Why health of the mother is not just another excuse for pro-choicers

I just recently had a baby girl. She's beautiful, and funny, and makes a lot of weird squeaky noises. I also have a wonderful little boy. I love having kids, and if I had more financial resources, I would probably be lobbying my husband to adopt more children.

The night after I gave birth to my daughter, I had postpartum hemorrhaging. This is a relatively rare complication where basically the mother has excessive bleeding. Thankfully, I was in the hospital and able to summon assistance. There were 5 nurses in my room, administering various treatments to me as a stop-gap until the doctor came. More treatments from the doctor followed. In an attempt to find a balance between providing too-much-info and being frank, let me say this:

1. The treatments to stop the hemorrhaging hurt way worse than labor itself.
2. If I hadn't woke up because my daughter started crying, I don't know how much longer I would have been lying in bed, bleeding. Nor do I know just how long I could have been lying there bleeding and still had the same (relatively good) outcome.
   
3. While I am obviously alive and relatively well, I am now seriously anemic. This means months of prescription-strength iron supplements (and their nasty side effects), fatigue, stress on organs of my body, heart palpitations, etc.

I went home from the hospital on the afternoon of October 15th. That evening, my husband and I watched the 3rd presidential debate between Obama and McCain. During the discussion on abortion, Obama indicated his support for a ban on late term abortions as long as there are health and life exceptions for the mother. In response, McCain said:

Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He's [for the] health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health."

I was so angry when I heard this, I wanted to cry.

I don't regret having my daughter. I carried through with this pregnancy, fully knowing that, although rare, there are pregnancy complications that exist that could damage my health or end my life. I made a CHOICE, a personal choice, to accept those risks and continue a pregnancy to its conclusion.

Who exactly does John McCain think he is? What makes him think that he has the right to discount my health? What gives him the right to say which risks to my health are serious enough to allow me to make decisions about my body, and which are not?

Liberal media bias my......um....foot

Being a Minnesotan, I visit the Star Tribune website pretty frequently. Conservative commenters on the site often refer to the paper as the "Red Star," saying that the paper is heavily biased toward Democrats (and inferring that we Dems are all crazy-commies, as per usual).

Looking at the editorials, the Star Tribune has endorsed

• Barack Obama (D) for president,
  
• Norm Coleman (R) for Senate,
  
• Tim Walz (D) for the 1st Congressional District (CD),
• John Kline (R) for the 2nd CD,
• No endorsement in the heated 3-way 3rd CD race,
• El Tinklenberg (D) in the 6th CD race (largely because of Michelle Bachman's much publicized ranting about her suspicions of "anti-American views" in Congress.)

Notice something odd for a newspaper with a supposed liberal bias?

The endorsements are pretty much split down the middle. Quite frankly, if you can endorse Kline or Coleman....you don't have a liberal bias.

I haven't read any endorsements from the Star Tribune in the 4th, 5th, 7th, or 8th District races. In these races, the Democratic incumbents (Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison, Collin Peterson, and Jim Oberstar) are very likely to win re-election. Those races are not very competitive; therefore, endorsing a candidate is pretty meaningless.

Claims of ACORN vote fraud are ridiculous

Donna Brazile has an excellent commentary on this issue on CNN.com.

An excerpt:

Let's look at the facts. ACORN labeled as "suspicious" the fraudulent registration forms a few of its paid volunteers submitted. Moreover, ACORN delivered them to election authorities under that heading. ACORN offered to help election officials pursue prosecutions against those who filled out the fraudulent forms.

The so-called ACORN scandal is no more than a few canvassers trying to meet their quota and make easy money by cheating the system.

Ask yourself how likely is it that someone would go through the effort and risk of submitting multiple false registration forms, find an accomplished forger capable of producing IDs of sufficient quality to trick election officials, and then spend Election Day racking up a couple extra votes at the potential cost of spending a decade in jail?

A simple cost-benefit analysis tells us this is not a reasonable or significant threat. The real threat here is the Republican Party using attacks on ACORN as a calculated strategy to justify massive challenges to the votes cast in Democratic-leaning voting precincts on Election Day. And this is what is truly outrageous, but where is John McCain's concern when it comes to people being harassed at the voting booth?

Yet another assassination plot

CNN has a story about yet another assassination plot against Obama. The men also planned to kill 100+ additional African-Americans in the same spree. Thankfully, the would-be perpetrators were completely inept and they've been caught.

Still, this sort of thing makes me very sad. Obviously, we've come a long way since the Civil Rights era. We have not come far enough.

How to tell you're a real Democrat

Last week, Rachel Maddow explained how to tell if you're a true Democrat. This is not the exact quote - more of a paraphrasing....

If you look at all the polling, and see how far Obama is ahead, and see that the electoral map looks more and more like a landslide in Obama's favor, and yet, still, you're afraid that something will happen and Obama will not win....you're a true Democrat.

Yep. That's just how I feel.

Michelle Bachman - 4 feet in her mouth

Michelle Bachman appeared on Hardball on Friday, and managed to not only stuff both of her own feet into her mouth, but also both of Joe McCarthy's feet.



She basically thinks that there are anti-American members of Congress, including Barack Obama, and the media needs to do an investigation and show the results in an expose.

Yes, she's a nut.

The silver lining to her paranoid rant is that her comments have provoked a firestorm. Her opponent, El Tinklenberg, raised $1 million dollars within the first 4 days following Bachman's rant. The RCCC pulled all monetary support from her campaign as a result of her anger-filled bungling. The DCCC is now going to support Tinklenberg in his battle for her seat.

Thank you to Chris Matthews for pressing Bachman on her snide, divisive, hate-filled comments.

Actual vote fraud - GOP style

Unlike the baseless accusations of voter fraud made by the GOP, there are true instances of vote fraud taking place in West Virginia today.

Those pesky touch-screen machines....with no paper trail....ARE SWITCHING VOTES FROM THE SELECTED DEMOCRAT TO THEIR REPUBLICAN CHALLENGER.

Where is the uproar and outrage about this? This is actual disenfranchisement.

The "ACORN is destroying democracy" whining is stupid, baseless bullshit. ACORN is required to turn in every voter registration card it receives, even ones it suspects are false. ACORN pointed out suspicious voter registration cards to state election officials as it turned them in. ACORN was scammed by dishonest employees. Mickey Mouse just might get registered to vote, but since he won't show up at the polls, there's really no harm done to anyone but ACORN.

Actually changing someone's vote is not a mistake, and it is actual vote fraud.

Just what I wanted to see

Obama has double-digit leads in all the Midwest states in the latest Big Ten poll.

Oh happiness!

Wal Mart mom dressed up via Neiman Marcus and Saks

Sarah Palin's just like me. She understands what it's like to be a mom on a budget.

That's why she's gotten a $150,000 shopping spree, courtesy of the RNC, for campaign clothing from Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue.

I wonder what $150,000 would buy at Wal Mart.

Hortman v. Reinhart - the local house race

I live in Minnesota House District 47B. Our incumbent state representative is Melissa Hortman (D). I truly feel bad for this woman.

Every two years, she's challenged by a Republican. Ok, nothing weird about that, right?

For some reason, the Republican challengers in our district seem determined to attempt to paint her as someone who is not loyal to the interests of our district. Pretty disgusting, but also not a surprising tactic, right?

But wow. The bizarre claims that are made about where her loyalty does lie are truly mind-boggling.

Two years ago, her opponent flooded my mailbox and littered my doorstep with mailings claiming that Representative Hortman was beholden to "Indian casino interests."

This year, the big scary claim is that Representative Hortman wants "unelected California bureaucrats to make laws for Minnesota."

Wow. That seems random, doesn't it?

Here's the deal: Representative Hortman introduced legislation designed to adopt California's vehicle emission standards. Because California started regulating vehicle emission standards before the feds did, federal law allows the states to choose either California's standards or (weaker) federal standards. States are not allowed to craft their own standards under federal law.

California's standards are created by the California Air Resources Board, which is under the umbrella of the California EPA. Whether it's the federal EPA or the California EPA, these "bureaucrats" are not elected.

Apparently, Representative Hortman's challenger, Andrew Reinhart, or to be more precise, "Local Action PAC" doesn't seem to understand that California has stricter air emissions laws because, well, air quality is important. Funny, but it seems to work, too. After all, California's rules have prompted the auto industry to create and showcase new, cleaner and more efficient vehicles. Something that doesn't really happen often in Minnesota.

Granted, Minnesota's air is not as bad as California's air. Do we really want to wait for it to get that bad before we actually act on it? Oh, wait, I forgot. We're talking about a Republican here. So yes, the answer would be that it would be better to do nothing and just hope that the auto industry starts making cleaner and more efficient vehicles out of benevolence. Free market is God and all that, right?

Also, apparently it has not occurred to "Local Action PAC" (which is a really chicken-shit name, by the way, and says something about the lack of character of Andew Reinhart) that if those unelected California bureaucrats go all crazy and enact something completely beyond the pale (all cars must run on moon dust) Minnesota could vote to go back to the federal standards.

Actually, the policy disagreement doesn't annoy me as much as the actual ad itself. I can accept that good-willed people might disagree on how best to regulate (or not) auto emissions.

I find it obnoxious that the photograph they have of Representative Hortman on this mailing makes her look like she has a mental affliction of some sort. I wonder if making your opponent look like a buffoon is part of "protecting your values" as Andrew Reinhart suggests that he will do. I wonder if his mother taught him that value.

I find it even more obnoxious that the flyer says "California and Minnesota are very different" and has two pictures. The picture representing California has a picture of a boy who doesn't comb his hair, is wearing suspenders and a belt with a very nerdy plaid shirt, and he's holding a flower while standing in front of a Prius. The picture representing Minnesota has a well groomed buff handyman standing in front of a pickup truck.

How dumb do you really think the people in this district are?

Why do you think that Toyota is doing really well compared to the Big 3? It might have something to do with the popularity of the Prius and the inability of the Big 3 to make a really fuel efficient vehicle.

How insulting do you have to be to the people of California just because they're smart enough to actually start doing something concrete about air pollution? Is this also demonstrative of Andrew Reinhart's values? Because it makes him look like an asshole.

What exactly is wrong with driving a Prius? (And no, I don't have one. Yet.)

I personally think that keeping Minnesota's air quality in the "not scary, asthma-causing" range is a worthy goal to shoot for. Why? Mostly because I think that breathing is a real family value.

Game on!!!

I'm back. It's likely that my posting may be somewhat sporadic for a while. Having a newborn and a 2 1/2 year old does that.

I am now the proud mother of a baby girl and a toddler son!

I am suspending my blog

I have a situation that requires real leadership. This situation is too grave to play politics with. I am not the type to "phone it in."

Until this situation is resolved, my blog will be suspended. Unlike McCain, I will not have surrogates make posts for me. I will not decide in the middle to unsuspend my blog with my work unfinished and the situation unresolved. I will not do interviews with Katie Couric, nor anyone else.

I have to go have my baby. (Okay, I admit it. I would really prefer the ability to phone this one in.)

So it's unlikely I will be making any new posts until sometime next week.

Have you seen her?

Jeff Rosenberg at The Twin Cities Daily Liberal has reported on a new Tinklenberg ad. He's urging everyone to donate to Tinklenberg so that the ad can be run on TV rather than just on the web.

This isn't my district, but Bachmann is such a nut that I may have to consider donating some money to Tinklenberg anyway.

The ad is an absolute hoot - I highly suggest you check it out!

McCain nastiness turning off former Republican supporters

The Grand Rapids Press reported today on former Governor Milliken's withdrawal of his endorsement for McCain.

"He is not the McCain I endorsed," said Milliken, reached at his Traverse City home Thursday. "He keeps saying, 'Who is Barack Obama?' I would ask the question, 'Who is John McCain?' because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me.

"I'm disappointed in the tenor and the personal attacks on the part of the McCain campaign, when he ought to be talking about the issues."

The article also mentions Lincoln Chafee's (R - former Sen. from RI) support for Obama.

Do I laugh or cry at the sheer stupidity and hypocrisy?

Yesterday at a McCain rally in Wisconsin, there was an angry man who expressed his anger at "the socialists takin' over our country." He suggested that Obama and Pelosi were socialists.

Of course, McCain just smiled and said that the man was right.

Obviously, this man is unhinged. He clearly doesn't understand what socialism actually is. Folks, he's had way too much Republican hate-monger koolaid.

I suppose the man in the crowd managed to get to the rally on roads not supported by taxpayer dollars. And I'm sure he has not attended a taxpayer-supported school. And obviously, when he gets medical care, he gets it from a doctor that has never received a taxpayer subsidy, directly (via loans and scholarships) or indirectly (like interning at a taxpayer-subsidized teaching hospital or doing research with grant money, etc.) The streetlights that will light his way home at night must have been provided by magical fairies - certainly not taxpayer funds. The medications he takes certainly weren't subsidized by taxpayer funds. My guess is that while the man appeared (to me) to be old enough to collect Social Security and utilize Medicare, he doesn't. After all, he would be using my tax dollars to fund his retirement and health care, right, and that would be socialism, right?

Obama's tax plan returns income tax levels on families making more than $250,000 a year to pre-Bush tax cut levels. In other words, to the same level as during the Clinton years. The same level as during the Reagan (that big socialist!) years.

I'd like to ask anyone, ANYONE, out there, look at the Clinton years, and look at the Bush years, and tell me that we're better off now. I've lost about 50% of my 401k savings in just the last year (and quite frankly, most of the loss in just the past month.) Prices for food, gas, heat, health care, education, and other necessities are way, way up. Incomes are stagnant. Unemployment is up.

The middle class is the engine that fuels this economy. The upper class only loots and plunders.

I'll say it again. You may not agree with the concept of progressive taxation. You may not agree on the appropriate tax rates. Still doesn't make it socialism. Or communism. And if you keep calling it that, you're either ignorant, lazy, or deliberately deceptive.

McCain's very own dangerous violent radical buddy

Apparently G. Gordon LIddy and John McCain have at least as close a tie, if not closer, than Obama and Ayers.

Liddy, who served 4 years in prison for his role in Watergate, apparently has hosted McCain at his home for a political fundraiser, given McCain campaign contributions, and hosted McCain on his radio show. McCain, on the radio show, told Liddy, "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

So, what are the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great? Well, besides of course, politically motivated burglary and spying, for which he has said that he is completely unrepetant?

• Proposing to kidnap anti-war activists
• Equating environmentalists to Osama Bin Laden
  
• Giving advice on how best to kill government agents to the nuts at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas
• Idolizing Hitler
  

What a winner you picked to be proud of McCain. I think you have some explaining to do.

What you can buy with McCain's $5,000 family tax credit for health care

Jeff Rosenberg at the Twin Cities Daily Liberal has an excellent post on what kind of health care coverage you could purchase with McCain's proposed $5,000 health care tax credit.

It's not pretty.

Also, check out his prior post on the McCain health care plan.

Palin speech incites violent terroristic threat and racial slurs

In Palin's rally in Clearwater, Florida, she again brought up the lies and innuendos about Obama and Ayers. Not surprising, considering that the recent polls have shown that America has rejected McCain's proposal to implement a Bush 2.0 economic plan, as well as his frenetic stumbling from position to position on the economic crisis.

Her lies whipped her supporters up into such a frenzy that one man yelled "Kill him!" about Obama. Of course, she said nothing to suggest that she doesn't condone assassination attempts on the opposing ticket.

At the rally, after Palin blamed Katie Couric for her own inability to answer questions like a moderately intelligent and informed person, her supporters turned on the media. When her supporters actually began mobbing the media, shouting obscenities, she did nothing. When one of her supportes yelled "Nigger - sit down boy!" at a black journalist, she did nothing.

Yep. Death threats and lynch mobs. That's very maverick. That's reform. That's what you get with McCain-Palin.

They ought to be ashamed.

Keating 5 Video

The Obama campaign says "It's on like Donkey Kong!"

Keating Economics - a video released by the Obama campaign on McCain's role in the Keating 5 scandal.

Guilt by association - a losing strategy for McCain

So, the McCain campaign has announced that it plans to launch more fierce attacks against Obama's "character." The first shot they fired in their new offensive was having Sarah Palin claim that Obama has been "palling around with terrorists that would target their own country" at a rally yesterday.

Of course, that would be false. Also known as untrue. Also known as yet another McCain-Palin bald-faced shameful lie.

Of course, if one fact check showing Palin to be lying isn't enough for you, you can also check this one at factcheck.org. Corsi already tried smearing Obama with the "Ayers guilt-by-association" paintbrush. Factcheck.org reported:

"Other chapters offer more of the same regarding Obama's well-known connections to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to former Weather Underground fugitive (and now longtime professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago) William Ayers, and Obama's friend Tony Rezko, recently convicted in a celebrated corruption trial. Nowhere does Corsi demonstrate that Obama agrees with what Wright or Ayers have said or done, or that he broke any laws as Rezko did. Corsi completely ignores what Obama actually says about both Wright and Ayers. Nowhere in the book will be found Obama's March 14 statement rejecting Wright, when Obama said, "I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country," or Obama's April 16 comment on Ayers, whom he said "engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old." Nor does Corsi offer anything new connecting Obama to Rezko, a relationship we've addressed twice in earlier articles.

Attempting to discredit Obama because of an association with unsavory people rather than with actual proof that Obama shares their views is an instance of a logical fallacy that philosophers call guilt-by-association. Corsi uses the technique to fill chapters three through seven. "

Of course, the McCain campaign is planning on bringing up Rezko too. Of course, there's no evidence Obama did anything improper with Rezko.

This smacks of a desperate campaign. One that knows it absolutely cannot win the election with its chosen message on domestic or foreign policy. One that knows it has less than a month to somehow distract the voting public from the reality that is comprised of two ongoing (and apparently endless) wars and an economic recession.

Unfortunately, this strategy could seriously backfire on McCain and make things worse than they already are. Obama's campaign has already released an ad pointing out that McCain is trying to distract voters from the economy. (Have I mentioned that I love how the Obama campaign doesn't just sit on this kind of stuff like Kerry did?)

But even worse for McCain is that he and Palin are not safe from guilt-by-association smears - not safe by a long shot. I predict that the Obama campaign itself will not be making those sorts of attacks, but organizations like MoveOn or other 527s very well might take the gloves all the way off.

Starting with Palin - and her ties to the AIP. Her husband was a member of the Alaska Independence Party. A party pushing for a vote for Alaska to secede from the United States.

And there's McCain and the Keating 5 scandal.

And then there's McCain's connections to the anti-semetic and racist World Anti-Communist League. As discussed on Meet the Press this morning:

MR. BEGALA: Well, no. Obama was—he was asked about this in a debate in a primaries with Hillary Clinton sitting there; George Stephanopoulos of ABC asked him about it. He answered it. He pointed out that the despicable acts this guy committed were committed when, apparently, Barack Obama was eight years old. And, and I think Governor Palin here is making a strategic mistake. This guilt by association path is going to be trouble ultimately for the McCain campaign. You know, you can go back—I’ve written a book about McCain. I had a dozen researchers go through him. I didn’t even put this in the book. But John McCain sat on the board of a very right-wing organization. It was the U.S. Council for World Freedom. It was chaired by a guy named John Singlaub, who wound up involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. It was an ultraconservative right-wing group. The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981, when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League, the parent organization, which ADL said, “has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and Anti-Semites.” Now, that’s not John McCain. I don’t think he is that. But, but, you know, the problem is that a lot of people know John McCain’s record better than Governor Palin, and he does not want to play guilt by association or this thing could blow up in his face.

So yeah, I don't think McCain really ought to go there. Sadly, I think he's just desperate enough to do it anyway.

Additional thoughts on the VP debate

1) Proper English, please.

Why is it charming, cute, folksy, or "real" when white people don't speak proper English, but when black people don't speak proper English, it's lazy or worse?

I wonder what the reaction would be if Obama said something like this in a debate:

"You sho-nuff iz gonna hear some fear in dat momma's voice."

2) The issue of "looking back" on the Bush Administration.

Yes, Obama and Biden both often compare McCain to Bush. It's a legitimate comparison as McCain's current policy stances are, for the most part, the same as the stances of the Bush Administration.

Palin criticized Biden for "looking back" and "playing the blame game" last night whenever he brought up Bush.

I have a hint for the McCain campaign. If you don't want to be compared to Bush, stop supporting the same policies and philosophies that Bush supported for the last 8 years. Stop directing most of your tax cuts to the wealthiest people (and for God's sake stop lying about how it's really for the small businesses.) Stop trying to outlaw abortion via judicial appointments. And so on.

And PS - the McCain campaign claims it's going to bring reform and change to Washington. How are they going to know what reforms are needed, or what change is needed, if they refuse on "principle" to look to the past?

DOING THE SAME AS WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR EIGHT YEARS IS NOT CHANGE OR REFORM. DOING THE SAME AS WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR EIGHT YEARS DOES NOT MAKE YOU A MAVERICK.

(And PPS - let's just accept your claim that Obama votes with the Democrats 96% of the time. Guess what? That would suggest he's different (i.e., a CHANGE) from Bush.

Palin's debate cheatsheet

This was created and posted by Aden Nak at ph33r and loathing.

VP Debate - Impressions

Okay, again, I'm not going to post the debate video or fact-check it. I'm just going to write about some of my general observations and feelings about the debate.

First of all, I am absolutely livid at Sarah Palin. I was irritated and angry last night while watching the debate, but as time has passed and I've thought more about it, I've become even angrier. Why?

The damned winking.

I am a working woman. I know that based on statistics, it's likely that I earn less than most of my male colleagues. I know I've watched men at my workplace get promoted, over and over again, while women that are more competent are left behind. I've participated in meetings where men would interrupt women repeatedly, or be dismissive of their comments. The fact is, it is difficult being a professional woman. It's difficult to be taken seriously. It's difficult to be respected equally.

It's a lot better than it used to be. Back in the good old days (days which I particularly would not have enjoyed, being a mixed-race woman) the women who did have careers were often regarded as fair-game for sexual attention at work. Winks, shoulder rubs, a pat on the ass - secretaries, bookkeepers, clerks, and waitresses were expected to put up with this bullshit. And women certainly weren't going to be promoted to management or be given official responsibility.

One of the things that women have had to fight against in order to make the progress we have made is being sexualized in the workplace. We've had to struggle to be seen as colleagues and not office ornaments. We struggle with walking a fine line between being attractive/well-groomed and being suggestive/sexual.

On what essentially is the biggest job interview for any woman in the United States, Sarah Palin decides to wink and grin like she's in a bar and more than half drunk. More than once.

Governor, you're not running for VPILF. You're running for VP.

And before any Palin apologist starts running off with "Oh, that wasn't meant to be sexual. That was just cute/folksy/charming/pick-your-euphemism" I'd like to mention:

• You don't see Biden winking.
• You don't see Obama winking.
• You don't see McCain winking.
• You didn't see Bush winking (either one, including the charming, folksy W.)
• You didn't see Hilary Clinton winking.
• If you watched the post-debate coverage, you probably saw several male and female journalists, campaign staff, pundits, spinners, etc. NOT A ONE OF THEM WINKED.

It was about as cute and folksy as when some women decide to wear cleavage-baring camisoles, open-toed stilettos, and/or thongs that "accidentally" show whenever they bend over (which seems to be often). In other words, it's not cute. It sets women in the workforce back. And it makes me sick.

In addition, even if you want to pretend that it wasn't sexual, it was extremely juvenile. This country faces grave challenges. We have 2 wars going on. We have instability in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia. We have a looming official recession (in addition to the unofficial recession that most of us have been feeling for some time now). We have a health care crisis. We have an exploding national debt and a growing budget deficit.

THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR WINKING AND GRINNING. Governor, you're not 16. You're a grown, professional woman interviewing for the 2nd highest job in the nation. You're trying to show that you have the knowledge, judgment, and seriousness to be able to negotiate with members of Congress, meet with foreign leaders, and conduct business on behalf of this entire nation. And you ought to be embarrassed when the barista at Caribou Coffee acts more professional than you do.

Okay - with that aside....other debate impressions.

I thought it was obvious that Biden knows a great deal more than Palin. Biden was well informed on the issues last night, and made it a point to answer questions for the most part. Palin generally ignored questions that were difficult or potentially damaging. This was not surprising to me, or probably anyone. Her few interviews have shown her staggering level of ignorance on most national issues.

I was surprised about Palin's comments on benefits for same sex couples. I know that her voting record on the issue and her religious convictions on the issue don't really match up to each other. I was mostly surprised to hear her be so willing to provide benefits. I wonder what folks like Dobson are saying about that comment (if anything). I'll have to check later.

I was shocked and horrified to hear Palin agrees with Cheney on the role of the Vice President, and even worse, she seems to want additional "powers and flexibility." Umm.....no thanks.

Overall, I don't think this debate changed much as far as the race is concerned. The people that loved Palin still love her. The people that hated Palin still hate her. And the undecideds - most are still undecided. Those undecideds knew pre-debate that Biden would know more than Palin, but that Palin was more "folksy" than Biden, and they simply had that confirmed. Not a game changer.

I will probably add more to this posting later.

Palin - well, she knows Roe v. Wade

And good for her! After all, Joe Six-Pack knows about Roe v. Wade, right?

Katie Couric then asked her what other Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with. Unfortunately, she couldn't name a single one. Not even Plessy v. Ferguson (upheld "separate but equal" laws). Not the Dred Scott case (saying slaves and their decendants could never be American citizens, but instead, would always be considered the personal property of whites.) Not the Korematsu case, which upheld the right of the government to imprision its citizens in concentration camps without due process.

She couldn't name Exxon v. Baker, which was decided this year. The Court cut punitive damages from the Exxon oil spill from $2.5 billion to $500 million. This decision was very unpopular with Alaskans and Alaskan politicians. Well, apparently some Alaskan politicians....

Not even Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (said Bush's military commissions were insufficient) or the ruling this year that the prisoners at Guantanamo should have some teeny bit of due process. You know....one of the rulings where McCain backed up Bush's "disappointment" in the outcome, just like a true maverick would. She could have said she disagreed that flag burning was protected speech. She could have said that she disagreed that child rapists should not be eligible for the death penalty. These are all easy, meat-and-potato, stock conservative positions. No one would have expected her to know the actual name of any court case - she would have gotten kudos for appearing even remotely informed about the Supreme Court.

When Couric asked Joe Biden the same question....surprise! He actually could name a specific decision, and provide context behind his reasoning.


Watch CBS Videos Online


Funny....even though Couric asked them the same questions, somehow, Republicans are claiming that it's Couric's fault that Palin couldn't answer the questions in an intelligent and informed manner.

And now the Republicans are out in droves, crying that the debate tonight cannot possibly be fair because Gwen Ifill has published a book about African-American politicians. Of course, the debate moderators were chosen well after the announcement about Ifill's book. Oh, but the McCain campaign couldn't possibly be expected to know that....I mean, they're not professionals or anything, right?

Let's just pretend for a moment that there is a vast, organized, EVIL conspiracy in the media against conservatives. (Cue fairy tale music here.) Couric and Ifill don't like Palin. Here's my question:

SO WHAT?

Seriously. The best argument that the Palin apologists can come up with is that it is unfair for Palin to be expected to have an intelligent, coherent, and consistent answer for any question unless it is asked by someone that likes Sarah Palin, and preferably, given to Palin before-hand so that someone else can write up the answer for her and she can read it off of a teleprompter.

An extremely pleasant sight this morning

I took a peek at the Current Electoral Map from www.electoral-vote.com this morning. Based on the latest state-by-state polling data, Obama is leading the electoral college 338-185, with North Carolina (15 electoral votes) listed as a complete tie. To give you a little perspective, at this point in 2004, Kerry was losing 238-296 at this point in the race.

(For those of you who are interested, there are a series of links on the electoral-vote.com website that explain their methodology, show their predictions about prior elections, and discuss their historical accuracy. I've read through some of this, and I was pretty impressed.)

Obama seems to have picked up Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia (again, compared to 2004 results.)

I think Chuck Todd summed up the situation really well this morning on MSNBC. Chuck said:

“All the trend lines are pointing in Obama’s direction …. This should really scare the McCain campaign. This thing -- it’s at a tipping point. And this debate, frankly, is coming at GOOD time for McCain because he needs something – anything – to stop this Obama momentum. … The pressure is all on Sarah Palin, not just for her own persona, but to SAVE THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN. … I think Virginia, frankly, is a trailing indicator of the national numbers. … John McCain is campaigning in Missouri later this week. That’s not a good sign. You shouldn’t have to be worrying about Missouri at this point.”