The “Undecided” voter is about the least likely to come up with penetrating questions.  This thought occured to me at when Brokaw relayed back to one of the “Undecided” voters to ask the question about why he should trust cynical political parties, and either candidate for breaking through highly charged partisanship.  This was not going to come up with any answer — I could script Obama and McCain’s answer right then and right there.  Simply put, they would have done better to farm that question slot out to a 9/11 Truthers Convention, who at least would throw something pointed and answerable.

As for the “debate” itself, John McCain pointing to Obama and saying “that one” will go down in history alongside Al Gore sighing.  And it probably put the final nail in his campaign’s coffin.

A while ago I learned a basic lesson, which is that living neo-nazis do not really like being referred to as “ghosts“.  It is understandable, I do suppose.  It appears that this guy, and not his ghost, was out in Peoria doing some campaigning.  For that cause.

Sadly, it seems that he probably could do worse than float around Sarah Palin rallies.  It seems that the media are being scooted away from interviewing Sarah Palin supporters, which is taking the tight control of Palin one step further.  I have heard some relatively goofy comments from Palin supporters — “She has five kids!  I have five kids!” — but those are no less sophisticated than comments from gatherings of any candidate.  Those are not the problem.  The problem, it seems, goes along the lines of:

In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric‘s questions for her “less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.” At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, “Sit down, boy.”

The Ghost of George Wallace appears to be in the air here. 

The Secret Service is following up on media reports today that someone in the crowd at a McCain/Palin event suggested killing Barack Obama, according to Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley. The shout of “kill him” followed a Sarah Palin rant on Obama’s relationship with radical Chicagoan Bill Ayers.

It is unclear who the “kill him” is directed at — Obama or Ayers.  Which I guess would be the out in the meeting with the Secret Service.  Things are getting a tad heated here, and I have the basic feeling that this cannot end well — her particular brand of “Pit Bull with Lipstick” ensures that she fades back into Alaska, serves another term perhaps, and then fades away.  Assuming she doesn’t manage to say something over the line and have some sort of a “Macaca” Moment — which I tend to doubt — the audience that the press is not allowed to talk to is more likely to have that over-the-line ball of fire wrecking what is left of the McCain candidacy.

As for the Great Northwest, there is  This.  This.  Something else I can’t gather at this precise moment.  Not affiliated with the campaign, Palin wandering through North Florida and areas where the Confederate Flag might be waved, and those I suppose would exist whether or not Palin were alluding to Obama as a Coddler of Terrorism.

Conservative Republican pundit Ann Coulter has, on a few occasions of late, been referencing Lyndon Larouche en route to mocking Barack Obama.  A slight variation in definition came with her appearance on the Hannity and Colmes show in the post vice presidential debate segment, and from the transcript.:

COULTER: Right. I — I wonder — I mean it’s going to be a tough year for Republicans, just because of the 12th year, but I just don’t think that argument works in America anymore.

How many times do we have to defeat the Soviet Union? I mean as long as people are making money, they are hiring other people. Oh and by the way, that reminds me of another Linden (SIC) Larouche-like statement made by Joe Biden last night.

And that’s when he claims that — you quickly brushed over just now — that years ago Obama was warning about subprime mortgages.

HANNITY: When?

COULTER: Yes, produce that.

Andrew Sullivan produced it, and in the somewhat tuncated Senate career of Barack Obama back to 2007 just has to count as “years”.   That being said, Obama hardly forecast the current turmoil as Linden Larouche did.  And Linden Larouche forecast so much more and was way ahead of him, able to see a new Dark Ages Interval as far back as 1967 and probably 1958.  And today gasoline costs $3.70 and bread costs $100,000, the stock market recently suffered the 17th greatest percentage loss in history when it dropped 777 points, and George Soros is hard at work with John Train to create even more suffering.

My explanation for why Ann Coulter has Linden Larouche on her mind is that she is suffering from the Dennis Miller Syndrome.  She searched for a widely forgotten cultural reference, and landed on a man everyone believes is dead.  No word on whether she saw a copy of the latest “One Year Later” treatsie lying around — complete with a giggling Linden before a bunch of scenes from the current Credit Crunch.  I did see a couple of copies lying in a public spot, which I modestly tossed in the garbage.  The Larouchies parked themselves in front of the downtown mall, with a reasonably popular slogan “Stop the Bailout”.  I imagine any number of people might come up, say some agreeable things, and then look down, see Larouche’s giggling visage, groan, and avert all eye contact as they roll into the mall to do some bargain-hunting.

It is a better fit than what animated the Larouchies in the period between the end of Hillary Clinton’s campaign — or the post-game sideshow of the “PUMA”s, and the fall of Lehman.  That is promoting the Russian incursion into Georgia.  No real illusion of grass roots support from the public on that one.  Some highlights of this focus are found in the wikipedia discussion for Linden.

Please add the following to the section “India, Russia, and China”: On August 21, 2008, LaRouche was interviewed on Russia Today, the globally-broadcast English-language TV network sponsored by the Russian government. The topic of the interview was the 2008 South Ossetia war.[1] –Polly Hedra (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You’ve got a point. We have articles on many academics and experts who appear as “talking heads” on news programs and we don’t report on their every appearance, even on more prestigious programs than RT. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is evidence of the fact that LaRouche, who is treated as a pariah in his native land, is counted among “academics and experts” over at the other superpower. Therefore, it is more notable than your typical example of “academics and experts” being interviewed. –Terrawatt (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This interview is very notable because relations between the U.S. and Russia are at a dangerous low point, and it is significant that Russia chose LaRouche as an American commentator to feature at this moment in history. I don’t see any reasonable objection to adding two sentences about it to the article — it complements what is already there in the Russia, China and India section. I propose this version: In August 2008, LaRouche was interviewed on Russia Today, a Russian government TV network, on the topic of the 2008 South Ossetia war. LaRouche said it was “part of a British-led operation with American support, which was intended to crush Russia by a series of encirclement actions.”[3] —Polly Hedra (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

When I checked the site I saw that they conduct at least a couple of interviews a day. Talking on an obscure propaganda network for 2 minutes isn’t really notable. Frankly, I think the most interesting thing about it was that the interviewer was trying to get him to say it was started by the U.S. while LaRouche had a different agenda. But we can’t say that of course. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia bio of James Abourezk reports that he was interviewed on the Al Manar TV network, which seems to be an analogous situation. But rather than argue legal precedents, I think that it is notable that while there is a pattern of negative press coverage of LaRouche in the US (amply documented in this bio,) there is also a pattern of positive press coverage in Russia. Of course, their TV networks are “propaganda networks,” whereas our TV networks are unblemished and pure. —Marvin Diode (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If we have a source describing this pattern of poor coverage of LaRouche by the U.S. press, and favorable coverage by the Russian press then that’d be useful for the article. We shouldn’t try to make that point on our own, as that would be original research. There are probably over 1000 english-language TV networks worldwide, not including the public access channels that every local cable company carries. The subject managed to get a brief interview on one of them, which received zero notice outside of this page. Claims that this interview is important because the U.S and Russia may go to war is based on speculation. Would his views on UFOs be relevant because ETs may land someday? It’s the same logic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I compared Wikipedia biographies of three political activists of comparable notoriety. The John B. Anderson bio briefly discusses his education and wartime experience, keeping it to two short paragraphs. The Ralph Nader bio devotes a short paragraph to Nader’s family, no wartime experience. In the case of Ross Perot, there is no “early life” information at all. In each case, the focus is on the subject’s political activities, including the most recent ones. –Marvin Diode (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they mention every TV interview that the subjects have ever had? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay.  That’s all the big news from out of Leesburg.  Ann Coulter now has the name as something of a running joke, this man makes historic appearance on “Russia Today”, and a couple of stray copies of a hastily released pamphlet covered with a giggling old man which were promptly tossed in the garbage.  I also note the odd appearance of some conspiracy-oriented Internet Radio (re: ameteur) blog or two reporting that they were contacted by Linden, available for interview.  Which I guess supliments an appearance on Jeff Rense and, um, Russia Today.  As for greater issues herein, reportedly from factnet, on the onslaught of the Economic Crisis in the real world, “leaks” became more tight-lipped — which does make some psychological sense:  the brow-beating ups a wee bit, lingering doubts fester.

Quotation gem for the day:  I hate to say it (because I was there too), but if you’re in the ninth grade worrying about a cultural revolution, you’re having developmental problems.

Yes.  The Cause of a Cultural Revolution should wait at least until your Junior year.

The number one movie in the nation is a movie called “Beverly Hills Chihahua”.

America never ceases to amaze me.

Please tell me this is some kind of gem.

Barack Obama is not seriously campaigning in Nebraska.  Googling around a little bit I found some reports that Kerry campaigners were contemplating making a play for the Omaha district.  They squelched that idea rather early, and that congressional district turned up a handful of percentage points ahead of the state for the Democratic candidate.  There might be a progression here in that it had always been a matter of pride for Nebraska conservatives and Republicans that Clinton did not appear in Nebraska until the last month of his presidency — and compare that to California where he made thinly disguised campaign appearances throughout his first term practically every week.  Nebraska now is worthy of a campaign head-fake — even though that lone electoral vote will only float Obama’s way in the event of a large landslide.

But as a head-fake and feign, it looks like it’s reasonably successful.  Sarah Palin made an appearance in Nebraska.  That is not quite as newsworthy as Palin finding her way to her role as a less dignified Spiro Agnew and what amounts to the fourth Hail Mary in Charles Krauthammer’s calculations — even if it is because Sarah Palin loves the “Nation’s Heartland”.   But even with this, it is probably worth trying to recall where Dan Quayle swooped about in 1992.  I think he poked his head in Yakima, actually.

Question: what Oregon Congress-critter changed their vote based on the $2 million toy arrow tax break, something which has become something of a national joke?

Apparently it was aimed at Peter Defazio, but that does not make too much sense — he became something of the erstwhile leader of the Liberal wing of the great fringe-conservative / fringe-liberal / Squishy embattled Center coalition against the Bailout Bill, and was not going to vote for the thing.

The tax break thus becomes something even more worrisome than a usual pork barrel attachment: it greased the wheels to allow passage of the bill, but greased it for nobody.

I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it. — Rich Lowry.  Notable is the CNN “tracking” line of favorable / unfavorables in a group of “undecideds” from Ohio pushing a level around.  It was divided by men and women.  It is probably the basic partisan make-up of the genders, but the men’s response was higher with Palin and the women’s response was higher with Biden.  Apparently the men all thought she was winking right at them.

I heard parts of it on the radio, and saw parts of it on the television.  The effect was that I missed some Palin winks, and saw other Palin winks.  Listening to it, I was sorting through the Tina Fey skit.  Clearly the show could not pull off what it did on Saturday, which was to actually just pluck one exchange from the Katie Couric interview and re-enact it, with no exaggeration, to widespread laughter.  But, seeing the television, I see that Tina Fey is going to wink a bit.  Throw in the home-spun homilies to a “heartland” she does not really belong to and you have the makings of a parody, as opposed to a transcription passed off as a parody.

There is something surreal in the “Expectations Game”.  Going in the consensus had seemed to become that Sarah Palin would, indeed, “Exceed Expectations” — she has a political career behind her and has personal skills, and the rules of the “Debate” play to her strengths in allowing her to never be tied down to having to answer a question.  She can flow throw cue cards, toss in a couple wittisomes against Biden, and, most importantly, wink.  But what does it mean when everyone expects an “exceeding of expectations”, and for her to meet the expected exceeded expectations?

I want to siphon Biden into these comments, but there is nothing much to say.  By way of theater review, he transposed words a little, flubbed awkwardly a number of times, and if anyone were really paying attention to Biden in this “Theater Review” sector they might be a little surprised by some things that don’t really matter all that much but are usually played up in the media anyways.  There was no sizzle there, and that is how he won the debate.  The thing was an anti-climax because Palin’s status in the public mind has already been cemented — the downside of the so-called “Expectations Game” is nobody is going to forget what lead to the low expectations in the first place.  The poll numbers show an absurdly high percentage saying they thought Biden looked “presidential” — upper 80 percentile — and that is all Palin and all Biden resisting the urge to play the attack dog.  Palin was in color; Biden was in black and white — and we just have to be happy with that.  One thing about Biden, which seemed telling, was he kept referring not to people watching at home but to people listening on the radio.  I don’t know if this was wishful thinking so people would not notice his Left eyebrow, or if he was snake-bitten by the whole “FDR On the Television” mistake.

Yesterday the news came out that showed it is now difficult to see how McCain wins this election, or probably a bit more unfadingly Obama is on a clear glide to a victory.  McCain pulled his campaign staff out of Michigan.*  McCain’s collection of states he needs to pull through thus becomes impossibly (or nearly so) narrow.  Take the polls and add up the states where Obama leads by more than five percentage points, and he sits at 269 electoral votes, which is a tie which is a win.  The effect was that I listened and watched thinking more along the lines of the future of Sarah Palin.  My take was that if she fell down to the unexpected expectations nobody thought she would fall to, her national career was over.  If she passed the “Pass / Fail” test, she would be back, in four years, in eight years, who knows?  The difference is how able her constituency can convince themselves, and project outwards, that everything bad they’ve seen was an aberation.  In the respect her introduction on the national scene in 2008 and, subsequent disappearance, is like Q introducing John Luc Picard to the Borg on Star Trek.  A foreboding of the future, the Borg would be back.  I suppose Palin will be better groomed next time, whether in a presidential contest or into the Senate — better able to meld winks with nods with plausible answers on what she reads for information.  Also be a little more attentive and flexible in responding to opponent’s heart-broken story of a wife being killed in a car accident — it is sort of necessary when running as, in part, a “Mom in Chief”.

* On the other hand, McCain opened up an office in the more competitive district of Maine, which splits some electoral votes by district.  Obama countered by doing the same in the other Republican heavy split electoal vote state, opening up an office in Omaha, Nebraska.

Quick.  Name a Supreme Court Decision you disagree with.  Bush V Gore does not count. 

I can’t help but try to figure out how I would answer the questions which Palin flubbed in the Katie Couric interview.  (Is this thing being stretched out for maximum ratings or what?)  “What Supreme Court decisions do you oppose?”  “Um… that Imminent Domain decision… no, wait.  That one actually came out right.  Didn’t it?”  My ability to answer the Couric question would depend solely on my state of mind at the moment.   Naturally I expect more from a potential president, and the times and circumstances I’d allow one to go blank on such a question are close to nil, perhaps limited to shouting out the question as s/he is being chased in the Forest by a hungry Bear.

The one exception for this question, one that probably should come to mind with ease even when being chased by a hungry bear:  The Dred Scott Decision.   Perhaps Palin could not answer “Dred Scott” because it is a sort of fifth grade answer — Biden, for instance, provided an answer of a Supreme Court decision which struck down a law he wrote and passed — but it is better than nothing.  Further, it is a decision which politicians coming out from her socially conservative — read “pro-life politician” — milieu are trained to be chime in as a way of referencing “Roe v Wade” — supposedly a historical antecedent of a moral bankrupt culture that can think of some people as less than full peoples.  George W Bush, at one of the 2004 “Debates”, went off on a tangeant against Dred Scott for this purpose.  In that sense, even if it might have seemed a bit odd to some people, it would have been the right answer to some people. But, for whatever reason, she failed this basic Christian Conservative Politician test of being able to equate Dred Scott with Roe v Wade.