Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread

I'm too nervous to blog about anything. I will do a live blog of tonight's monumental presidential townhall debate.

Talk amongst yourselves until the debate tonight.

Open Thread.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Pre-Debate Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Fascinating. I will definitely (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:38:41 PM EST
    watch this debate, but neither watched the last one nor read the transcript.  Did read media coverage and some blogs.  Hard to understand why one debate makes such a difference in this election but hasn't seemed to recently.  Thinking Nixon/Kennedy.  

    Writing in my little book of stupid politics (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    that if a candidate gets no convention bounce, the first debate really matters :)

    Nerves about debate (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by me only on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:44:53 PM EST
    or the f-in' Yankees?

    Go Tigers.

    Good catch. Game coverage starts (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    at 8:07 p.m. EDT and debate starts at 9:00 p.m. EDT.  Which will "win"?  

    I think Obama will "prevail" tonite (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:49:02 PM EST
    If only because Romney is too limited an intellect (fundamentalist religion does that to a mind) to genuinely be able to make the necessary adjustments "at halftime," to use an NFL analogy. And by that I mean, at some point tonight, whether it's going well or badly for Obama, O is going to sense either blood in the water or that he is on the ropes, and at that point he is going to go all in emotionally -- and in a battle of these two emotional defectives, Obama is clearly the more sentient being. That said, I could also see the moderator playing a far too big and intrusive role, which would be pitch perfect for our already absurd electoral process. Can you imagine if tomorrow more people are talking about how much of the moderator we got instead of the nominees?  

    Mitt is a shapeshifter (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    Adjustments are 1st nature to him. I think he will look calm and in control and if Obama goes in there hyped up he will look like he knows he's lost it.

    Notice I don't mention content at all because I have been persuaded it does not matter. The cool kids in the media watch the debate with the sound off.


    Nah, he's too stupid (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    He'll take some bait, make some mistake, he just doesn't have the butter as we used to say. If he has Reagan's acting skills, the empty skull wouldn't matter so much, but Mitt ain't got sh*t upstairs when push REALLY comes to shove. But I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

    I hope you are right! (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:23:01 PM EST
    I am not right very often either...maybe we will both be wrong and some other thing entirely will happen!

    The use (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    of the word "shapeshifter" is kind of ironice because that's the same description that's been used for Obama.

    It is to some extent true of all pols (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:39:28 PM EST
    I think Mitt takes it to a whole new level though.

    While we're on sci-fi references.... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:41:14 PM EST
    Mitt Romney most reminds me of the alien visitors from the campy classic TV miniseries "V".

    I keep waiting for him to remove his human skin suit, reveal his true humanoid lizard form, and eat a live mouse.  Where is Michael Ironsides when you need him...


    He does speak with a forked tongue! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:02:21 PM EST
    I loved the original "V."

    (The remake, not so much.)


    Although I Never Saw It.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:13:54 PM EST
    ...Manimal seems to fit in that he is only part human.

    Or the Ron Silver character in the movie The Arrival.  Slick boss type who is really an Alien who been lying to Charlie Sheen the entire movie.


    Common sense tells me you are right (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    My common sense would have thought that even though Mitt Romney was energetic during the first debate, he was lying his leveraged buyingout a$$ off and that would have turned everyone off.  Not what happened, and the media wasn't challenged on their initial headlines either about what a winner Romney was until the headline had already cycled.  I'm certain that the Obama campaign is ready for the lying liar this time, Biden was a test run.

    There is nothing Presidential about allowing a liar to just spew like a beer bonging frat boy.

    Have you seen the Ryan Girl?  Everyone musically talented seems to be supporting Obama.


    Please just don't (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by rdandrea on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    "invest" in Obama, OK?

    Hoosiers (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    Tonight's debate is the last scene in Hoosiers where our heroes know that they have a play that can win but it all comes down to whether Jimmy Chitwood (Obama) can hit the shot when everything is on the line using the picket fence play.

    I disagree with the sandbagging you already see from both conservatives and Obama disliking dems alike:

    If Obama can win this thing, it will be a huge victory that he deserves lots of credit for pulling off.  Mitt will not have lost, Obama will have won for a number of reasons.

    If he loses, he can still win the election but it will be very hard.  And he will shoulder all of the blame. Rightfully so.

    Your shot Obama: Don't screw it up.


    Question ... why THIS debate ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:26:33 PM EST
    ... as opposed to the first debate (where Obama watched as Romney took an uncontested lay-up to take a 1-point lead) or the third debate?

    BTW - "our heroes" ...

    ... Heh, heh, heh ...


    Obama is not the first to (none / 0) (#33)
    by magster on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:35:41 PM EST
    lose by "playing not to lose". Fortunately it's not too late, and he's still in the lead electoral vote wise (assuming polls are somewhat accurate).

    Have never been a fan of the prevent (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:03:33 PM EST
    defense - that being said, it's one thing when the team using it is running away with the lead and time is about to expire; it's quite another to use it with a full quarter of game left and only a slim lead.

    This whole thing is starting to take on a level of importance that I don't ever remember these debates having; I am beyond irritated with the media, which is allowing Romney to play with house money, and putting Obama in a position I'm not sure he's ever been in: having his electoral hopes riding on what happens in this 90-minute debate.

    Because you know that unless Obama runs away with this tonight, it's going to be some kind of mighty struggle to overcome the message the media is going to be blasting endlessly.

    The way the media has treated these debates and much of the campaign has been so egregiously and malignantly bad that I actually find myself rooting for Obama.  Hello?  Did you just faint?  Here, let me fan you a little...

    Charlie Pierce really said it for me, in response to the media's treatment of the fake Paul Ryan soup kitchen photo op:

    Now this, this right here is the kind of thing that must make Al Gore want to dive to the bottom of a vat of Jack Daniels and drink his way to the surface again. For two years, his attempt to become president of the United States was bedeviled by journalistic malpractice based on things he hadn't said, things he hadn't claimed to do, and all around the general theme that he was a fake and a phony and a fraud. How lasting was the damage? How many idiots did you hear in the last ten days referring to how Gore "sighed" during that debate with C-Plus Augustus, despite the fact that, as Bob Somerby tirelessly points out, this alleged "sighing" didn't matter at all at the time, but only became important when it was fitted over the following two weeks into the narrative that already existed. Now, though, Gore has to watch a Republican ticket bring fakery, phoniness and fraudulence to an almost epic level, and get away largely clean.

    Just makes me want to scream.


    Can not agree enough (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:21:45 PM EST
    Plus, so many issues/events could (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:40:39 PM EST
    grab the attention of likely votes via the media in the three weeks between tonight's debate and the election.  

    Obama has already banked a lot of early votes... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by magster on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    in Iowa and Ohio. Obama wins if all he does is persuade his base that he actually gives a s#!t tonight. Just got my CO early voting ballot in the mail today. If he can motivate and mobilize for an early voting advantage here in CO, I don't see how Romney can stage a comeback.

    Romney won the first answer tonight. My advice is for Obama on his first answer to say that he was caught flat-footed at the last debate by the brazen dishonesty of Mr. Romney, that it won't happen tonight, and then attack whatever inevitable BS Romney tosses out in his first answer. He should also use the phrases "Mr. Romney cannot etch a sketch away what he said before..." "we are being asked to trust someone who won't release his tax returns", "the disdain he has for 47% of Americans is evident again..." and "for a candidate whose views are almost identically aligned with Todd Akin..."


    Romney goes first (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:09:41 PM EST
    ...which is good for Obama.

    The cheap one liners can fall flat.

    I do hope Obama points out that Mitt told Huckabee on national t.v. that Romney was in favor of the Human Life Amendment that provides life begins at conception.  Romney confirmed that position a second time too.

    Make him own that position.....When he denies it, interrupt him saying, yes, he did take that position.  Romney would blow his stack.

    You have got to get Romney out of his rhythm, else he will used-car-salesman fast talk his way through the debate.    


    No, he's not ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 08:50:27 PM EST
    ... but he's supposed to be the great campaigner.  He may still be in the lead in terms of electoral votes, but just barely ... and the trend is not good.

    Your last shot at the goal (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    is always the most important.  If he had won the last one, this one wouldn't be as crucial.  He lost so this is it.  Nate Silver explains that the third debate rarely moves the needles.

    So it's the SECOND-to-last ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 08:46:34 PM EST
    ... shot at the goal that is always the most important, because Nate Silver says the last one rarely "moves the needles"?


    OTOH - if you have a lead and don't let the other team walk down the field uncontested late in the 4th quarter, you don't have to worry about a last minute score.


    Will the "last shot" (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    seem to be in that excruciating slow motion courtesy Hoosiers?

    The real story (that led to Hoosiers) was a bit early for me.  But for the several collegiate-related years in Indiana, I do remember the hoop-la of the season...and myself getting caught up in it along with everyone else.  Kinda like this series of debates.

    The role of the referee moderator could be quite interesting...what kind of follow-up calls will Ms. Crowley make? Will they speed up the play or impede it?


    I forgot the slow mo shots (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:29:12 PM EST
    in "Hoosier."  Coulda been shot in IA.  

    "what kind of follow-up calls (none / 0) (#80)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:00:49 PM EST
    will Ms. Crowley make?"

    Well, that would  depend on the depth of embarrassment she was able to inflict in the initial question.

    Of course, if by a miraculous error she opens with a question holding national/international significance, and the candidate answers in a completely inappropriate, undeniably ignorant, and morally shocking manner, there would not be any follow-up calls.

    That was easy.


    Hillary has thrown herself (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:13:28 PM EST
    On an armoury of swords to neuter Benghazi hoopla and B.S.

    Yep. I hope (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:18:03 PM EST
    her doing so does not suggest to Romney's handlers that he raise the issue for Obama to throw the Secretary of State under the bus again.  Ugly.

    Someone will raise it, you can be sure (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    I hope his response is something other than total the bus-undering of Hillary Clinton.

    Per NYT article, tonight is Romney's (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:39:12 PM EST
    big chance to swing some female votes.  This may be his opening.  

    Maybe Obama's biggest fail in last debate.... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by magster on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:54:16 PM EST
    ... was not turning the domestic questions into how each issue, e.g.: health insurance policies, affected women if the Republicans won. Obama has to bring up Akin, and Ryan, and equal pay and abortion and planned parenthood and emergency contraception.

    I live in suburban Denver, and my wife said there were a lot of otherwise conservative women in her Highlands Ranch (wealthy suburb) book club leaning Obama solely because of Republican positions on female health care. If Obama drops the ball again, he loses these voters.


    I agree, magster. (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:01:50 PM EST
    There are, according to some polls and sources (as well as in my experience, anecdotally), a lot of women who tend conservative on some issues but who can be reached on so-called "women's issues."

    (As if there are not good men who care about the health of their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, etc. -- and who take care to not become fathers, if they do not intend to actually do fathering.)

    I waited, last time, for Obama to show that he heeds these concerns of the majority of voters.  I saw that opening and at least one other.  But . . . crickets.


    Yes, many of the male gender... (none / 0) (#27)
    by magster on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:10:58 PM EST
    ... are 100% aligned on these issues, but there are many, at least according to my wife, who are not. As I understand it, they do not think that there really is a threat to women's issues, at least not enough, to overcome their low tax, preserve my wealth, position. My canvassing around here has women's names on the list of addresses, and when the husband answers the door they are like "she can't talk to you right now" without letting her know we even are at the door for her.  

    Tangent: I could never in a million years marry a Republican, and don't understand how a split household even happens. Even pre-wife, a woman being a Republican made the most physically attractive women unappealing.


    magster: Husband & I saw the same (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:06:01 PM EST
    noticeable male-female split in our canvassing even in south-central Denver. In one or two cases, the male spouse made clear that he didn't want wife (in background) responding.

    OTOH, we experienced a number of female "independents" who crossed arms, looked strongly stern, & said that they could never support Romney and his party because of positions effecting women.

    Some post-debate polls have recorded a drop-off in women's support for Obama...esp noting Colorado.  At about the same time, in this past week, I'm sure you noticed Michelle Obama's trip to Castle Rock and the west slope.


    Women have the ability to decide the election (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:26:00 PM EST
    If they want people like Romney and Akin, those are the candidates that will win. Everyone knows how a large majority of latins, blacks, and white males are voting. The largest block, women, are less decisive and can easily sway the election. The outcome appears to be in their hands. All that's needed is to decide which candidate is in their best long-term interests, and can they come together as a significant block so they control the outcome.

    If there is any repsonse Obama better (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    have scripted and down cold, it better be his answer on Benghazi.

    Don't open girls (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:54:10 PM EST
    Don't even test drive him, he's a loser.  Don't go chasing waterfalls :)

    I think it will be a controlled throw (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:23:30 PM EST
    She has a plan for herself that probably involves the truth.  Look out Issa, she sure stepped in the line of fire fully and quickly.  What is the whole story about what happened and why, and is the administration about to "close the deal" on bringing those responsible to justice?

    I Don't Know About Quickly... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:55:56 PM EST
    ...took a month with the election about a month away.

    The problem was even if this is Obama's fault, not saying it was, as far as screw-ups, it's pretty damn small.

    Somehow a terrorist attack is the president's fault in 2012, he's weak they say, but in 2001 it was a total shock that no one could have predicted.

    So Hillary can fall on the sword, but it really doesn't matter, they are going to ride this one to the election, facts be damned.


    What's the most depressing about Obama's .... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by magster on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    ... slide in the polls after the debate is that the debate had this much of an effect. Yeah, Obama lost, but it's not like he said anything outrageous and substantively Obama was OK. Why that debate performance had so much more of a negative affect on Obama than Romney's 47% comments in a fundraiser is beyond comprehension. "Swing" voters are treating this like "America's Got Talent" and they really are as stupid and fickle as the SNL parody of them a couple of weeks ago.

    I Would Love to Know... (none / 0) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:17:33 PM EST
    ...how many of the people that were swayed from Obama to Romney in the last couple weeks actually saw the debate ?  

    Not many I bet.


    Those who depended on the media to (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:34:22 PM EST
    recap the debates probably have a whole different perception than those who watched and didn't stick around to hear the media's take.

    And the media, well, it's almost as if they watched with no sound, so that their winner/loser metric was all based on things like facial expression, energy level and body language, without one whit of consideration for content - or the veracity of the claims being made.

    You'd think they were actually trying to engineer the outcome or something, but I'm sure they have more integrity than to try to do that, right?

    ::rolling eyes::

    And maybe the terrible strategic decision of the Obama campaign to constantly re-visit his performance got it into some people's heads that Obama was so terrible that maybe they should rethink their decision about who to vote for.


    People don't (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by sj on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:36:24 PM EST
    ...actually have to see the debate to be influenced by it.  As nonsensical as that sounds, it's also true.

    Apparently, the video may have (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:24:01 PM EST
    been the immediate motivation, after all....

    How anyone could trust Romney and his Neocon advisors, is beyond me.

    This is the same crowd that botched 9-11 in the first place....

    The same crowd who let Bin Laden get away.....

    The same crowd that pushed us into a war in Iraq knowing there were no WMD (that is what Blix's reports showed in the months leading up to the invasion)...

    The same crowd that has basically been wrong about every major foreign policy issue over the last few years.....

    The same crowd willing to sate religious extremists who want to see Armageddon the Middle East....

    The same crowd that wants to bomb Iran even though by all accounts it would not be effective in stopping any nuclear weapons capability for more than a few months, and would only accelerate the efforts.....

    God help us all if Romney and his Neocons get back in power.


    This is (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    not going to be a foreign policy election. This is going to be an election based on the economy.

    This is the same crowd who specifically (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 07:23:08 AM EST
    Chose to not look for Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.  They wanted a war in Iraq, while leaving the real danger unaddressed.  

    It's gonna be ugly tonight (none / 0) (#30)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:33:08 PM EST
    no matter what. Regardless of who "wins" the gladiator town hall.

    Article in LA Times on the Dem strategists who think Obama's a real dink. (My word, but their sentiments.)


    A good summary. Yes, if those voters (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:45:16 PM EST
    are to care enough to get to the polls for a candidate, they have to see that a candidate cares about them -- or at least cares enough to want the job.  

    I'm not that kind of voter, because I don't think pols care much about me at all, but I do understand that mindset from my early days as a voter, decades ago, when we all seemed to care so very much.

    And I also do understand that getting to the polls is not easy for a lot of people.  I remember those days, too.  They need a motivational speaker.  They saw one in 2008.  Where did he go?  or, perhaps, they now think they see that his real motivation is different?  I dunno.  But Obama's gotta wake up this time, look up, and connect -- as I think will happen with the town-hall format, with give-and-take with the crowd vs. the audience told to stay silent last time.  That sucked for him.  


    I am heartened by the early voting advantage (none / 0) (#35)
    by magster on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:42:44 PM EST
    that Obama seems to have opened up, especially in Ohio, combined with the Supreme Court's pass on GOP appeal to restrict additional early voting rights. Romney is still fighting an uphill battle to get to 270.

    Yes, I think so (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:20:39 PM EST
    too, Tracy.

    Not my take (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    Hilary did what a real leader does, it's her Department.  She took responsibility.  When was the last time anyone has taken responsibility.  I knew she would

    But note the timing, Stellaa (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:05:12 PM EST
    as the timing -- today -- is the tipoff to what's up with that.

    MT (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:41:54 PM EST
    This is the kind of thing I was referring to in a previous discussion:

    Despite statements by Vice President Joe Biden, the State Department is about to begin formal negotiations over the extension of U.S. troops past 2014, a top State Department official said Tuesday.

    ... Biden told Americans during his Oct. 11 debate with Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan that U.S. troops were leaving Afghanistan by 2014.

    "We are leaving in 2014, period, and in the process, we're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion," Biden said. "We've been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It's their responsibility, not America's."

    Marc Grossman, the State Department's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, explained today that's not the whole story.

    Grossman said Tuesday that the point of the upcoming negotiations is to agree on an extension of the U.S. troop presence well past 2014, for the purposes of conducting counterterrorism operations and training and advising the Afghan security forces.

    So - that's why I have my doubts about Obama and his "we're out of there by 2014" statement.

    I wish it were otherwise, but I don't trust either of these candidates when it comes to getting us out of there.


    I tell ya who is really screwed... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:07:52 PM EST
    the non-violent offenders doing time for federal marijuana offenses..there's a candidate who has vowed to pardon every damn one of 'em if elected, but he wasn't invited to the debate.

    Apparently sanity is not allowed if ya wanna be a "serious" candidate.  You figure it out, I can't.

    Rubio backing away from Romney's tax reform (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:30:02 PM EST
    This is interesting.... Maybe this is why R/R won't give any specifics. Or maybe this is why Rubio is not the other R on the thicket. Or maybe Rubio is already working on 2016. Or maybe he is just the last honest man in the GOP.

    Let's hear it for the Philly Parking Authority (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:43:55 PM EST
    who ticketed Justice Scalia's official car, parked illegally in a loading zone in front of the Union League (despite a "police business" placard in the windshield), while he gave a talk yesterday to the local Federalist Society chapter. (p.s.  Do not attempt to follow that second link for information such as when the Union League first started allowing Jews to eat in the dining room, or women to enter through the front door, or non-whites to become members.  Nor by consulting Wikipedia, I just discovered.)

    This deserves a "10" (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:48:12 PM EST
    simply for helping to out the man for yet another example of his dishonesty (did you see him lying repeatedly on Piers Morgan last week?) Alas, I can only give it a "5"...

    I say about Scalia (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by kmblue on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:13:10 PM EST
    what I said about St. Ronnie--in his next life, he better be a poor black pregnant woman, or there is no God.

    For Oculus (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:49:53 PM EST
    Hillary Mantel won the Booker for her sequel to "Wolf Hall."

    Interesting article on Mantel (none / 0) (#83)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:07:43 PM EST
    in a recent New Yorker.  I now have to read some of her earlier work.

    Two wks ago I went to my neighborhood bookstore, (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:22:39 PM EST
    sat in a cushy chair and started into one of their copies of "Wolf Hall"... I have to admit, I found the writing style to be just a little off-putting. But I feel compelled to try again, now that "Bringing Up the Bodies" has won too. In the meantime, I've recently begun Graham Swift's "Tomorrow" because I loved "Last Orders" (his Booker prize winner) so much.

    Just remember: "he" usually (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:45:47 PM EST
    means Cromwell.  

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#99)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:47:43 PM EST
    <adds more titles to book wish list>

    I owe you, so:  I just enjoyed Major Pettigrew, a lovely read.


    Excellent (none / 0) (#104)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:57:47 PM EST
    Added to my list. Winter reads are slowly piling up...

    Thank you. I knew she was front- (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:45:13 PM EST
    runner but she sd. something self-deprecating re nobody ever wins the Booker Prize twice.  

    I very much enjoyed "Wolf Hall" and "Bring up the Bodies," neither of which did I read on an e-reader.  Eagerly awaiting the third book.  


    Glad to hear it (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:02:43 PM EST
    Loved both those books, and read an earlier one of hers that was also good....even if I can't remember the name of it.

    Looking forward to the last in the trilogy.


    Sheila Bair endorses Elizabeth Warren. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:26:36 PM EST
    Bair, former chair of the FDIC and a Republican, will campaign for Warren in Massachusetts.  

    Before taking the job at the FDIC, Bair taught at UMass. She is a lifelong Republican who once worked on the Senate staff of Bob Dole.

    CST, or any other Bay Staters, any idea if this will help Warren much with voters?

    Blair was just on Bill Maher (none / 0) (#121)
    by DFLer on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:11:06 PM EST
    very impressive women...in complete control of her subject matter.

    BTD, you need to (none / 0) (#1)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    take a few cleansing breaths and relax, my brother.  Try meditation or yoga, or both.  Really, they help.  Ommmmmmm.     ;-)

    I'm not so cool either (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:30:30 PM EST
    If he phucks this up, he phucks up the Supreme Court and God only knows what else.

    I'm printing an 8x10 of Larry Summers and taking it outside to shoot my BB gun at.  That should calm me some.


    Military! I'm disappointed (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    A mere BB gun for someone with your moniker and for that occasion?

    No, that popgun stuff just won't do if indeed The Small O screws up again.

    Go ahead and pull out the AK-47.  Or at least the M-16.  Blast away.  You could even probably find a small group of (closeted Dem) neighbors eager to join in the fun.  

    Don't hold back and go the wimpy route like Obama.

    Me, to get ready to man up tonight, I had me a crude oil scalp massage and shampoo this morning.  That's right, real crude from under the ground.  Pennsylvania vintage.  Works for me  arresting hair loss, plus is a good self-disciplining personal treatment tool.  Recommended.  But definitely not for wimps.


    I didn't see your comment before (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 12:45:53 PM EST
    We only have a BB gun.  I'm pretty good with it though, surprisingly so.  I'll shoot your eye out :)  My husband and I don't believe you need a gun for protection when you are priveleged enough to live where we live.  We both believe that guns are too dangerous to house with children too.  We are strange.  If one of our children or grandchildren were to be killed with a gun we owned though you would probably have to put both of us on suicide watch or something.  We just couldn't live with that.

    We might have considered owning a gun if our dogs had not proven to detour crime around us as much as they do as well.  We lived in a rough neighborhood in Colorado Springs.  The neighborhoods around Fort Carson tend to be rough.  We had two German Shepherds though and nothing happened to our home or any of us in that neighborhood, nothing.  I opened the door once to someone who obviously meant me harm and my dog cut around me to the screen door and the guy took off running.

    Our house here is one of the few that has not been broken into in our subdivision as well.  If you've cased my home, you can see I have 5 deterrents :)  Most German Shepherd people seem to be gun people too so I probably have them imagining all sorts of horrors hidden behind my doors.


    Has anyone tried blogging yoga? (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:39:25 PM EST
    Do you mean (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:18:03 PM EST
    anyone who regularly posts here?  Because that, I don't know.  As far as yoga blogs in general, though, there are tons of them- just Google "yoga blogs."
    As for me, I can no longer do "regular" yoga classes because of my physical limitations (although I took yoga for many years).  But I do yoga for seniors, and aqua yoga (yoga in a pool- yes, it exists).
    I took Hatha Yoga for a number of years, and I did get to the point where I could do a nice Sarvangasana (shoulder stand) and Halasana (plow position), but I could never do the head stand or the hand stand.  Although that never mattered.
    One of the most useful things I learned from yoga is the relaxation pose, and meditation.  When I get too wired up, I can use these techniques to "wind down."  I can also use them to get rid of a tension headache, and to a great extent, muscle cramps.

    I'm in the "down keyboard" position ... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by magster on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    as I type this comment. Laptop on the floor, buttocks and one extended leg in the air, and typing with my eyes closed, chanting "KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!"

    "Keep breathing." (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:45:54 PM EST
    LOL! (none / 0) (#70)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:13:50 PM EST

    My go-to guy, Samuel Popkin, on (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:48:43 PM EST
    tonight's debate:

    cbc news

    I agree with assertive and positive (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:44:42 PM EST
    and if genuine anger arises, that is good too. But scripted aggression would look phony and I hope he stays away from it.

    I hope he doesn't try to pull a Biden (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:10:19 PM EST
    by smiling and laughing too much either. Would not go over well at all.

    I heard earlier today (I think it was on the Warren Olney show) that there will be 82 assembled audience members, and of those, only about twelve will get to ask questions.

    Twelve? For a two hour debate? Even with two- to three-minute answers and two-minute closing statements that seems an awfully low number. Is each questioner going to give their bio as well? Are there going to be song and dance numbers in between questions? Foreign language translation and analysis?

    We really need to come up with a drinking game for this one. I'll take a shot everytime Romney says "hardworking folks on Main Street" and another one every time Obama says "hedge fund managers on Wall Street."

    And who wants to bet whether Obama will find a way to mention Romney's secret offshore bank accounts?


    Is it two hours, or 90 minutes? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:16:10 PM EST
    Funny, I was doing some mental math in my head in the car trying to figure out how many people will ask questions, and I came up with about 10 for a 90 minute debate. I just had vague memories of the other town hall debates, and it seemed like fewer people than I expected asked questions. I could almost remember each individual person.

    Well, if it's only 90 minutes... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:24:30 PM EST
    For some reason, I had it in my head that the previous ones were two hours. Maybe because the insufferable talking heads go on for so long afterwards?

    LOL - yes, I think it just seems like 2 hrs! (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    Think "The Master." The debate (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:49:46 PM EST
    will seem really short.  

    Drinking game? I'm in. (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:17:17 PM EST
    I will be fortified this debate with a fifth of Jim Beam Black. Bourbon is what got me through the entire 2008 primary.  I forgot to stock up before the last debate, and I really needed the it.

    I learned my lesson. Let the drinking begin.


    Sipping tequila (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:51:45 PM EST
    straight from my mother-in-law's country.

    Well, I'm thinking (none / 0) (#71)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:16:18 PM EST
    Jack Daniels.  On the rocks, no water.     ;-)

    I think I'm sticking to a chilled white (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:34:39 PM EST
    and my finger on the remote :D Or I may just take Roxy! down to the marina for a relaxing stroll and check the fallout later . . .  should be a beautiful evening/sunset.

    Yep, on the rocks, no water. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:28:35 PM EST
    While spoil a good bourbon with water? And don't get me started on people who defile a good whiskey with Coke or 7-UP, or any other soda.

    Not to be (none / 0) (#111)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:26:50 PM EST
    too nit-picky, Casey (well, maybe I am), but Jack Daniels is not a bourbon- it's a Tennessee sour mash whiskey.    ;-)
    But it's all good.  And may no water, club soda, or (heaven forbid) any sweetened mixers defile a good whiskey!

    I know it's a sour mash. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:33:33 PM EST
    And a fine one at that. I didn't mean to imply that Jack was a bourbon.  :-)

    For someone (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:34:45 PM EST
    that when going strong switches from light beer to something with an umbrella in it, I don't know these whiskeys, bourbons, etc. of which you speak.

    Oooooh, CG! (none / 0) (#115)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:42:55 PM EST
    Casey and I need to take you out to a nice bar at some point and introduce you to the finer points of good bourbons, sour mash whiskeys, and suchlike.  Drinks with umbrellas in them are simply beyond the pale. As are "light beers."  Both are abominations unto The Lord.    ;-)

    Yes, we must educate CG on the fine (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 08:03:03 PM EST
    points of the various whiskeys.

    Just name the time and place.


    Continuing ed. offering on the pirate (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 06:01:32 PM EST

    Drinking game: (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:18:29 PM EST
    I hope Obama says 'severe conservative' enough that I get hammered.

    LOL. Don't make me call the ambulance (none / 0) (#67)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:56:17 PM EST
    I'm (none / 0) (#64)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:47:03 PM EST
    bracing myself for Obama to make some folksy self-deprecating humorous reference to his no-show last time around.

    I'll place a wager on that, but in any case, I may have a sip or two watching this festival.


    A-Rod on the bench again (none / 0) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:27:31 PM EST
    The once mighty Yankees with no Jeter and no A-Rod. Sure is a funny looking Yankee lineup with 3B and SS batting 7th and 9th.

    does it really matter? (none / 0) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:13:59 PM EST
    Martin, Swisher, Rodriguez, Anderson, Cano, Chavez....."The Sluggers"

    142 at bats

    17 Hits

    .119 BA

    They're my Yankees, and I luv'm, but they don't deserve to win. I just wish it had been Baltimore instead of Detroit.

    Of course, it's not over yet, but they're playing like Obama's running; doesn't look like the heart's in it.


    Figgers with a Bronx Bomber (none / 0) (#102)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:50:04 PM EST
    with the name of Swisher in the lineup.

    And I'd feel sorry for A-Rod a little more except I recall reading that under his massively lucrative contract, he makes about $46,000, or roughly the median annual salary of an American worker, each at-bat.  

    That's just ridiculous.  Obscene.  Glad I don't follow that game anymore.  Things have really gone to an extreme, and all that cash for just a few minutes of exertion per game.


    Swisher (none / 0) (#105)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:00:08 PM EST
    is out of the lineup too

    Soup Kitchen-Gate (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:36:40 PM EST
    Apparently Ryan did indeed wash dirty dishes at the soup kitchen.

    Please Obama do not be tempted to bring it up. Nothing worse than lame zingers based on wrong information.

    The problem with Ryan's "visit" (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:46:43 PM EST
    is that it was not sanctioned by Antal, the president of the non-profit, to begin with. Instead, they just showed up and a volunteer let them in. And Antal rightly pointed out that it was a deliberately partisan political act that could put their c3 tax status in danger. Worst of all, the Ryan gang deliberately showed up after the great unwashed clients of the soup kitchen had already departed so they wouldn't have to actually have any contact with them and, you know, get germs. I'm not saying Obama should use this as fodder in the debate, but Ryan is still a total phony on this.

    Why not use it? (none / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:28:32 PM EST
    I could see a great humorous segway into an explanation of what happened in the first debate.

    He could say something like, "I know I've been roundly criticized for being so quiet in the last debate, but when Gov. Romney started rolling out all those (hesitates for effect)....."facts," I thought, for sure that the voters out there realized that he was (hesitates again for effect)....... "joking"..........kind of like what his VP candidate did in trying to convince us into thinking he's ever seen the outside of a soup kitchen, let alone the inside.


    I just think getting bogged down in (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:37:29 PM EST
    an argument over when he showed up and how dirty the dishes were is silly when there are more important things to call them out on. If you want to talk about how much Ryan cares about the poor, talk about his budget.

    Like the people who bought into (none / 0) (#95)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:44:58 PM EST
    Romney's undisguised dreck the first time are now, suddenly, going to make cognitive, analytical decisions.

    If they're stil undecided this late in the game, and haven't figured out the difference between the two parties, I think rubber ducks and false noses would have more effect than talking about budgets.

    we'll see soon enough, Ruf.


    Talk about Ryan's budget and, if he must (none / 0) (#97)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:45:41 PM EST
    bring up the soup kitchen thing, point out that showing up once to wash few pans pales when compared to the damage Ryan's budget will do to people on the bottom rungs of our society.



    Only bring up the soup kitchen (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:49:18 PM EST
    to point out that they're going to need a lot more volunteers for a lot more soup kitchens, if Ryan/Romney's budget prevails.

    Leave it to Josh Marshall and TPM to ... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:57:12 PM EST
    ... to impart to us the really important information upon which our hallowed Republic will either rise or fall this November.

    If they're not trafficking in often noxious political gossip, they're obsessing over the polls.


    Not buying it (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by sj on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 05:43:00 PM EST
    Did you look at the photograph in your link? That dish is pristine.   And here is video of the "event".  He spends a good 5-10 seconds getting the pan all shiny.  Have you ever washed one of those pans?  The food is baked on from the heating elements.  It could conceivably take 5-10 minutes to wash one of those depending on the contents.  Unless it holds something like bread, in which case any dishwasher in their right mind would wash it first.  Not save it for last.

    Moreover, when he's holding up the business side of the pan away from the camera it looks like his daughter is trying hard not to laugh.

    What Antal said yesterday was accurate.  But, as he said, he's a non-profit so he's always looking for donors.  Mayhap disavowing previous statements brings new, or more generous, donors.


    Maybe your re right and it is a strategic (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:39:48 PM EST
    disavowal, but as long as he put it on the record Obama should leave it alone. That's all I'm saying. Can't call the other guys liars if we start contradicting the statements of the guy that supposedly knows what happened.

    Well, that's true enough (none / 0) (#122)
    by sj on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:14:17 PM EST
    Police brutality 3.0 (none / 0) (#66)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 04:55:06 PM EST
    Romney now leads in swing states. (none / 0) (#94)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:41:42 PM EST
    A new Gallup poll out today shows Romney leading 50%-46% among likely voters in swing states.

    What pushed Mitt into the lead? Women, who switched to Mitt after the first debate. Among Obama's many mistakes in the first debate was not ever talking about women, women's health issues, contraception and reproductive freedom, how the Romney/Ryan budget will adversely affect women and their families, how women will be hurt by the Romney/Ryan Medicare voucher plan, etc.

    Women are critical to Obama winning. Guess taking women for granted was a big mistake by Obama and the Democrats. Apparently, getting women's votes requires more than occasionally yelling "Roe, Supreme Court."

    With all due respect to women (none / 0) (#103)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 06:57:40 PM EST
    if women vote for Romney they deserve what they get.

    That being said, a single poll of swing states pulled from the Gallup national poll has next to no significance, whereas a poll of individual swing states does. This is little more than a meaningless press release that was a subset of their regular polling with a very high degree of error. You're much better off looking at state by state.


    With all due respect to you, CG, if Obama (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:06:10 PM EST
    can't be bothered to make the case to voters, women included, for why he is the better choice, then he deserves to lose.

    I would like to see Obama act like he wants to win this. And to win an election, a candidate has to ask people for their votes, not take those votes for granted.


    I can think of 100 ways Obama could (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:48:31 PM EST
    make the case to voters, but there might be a slight disconnect with his actual governance these last 4 years.

    If he'd just for once give people a reason to appreciate the government, that would be a start.  He could say, "I believe that one of the responsibilities of government is to help create the conditions under which people are able to lift themselves up, and to help them when they falter.  Social Security and Medicare have done more to keep older people out of poverty than any private-sector, vulture capitalist scheme; Medicaid has helped millions of families, many of them hard-working people who just want the chance to get ahead.  School breakfast and lunch programs have helped feed growing children whose families cannot keep up with the rising cost of basic, healthy foods and don't have enough to eat at home.  When we are well-fed, properly clothed and housed, and healthy, we, as a society and as an economy benefit."

    On women, he could take a cue from Biden, and express his respect for women having the right to make their own decisions.  He could hit even harder and say, "From right-wing pundits calling young women who want birth control 'whores' and 'sluts,' to Republican members of Congress, including Mr. Ryan, attempting to define 'forcible' rape, and declaring that women don't get pregnant if they have 'really' been raped, I can't find a single bit of respect for women, not one bit, which means the claims that these people respect life is hypocrisy of the worst kind."

    On respect for life?  "Some day, I'd like a Republican to explain to me how the same people who want to restrict a woman's right to choose are the same people who will fight tooth and nail for people to have the right not to wear seat belts, or motorcycle and bike helmets.  The same people who want to get rid of regulations that ensure that our workplaces are safe, our water clean, our prescriptions safe to take, our food safe to eat - how does this represent a respect for life?"

    This will never happen - these words will never be said.  Too many of these kinds of issues Obama is supremely uncomfortable with; he doesn't state his views on them with conviction, and it shows.

    Hoping he surprises me, but not counting on it.


    The funny thing is (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:03:17 PM EST
    even if he didn't believe any of it, it's a winning issue. Why not get aboard and ride this thing?

    But, like I said the other day, there's something very, very wrong when, here we are, three weeks away, and we're asking, "does he want this thing?"

    Do you understand how crazy that sounds. Go back to those candle-lit vigils and those millions of youngsters, not to mention, oldsters, even worse. Claire, I'm talking to you. Can you imagine, looking back at those fainting fools, and the object of their foolery, and saying, you know, in three years, just like all his other quests, he'll be bored and want to get out. To make matters worse, he won't have accomplished a fraction of what he promised. and, to make matters even more worse, won't have even tried.



    If he loses (none / 0) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:11:43 PM EST
    who really loses? A presidential candidate moves on with his life. The fallout from losing elections is for the voters.

    Back to the swing states, I don't know the reputation of YouGov but they just released a slew of individual swing state polls mostly favoring Obama:

    Colorado: Obama +5
    Florida: Obama +2
    Iowa: Obama +4
    Nevada: Obama +5
    North Carolina: Romney +1
    Ohio: Obama +4
    Pennsylvania: Obama +6
    Virginia: Obama +1


    This diary has these yougov polls... (none / 0) (#110)
    by magster on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:24:30 PM EST
    ... as well as some others.  Pretty nice polling day for Obama, all in all.

    If Obama loses we all lose big time. (none / 0) (#112)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 07:31:31 PM EST
    Romney/Ryan would be a disaster for the nation.

    Obama will, I am sure, do many things that are just wrong for us, like his stupid Grand Bargain thing, and his obsession with the deficit. Add in his flaunting of the Constitution and his love for the national security state, and the fact that I want Obama to win should give you some idea of just how disastrous I believe Romney would be.