Independent Rant

It was interesting watching the game last night on the itty-bitty Windows Media Player on my laptop but it sure beat not seeing the game at all. For a lifelong Sox fan it is an unbelievable moment yet one from which I am at arm's length because I am in France. There is media coverage, but minimal. There are not a lot of fans with whom to celebrate. The streets are not teeming with celebrants. It is my first chance to have a real ex-pat experience and I have to say that it brings mixed feelings. I am happy to be here -- always happy to be in Paris -- but I miss Boston more than ever this morning. I miss being with people with whom I share a passion for a bunch of idiots. The disconnection is palpable. It must be what true ex-pats feel at the time of an election or other major national event. You can take yourself away one's national roots can't just be bleached out.

I had the chance to listen to Willem Duisenberg, former head of the Euro Central Bank, at dinner last night. He spoke a lot about the US deficits (both budget and current accounts) as "unsustainable." Seem pretty straightforward to me.

We like to think of economics as a science, but it is as much a matter of expectations, faith, and trust as anything else. I know that US economists argue about the size of the deficit relative to GDP, blah, blah, blah. Fact is that if people like Duisenberg think that our current path is unsustainable, it isn't. The ability to carry a deficit is directly tied to the willingness of foreign investors to buy our debt instuments. If they lose faith, the game's over.

A return to fiscal discipline is in order.

It's taken two days to get a stable Internet connection here but I'm on at last. My limited interactions with Parisians has found one who thinks Bush will win because Americans like "bang bangs" (guns) and Bush is more of a cowboy. He is an artist who has found that he can no longer sell his works in the States because of anti-French sentiment. Another person, an ex-pat, is voting for the first time in 30 years (for Kerry).

The ex-pat had horrifying stories about how hard -- and how easy -- the voting process is for an ex-pat. He had stories of others as well (An American in the Philippines received a sample ballot but no real ballot. She called her home election commission and was told to just mark up the sample ballot. Not trusting that she paid to have a ballot overnighted to her and paid to overnight it back to get it in on time). The ex-pat with whom we spoke had to go through extensive measures to register and vote. For example, if he hadn't learned that voting in the local county elections would disqualify his votes in the national elections (he received ballots for all; I don't know the particular NC regulations but he spent a lot of time learning and double-checking) he could have had his vote thrown out . Anyone receiving information and ballots from a local board of elections should be entitled to simple, clear, and correct information and forms.

These stories, and other press reports, show how foolish it is that we cling to our system of local administration of federal elections. We need to have common ballots, deadlines, requirements, and procedures to ensure a fair election. These were never an issue when the winnng margins were large. Now that we are bi-polar nation we have to be concerned about every single vote.

Tonight I'm having dinner with a large group of Euro business people and listening to Willem Deusenberg, former head of the European Bank.

This from EdCone:
"All your opinions are belong to Media General: a North Carolina-based Kos diarist explains why the Winston-Salem Journal and another Media General newspaper could not endorse Kerry, even as they ripped Bush. The absentee landlords in Virginia wouldn't let them speak their minds."

It seems that almost daily there are headlines about corporate influence in the editorial decisions of the media. Despite more choices, there are fewer voices. One of the most significant outcomes from the presidential election will be the affect on the climate for media consolidation. The soonr Michael Powell and his ilk pack their bags, the better.

I'll be watching the final week of pre-election frenzy from Europe and will report on the word on the street in Paris and Amsterdam. More difficult will be keeping up with the Red Sox, but MLB has set up on-line viewing.

I'm troubled by the death of a college student in the post-victory "celebration" outside Fenway Park in Boston. What is it that turns our joy to anger? What pushes us to channel exhultation into destruction. Post-sports victory riots are becoming almost common place after big games and it doesn't say good things about us as a society.

Talk of the Nation had an excellent show yesterday (10/21) with officials from each campaign answering call-in questions. The campaigns were on sequentially so there wasn't the usual jabfest. The questions were generally intelligent and the answers had more substance than the usual spin. You can find the archive on-line.

Next post, Paris.

I had a great night last night watching the Red Sox triumph from deep inside the belly of the beast. There are two Sox-friendly bars in the Village -- the Riviera (which had a line outside like it was a hot new club) and the Kettle. I skipped the line and spent the night at the K. It is one of those great old bars where the beer is reasonably priced and you can order in food from neighborhood restaurants. I made some new friends with whom I savored this oh-so sweet moment. Such a glorious stomping and an epic reawakening of Johnny Damon's bad. Now it's on to the show.

Meanwhile, back at the smearfest, er, campaign we have the Laura Bush kerfuffle making headlines. I'm still digging to get the full context (The networks never report on the damn context -- just the dust up. There's no meaning without context.) and am sure I'll find it on-line later this morning. This time it was the Bushies who are spitting but both camps are guilty to jumping on a minor remark and trying to turn it into a Big Event. It's sad but I guess evidence of desperate each side is to find any advantage. Mary Matlin was embarrassing as the pit bitch (that's a gender-correct canine reference, not a slur on the never-demur Ms. M.) on GMA; Joe Lockhart tried hard to sluff the whole thing off. I'm sure the pollsters are working frantically to see if anyone cares.

Later on GMA the "revealed" that busty teen idol Lindsay Lohan is the 201st "Got Milk?" ad model. There's news that matters. Oy.

Another low-sleep night, but it's worth it. The old town team has triumphed in game six of the ALCS and has forced a deciscive game seven tonight in the Bronx. They don't call them the Cardiac Kids for nothin'. Remember, just because no one's ever come back from three down before doesn't mean no one ever can (just like a mutuall fund -- past performance is not an indicator of future results).

Two big controversial plays went our way last night (rightly so in both cases though I'm hardly objective) and it was great to see the umpires acting collaboratively and gathering different perspectives in order to have the best shot of getting the calls right. The first ump to make the call in each case got it wrong but thought it better to be correct than stubborn. Think there might be a lesson here, Mr. President?

No matter what happens tonight, this series has been one for the books. I have an unexpected trip to NY today so I'll be watching the deciding match in the heart of the evil empire. I understand that the Riviera down in the West Village is a Red Sox-friendly bar so I think I'll head there. Stop by if you are in the neighborhood.

It still amazes me what a spiritual hold this game and this team has on so many people. There I sat in my darkened living room late into the night -- heart pounding, breathing shallow, fingers twitching -- trying to push every thought of game seven from my head for fear that I might jinx things. I'm several hundred miles away but still I felt that I need to do whatever I can to keep the spirits aligned. I couldn't even afford a feeling of jubilation until Foulke had thrown the last strike (no inning too late, no lead to great for the Red Sox to feel comfortable -- I've been a fan for a long time).

My only complaint has been that the announcers on Fox stink like old sweat socks. They never let the lack of something intelligent or insightful to say keep them from speaking. And what's with the "Diamond Cam" at ground level? Is there a dirt fetishist in the control room? 'Cause it ain't showing the rest of us anything different. Memo to network execs: pick up the color guy from the local team for the game. He (or she) will know both teams better than your guys and can add something to the game.

Favorite word of the day: Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

This is from the Washington Post's Style Invitational competition for best words not found in the dictionary. I thought this one was particularly apt this election season.

Words to live by from the NYT uber-pundit R.W. "Johnny" Apple in an interview with the FT last week: "I don't like wine as an occasional indulgence. I like it as a constant companion." Amen, Johnny. (Sorry, FT makes you pay for the full story.

Spent last night at Fenway Park watching the Cardiac Kids take a long, long time to beat the Yanks. There is nothing like rocking the rafters with fans in a do-or-die game. Everyone around us became friends. Even the watered down beer tasted good. Red Sox Nation is ebullient -- at least until tonight. We have to get some sleep soon.

Meanwhile, back at the Sinclair ranch (from WP): The Washington bureau chief of Sinclair Broadcast Group was fired yesterday after accusing the media company of "indefensible" conduct for planning to air a movie attacking Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam record in the coming days.

Jon Leiberman, who also was the lead political reporter for the 62-station television chain, told CNN last night that he was terminated for his criticism, which was quoted in yesterday's Baltimore Sun. He spoke out, he said, because "I feel so strongly that our credibility is at issue here. . . . I feel our company is trying to sway this election."

The consequences of speaking truth to power -- let's thank Lieberman for his courage.

Adam Cohen has an excellent OpEd in yesterday's NYT on what a Bush Supreme Court might look like. I've posted excerpts at the bottom of this post.

Problems in FL start as soon as early voting opens. There's a nightmare coming.

Jay Rosen has an interesting take on the Sinclair broohaha. He thinks Kerry should take them up on their offer to appear post-Swifties film. I disagree.

It's a set-up -- like a Mafia meeting in the movies where you're invited to have a "conversation" and wind up riddled with bullets.

If Sinclair were truly interested in the real underlying issue they'd be framing up an hour or two on "Why Vietnam Won't Go Away" and look at the charges and counter-charges involving both candidates' Vietnam-era service.

The more Kerry gets drawn into this issue, the bigger the risks. There is little upside for him. It puts him in reactive mode where he is at his worst.

Sinclair's real agenda may be to set itself up as Fox II. Openly conservative-leaning media outlets have been quite financially and it could be a savvy move to pitch themselves in that vein on local as well as national issues. Few knew who or what Sinclair is two weeks ago; now they are a household name.


Excerpts from Adam Cohen's OpEd:
But he (Bush) did say in his last campaign that his favorite Supreme Court justices were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and the nominations he has made to the lower courts bear that out. Justices Scalia and Thomas are often called "conservative," but that does not begin to capture their philosophies. Both vehemently reject many of the core tenets of modern constitutional law.

For years, Justices Scalia and Thomas have been lobbing their judicial Molotov cocktails from the sidelines, while the court proceeded on its moderate-conservative path. But given the ages and inclinations of the current justices, it is quite possible that if Mr. Bush is re-elected, he will get three appointments, enough to forge a new majority that would turn the extreme Scalia-Thomas worldview into the law of the land.

There is every reason to believe Roe v. Wade would quickly be overturned. Mr. Bush ducked a question about his views on Roe in the third debate. But he sent his base a coded message in the second debate, with an odd reference to the Dred Scott case. Dred Scott, an 1857 decision upholding slavery, is rarely mentioned today, except in right-wing legal circles, where it is often likened to Roe. (Anti-abortion theorists say that the court refused to see blacks as human in Dred Scott and that the same thing happened to fetuses in Roe.) For more than a decade, Justices Scalia and Thomas have urged their colleagues to reverse Roe and "get out of this area, where we have no right to be."

If Justices Scalia and Thomas become the Constitution's final arbiters, the rights of racial minorities, gay people and the poor will be rolled back considerably. Both men dissented from the Supreme Court's narrow ruling upholding the University of Michigan's affirmative-action program, and appear eager to dismantle a wide array of diversity programs. When the court struck down Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law last year, holding that the police violated John Lawrence's right to liberty when they raided his home and arrested him for having sex there, Justices Scalia and Thomas sided with the police.

This year, the court heard the case of a man with a court appearance in rural Tennessee who was forced to either crawl out of his wheelchair and up to the second floor or be carried up by court officers he worried would drop him. The man crawled up once, but when he refused to do it again, he was arrested. The court ruled that Tennessee violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by not providing an accessible courtroom, but Justices Scalia and Thomas said it didn't have to.

Neither President Bush nor John Kerry has said much about Supreme Court nominations, wary of any issue whose impact on undecided voters cannot be readily predicted. But voters have to think about the Supreme Court. If President Bush gets the chance to name three young justices who share the views of Justices Scalia and Thomas, it could fundamentally change America for decades.

WMD could have been found in Iraq over the weekend. A viable Palestinian state could have been created. A cure for cancer even. I would have missed it all. After the embarassing defeat of the Red Sox on Saturday night I had to have a media-free Sunday (well, at least until last night's game) for fear of drowning in the self-righteous boasting of the New York press or succumbing to temptation to put my head in the oven if I read the inevitable self-flagelation in the Boston rags. But now we live for another day.

But the week starts on a high-minded and insighful note from Jim McGee about our tendancy to privatize profits and commonize costs. I've thought a lot about this as well -- more from the perspective of how we under value and under appreciate our common wealth (see Bollier's Silent Theft for an excellent overview) -- and it is an important issue to understand. As companies seek to shed their pension obligations, as the number of people without health care coverage rise, as we allow environmental laws to be weakended, as we give ouselves over to the crack cocaine of ever-lower prices we fail to understand that many of the costs remain and may even be borne less efficiently because they remain invisible -- or at least not clearly linked with their root causes. We will pay for destitute seniors, the care of the uninsured, the clean up of the air, land and water (or the price of living with pollution), and substandard wages -- but we can pretend that we don't. In fact, when private interests can shift their cost into the common space -- acting rationally as McGee points out -- profits rise and, consequently, executives are rewared. Shareholders benefit because the rest of us are wiling to get stuck with the tab.

I ventured into a local Starbucks the other day and passed a "help wanted" sign by the door. It trumpeted that the chain provides health coverage, domestic partnership benefits, tuition reimbursement, as well as a competitive wage. It made me feel better about paying so much for a cup o' Joe because at least part of the money is going to ensure that Starbucks is a decent place to work. It's one example of how a business can bear its fair share of costs and still make a profit.

I finally tracked down an on-line archive of Jon Stewart's dope slap of Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on Crossfire by way of BoingBoing by way of Joi Ito. It's a great segment.

Most disturbing was Carlson and Begala's assumption that Stewart is a fellow journalist. Stewart quickly points out that they have something in common but it's not journalism -- they're both in the entertainment business. They just don't get it -- Stewart has put himself in a place where he can speak the truth as he sees it and, as he puts it, "sleep at night" while Tucker, Begala, Mathews, et al are simply about churning the froth. Stewart mocks the media as much as the pols and its fun to see the Crossfire boys squirm on air.

There's such a chasm between the process and reality that needs to be closed. The traditional media stews in spin alley with its collective thumb way up the butt, few of them are asking the tough questions and demanding that they be answered. I take the process to be a necessary evil. I take the Constitution and the consequences of government action seriously but can anyone argue that the way we go about things is giving us the best outcomes? Lobbyists, the media, the politicians themselves are all bit players in the theater of the absurd. Unfortunately, people's live are affected in ways large and small so we little 0l' citizens need to try to make it work as best we can.


Some of the best reporting and analysis continues to come from the blogosphere -- and The Daily Show.

I won't give you the answer but you can ruled in favor of Sinclair Broadcasting on First Amendment grounds. Probably the right decision not to block the film so long as Sinclair truly provides equal time for rebuttal. Sinclair has a history of ordering stations to run pro-Bush editorials and ordered its stations not to run the Nightline episode on which Ted Koppel read the names of the US military dead because that was serving a political agenda. And the broadcast of the discredited Swifties film is different how?

So how fast can someone edit Going Upriver down to an hour an offer it to Sinclair stations as a rebuttal? I'd love to see them explain how they'd run an anti-Kerry film but not a pro-Kerry film. Share the outrage at www.stopsinclair.com.

I've been thinking about taxes and fiscal policies in general and the words of FDR came to mind: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." I'm fairly conservative fiscally -- I think that we need to know how to pay for programs we enact, have defined and measurable objectives for them to ensure accountability, and demand that government use its resources effiiciently. That may be more of a dream than reality in the Washington we all know and love, but I have thus far resisted the urge to flush all of the lawmakers from Congress to start from scratch.

We cannot keep tokin' the tax cut weed to perpetuate the fantasy that taxes can be cut while spending rises. The policy of "don't tax but spend" makes the charge of "tax and spend liberal" a high compliment to one's fiscal responsibility. The most recent corporate tax cut -- giving a break to importers of ceiling fans and lucky foreign gamblers -- is just the latest abomination. Oh, this just gets me too upset in the morning.

There's an interesting fact check piece in today's NYT comparing the claims of Bush and Kerry on the economy. Bush likes to use the average for income (e.g. all of the income divided by all of the people) while Kerry prefers to use the median (the point at which half of the people fall above and half fall below). The average income is going up because of the tax cuts though the median is going down because the benefits of the tax cuts skew so heavily toward the wealthy. For average folks, the median is much more relevant.

Take a few moments to read this conservative view on why Bush should go -- it's an eloquent, persuasive piece by Robert A. George from TNR (George writes for the NY Post).

Interesting research from our friends at Stanford on the satisfaction voters get from voting and why they continue to vote even though the chance of a single vote determining the course of the election is miniscule.

I'll give Bob Scheiffer the benefit of the doubt until about 9:15 tonight, but it will be hard for his questions to better those on today's NYT OpEd page. Once again they've assembled a good group to poke at Bush and Kerry. Crib these, Bob -- I won't tell.

Are things really going nuts or I am spending too much time in the conspiracy theory wing of the blogosphere?

Daily Kos reports that Dem voter registrations are being shredded in Nevada. Media Matters reports that the LA Times reports that W is holding back on major military action in Iraq until after the election -- and the rest of the press is ignoring it. And what about that square bulge in W's back during the debate? I've been repeatedly vocal on the issues around electronic voting machines.

I'm beginning to miss smoke-filled back rooms and old-fashioned vote buying. I think I'll curl up with my copy of The Last Hurrah after the debate tonight.

There's an old story I've heard told by former Mass. Senate President Billy Bulger of South Boston. He was challenged by someone who had discovered that 73 votes had been cast for Bulger from people whose addresses were all at the same triple-decker. How could you get 73 votes from a three-family house, he was asked. Bulger thought for a moment and replied, "Well, I guess the second floor must have been vacant."

Oh, dem was da days!

OK, so I'm slow on the post but at least it's pre-debate. This is part two of posts about why I am voting for Kerry (as opposed to voting against Bush). I had dinner with friends last week and one of them said, "I'm a disenchanted Republican but can't find anyone who can articulate why to vote for Kerry." This is my humble attempt.

As you listen to Kerry and Bush you could not get a clearer view of the differences between these two men. First, Kerry wants to roll back the tax cuts on those making $200,000. I have to admit that I'm affected here but, given that the deficit has ballooned, I think it is time to put some money back into the Treasury. Bush wants to keep sending money back to the wealthy though there is little evidence that it trickles back down in any meaninful way.

The way I look at it is this: when we reduce the deficit we reduce the service on the debt. Those savings can, and should, be returned to the taxpayers. When we keep whipping out the Federal credit card we increase the cost of servicing the debt draining yet more money that could either pay for essential services (however you define them) or tax cuts.

I don't mind paying the taxes that I owe. I want good schools, libraries, sewers, courts, unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, a strong military - and none of those are free.

The sad reality of American politics is that you can't pledge to raise taxes -- even for good reasons -- and get elected. Just ask Walter Mondale. Kerry is being as much of a realist as he can without blowing the election.

Kerry will appoint pr0-choice justices to the Supreme Court. That's important to me. Bush said that he's appoint justices like those who decided the Dred Scott case -- that's the one where the right to own slaves was affirmed. That should be comforting to people of color and the rest of us who find that period in our history abhorent.

Kerry has pledged to stop the back-sliding on the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other enviromental policies. He doesn't define a national park as public land where you can drill for oil and fell timber for profit. He consistently led the fight to stop drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in the Senate.

Kerry is being a bit of a weenie on outsourcing. It's a cheap play for votes and he knows it. Outsourcing isn't nearly the problem that it is made out to be -- it accounts for perhaps 10% of our job losses. Trade benefits us more that it hurts us and Kerry will come back to that afterthe election. I do believe that Kerry will stop the overseas-HQ-to-avoid-taxes dodge (a la Tyco). Sure he's pandering, but find me a candidate who isn't (all of those who voted for yesterday's corporate tax cut sure were). I can live with this.

Kerry will appoint an FCC chairman who will look out for the public as much as the big media companies. Or at least I hope so. I would like it if each candidate had to name their prospective cabinet before the election so we could see the kind of people they want surrounding them.

I could go on and on. In fact, I can find plenty of reasons to vote for Kerry but can't find one reason to vote for W. Not a single one. And I feel good about that. Well, as long as we get Kerry for the next four years and not Bush.

Don't take my word (or your gut) for the folly of W's fiscal policies -- take a look at this open letter to the President from leading economics and business professors.

Here's the first 'graph to give you a feeling of what's to come:

"As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown. "

Sinclair Broadcasting is ordering its stations to run an hour-long anti-Kerry film on between Oct. 21 - 24 followed by a panel discussion. They are not airing any pro-Kerry film of similar length. This hijacking of the public airwaves for a private political agenda is wrong in oh-so many ways (and you'll have to believe that I'd be just as vehement if they were showing an anti-Bush film without giving similar voice to Bush proponents).

From Left Coaster: "Back in April they ordered their affiliates not to air a Ted Koppel “Nightline” segment in which Koppel was simply reading the names of fallen US service personnel in Iraq because ABC was supposedly "motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq," and because supposedly "ABC is disguising political statements as news content." So what exactly is telling your affiliates to preempt regular programming in swing states to run an anti-Kerry piece of propaganda? Is that not a political statement and a political agenda?"

We have to pull elections back from this rule-breaking bull and onto honest, open debate about the issues. Here's what you can do:

Read more at The Left Coaster -- lots of links to other "action spots"
Sign the Stop Sinclair petition

Meanwhile, back at the electronic voting ranch -- you can test the new sample Florida ballot.

Great piece in NYT today by Dan Okrent examining accusations of pro-Kerry bias in campaign coverage. Guess what -- there isn't any. Far more important at NYT to remain paper of record than get any particular person elected.

Kerry probably gets his NY Observer a week late (via mail) as I do. Wish he'd read Joe Conason's column before the debate. Here's a bit on the $87 billion vote/no vote -- correcting my memory and my last post -- and what Conason wishes Kerry had said:

Question: What about your vote on the $87 billion appropriation for the war? You said you voted for it before you voted against it. Weren’t you having it both ways?

Kerry: You’re asking all my favorite questions tonight. But I hope you will ask the President why he repeatedly threatened to veto that same $87 billion bill. I suspect most Americans still don’t know about his veto threat.

He told us he would veto the $87 billion if we tried to share the burden with the Iraqis by making a loan instead of a grant. He said he would veto that bill if we allocated money to provide medical care for our veterans, and for our National Guard and Reserve families. He threatened a veto unless we agreed to add that $87 billion to the deficit, rather than reduce his most profligate tax cuts.

In the Senate, we knew that the needs of our troops would be met one way or another, but we sharply disagreed over the best way to do that. I wanted a fiscally responsible bill that provided medical care for military families. The President cared more about preserving tax cuts for those who need them least. And now we know that he has failed to spend nearly all of the $20 billion in reconstruction funding that Congress appropriated—while the costs of the war balloon toward $200 billion. The administration’s incompetence is costing American and Iraqi lives.

Now what I think he needs to say this coming Wednesday is this:

"Mr. President, I'm going to borrow a line from your campaign: you can run but you cannot hide from your record. We've already spent most of two debates talking about Iraq and the deteriorating situation there. Tonight we turn to domestic affairs. There has been a net loss of 548,000 jobs on your watch -- the first such net loss since Herbert Hoover. Jobs are now being created but at a rate lower than necessary to compensate for the growth in the workforce. Those who are working are working for less -- the average worker's pay has declined about $1,500 since you took office. The price of gas is higher than when you took office and you've done nothing about it. Five million fewer people have health insurance than when you took office. More people are living below the poverty line.

That's quite a record, Mr. President, and it gives the American people a clear choice."

This part, Senator, I leave to you. Don't stop at "I have a plan to xxx better." Give specifics (even I, a supporter, would appreciate more of these).

Hate to tear myself away from the delicious glow of exhultation that envelopes Red Sox nation today, but there was a post-game debate. Yankees and Twins fans with a political bent must have sore thumbs on the remote hand today.

I have to say that I'm a bit surprised polls are showing that last night's prez debate was a draw. Neither candidate delivered knock-out blows obviously and neither actually delivered even a serious body blow. I thought that Kerry again showed that he has come a long way in making his statements more concise and powerful; Bush, however was almost incomprehesible at times.

Have TAP gotten so accustomed to W's inarticulate public statements that he gets a complete pass? I don't expect or require Churchillian oratory from POTUS, but is it too much to ask for a few complete, coherent sentences to be strung together. There were times when I was only able to infer the meaning of W's response through previous knowledge of his basic positions. W groped through some responses like a sleepy man in a dark room feeling for something solid that would orient him. I was wincing and that is not a good thing.

Check out the transcript. If I wasn't stuck on a dial-up connection this weekend I'd throw up a few examples. Dave Weinberger posts and dissect an excellent example of Bush babble.

Kudos to the audience last night. Their questions were as good -- and in many cases better -- than those lobbed by the average moderator. I particularly liked Kerry having to explain his position of abortion and W trying to make himself an evironmentalist.

But how come no one yet has talked about the price of gas?

Watching CNN in the hotel in NY -- Lou Dobbs reported on a poll they ran on confidence in the voting system. 86% were "very concerned."

Happy to see all of the fact checking after the debate on Tuesday but I wish they'd concentrate on the substantive issues rather than who had a hand on who's knee at a prayer breakfast.

Less time to post when on the road than when at home. More later.

The polls (CBS, MSNBC, NBC) seem to show that John Edwards won; I saw it as more of a draw. Republicans have got to wonder why Cheney is the bottom of the ticket and not the top. Edwards failed to hammer home the Democrats stronger jobs message. Once again the questioning was tepid at best.

Yes, Cheney and Edwards had met before department: Glad to see that there has been so much fact checking in the post-debate analysis both in the traditional media and in the blogosphere. Great sites to check out: FactChecker. com (Soros site) and FactChecker.org (non-partisan).

Here's hoping for a more substantive discussion on Friday. I didn't hear anything last night that I hadn't heard before.

Stopped for a shoe shine at Logan on my way to NY today and picked up the Herald to see what the usually solidly Republican tabloid had to say about things. Imagine my surprise to read that Bush-supporting columnist Margery Eagan has lost faith. It is columns like this that give me hope for the Kerry campaign.

Meanwhile the guy shining the shoes told me that the cost of shipping his supplies was up 25% thanks to rising fuel costs. "We gotta get f&#@ing George and the crazy man outta there" was his simple summation. While there's a lot more behind rising fuel costs than the team in the White House, I couldn't agree more.

I was inspired by John Perry Barlow's post and realized that for all of my Bush-bashing here (and the less-frequent swipe at Kerry and the Dems) I had never laid out the reasons that I am voting for Kerry in November. I'm doing it now both for myself and to encourage others to do so.

International affairs were the subject of the first debate, so let's start there. Kerry understands that, despite our current status as the only superpower, we live in a world in which states are mutually dependent. He understands that the tighter the weave of that interdependency, the stronger we all are and the greater the chances for peace, economic growth, and social cooperation.

I believe that he is serious when he says that no foreign country will have veto power over our foreign policy but he also understands that dismissing the French and Germans as irrelevant because they disagree with us is a mistake. We're going to do things that they don't like and they will do the same to us but there are ways to do it that strengthen the larger relationship and ways that cause it to begin to fray. I think that, in part because he has spent so much time abroad, Kerry has a greater understanding and appreciation for the perspectives of other countries.

I think that Kerry's position on Iraq is closer to real leadership that all of Bush's consistency. Yes, you do have to do a bit of divining to follow the thread of Kerry's position (hey, it's a complex play with many acts) but he has been consistent on the whole. Sometimes perhaps showing a little too much senatorial pragmatism with certain votes, but generally true to a core position while attempting to apply it to shifting circumstances.

More important, he has been willing to go against his base in saying that we have to finish the job now that we're in. I spent some time with Marty Linksy of Harvard's Kennedy School's Center for Public Leadership this past summer and he defined leadership as "disappointing your people at a rate they can accept." In short, the Bush position is the easy one -- TAP are still in a mood to kick some butt after 9/11 so kick butt is what he's going to do. He is fulfilling their expectations, but he isn't leading.

Kerry, on the other hand, has told the base that it is too late to whine about whether we were right to invade. We're there and now we have to figure out how to extricate ourselves but in a way that leaves Iraq better than we found it (hewing to Powell's famous "Pottery Barn rule" of you-break-it-you-own-it and showing a recognition that the next US President has to accept responsibility for the actions of his predecessor). We can only take it on faith that he wouldn't have gotten us into the same mess (Kerry's decision-making style is to constantly probe with questoins and challenge assumptions. -- far more likely to avoid such blunders), but we can see from his positions now that he understands the complexities and necessity of righting the situation.

I think that the war in Iraq was a phenomenal blunder and, still worse, was a blunder that could be seen coming a mile down the road. Still, I understand that we can't just pack up and pull out at this point -- the consequences for the Middle East and our own security would be too great.

On North Korea, we should have engaged in bi-lateral and multi-lateral talks simultaneously (that's not without precedent, folks) a long time ago. Kim Jung Il is a nut job but he's a nut job with a serious military capability. We need to keep him talking rather than building nukes -- we need to give him a way out psychologically in order to defuse the physical threat. Kerry gets this.

Kerry seems more willing to act to stop the genocide in the Sudan. How any President who talks about God in every sentence can stand by while another Rwanda unfolds raises my blood pressure by an order of magnitude. Africa as a whole is a challenge for the rest of the world to solve (that "rest of" includes us -- it's in our long-term interest as much as theirs) and I believe that Kerry will be more active in that regard.

Our world is interconnected socially, economically, environmentally, and militarily. Kerry is in an internationalist who embraces this and so do I.

Next post: the economy.

John Perry Barlow shares his moment of clarity that leads him back to active support of Kerry. It's a compelling post.

Diebold lost their attempt to stop the posting of memos about the defects in the coding from their voting machines on the Internet. Let's put the folks at Swathmore who brought this travesty to light on the nickel because there is little more important that the sanctity of our elections to preserving democracy. People rush to the ramparts to amend the Constitution to outlaw flag-burning but sit idly while the one of the most important freedoms symbolized by that flag -- the freedom to vote -- is being subverted.

Quick notes to Edwards: bring the light sabre Luke Skywalker. And don't forget to mention the secret energy taskforce (the more times the better). Cheney was an impressive debater in 2000 -- I remember thinking that I could live with him as president. Having now seen him over four years and gotten to know him better through the media I know that was a mistake but Cheney can come across as knowledgable, sincere, reasonable, and competent (all the things W lacks). But beneath that reassuring exterior beats a cold, duplicitous heart -- at least in matters political. I wonder -- will he be debating from a secure bunker at an undisclosed location?

Check out this excellent short video remix revealing the true story of the RNC. I found it via Dave Weinberger via Liz via Joi but I'll send you right to the source -- Andrea.

As debate reviews continue to roll in and the spin-meisters whirl like dervishes, polls show Kerry pulling even or ahead of W. Newsweek's has been the most widely cited.

Yesterday's NYT offered a scathing look at pre-war intelligence on Iraq including far more detail than most probably want on the specificiations of aluminum tubes. It's a fascinating look at how information can rise or be squashed in an administration. As I've ranted before, the Bush team either fails to understand its decision-making biases or chooses to ignore them. If you had any doubt that the case for war was skillfully manipulated by its proponents, this in-depth piece should put them to rest (or at least challenge them deeply).

Rice rebuts the story. Judge for yourself.

Anger was more my reaction when I finally got around to reading the Vanity Fair piece on the Florida re-count of 2000 (unfortunately not avail. online). Now quoting from Supreme Court clerks (albeit anonymously) and others on the inside, this blow-by-blow account is an enraging look behind the curtains at the shenanigans that handed the White House to Bush. The R's put winning above all; the D's may do the same thing this time out of self-preservation. When either side is willing to put winning above the preservation of the system, democracy itself is likely to be the first casualty.

On the good news front, new voter registrations seem poised to break records. Greater participation can only be positive.

The Supremes are back in session today. Should be an interesting season with cases in the areas of federalism (2), criminal law, property rights, discrimination (several), and my personal favorite -- whether advertising campaigns promoting agricultural commodities and funded by assessments on producers constitute government-compelled speech. "Got Milk?" and "Pork: It's the Other White Meat" have been struck down by other federal courts. The Robes consider "Beef: It's What's for Dinner." Your tax dollars at work.

The reviews on W's poor performance last night continue to roll in. This from Business Week:

"Besides that, he's the President and has led the nation at a time of enormous peril and uncertainty (some of it, arguably, of his own making). Love him or detest him, he sits at the desk where the buck makes its last stop.

But in Coral Gables, Fla., last night, Bush looked -- at least for the first half of the debate -- like Elmer Befuddled, a commander-in-chief not in command.

Perhaps what was so unnerving was that Bush found himself in a foreign-policy debate with a seasoned politician who was espousing the same sort of measured, internationalist approach to a dangerous world that was the hallmark of his father's Presidency. Debating the security and future of the nation on live national television isn't easy -- but debating your Dad is downright scary. "

The DNC has already produced an ad that makes the most of W's Alfred E. Newman-esque facial expressions from last night's debate.

OK, I'm biased but I thought that Kerry clearly won the debate last night. He came across as strong and presidential, made his points clearly, and only occassionally wandered off into the rhetorical wilderness. He took my advice to use simple declarative sentences wherever possible. I thought he stated the case that his position on Iraq has been consistent quite well.

W knew his main goal was to stress consistency and strength yet often seemed to lose his place. When he was on familiar ground he was forceful and compelling -- his closing statement was particularly good. When away from a pat answer, however, he reverted to "um, duh" status though TAP have shown a remarkable tolerance for this in him.

Kerry's big mistakes: he looked at Jim Lehrer instead of at the camera; he didn't respond forcefully enough to W's "core values" claim; and he missed the opportunity to explain why he voted against the $87 million supplemental appropriation for Iraq.

The polls I've seen are mixed though most show Kerry winning solidly (ABC and CBS each had him up by about 10 points; a poll cited by our local ABC affiliate in Boston showed Bush winning by 15 points). We'll see what happens after 24 hours of frantic spinning by the campaigns.