vote against the bailout today. But no matter how the House votes today, Nader/Gonzalez will be barnstorming the country in October. Putting front and center our platform of shifting the power from the corporations back into the hands of the American people. We're on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia. We've deployed a contingent to each state to coordinate our get out the vote drive. And we're raising money to drive the campaign home to election day. But we need to raise $1,000,000 in October to get it done. Our first October goal is to raise $250,000 by October 12. Yes, that's a heavy lift. But it's been heavy before, and you've come through every time. So, here's the idea: If you donate $17, or $170, or $10, or $50 -- whatever you can afford to donate -- by midnight tonight, we'll e-mail to you tomorrow a signed one pager listing the 17 traditions. You can share it with your friends and family. Or just stick it in your drawer for posterity's sake. If you donate $100 now, we will send you a copy of the 150-page hard cover edition of The Seventeen Traditions -- my favorite book. And I'll autograph it. In my humble opinion, this book makes a wonderful present -- for the upcoming holidays, as a wedding present, birthday present, Mother's Day present, or for a baby shower. (This Seventeen Traditions book offer expires on October 12, 2008 at 11:59 p.m.) So, stock up now. The more the merrier. The proceeds will power our campaign during this momentous October. Thank you again for your generous support. Together, we are making a difference. Onward to November Thursday night, Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Joe Biden debated. The John McCain - Sarah Palin campaign issued this statement regarding the debate: Statement From Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker ARLINGTON, VA -- McCain-Palin 2008 Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker issued the following statement on tonight's Vice Presidential Debate: The McCain - Palin campaign also quotes Geraldine Ferraro, the first women to make the ticket of one of the country's two major parties (1984, the Democratic ticket of Mondale - Ferraro). Ferraro stated on NBC: "I really wanted her to get up there and do a good job, and I think she did. . . . I think it was a good evening for -- certainly for Governor Palin. . . . . I think she showed she is certainly capable of going toe to toe with a man who is more than qualified to be vice president, if not president of the United States." Quickly, TV notes, NOW on PBS offers a look at New Mexico which is seen as a battleground state in the 2008 election and speak to various voting groups as well as to Governor Bill Richardson. Washington Week finds Gwen sitting around the table with four journalists including the AP's Charles Babington. (And for others, 'journalists' is being generous.) In a book note, independent journalist David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which came out last month. The Oakland Institute notes: "Since NAFTA's passage in 1993, the U.S. Congress has debated and passed several new trade agreements - with Peru, Jordan, Chile, and the Central American Free Trade Agreement. At the same time it has debated immigration policy as though those trade agreements bore no relationship to the waves of displaced people migrating to the U.S., looking for work. Meanwhile, a rising tide of anti-immigrant hysteria has increasingly demonized those migrants, leading to measures that deny them jobs, rights, or any pretense of equality with people living in the communities around them. To resolve any of these dilemmas, from adopting rational and humane immigration policies to reducing the fear and hostility towards migrants, Uprooted: The Impact of Free Market on Migrants, a new Backgrounder from the Oakland Institute, suggests the starting point has be an examination of the way U.S. policies have both produced migration and criminalized migrants." |
DoD funds next wave of Operation Happy Talk
The new contracts -- awarded last week to four companies -- will expand and consolidate what the U.S. military calls "information/psychological operations" in Iraq far into the future, even as violence appears to be abating and U.S. troops have begun drawing down.
The front page of the Washington Post this morning tells you that DoD is pushing a new wave of propaganda. The above is from Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus' "U.S. to Fund Pro-American Publicity in Iraqi Media" and let's note this part as well:
The Army's counterinsurgency manual, which Gen. David H. Petraeus co-wrote in 2006, describes information operations in detail, citing them among the "critical" military activities "that do not involve killing insurgents." Petraeus, who became the top U.S. commander in Iraq early last year, led a "surge" in combat troops and information warfare.
Apparently those old enough to remember the human and cultural crimes of a past 'counter-insurgency' (Vietnam) are too vested in the campaign of Barack Obama to call this crap out. "Counter-insurgency" is vile and disgusting. It is an abuse of the social sciences as well as a crime against humanity. It's a damn shame that uninformed people -- such as 'folk singers' -- felt the need to make endorsements in this election cycle because all they've done is destroyed their own reputations. A younger person could get away with it. But those who remember how "counter-insurgency" was used in Vietnam? No excuse. They need to drop their peace poses, they need to drop the idea that they don't play 'party politics' and they always call out truth regardless of where it lands.
In terms of the latest wave of propaganda, if you're new to the topic, Borzou Daragahi and Mark Mazzetti's "U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press" (Los Angeles Times) covered another wave in November 2005:
As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.
The articles, written by U.S. military “information operations” troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.
Scott Peterson's "An uncertain future for the Sons of Iraq" (Christian Science Monitor) covers the 'handover' that took place Wednesday:
Fresh concern is washing over Iraq of a new wave of insurgent violence as the bands of mainly Sunni Muslim Iraqis trained, armed, and paid by the US military to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq are now coming under the control of a skeptical Shiite-led government.
While the group called the Sons of Iraq (SOI) has been critically important in improving security, the US military and many leaders within the SOI worry that their foot soldiers -- many of them ex-insurgents -- will simply return to their old ways if they are not paid or brought into Iraq's official security forces.
"If the government doesn't accept them, most will join [insurgent] groups, and they will restart their activities stronger than before," says Khalid Jamal, an SOI leader in Baghdad. "That will make Iraq return to zero."
On Democracy Now! today, a vice presidential debate is offered between Matt Gonzales (Ralph Nader's running mate) and Rosa Clemente (Cynthia McKinney's running mate). The exchange on prison reform may be the closest the two come to "testy."
Cynthia McKinney is the Green presidential candiate and has the following upcoming appearances:
Cynthia McKinney to appear on NPR shows
Thursday, 02 October 2008 16:30
Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney is scheduled to appear on two nationally broadcast shows on National Public Radio (NPR) this month;
Wednesday, October 22
Talk of the Nation
NPR Radio, Washington, DC
2:40 pm EST
Saturday, October 25
NPR News
Weekend Edition Saturday
Scott Simon, host
8:10 am EST
Be sure to listen and tell your friends about these important opportunities to hear another point of view in this election from a progressive woman of color running on a third party ticket.
Cynthia is also announcing "Cynthia Pledges to use campaign to advance the preservation of democracy"
Thursday, 02 October 2008 05:21
I, Cynthia McKinney, pledge to use my candidacy, whenever feasible, to advance the preservation of democracy. I will officially challenge the results of the election as provided by law if the combination of election conditions, incident reports and announced election results calls into question the reliability of the official vote count. I will wait until all valid votes are counted and all serious challenges resolved before declaring victory or conceding defeat. I will involve my campaign volunteers in actions to enhance the accuracy and verifiability of the election in which I am a candidate. I will speak out publicly during the pre-election period about the importance of fair, accurate and transparent elections and about this pledge. I will designate a liaison between my campaign and "Standing For Voters" so that "Standing For Voters" can alert me to any red flags they are aware of regarding my election.
Marci notes this from Team Nader:
The Ifill Truth: ALL the Debates are Biased!
Posted by Loralynne Krobetzky on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 06:07:00 PM
The charade of the so-called Presidential Debates continues. Already a carefully orchestrated question and answer session controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties to the exclusion of other candidates, it now emerges that even the moderators may hold partisan bias. Headlines shot up around the country, raising the question of whether the debates can be considered legitimate if the moderator holds a bias. The question that Americans should really be asking, however, is not merely who's moderating, but rather, who is controlling the debates?
Gwen Ifill, of PBS, slated to moderate tonight’s Vice-Presidential Debate, has penned a book titled The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. One must instantly wonder how Ifill can call this the "Age" of Obama without having a serious predilection towards the outcome of these debates. Moreover, the book is set to be released around the time of the Inauguration, January, 2009, seemingly to usher in the "age of Obama." Columnist Michelle Malkin worries about Ifill’s ability to objectively moderate, but her criticism reveals deeper inadequacies within the system. "My dictionary, Malkin writes, "defines 'moderator' as 'the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.' On Thursday, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will serve as moderator for the first and only vice presidential debate. The stakes are high. The Commission on Presidential Debates, with the assent of the two campaigns, decided not to impose any guidelines on her duties or questions. "
While it is unfortunate that Ms. Ifill may indeed have a pro-Obama bias while moderating, the bias exhibited against third party or independent candidates by the Commission on Presidential Debates is far greater. The 15 percent polling guideline set by the CPD is arbitrary and restrictive. Compare it to the 5 percent threshold set by the League of Women Voters, which ran the debates until 1988, when it declared, "The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public. (Full statement found here.)
Fox News Correspondent Greta Van Susteren went so far as to claim that Ifill’s authorship on Obama makes the debates "unfair" and that it should "create a mistrial." If that were so, then the CPD’s closed sponsorship of the debates should qualify them as a farce. The CPD likes to portray itself as non-profit and non-partisan, while in effect it serves as a mouthpiece for the two parties, screening questions, excluding other candidates, and ensuring that power will continue to be passed between the few. As Nancy M. Neuman, president of the League of Women Voters in 1988 warned, "under partisan sponsorship debates will become just another risk-free stop along the campaign trail."
And risk-free it is. By excluding candidates who don’t agree to couch their answers, who will tackle the hard questions, the "debates" become nothing more than a mutual interview. Ms. Neuman again warned of this outcome in 1988, stating: "it became clear that the idea of debates sponsored by the political parties had appeal with people who routinely squeeze all risk out of their candidates' appearances. They prefer instead to leave the American public at risk ... Throughout the negotiation, I asked that the campaigns open the door to the League. I was certain that the voters' interests would be better served if there were a third party in the room keeping campaign manipulations in check." Imagine what the debates would be like with not only a third party overseeing, but also participating.
Regarding tonight's Vice-Presidential debates, Mr. Nader offers a tantalizing picture: “If you wanted to see an exciting debate, something that got beyond personalities to real issues, then they should include Matt Gonzalez," I guarantee you that he would bring more to the discussion than Sarah Palin, and he would keep Joe Biden on his toes." As John Nichols of The Nation points out: "the independent candidate for vice president has credible experience helping to run a unit of government that is significantly larger than anyplace Palin has run ... if Palin and the Republicans want to suggest that the former mayor's municipal service is part of what gives her stature, Gonzalez might merit some attention -- including a place at the table in the vice-presidential debate. " Certainly Mr. Gonzalez has the experience and qualifications to be included the debates. That he will not be present tonight is only another way that the American people emerge the loser -- regardless of the winner of tonight’s charade.
Nader/Gonzalez Warn Against Blank Check Bailout
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: (Washington) Toby Heaps, 202-471-5833, toby@votenader.org
NADER STATEMENT ON BAILOUT
Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez vigorously oppose Bush's $700++ billion taxpayer bailout of Wall Street.
"This is not just a bailout of Wall Street" says Nader, "It's a bailing out of the bankrupt Republican and Democratic policies that have led us to where we are today with Senators John "Deregulation" McCain and Joe "MBNA" Biden leading the way.
Full Statement from Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez:
"The revised bailout legislation is the same $700 billion piece of burnt toast, with some window dressing, sugar coating, and $150 billion of pork tax cuts covering everything from casinos to coal.
But this isn't even the main course that Senate is serving up for Congress on Friday. The main course is on page 92 of the 451 page document:
BORROWING LIMITS TEMPORARILY LIFTED. - During the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2009, the Board of Directors of the Corporation may request from the Secretary, and the Secretary shall approve, a loan or loans in an amount or amounts necessary to carry out this subsection, without regard to the limitations on such borrowing under section 14(a) and 15(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1824(a), 1825(c)).
Translation: Bush, McCain, and Obama want Congress to co-sign off on the mother of all blank checks, paving the way for a sinking dollar and higher interest rates.
By bumping the FDIC's line of credit at the Treasury from $30 billion to infinity, the FDIC assumes fiat powers to bailout to its heart content, leaving the taxpayer to pay the bill. This unacceptable unlimited right to ransack taxpayers would last until 2010.
"The bailout ignores the needs of millions of swindled families facing foreclosure, and it squanders an opportunity to bring about real regulatory change, decisive shareholder power over their companies' bosses, and authentic taxpayer equity that would prevent economic crises like this from happening again. Wall Street's wildly overpaid bosses are addicted to speculative gambling with other people's money. When a drug addict is facing overdose, you don't give them more needles.
According to Richard W. Fisher, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas: "The seizures and convulsions we have experienced in the debt and equity markets have been the consequences of a sustained orgy of excess and reckless behavior, not a too-tight monetary policy. In the end, we're going to have to deal with the underlying stock of housing."
"We need to protect homeowners and our neighborhoods first. That's why Nader/Gonzalez support introducing a law with a 5-year sunset clause that would provide homeowners facing foreclosure the right to rent to own their homes at fair market value.
"Wall Street is out of control. We need to bring some sense of accountability, transparency, and law and order back to Wall Street's crooks and speculators, or they will desperately seek socialism to bail out their criminal corporate capitalism, going again and again to the taxpayer trough in Washington DC each time. That's why Nader/Gonzalez support a Wall Street speculation tax, starting on derivatives, which would make Wall Street less like Las Vegas, and generate enough funds to more than eliminate the federal tax burden on the first $50,000 of income for every working American.
Click here for Nader's Ten Point Plan: http://www.votenader.org/media/2008/09/16/meltdown/
A visitor e-mails the public account to ask that we note this from Bob Barr's campaign:
BOTH Obama and McCain agree with Bush and push the bailout
October 1st, 2008 by Russ VerneyYesterday I wrote you about Monday’s vote in the House of Representatives that killed the $700 billion big bank bailout. I warned that the Bush Administration in cahoots with both Senators McCain and Obama would come back with another attempt to bailout their friends on Wall Street.
The U.S. Senate has added more spending to the bill and it is being voted on today.
Yesterday, Senator McCain sent an email to his supporters scaring them with silly claims that college students won’t be able to get an education and that fast food restaurants won’t be able to remodel. Combine that with pressure from the White House and the titans of Wall Street and it is very likely the Senate will pass this bad-loan bailout unless they hear from you.
The media has noticed that Bob Barr is gaining in the polls as the only candidate who is standing up for taxpayers in this so-called crisis. Bob told viewers of CNN this morning that crowds on the campaign trail have grown in both size and enthusiasm.
Voters are finally getting it right. It is clear that only Bob Barr will bring real change to Washington. McCain and Obama are both beholden to their fat cat donors in corporate America. Only Bob Barr knows who he is working for.
To help Bob Barr continue to wage this battle against bailouts, he needs our support. To keep the campaign on the road and launch additional media efforts, I hope you’ll consider a gift to this campaign today
Any amount will help. To contribute, click here.
Bob Barr is the libertarian candidate and Wayne Root is his running mate.
Turning to public television, NOW on PBS offers:
[Streaming video of this program will be available online after broadcast]
This election year, the most crucial battleground states may fall far west of the Mississippi. Strategists say New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado are pivotal to Senator McCain's success, so how are these voters being courted?
This week, NOW on PBS travels to New Mexico to see how both campaigns are hoping to attract--and secure--first time voters on college campuses, as well as voters in New Mexico's large Hispanic population. It's clearly anyone's game—this southwestern state was won by fewer than 400 votes in 2000, and 6,000 votes in 2004.
NOW sits down with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a supporter of Barack Obama and a former 2008 presidential contender himself, who affirms the political importance of the "New West."
"Had Kerry won those states [in 2004]," Richardson tells Maria Hinojosa, "even having lost Ohio, he'd be President."
Will the New West play a key role in determining the fate of the country?
On many PBS stations, NOW on PBS airs tonight -- check local listings for times and air date. And Bill Richardson's interview is online now in extended form. Also this weekend (and tonight on many PBS stations), Washington Week finds Gwen sitting around the table with four journalists including the AP's Charles Babington. (And for others, 'journalists' is being generous.) As noted in one of the highlights above, Gwen moderated last night's debate and you can be sure the debate will be among the topics discussed.
The John McCain - Sarah Palin campaign issued this statement regarding the debate:
Statement From Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker
ARLINGTON, VA -- McCain-Palin 2008 Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker issued the following statement on tonight's Vice Presidential Debate:
"Tonight, Governor Palin proved beyond any doubt that she is ready to lead as Vice President of the United States. She won this debate, putting Joe Biden on defense on energy, foreign policy, taxes and the definition of change. Governor Palin laid bare Barack Obama's record of voting to raise taxes, opposing the surge in Iraq, and proposing to meet unconditionally with the leaders of state sponsors of terror. The differences between the Obama-Biden ticket and the McCain-Palin ticket could not have been clearer. The American people saw stark contrasts in style and worldview. They saw Joe Biden, a Washington insider and a 36-year Senator, and Governor Palin, a Washington outsider and a maverick reformer. Governor Palin was direct, forceful and a breath of fresh air."
And we'll note this one (in full) because it includes Geraldine Ferraro in it (the first woman to be on the ticket of one of the country's two major parties -- Mondale - Ferraro in 1984):
What They're Saying About Governor Sarah Palin on Wash U. Debate: Volume 2
"She Killed. It Was Her Evening. ... 15 Minutes In, She Had Joe Biden On The Defensive On The Subject Of Obama And Taxes. ... She Killed"
The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan: "She killed. It was her evening. She was the star. She had him at, 'Nice to meet you. Hey, can I call you Joe?' It was very interesting to me, for Palin tonight, for an hour and a half, I think America saw her for a really long time, and she became a star probably on a new level. Gwen Ifill was not there for Sarah Palin. Joe Biden was not there for Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin was there with a camera. It was classic go over the heads of the media and everybody else, talk straight to the American people. She hit every populist chord. It is amazing to me that 15 minutes in, she had Joe Biden on the defensive on the subject of Obama and taxes. ... She killed." (NBC's "Vice Presidential Debate Coverage," 10/2/08)
NBC's Tom Brokaw: "I think they're whopping it up in Alaska tonight and all those parties across the country for the McCain campaign because I thought in terms of theatrics and personal style out there, you can see why she's such a successful politician in Alaska. ... And any question asked of her, she talked about John McCain's tax cuts, his record as a maverick, about his determination to reform what is going on and about energy independence. She had been called, as you know, the bumper sticker is coldest state, hottest governor. You saw some of that tonight." (NBC's "Vice Presidential Debate Coverage," 10/2/08)
"I Wanted My Granddaughters To Be Able To Look At This Debate ... I Wanted Them To Look At This Debate And See That A Woman Could Go Toe To Toe With Someone Who Has Had Tremendous Experience"
1984 Democrat Vice Presidential Nominee Geraldine Ferraro: "I really wanted her to get up there and do a good job, and I think she did. ... I think it was a good evening for -- certainly for Governor Palin. ... I think she showed she is certainly capable of going toe to toe with a man who is more than qualified to be vice president, if not president of the United States." (NBC's "Vice Presidential Debate Coverage," 10/2/08)
* Ferraro: "The thing about it is she held her own, and that for me, from a historic viewpoint, I wanted my granddaughters to be able to look at this debate -- I hope they're in bed right now. I wanted them to look at this debate and see that a woman could go toe to toe with someone who has had tremendous experience in the Senate and someone who is an incredible candidate for vice president of the United States. That to me is very very important." (NBC's "Vice Presidential Debate Coverage," 10/2/08)
MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "I think she's an extremely appealing politician. Her energy level was much better than Biden's. I think Biden lost a little speed there during the evening. I think she came across terrific in terms of presentation." (MSNBC's "Vice Presidential Debate," 10/2/08)
ABC's Diane Sawyer: "On the first go, you're right, I thought that Governor Palin, after a bruising time in the media, showed up not just with confidence, but cheerful confidence that might surprise a lot of people, talking about her personal issues ..." (ABC's "Vice Presidential Debate," 10/2/08)
"Sarah Palin Was Sensational Tonight ... I Think She Wiped Up The Floor With Joe Biden"
The Associated Press' Jim Kuhnhenn: "Under intense scrutiny, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin stood her ground Thursday night against a vastly more experienced Joe Biden, debating the economy, energy and global warming, then challenging him on Iraq, 'especially with your son in the National Guard.'" (Jim Kuhnhenn, "Palin Stands Her Ground In VP Debate With Biden," The Associated Press, 10/2/08)
* Kuhnhenn: "The Alaska governor also noted that Biden had once said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wasn't ready to be commander in chief, 'and I know again that you opposed the move that he made to try to cut off funding for the troops and I respect you for that.'" (Jim Kuhnhenn, "Palin Stands Her Ground In VP Debate With Biden," The Associated Press, 10/2/08)
CNN's David Gergen: "She was spirited, she came out well, she came out strong." (CNN's "Debate Coverage," 10/2/08)
MSNBC's Pat Buchanan: "My take is Sarah Palin was sensational tonight. She not only met the expectations, I think she wiped up the floor with Joe Biden, quite frankly. She is personable, she is young, she's got a sense of humor...I think that she has done a sensational job and I think she as recaptured that magic she had out there at the convention." (MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann," 10/2/08)
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "She was most effective when she argued against Barack Obama ..." (Marc Ambinder, "Palin-Biden: First Take," The Atlantic's "Marc Ambinder" Blog, marcambinder.theatlantic.com, 10/2/08)
The New York Times' Bill Kristol: "It was match point against Sarah Palin and she won the set and she kept the race alive." (Bill Kristol, Fox, On The Record, 10/2/08)
National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru: "Biden had a good start, but Palin was exceptionally strong." (Ramesh Ponnuru, "The Opening," National Review's "The Corner" Blog, corner.nationalreview.com, 10/2/08)
The New York Times' Peter Baker: "If the debate was the defining test this fall of Sarah Palin, she emerged from it largely unscathed." (Peter Baker, "Live Blog: St. Louis Showdown," The New York Times' "The Caucus" Blog, thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com, 10/2/08)
* Baker: "[S]he came across as a forceful, articulate and well-prepared candidate, able to go toe to toe with an opponent who has been debating on the floor of the United States Senate for the past 36 years. She may not have had any breakthrough moments but she never stumbled in response to any "gotcha" questions and Joe Biden largely focused his attacks on John McCain, not her." (Peter Baker, "Live Blog: St. Louis Showdown," The New York Times' "The Caucus" Blog, thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com, 10/2/08)
* Baker: "But she was aggressive and kept on the offense. Mr. Biden never seemed to rattle her. To be sure, he had some strong moments where he may have gotten the better of the argument on points, but she had a parry for every thrust..." (Peter Baker, "Live Blog: St. Louis Showdown," The New York Times' "The Caucus" Blog, thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com, 10/2/08)
CNN's Bill Schneider: "Palin is going after Biden over his comments that the wealthy should pay more taxes as a patriotic move. The Alaska governor has come to this debate fully armed." (Bill Schneider, "Attack, Counter Attack," CNN's "Political Ticker" Blog, politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com, 10/2/08)
NBC's Chuck Todd: "Governor Palin proved very adept at being a good debater. ... In many ways, she was a better surrogate for her top of the ticket than Joe Biden was for his. ... Governor Palin started this debate very strongly, I think." (NBC's "Vice Presidential Debate Coverage," 10/2/08)
The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes: "The moment in this debate when she knew how well she was doing, and was actually winning the debate came at 9:55 eastern daylight time and she said to Gwen Ifill the moderator, "can we talk about Pakistan, or rather can we talk about Afghanistan for a minute?". In other words she wanted to go back to one of these foreign policy issues. She knew that she passed the test that she could handle Joe Biden, and it was all about her as Mort said, and Bill said. This was not a debate where Joe Biden had to do much of anything, it was entirely a test of Sarah Palin, and she passed it." (Fred Barnes, Fox, On The Record, 10/2/08)
The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "She's sticking to her broader message, not getting caught up in a back-and-forth on policy that she can't win with Biden. it's all about energy, energy, energy." (Jonathan Martin, "Palin Doesn't Care What The Topic/Discussion Is (Cont.)" The Politico's "Jonathan Martin" Blog, www.politico.com, 10/2/08)
CNN's Bill Schneider: "Palin's primary strength is her outside of Washington status. She doesn't act like an insider, she doesn't talk like an insider, and a lot of voters may respond to that." (Bill Schneider, "Palin's Strengths," CNN's "Political Ticker" Blog, politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com, 10/2/08)
The Hill's Walter Alarkon: "One theme Palin keeps hitting tonight is the idea that Biden and Obama are looking backward. After a riff by Biden on how McCain's policies are the same as President Bush's, Palin pounces. 'Say it ain't so, Joe,' she said. 'There you go again, pointing backwards. Now doggone it, let's look again and tell Americans what we plan to do for Americans in the future.'" (Walter Alarkon, "Liveblog: The Veep Debate" The Hill's "Briefing Room" Blog, briefingroom.thehill.com, 10/2/08)
ABC's Rick Klein: "We knew this was coming -- attacking Obama by using Biden's own words. And the rest of the answer -- 'we're getting closer and closer to victory, and it would be a travesty' to quit now -- was very well put. 'Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq,' she said." (Rick Klein, "Live Debate" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 10/2/08)
Meanwhile Team Obama appears more interested in grabbing more money. "Message from Joe: 'What they won't say'." I do like and know Joe and was willing to note some statement on last night's debate. The link is what a friend with the campaign is steering me to. I'm reading over the copy of it he's e-mailed me (with him still on the phone) and saying, "This isn't about the debate, this is begging for money." Too bad for Team Obama. If they'd had a statement praising Joe's performance, we would have noted it. Instead, they wanted to try and stick their hands in your pocket again. And now that I'm saying that (on the phone), I'm being told, "Wait, wait, there's another thing you can put up." No, I don't have all damn morning. That's what you wanted noted, you got your link. If it hadn't been a money grab, you would have got it posted in full. Without comment or snark on my part. Too bad.
On the debate last night, Kat weighed in with "My focus group scores Palin the winner," Marcia with "My grandparents say Palin won (I agree)," Mike with "Why I think Palin won the debate" and Cedric's "Biden gets a big topic wrong" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! PRECONDITIONS THROWS JOE!" (joint-post). Rebecca focused on the independent presidential candidate last night with ''ralph nader, the lenny bruce of politics" while Ruth focused on the latest nonsense from Naomi Wolf, "Naomi Wolf needs to get medical help."
Added: Chuck Baldwin is running for president as well. He is the Constitutional Party's presidential candidate (and has Ron Paul's endorsement). His website has no new information. I forgot to check his site when I posted the above. The main page has things dated from September. Darrell Castle is his running mate.
iraq
karen deyoung
walter pincus
the washington post
the los angeles times
borzou daragahi
mark mazzetti
scott peterson
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the daily jotsickofitradlz