McCain's Latest Twist

Joe Biden opened a door at a Sunday fundraiser, stating:

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. ... We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Now, not withstanding the fact that an international crisis has tested every recent new president within 6 months, John McCain jumped all over the comment as an opportunity to invoke the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 to incite fear and uncertainty about Obama's readiness to lead. He handled it like everything else he does that hasn't been carefully scripted in advance by his campaign team: He blew it. He said:

“We don’t want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,”

Then, McCain veered off script to expound:

“Sen. Biden referred to how Jack Kennedy was tested in the Cuban Missile Crisis. My friends, I had a little personal experience in that,” McCain said. “I was on board the USS Enterprise. I sat in the cockpit of a flight deck on the USS Enterprise off of Cuba. I had a target. My friends, do you know how close we came to nuclear war? America will not have a president who needs to be tested. I’ve been tested my friends.”

McCain was tested by sitting in a cockpit on an aircraft carrier? President Kennedy sure didn't call him on the radio to ask his advice on how to resolve the situation. Maybe if he was close enough to see Cuba on the horizon, he can claim, Palin style, that he's an expert on Cuban affairs.

What does any of it have to do with being tested? However brave his military exploits, it was all about following orders, not making international policy decisions or negotiating solutions. Thank you John for reminding us all that your military service does not equate to crisis decision making or foreign policy readiness. Thanks also for reminding us just how old you are.

If anything, this confirms how erratic McCain's campaign is. It's pulled him off onto a new tangent. I have to wonder if Biden's comments were intended to do just that.

VP Debate - Talking Points vs Content

Sarah Palin managed to survive the VP debate, mostly because the bar has been set so low for her to begin with. Babbling was kept to a minimum, unlike her interviews with Katie Couric. I supposed several days of non-stop prep will help issues like that. It also helps that she didn't respond to questions asked, and didn't have anyone drill down in depth on any subject.

It was obvious that the plan was to answer questions when they fit into talking points that she had prepared for her stump speech, and when they didn't, answer with talking points from her stump speech anyway. She even admitted such when it was remarked early on that she didn't respond at all to the question asked. That was an obvious tactic for those who are not prepared. It was also obvious to some that she was referring to notes very frequently on her answers, frequently glancing down, sometimes appearing to be reading.

In some questions, the moderator did a very poor job, suggesting answers as part of her questions. She also did not press for answers to the questions asked, when Palin kept changing the topic and wasn't responsive. The only real break from McCain and Bush was on the subject of rights and recognition of same-sex couples. I'm sure there will be 'clarifications' on that response by first thing this morning.

The other major gaff was her statement in regard to the job of the VP. She states that she would like to expand the roll of the VP - in the legislative branch. Does she mean that she'd like to re-write the Constitution and 'run' the senate? That is NOT how the Senate runs, nor how the Constitution lays this job out.

Who is McClellan? The top general in Afghanistan is McKiernan. Since she was reading - what happened? Fact Check Please !! She didn't address any of the issues, or supply any answers to what McCain/Palin would actually DO. No Beef!

On the other hand, Biden was specific, answered the questions thoughtfully, and stayed away from any hint of sexism, or condescension. He hit some home runs connecting with women (at least from the CNN real-time focus group results) even more than with men. He came across as eminently qualified and a master of foreign policy. I particularly liked his response to Palin's sarcastic comment about looking at the past when he said 'prologue', when she tried to characterize it as irrelevant and unimportant. I also felt that his choke when talking about his family was real, a 'human' connection, but Palin ignored it, and she came off cold as a result.

Poll stats show Biden won this debate easily, and gained positive impression numbers for himself. Although Palin managed not to trip over ankle high bar; she also did not help McCain or her party win over any significant numbers of undecided voters. It seems that initial poll results show that undecideds are still moving steadily to Obama, and those leaning McCain are going more to neutral. Time will tell over the next few days whether her 'favorable numbers' go up. I expect they will, if only until the next segment that CBS releases of her Couric interview, or if she has to actually have a press conference where she has to answer questions.

Biden does a Great job. Palin's latest - Supreme Court, Church and State.

I could have titled this "Palin blows another 2 segments with Katie Couric".

I'd like to say first what a great job Joe Biden did answering these questions. For a Catholic, stating his position on Roe v. Wade could be considered big news. Of course, the advantage of having all that experience is he's already weighed in on the matter multiple times.

He did a masterful job of responding in depth to the questions, the nature of our country and how this ruling related. He also continued to describe his support of the core principle behind the Roe decision of the 'right to privacy'. Bravo too for picking as a disagreement his "Violence against Women Act" which he tried to get through the Supreme Court. He certainly had plenty of choices. As to his answer on separation of Church and State, what a creative way of describing why this governing principle is so important to maintain. Very thoughtful and enlightening.

Well, on to the obvious, and latest Palin disaster:
Discussing why she opposes the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, her primary answer was "it should be a states' issue". What? Her next sentence - and I'll quote it here says:

I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas.

What? A Federalist?
OK.. I am SO confused... So read the link on the word above and read all about it for yourself just to be sure you know all that it implies! This is the TRUE disaster of this interview... regardless of your agreement on her position on Roe or anything else.

First off, to oppose Roe based on states rights isn't a credible argument. Then in the very next sentence to say you are a Federalist, is saying exactly the opposite. Federalists believe in a strong central government, and care little about states rights. She's clearly got this exactly backwards.. a 'states rights' proponent claiming to be 'Federalist' - come ON !!

Well, Ms. fuzzball Katie Couric doesn't challenge her on this, but moves on to the next part of the question, and asks her about if she believes in a 'Right to Privacy' being inherent in the Constitution. I suppose if she had answered the Roe question on ideological terms, this would be an important follow-up. Surprisingly, she answers that she DOES support the 'Right to Privacy' which is the cornerstone of the Roe decision (which Ms. Couric dutifully reminds her, and us), and then goes on to expound again how she feels it should be a 'states' issue, not federal! It sure doesn't sound very 'Federalist' to me!! I think Ms. Couric was in shock by this point.

I'm wondering what McCain and the rest of the Republican Party have to say about their 'Federalist - States Rights' candidate much less the right side of the Party - those who support constitutional amendments to ban Gay marriage and outlaw abortion. Watching the Conservatives scramble will be fun these next few days. They have been running away from this candidate as fast as they can.

Keeping up the pace, Ms. Couric moves on again, and asks what other decisions that Gov. Palin disagrees with the Court about. She couldn't come up with a single thing... not ONE! Even the Court's decision to overturn the Exxon-Valdez multi-billion dollar jury award, and reduce it to $500 million - something she spoke out against at the time!

Of course, not to let us down on the Separation of Church and State issue, Palin trys to quote Thomas Jefferson - but says 'never underestimate the wisdom of the people' - which I can't find as a Jefferson quote anywhere - (and so far no one else I know of either, paraphrased or otherwise). What's worse, is that she does this after claiming to be a "Federalist", which party Jefferson defeated in 1800. She said "government did not mandate a religion on people". In the strict one phrase response to the 'wall between Church and State' that answer is accurate, in an elementary school approach to American History. Separation of Church and State goes far beyond that. It means, especially in regards to Jeffersonian politics, that the Church should not be a part of Government and politics. It was a principle argument in the election of 1800, so is quite appropriate to bring into the conversation. Palin fails, however to say anything else, so fills the time with meaningless babble about 'wisdom of the people' whatever that means.

I have two Jefferson quotes to share - that have been part of my email signature block for a long time now. In an open attempt to provide an accurate quote for Gov. Palin to use next time, I'm including them here:

"The presumption of dictating to an independent nation the form of its government is so arrogant, so atrocious, that indignation as well as moral sentiment enlists all our partialities and prayers in favor of one and our equal execrations against the other. I do not know, indeed, whether all nations do not owe to one another a bold and open declaration of their sympathies with the one party and their detestation of the conduct of the other. But farther than this we are not bound to go; and, indeed, for the sake of the world, we ought not to increase the jealousies or draw on ourselves the power of [a] formidable confederacy." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823. ME 15:435

"Nor is the occasion to be slighted... of declaring our protest against the atrocious violations of the rights of nations by the interference of any one in the internal affairs of another." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823. ME 15:478

Here are the videos - from CBS News - It's ABOUT TIME YOU PUBLISHED THESE!!!!!!!
1st - Supreme Court - Roe v. Wade



And the 2nd one - Church and State




Happy New Year folks -

CNN Election Tracker shows Obama gains in EC map

I noticed some discrepancies between CNN's Electoral College map and their 'Election Tracker' map.

Click this link for the Election Tracker map. Notice that this map shows the latest polling data, all prior to the debate, in the swing states - if you mouse over the CNN symbol of a swing state - it will provide the data. On this map, light blue is still 'even-within margin of error'. Notice that Wisconsin is DARK blue - called for Obama. Also notice that the data for Minnesota and New Hampshire are favoring Obama, but are not called for him yet, however the leads are right at the 'margin of error' for the polls. WI, MN and NH total 24 electoral votes.

Now notice the CNN Electoral College map linked from their main politics page. This is the interactive 'calculator' map that allows you to change states and see what happens to the EC count. With CNN's estimate they show Obama at 240, McCain at 200.

Notice that this map does NOT have WI for Obama, and shows MO and NC as leaning McCain, even though the Tracker maps shows them as 'even - within margin of error'.

It appears that they have not updated the 'Calculator' map linked from their leading 'Politics' page with the latest data from the Election Tracker. If you update the map with the WI, MN and NH, Obama moves up to 264 EC votes - 6 votes shy of the 270 required. MO and NC should be moved back into the 'toss-up' pile, as they are both within 1 pt, and the data is 2 weeks old. This leaves McCain with 176 EC votes, and 100 in the toss-up group.

This shows a VERY different picture of the EC vote status - 264 Obama to 176 McCain with 100 still in the 'toss-up' states. Keep in mind that this data is all PRIOR to the Debate. New post-debate polling data will move things around a bit. If Obama gets a bounce in Ohio or any of the other swing states, which judging from the debate viewer polls , he will, and with his current momentum, the Election Tracker map should start to show Obama polling over the top with the next poll results update.

This is especially true if Palin does not get a huge bounce out of the VP debate. Somehow, based on her press interviews, I don't think that will be likely, unless it's a sympathy bounce because somehow it's 'unfair' or 'sexist' to expect her to answer the same questions as Biden. It's really just another press interview, since they won't be addressing each other based on the 'special rules' for this debate session. Most people don't know Joe Biden, although he has a long record in the Senate. They will learn that he is a very capable, eloquent speaker, and knowledgeable on the issues and the record. Palin has a problem putting together a coherent grammatically correct sentence if she's not repeating a memorized talking point. The best thing she could do is find a reason not to be there on Thursday. The best thing Biden can do is to let her hang herself and stay as far away from the self-destruct as possible, to avoid any 'blame' from the Republican spin doctors.

My only other expectation is that CNN will be slow to update their maps, because of the debacle of the last election, where they missed their predictions by small but important margins.