Just another reminder...

Hot Senatorial Races

A few months ago, Notepad did a very early coverage of the senatorial elections. Now, let's cover the top 10 closest campaigns, according to Electoral-Vote and FiveThirtyEight:

10. Colorado: Wayne Allard (R) is retiring at the end of this Congress, leaving the seat open-but remember, this is a state that has been quickly shifting left; they have a recently elected Governor (Democrat), Senator (Democrat), and they control the state legislature. Mark Udall, Democratic Congressman from Boulder, is currently leading Bob Schaffer, a former congressman and current oilman. The polls show that Mark Udall is leading big-a 94% likelihood of victory, says FiveThirtyEight-but, hey, ten's a round number and I only have got four close races. By the way, Mark's cousin, Tom, a Democratic congressman, is leading big in New Mexico against Steve Pearce in Pete Domenici's (R) seat. PREDICTION: UDALL BY 15

9. Texas: John Cornyn, inexplicably, is winning only by six points to Rick Noriega, a state representative and Afghanistan war veteran (who came in first in a five-man primary that included-no joke- a man named Gene Kelly. GOTTA DANCE!!!) This is unbelievable that it is this close in the polls, and it has continued to go up since late August. This may be a seat that the DSCC will put money in, but I don't think that they will win it. PREDICTION: CORNYN BY 7

8. New Hampshire: Let's face it, if George W. Bush lived in New Hampshire, his name would be John E. Sununu. He's only voted 84% of the time with Bush, but, to steal a quote from Sen. Obama, "I don't want to take a 16% chance on change." He's for the war in Iraq, voted to suspend the right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantanamo, and voted against renewing the assault weapons ban. That's not to say he's been terrible, but Jeanne Shaheen, former 3-term Governor, would be better. In her six years in Concord, she'd reformed healthcare for children, shown her pro-choice standpoint by repealing a law that would make abortion a felony in the state, and had been a fervent supporter of early education. But she only has an 8 point lead in the polls, after having led by almost twenty. PREDICTION: SHAHEEN BY 6

7. Kentucky: This isn't the most surprising shift, but Mitch McConnell is in trouble late, after having led by almost 20 points to veteran and one of the founders of Vencor, a healthcare company. McConnell, simply put, has voted with Bush on Iraq-a death knell for any candidate. He's also cited as one of the leaders in the "do-nothing Senate" they always talk about. McConnell is now only ahead by 4 points, and can fall victim to the Obama effect. PREDICTION: LUNSFORD BY 1

6. Georgia: I'll just appropriate a quote from Muhammad Ali to describe Saxby Chambliss: "He's a bad man!!!" After running a campaign in 2002 that involved smearing Vietnam veteran, triple-amputee Max Cleland, who earned a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in Vietnam, comparing him in advertisements to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Now, he's again in hot water, for-guess what!-being for the war in Iraq! And who is he running against now? A Vietnam veteran!!! It just keeps getting better and better. Except this time it's not Cleland, but Jim Martin, former Georgia state representative. He's for a staged withdrawal from Iraq, and with the Obama effect in Georgia, this might turn, as well-he's only down by two in the polls. PREDICTION: MARTIN BY 3

5. Oregon: Gordon Smith's a really nice guy. I mean a really, really nice guy. He's a Republican who has crossed party lines and got the job done. But we said the same about Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island just two years ago, when he was defeated by Sheldon Whitehouse-not because he did anything wrong, but that he was a Republican. This looks like it's having the same effect for Jeff Merkley, who is leading by 4 points in a recent Research 2000 poll. PREDICTION: MERKLEY BY 5

4. Mississippi-B: In Mississippi-A, Sen. Thad Cochran (R) will cruise to a victory. However, in the Mississippi-B race, where Roger Wicker (who was appointed to the Senate in Trent Lott's seat, after the latter resigned to become a lobbyist last year) is in a dogfight with former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove. Musgrove wasn't the most popular governor in Mississippi(he divorced his wife in mid-term, and was part of a controversial ordeal with the divisive Mississippi state flag), and he won't be a favorite with the rest of the Democrats (he's against same-sex couples adopting children, much less getting married; is for putting "In God We Trust" in public schools; and wished to keep the Ten Commandments in the State Capitol). But, let's face it-he's had a good stand on education, and is against what's going on now in Iraq. This race has been nailbiting-Wicker's leading by just 1 point in the latest poll-and the Obama effect may cause this to turn. PREDICTION: WICKER BY A FEW THOUSAND

3. North Carolina: This one is the surpriser of the entire campaign. The fact that Obama is doing well in North Carolina: stunning. The idea that Elizabeth Dole, running for a second term, is losing to Kay Hagan, an unknown state senator? Amazing beyond one's wildest dreams (or nightmares, depending on who you support). Along with her service as president of the National Republican Senatorial Committee-boy, she did a great job!, she's voted with Bush 92% of the time. This is more fire for Hagan, who has gotten support in the form of rallies from Senator Obama, and she's also been strong on education. PREDICTION: HAGAN BY 3

2. Minnesota: Norm Coleman-poor, poor Norm Coleman. Again, not a terrible guy-in fact, he used to campaign for Democrats. But he's been for Iraq from the beginning-and that's where Al Franken comes in. The former comedian (but that doesn't mean he's not funny anymore) and political commentator has been to Iraq (he's done several tours for the USO) and has been fighting very hard the last two years. Let's face it, at this point in the campaign-where Franken and Coleman are tied-this is priority number 1 for the Democratic Party. PREDICTION: FRANKEN BY 2

1. Alaska: Ah, the corruption capital of this nation. Home to Don Young, indicted Congressman (who will probably lose to Ethan Berkowitz come next Tuesday); Sarah Palin, VP nominee and proven to be unethical in the Troopergate scandal; and Ted Stevens, who is right now, as I write this, having a good shot to have his political career decided by 8 women and 4 men. Stevens is on trial for violations of ethics acts, with the decision probably coming in the next couple of days. That will probably be the deciding factor in this campaign between Stevens and Mark Begich, mayor of Anchorage, the state's largest city. If Stevens is found guilty, Begich will win, probably by at least 5 points. If he's acquitted, Stevens might win, although there's still a possibility. Rembember he's the guy who brought you the "Bridge to Nowhere"-but also remember that he's seen as the breadwinner for Alaska on that front. Will that play a role? PREDICTION: I'LL TELL YOU IN A FEW DAYS

Expect a feature post tomorrow, "On Maverick Status". I will also post, by Monday, a Campaign 2008 Spotlight on the presidential candidates, and "Declaration of the Rights of the municipal New Yorker".

100 Minutes After the Debate

Make it 4 for 4.

Senator John McCain needed a huge momentum swing in tonight's debate; he needed a win with both burdens-the burden to not lose, and the burden to truly win. But Senator Barack Obama would have none of that, counterbalancing McCain's plans with a solid set of his own, and taking attacks in stride, while making his own against McCain.

Here are the decisions from the Network 3, the Cable 3, PBS' The News Hour, Mark Halperin of TIME magazine's "The Page", and Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post's "The Fix":

CBS: McCain looked disrespectful and fatigued; not Obama's best performance, but still a win.
NBC: Not a game changer; fairly neutral debate.
ABC: Obama "perfected the 'rope-a-dope'"; McCain couldn't change momentum, but still performed well.
CNN: Lean Obama; McCain looks better than last debate; "worst debate" for Obama
MSNBC: Obama win; big win on intangibles; McCain didn't attack directly.
Fox News: Obama clearly won Miami focus group; panel disagreed.
The News Hour: Neither elaborated on the economy; a tie.
Halperin: McCain wins, A- to B; "does it matter?"
Cillizza: McCain did not get "knockout blow", but did perform very well.

I also have CNN's polling data (there's more today!):
All polls have a margin of error of +/- 4%, with the breakdown of those polled being 40% Democrats, 30% Republicans, and 30% independents.

Who did the better job?: Obama, 58%-31%
Favorability Ratings:
Obama, originally 63-35 favorable, is now 66-33 favorable
McCain, originally 51-45 favorable, is now a 49-49 tie

On party breakdown, Obama won Democrats 88%-5%, independents 57%-31%, with McCain winning Republicans by an underwhelming 68%-18%.

On who will fix the economy, 59% believed Obama would fix it better, compared to 35% for McCain; on Healthcare, 62-31 Obama, and on taxes, 56-41 Obama.

On who portrayed themselves as the better leader, Obama won 56-35, and 70% found Obama more likeable, compared to 22% who found McCain more likeable.

Here's my notes on tonight's debate:

>Obama showed that he could present himself on a variety of issues, including on social issues; his answer on abortion was probably the clincher of the night, as he substantiated his opinion rather than just simply asserting.

>McCain was able to diversify his claims on education, which was important, as he went beyond simple talking points-but it was something I thought Obama did well throughout.

>I think that every news station got it right when they said that the winner of tonight's debate was "Joe the Plumber", the Ohio voter (and McCain supporter) that spoke with Sen. Obama yesterday and made headline news in the New York Post. "Joe the Plumber" is now Sen. McCain's best friend, as he made 21 separate references (with Obama making a few in retort) to the man-1 reference every 4 minutes and 15 seconds; in contrast, he only said "my friends" once, and he never used the word "maverick". Could this be a shift in the McCain-and the American-lexicon?

>McCain attacked on Ayers and on ACORN, but Obama did the most important thing-he rose above it, showing that at least one glimpse of that "changing of politics" is still there. McCain just couldn't stick those claims to him.

Here are my round-by-round assessments on the victor of tonight's debate:

Economy: While Obama was able to diversify, McCain came right around in circles. Obama was also able to tie McCain to Bush. Win Obama.

Campaign Strategies: This one goes to Obama, because McCain really could not win unless Obama truly got screwed from claims of his associations with Ayers. Knocked down statements about Ayers, ACORN, and Rep. John Lewis, while going after McCain on the statements made at his rallies.

Energy: Again, Obama was able to diversify his claims-while McCain was kind of stuck showcasing nuclear energy and offshore driling (although he did a better job of bringing other things to the forefront), Obama was able to show the broad spectrum of the energy debate, and how he would implement a variety of alternative energy sources, along with showing the need for fuel efficiency, which had the CNN "tick-polls" buzzing-it was roofing for about a minute. Win Obama, but it was kept close by McCain.

Healthcare: This segment was a true turning point for Obama. He was able to present his plan, while continuing to deride McCain's. Meanwhile, McCain was on defense more than offense about his plan. Win Obama.

Social Issues (Abortion): This one was a slight win for Obama, for the reason (as stated above) that Obama could truly go in-depth on his reasoning to support abortion, along with refuting claims of his prior views in Springfield, while McCain gave a simple assertion.

Education: This one I viewed as a tie. Both candidates presented their views clearly and well and, while I support Obama's policy (but not as vigorously as the rest of his policies), I was pleasantly surprised that McCain sees more than just vouchers as a way to get out of things. An important attack by Obama was on Phil Gramm, who basically said that the youth was a special interest group and not all special interest groups can be attended to.

Intangibles: As in the prior debates, I gave the win here to Obama in the first half-hour. McCain didn't look at Obama until the second half-hour, was sighing often, and kept interrupting Obama when he spoke.

Overall victor: Obama, but McCain put up a good fight-this one isn't the "game changer", but I think that, instead of a "win by knockout", it'll be a "win by decision" for Obama, contuing the sports analogy, Obama has "run the clock out" by providing no positive effect for McCain this evening.

Stay tuned to Notepad for Campaign 2008 Spotlights on the four major candidates, at least 4 feature posts, a handicap of the senatorial elections across the land, what really happens in the Electoral College, and a special Election Night live blog.

Debate Live Blog

360 Minutes Before the Debate

After three straight Obama/Biden wins, John McCain and the GOP are desperately trying to swing their momentum. The Electoral College projections have been at their highest point so far this campaign, with Obama leading 361.4-176.6 on FiveThirtyEight and 357-181 on Electoral-Vote, not to mention an almost 96% chance of an Obama victory. Tonight's debate at 9:00 PM at Hofstra University may be the last chance for the McCain campaign to swing the momentum back. Tonight's theme is domestic policy; it's been a large part of all the debates so far, and it seems like both are getting better at this portion of the debate.

Here's what I think should be looked at in tonight's debate:

>Will he or won't he?: That's the question that everyone's asking of John McCain, who's gone negative, gone more negative, and has now had to backtrack and pick up the mud he slung over the past week on '60s Weathermen leader William Ayers, whom Obama had worked with in the 1990s. At rallies last week in Ohio, McCain had to confront claims from supporters that Obama was "an Arab", "a terrorist", and that we have to fear an Obama Administration. Also, political flames have been stoked by lower-level members of the GOP, such as the Virginia head of the Republican Party, who compared Sen. Obama to Osama bin Laden, because both "have friends who bombed the Pentagon." If McCain doesn't attack in tonight's debate, it will only show the hypocrisy of his campaign. However, if he does go negative, will Sen. Obama fight back with, say, the Keating Five scandal, or delving into what Rolling Stone magazine delved into in their newest issue on Sen. McCain's military record?

>Does Obama have an advantage?: With tonight's debate being about domestic policy, something Sen. Obama and the Democrats generally have an advantage on, Obama seems to have the edge in tonight's debate. However, with recent economic changes and in the past week-and-a-half, through an economic roller coaster ride (first 1500 points down last week, including a 777-point drop, then 953 points up yesterday alone, and now, at press time, an over 500-point drop in the last two days), a global bailout in Europe and a focused bailout in the U.S., the economic meltdown of Iceland, and the seemingly global endorsement of regulation with the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Economics to Paul Krugman, it is important now more than ever that we truly see the economic policy of the two candidates. With the microscope put on, we'll see how Obama and McCain do.

>Does Obama have home-field?: With tonight's debate in Democratic stronghold New York, it will be interesting to see how the crowd melds tonight's debate.

Tonight's debate, at 9:00 PM Eastern Time, from the Mack Sports Center at Hofstra University on Long Island, NY, will be moderated by Bob Scheiffer, former host of the CBS Evening News and longtime host of Face the Nation. Stay tuned to Notepad for a special live blog coinciding with tonight's debate, starting at 8:45 PM. Then, expect circa midnight a post-debate wrap-up, with in-depth analysis from myself, the Network 3, the Cable 3, and more, along with polls from the major networks.

NEWS FLASH-Palin Report Unveiled...And Post-Debate Remarks

Before we begin with the regularly scheduled post-debate remarks after I settled down, we have a big news story coming from Juneau. The Alaska State Legislature's bipartisan investigation on the firing of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan by Gov. Sarah Palin (R), the Vice Presidential nominee for president, has been released by a unanimous 12-0 vote. The findings of the report state that, Gov. Palin unethically stepped in to fire Mr. Monegan and the claim that he was fired for not terminating state trooper Michael Wooten (the former brother-in-law of the Governor) is true; however, it is not the exclusive reason, and the Governor followed all procedural rights and requirements, as stated in the report by Stephen Branchflower, leader of the investigation: "Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her consitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."

What do I make of this? I think that this will be another mitigating factor for Palin (as we haven't seen them already); she was put on the ticket as a "Washington outsider", but now she is seen as corrupt and possibly in need of disciplinary action. However, will it affect the campaign? Possibly, although there are a boatload of other things flying around that I will elaborate on in this post.

Click on the post title to get the full PDF file of the report by the Alaska State Legislature (NOTE: This file needs the Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in to work; also, it's 263 pages long, so it's not recommended for a connection with a low bandwidth).

And now, back to our regularly scheduled blogging...

Obama got a huge boost from the debate on Tuesday. States such as Georgia, Arkansas, even Montana are in play. According to FiveThirtyEight, Obama is behind in Arkansas only by 7 points, 5 in Georgia, and just under 5 points in Montana. Obama even has a chance to win not one, but two electoral votes in Nebraska: since they are one of the only two states (along with Maine) that apportion electors by district, along with the at-large electors for the senators (which will, without question go to McCain), Obama is only behind by 6 points in East Nebraska, and by 4 1/2 points in Omaha. Overall, FiveThirtyEight has a projection of a 348.3-189.7 for Obama in the Electoral College, along with a 90.9% chance of victory, while Electoral-Vote has Obama leading 343-184, with the state of Missouri tied. According to Electoral-Vote, Obama leads in swing states Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada, while McCain leads in Indiana and North Carolina, which has inexplicably become a swing state. There are also 235 Strong Democratic EV's (meaning that the polling data shows that it is double-digits in favor of Obama), so Obama has to only to hold a couple of states that are in the "Weak Dem" category (i.e. Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Florida) to win.

However, the level of negative attacks by the McCain campaign-and its supporters-is frightening. Governor Palin and others have embarked on a quest to make Obama and William Ayers sound like they were separated at birth, despite the fact that they were born over 30 years apart. Cindy McCain said that when she found out Obama voted nay on a defense spending bill because it didn't include a timetable "sent a cold chill down [her] spine"-even though McCain voted against an almost identical bill, that did have a timetable! Finally, smaller, local-level campaign managers have gone on to use incessantly Obama's middle name, Hussein. Bobby Maye, campaign chairman in Buchanan County (VA), went as far in an editorial as saying that Obama would "hire Ludacris to paint the White House black." The McCain supporters, though, are the scariest of all. Frequent chants of "terrorist" and "kill him, kill him" have been made by supporters at rallies when Obama's name is mentioned. Some supporters have gone so far as to call him "an Arab." Others have said, "Bomb Obama." The McCain has fear-mongered, and they have gone to far. McCain supporters have gone to the point where they will support killing Obama. The attacks on Obama's credibility have been so great that Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) declined McCain's invitation to have a joint rally (Coleman is in a very tight race, behind Democratic candidate, comedian Al Franken). The fearmongering must stop; people have to learn the facts. I respect Sen. McCain, but I think that he has gone to far, and has to go back to being reasonable in his attacks. This is an important point in history: we have seen the point at which people are most polarized in a presidential campaign since 1800.

We leave now with Senatorial projections. On FiveThirtyEight, the Democrats will have 56 senators to the GOP's 42, with the 2 independents, come January 2009, while Electoral-Vote has a projection of 58-41 Democrats, with the final seat, North Carolina, being a flat-footed tie between Former Gov. Kay Hagan and incumbent Senator Elizabeth Dole. However, the states of Kentucky (where Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is only up by 4 to challenger Bruce Lunsford), Mississippi-B(where Sen. Roger Wicker [who replaced Trent Lott after he resigned last year] is up by 4 to Former Governor Ronnie Musgrove), and Georgia (where smear artist Saxby Chambliss [I'll have more on him later] is leading former state representative Jim Martin by 6) are moving towards going blue.

Tomorrow (I just can't do it tonight), I will post my next feature, "On Maverick Status". Sometime this weekend, I'll also post the next of the Campaign 2008 Spotlights on Sen. McCain, handicap the hottest Senate races, and post the next feature post, "On the Importance to Impeach the President". Also, stay tuned to Notepad on Wednesday for the final presidential debate, from the Mack Sports Complex at Hofstra University on Long Island, NY. I'll be presenting not only pre-debate reports 30 minutes before the debate and post-debate reports 90 minutes after, but also a live blog during the debate-so I can show the points I generally write in my debate notebook for you, the reader.

100 Minutes After the Debate

(This post was begun at 11:24 Eastern Daylight Time, and ended at 12:13 AM Eastern Time. The uploaded time is below)

We now see it is evident that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has 90 minutes to survive and change the tide in the presidential election. Although there are 27 days remaining until the presidential election, Sen. McCain has only one platform remaining: next Wednesday’s debate, the final debate of the campaign, from Hofstra University in Long Island, NY. McCain simply didn’t change the tide in the momentum held by Sen. Obama (D-IL), and he’s simply running out of time.

Here are the decisions from the Network 3, the Cable 3, PBS’ The News Hour, and TIME magazine’s “The Page” by Mark Halperin, in order of channel number in the New York City market:
CBS: Tie, and no effect from debate
NBC: Obama gets win on foreign policy; tie overall.
ABC: Obama wins; kept game from being changed.
CNN: Obama wins
MSNBC: Tie, but lean Obama, McCain showing that he is “swinging and missing.”
Fox News: Obama wins overall; McCain wins on economy.
The News Hour: Obama wins; proved he was presidential
TIME: Obama wins, but not a game-changer; Obama B+, McCain B

And some more info, in the form of polling data:
CNN:
CNN had dial-polls (‘tick-polls,’ as I like to call them, because they change by the second) among a focus group of uncommitted Ohio voters, sequestered in a library at The Ohio State University, and they were just as they were in last week’s VP debate; when Obama spoke, the tick-polls shot up-especially among women-while when McCain spoke, it was the Columbus Morgue-absolute flat-line. Among the focus group, 12 said that Obama had won, 10 said McCain had won, and 3 thought it was a tie.

Among the polls performed (all of which had a margin of error of +/- 4%):
Among who did the better job, Obama wins 54%-30%.

For opinions of Obama, 64% of people think favorably, up from 60% before the debate, with 34% thinking unfavorably, down from 38%.

For opinions of McCain, there was no change-it’s still 51%-46% favorable.

CBS:
CBS only had a post-debate poll this time around (at least, I didn’t see the dial-polls-they may have done them): 39% said Obama had won, 27% said McCain had won, with 35% saying it was a tie.

Here were some of my observations from this evening’s debate:
>The first thing that jumps at me is this quote:
“It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.
You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me. I have fought time after time against these pork barrel -- these bills that come to the floor and they have all kinds of goodies and all kinds of things in them for everybody and they buy off the votes.”

That one? THAT ONE?! The McCain campaign has justified it as rhetoric used on the campaign trail, but I think of it as two things: first, it’s patronizing and disrespectful towards the Senator (he has a name, and he has a title), and it shows that McCain can’t shake his caricature of being a doddering, angry old man.

>From there, things got a bit more mundane. McCain didn’t go after Obama using Rezko, Ayers, or Wright-maybe he’s not willing to do that. Obama linked McCain to Bush well, distanced himself from Bush, even linked his energy policy to JFK’s statement on the space race. The turning and clinching points both came in the foreign policy section: after McCain used his catchall, “he doesn’t understand,” in terms of Obama and foreign policy, Obama said this:

“Well, you know, Sen. McCain, in the last debate and today, again, suggested that I don't understand. It's true. There are some things I don't understand. I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, while Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are setting up base camps and safe havens to train terrorists to attack us.
That was Sen. McCain's judgment and it was the wrong judgment. When Sen. McCain was cheerleading the president to go into Iraq, he suggested it was going to be quick and easy, we'd be greeted as liberators. That was the wrong judgment, and it's been costly to us. So one of the difficulties with Iraq is that it has put an enormous strain, first of all, on our troops, obviously, and they have performed heroically and honorably and we owe them an extraordinary debt of gratitude. But it's also put an enormous strain on our budget. We've spent, so far, close to $700 billion and if we continue on the path that we're on, as Sen. McCain is suggesting, it's going to go well over $1 trillion. We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq at a time when the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus, $79 billion. And we need that $10 billion a month here in the United States to put people back to work, to do all these wonderful things that Sen. McCain suggested we should be doing, but has not yet explained how he would pay for.”
He took what McCain said about him not understanding-an attempt to show him as just a new face-and went right back after him with his words.

The clincher was this: Sen. McCain had just quoted Teddy Roosevelt, that he spoke softly and carried a big stick. Obama then asked for a follow-up and, once granted, he said this:

“Sen. McCain, this is the guy who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That I don't think is an example of "speaking softly."
This is the person who, after we had -- we hadn't even finished Afghanistan, where he said, "Next up, Baghdad."
So I agree that we have to speak responsibly and we have to act responsibly. And the reason Pakistan -- the popular opinion of America had diminished in Pakistan was because we were supporting a dictator, Musharraf, had given him $10 billion over seven years, and he had suspended civil liberties. We were not promoting democracy.
This is the kind of policies that ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will change when I'm president.”
Obama went right on the attack on this one; at this point, I kept waiting, and waiting, and waiting, but nothing came from McCain to make up for this.

Here’s my take on the debate, going section by section:

Economy: The economy section took approximately 30 minutes, according to CNN, and it was the first issue discussed. I thought both had a good amount of clash, and that both presented their platforms well. This one was a tie.

Energy: While McCain couldn’t get the ball rolling past nuclear plants and offshore drilling, Obama was able to talk about his diverse plan for energy, comparing his goal of being energy-independent in 10 years with JFK’s goal of getting a man on the moon within 10 years. McCain also ended with giving a plus to Obama, saying that Obama did in fact support nuclear power as part of his campaign. Obama gets a big win.

Healthcare: Obama expressed his healthcare plan concisely, and attacked McCain’s to begin. McCain did not. Obama also linked his policy to his own story, making him more real. Obama wins the round.

Foreign Policy: Both the turning point and the clincher in this round; while McCain kept repeating, going back to Iraq, Obama tied it all together, and clashed with McCain. Obama wins big in this round.

Closing: The final question was, verbatim: “What don't you know and how will you learn it?” I think Obama did well answering this question, saying that his wife has a longer list of what he doesn’t know, tied it back to his own story, and tied it back to the common voter. McCain had a good closing, and it almost matched up with Obama’s, but I give the win, just barely, to Obama on this 1-question round.

Intangibles: I awarded this one to Obama in the first half-hour; while McCain looked confused, forgetting the name of one questioner-in mid-answer-standing in front of Brokaw while he was reading the end script on the teleprompter, and also angry, pacing often(maybe he didn’t like the barstool-like chairs), crossing his arms, and sighing often á la Al Gore, circa 2000, Obama was calm and looked presidential.

The victor tonight was Obama; he ran the gamut of categories with excellence, while rebuking McCain’s claims.

Tonight’s “Reagan-o-meter”, the night’s acknowledgements of Ronald Reagan, was only at three. A new feature tonight, the “My-friends-o-meter”, was at 17 uses of the phrase, “my friend,” or, “my friends”-one use about every 5 minutes!


The final debate will take place at 9:00 PM Eastern Time, from the Mack Sports Complex at Hofstra University on Long Island, NY, on Wednesday, October 15th. Bob Scheiffer, host of CBS’ Face the Nation, will moderate. Notepad will follow the debate before, during, and after, with pre- and post-debate coverage, and a live blog for the ninety minutes.

Friday on Notepad, I provide some additional thoughts from tonight’s debate, and post-debate polling data, and “On Maverick Status.” On Monday, a Campaign 2008 Spotlight on John McCain, and “On Our Duty to Impeach the President.”

30 Minutes Before the Debate

(This post was begun at 8:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, and completed at 8:58 PM EDT; the time in which it was uploaded is listed below)

“When I was walking in Memphis
Walking with my feet ten feet off of Beale
Walking in Memphis
But do I really feel the way I feel?”
-Marc Cohn

After two blasé wins for the Democrats in the debates of Mississippi and Missouri, we have reached the closest thing to the People’s Debate: the “town-hall” debate, from the Curb Events Center at Belmont University in Nashville, TN. The debate, moderated by retired NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw (still a Special Correspondent, and interim Meet the Press anchor, for NBC), will feature questions not only from the moderator, but also from the audience, and even from the Internet. Here are some pre-debate observations and things you should look at for tonight’s debate:

>McCain has the upper hand (or does he?): The McCain campaign has stated in the past that a town-hall format is his specialty, and asked the Commission on Presidential Debates for 10 town-hall debates. However, McCain has made some of his biggest gaffes at town-hall events, including his infamous “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran” song, appropriated from the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann”, and his statement when asked if we would stay in Iraq for 40 years, “Why not a hundred?”

>McCain is on his last legs: You can see the way McCain’s wheels are coming off from the current campaign language. For the first time this campaign, McCain is directly attacking Sen. Barack Obama’s merit, with Gov. Sarah Palin going after Obama for his relationship on a charity board with William Ayers, leader of 1960s radical organization Weather Underground-even though in The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s second book, he had expressed that Ayers was, essentially, a nut. Will McCain himself follow the line of desperate mudslinging this evening in Memphis? And will Obama respond with his own mudslinging, most likely on the subject of Sen. McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five scandal?

>This may be McCain’s last shot: With only one debate remaining (and the topic being domestic policy, an Obama stronghold), Sen. McCain may have his one final shot to break Obama’s momentum; while a win can turn the tide and bring him surging back in the polls, a loss may clinch a win for Obama as the number of swing states shrinks; Obama now leads 349-174, with the state of North Carolina still tied, on Electoral-Vote, winning in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Colorado, Nevada and Virginia (McCain’s got Indiana and West Virginia, but is even slipping in Montana, Mississippi, and Georgia [the latter two have fierce Senate races going on]), while FiveThirtyEight has Obama winning 345.4-192.6, with an 89.2% probability of victory.

Tonight’s debate, from Memphis, Tennessee, begins at 9:00 PM. Expect a post-debate report, with reactions and polls from the Network 3, the Cable 3, and more circa midnight.

Further Post-debate Remarks

A few things I wanted to talk about, now that we've had time to think about the debate:

First of all, Palin said 21 things that were either misstatements, things that were accidentally alack of fact, or outright lies, as reported by MSNBC. That's a non-fact every 4 1/2 minutes! Among her statements alack of fact: It's McKiernan, not McClellan who is the General in Afghanistan, she was against divesting funds for Sudan from the Alaska budget (umm...this would be called a lie), troops in Iraq are not down to pre-surge levels.

Second, Palin sounded (and acted) astoundingly like George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004-even using his campaign slogan, "A reformer with results" in one of her responses! She even did the winking-which Bush did in the town-hall debate in 2004! I'm surprised that she didn't start going off on how being governor was "hard work" or saying that she's a "compassionate conservative."

Third, Palin's record shows that she's definitely not what one would perceive to be a maverick (By the way, next feature post: On Maverick Status): she was an alumna of GOPAC, the Gingrich-nurtured PAC whose mission is, "the premier training organization for Republican candidates for elected office." Not exactly a beacon of change when her political education comes from the home of GOP spawn.

Finally, some great polling data from two sources I'm going to include in the "Favorite Links" section of The 'Pad: electoral-vote.com reports that, if put in an Electoral College format, Obama beats McCain in a landslide, 338-185 (with the state of North Carolina now tied), and a Senate of 58-42 Democratic, and FiveThirtyEight.com reports that Obama leads the Electoral College, 333.2-204.8, that Obama has a winning percentage(probability that he will win the election), of 84.4%, and that the Senate will have a composition of 58-42, as well. Obama has an 68% chance of winning Florida, an 80% of winning Virginia, an 87% chance of winning PA, a 67% of winning Ohio, and an 89% chance of winning Michigan, while the possibility of an unheard-of North Carolina win is 50-50.

Before I end, here are some posts that will be coming soon on Notepad:

-Senate Swami: Predictions in the hot Senate races this November
-On Maverick Status
-Campaign 2008 Spotlights on John McCain, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and Joe Biden
-On Our Duty to Impeach the President
-And, of course, pre- and post-debate coverage of the final two debates between Senators McCain and Obama(I'll try to do a live-blog for the final debate at Hofstra)

90 Minutes After the Debate (47½ Hours Until Tina Fey)

(This post was begun at 11:59 Eastern Daylight Time, and completed at 12:32 EDT. The time of upload is listed below)

Well, it certainly wasn’t a game-changer. By next week, tonight’s vice-presidential debate will be in the past and probably won’t be talked about in this 24-hour news cycle. Neither Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) nor Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) were able to meet the burden of true victory-that not only had they brought their own selves to a higher level, showing that they could be the vice president, but also that their running mates could be president, and that their opponents could not-both were able to meet the burden of guaranteeing that neither would truly lose-in other words, no one was a flop. Here’s the opinion from the Big 3, the Cable 3, along with PBS’ The News Hour(of which moderator Gwen Ifill-who, as usual, did a wonderful job-is a senior correspondent) and Mark Halperin of TIME magazine:

ABC: Both did well
NBC: An even debate, Palin gained title of “better surrogate”, but no effect would come of debate in the long run
(CBS I’ll talk about later)
CNN: Palin did a good job of refuting the CBS interview; Biden “had the best debate performance of his life,” and won the debate overall.
MSNBC: Fairly neutral
Fox News: Neck-and-neck; Palin led part of debate and “passed the test”
The News Hour: Previous interviews with Palin will “disappear”; Biden had solid performance; neutral debate.
M. Halperin’s The Page: Palin and Biden tied; B Grade for both.

Here’s some polling data to go with it:

CBS: Dial poll (tick-poll, as I call it) was Biden’s all night; many undecideds leaned to Biden; most important issue of night (and issue that got highest tick-poll results) was Iraq and Biden’s remarks on it. Poll showed 46-21 Biden victory, with one-third of those polled deeming it a tie.

CNN: Tick-poll focus group had 1 or 2 each solidified for McCain and Obama from tonight’s debate; ½ said they were leaning Obama...Poll results (all with margin of error of +/- 4 %) show that by a margin of 51-36, Biden did the best job; 64 percent saw Biden do better than expectations, 20% saying he met expectations, and 14% saying he was below expectations; 84 percent saw Palin as above expectations, 8% meeting expectations, 7% saying she was below expectations...of those who were “like you”, poll leaned Biden; in terms of “in touch”, 50-44 Biden; those who were a “typical politician”, 70-21 Biden; “bringing change”, 53-42 Biden. Of Palin’s qualifications, originally it was 54-42 saying she was unqualified, after the debate it is now 53-46 saying she is unqualified.

MSNBC: had only one poll, stating it was 46-21 Biden, with 3% deeming it a tie.

Here’s my take, on the debate as a whole:
>Too many times I was yelling at the TV at Governor Palin, telling her either to answer the question, show respect, or pronounce nuclear (that’s NEW-CLEE-AR, not NUKE-YOU-LAR) correctly; by the first half-hour, I had given “Intangibles” to Biden (more on that later).
>While Palin was more on the defensive about Sen. McCain’s record, Biden not only attacked Senator McCain directly, but linked him to policies of Bush and Cheney; the latter was, in my opinion, the prescient attack of the entire debate.
>There was a lot more dialogue compared to the last debate; Palin wanted to be warm and cozy with Biden, asking at the onset if she could call him “Joe,” but often came off as pretentious.
>Then two turning points of the debate were Biden’s slaughter of McCain on Iraq (this was not only my personal turning point, but also the point where tick polls reached near-capacity), and the closing statement, as he brought it all back home, not only in terms of linking, for one last time, McCain’s policies to Bush, but also bringing it home, as he did often tonight, to Scranton and Wilmington. Just before the closing statements, I said to myself, “Joe’s got to bring his back to Scranton, he’s got to bring it back to the train rides,” the latter meaning what he hears with the common worker on his nightly commute back to Delaware, and he did it; the second point was the true clincher.
>Tonight’s “Reagan-o-meter”, the amount of times a Republican candidate references Ronald Reagan, is 3: two name-drops, and a use of a Reagan quote. The last debate, it was 4, so perhaps Sen. McCain thinks higher of Reagan than Gov. Palin.

Here’s my take on the individual issues discussed tonight:

1) The Economy: I thought that Biden owned the discussion on the economy; by diversifying his claims about the economy, he was able to bring out the entire Obama plan, while Palin was stuck running around in circles on tax cuts.

2)Energy and Environment: I originally gave it to Biden whole-hog, but I’m going to ultimately call it a near tie, leaning Biden; Palin kept coming back to energy, and was pretty knowledgeable, but kept coming back all the time to drilling in Alaska, while Biden presented the whole field.

3)Social Issues: This one was a quickie, and it was a flat-footed tie; I really can’t find anything more to discuss other than the fact that they both agree on same-sex marriage and civil rights for same-sex couples; against the first, for the second.

4) Foreign Policy: This one was going to Biden the entire time, featuring the big turning point of the debate.

5) Closing statements: Biden made the best closing statement, bringing his message altogether, and tying it with his main story.

6)Intangibles: Biden looked more vice presidential (whatever that means), he was more dignified, and seemed to have more poise, while Palin seemed like someone picked off the street in terms of her preparedness and ability to stare Biden down.

In all, the victor was Biden, but not in a runaway fashion, nor a ‘game-changing’ result.

On Tuesday, October 7, at Belmont University in Nashville, TN, Senators McCain and Obama will return for the lone ‘town-hall’ debate, moderated by NBC’s Tom Brokaw; on Wednesday, October 15, the final presidential debate, with the emphasis on domestic policy, will take place at Hofstra University on Long Island, NY, moderated by CBS’ Bob Scheiffer. Both of these debates will take place at 9:00 PM ET, and will be on the Big 3, the Cable 3, PBS, C-SPAN, and many, many other networks along with radio broadcasts.

Stay tuned to Notepad for pre- and post-debate analysis and information for the remaining debates.

25 Minutes Until the Debate

(This writing was begun at 8:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, and completed at 9:00 PM EDT; it was uploaded at the time below)

25 Minutes Until the Debate

Many a time they speak about the ‘game changer’: a variable-an ‘x-factor’ so volatile that it can dissolve on previous spectrum of thinking, and create a whole new one. Tonight may be that ‘game-changer’ in St. Louis, Missouri, as Washington University will be the site of the lone vice-presidential debate, between Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). Or, better yet, they’re going against each other’s running mates. There is no possibility that they will only go after themselves-they may not go after each other altogether, making it a prime-time edition of a Sunday morning talk show, a battle of surrogates. Either way, the ‘game changer’ most likely hinges on the performance of Gov. Palin, who will either sink the chances of the McCain campaign, or be the savior of the GOP, snapping back the momentum at a point where momentum changes so little. Here’s some things to look at:

Palin’s Going In With the Bar Low: The past two weeks, every time Gov. Palin said something, she plumbed more depths in rhetoric. Palin bombed the interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC News, Katie Couric of CBS News (just name one! One Supreme Court case!), and even Sean Hannity of Fox News. Apparently, not only is Tina Fey of 30 Rock and Saturday Night Live getting laughs-from her interview transcripts-but even has lost the support of The View commentator, Survivor contestant and It seems as if the McCain-Palin ticket is pulling something much like Leo McGarry of The West Wing, bringing expectations down enough so that a mediocre performance is a win. But this is a tapeworm playing limbo here-the bar’s near the floor of the Field House Gymnasium at Washington University of St. Louis as possible.

Palin’s Going in with little preparation: Gov. Palin did little prep work for tonight’s debate, holding camp for just a week, and holding it near a creek (not exactly the place for debate, but definitely the place for meditation and tai chi).

Biden’s Going to be Careful: If Sen. Biden attacks Sarah Palin in any way, he will be derided as being sexist. However, eventually he has to attack-otherwise, he’ll be considered too calm. So he’s got to pick his fights very carefully; which will have the biggest effect without producing the biggest harm-the biggest pro-to-con ratio?

So, here’s my take on what they have to do:

Governor Palin: She’s got to breathe, and stay awake, and not look like a total idiot. If she does that, she doesn’t win, she just meets her burden. For a win, she has to show that she has experience, and that if she doesn’t have experience, she can at least compensate for it with intelligence and savvy-while explaining how that doesn’t work for Senator Obama. She also has to look vice-presidential.

Sen. Biden: The onus was previously on Gov. Palin, but now the burden is previously on Sen. Biden. He’s got to bring zingers to Sen. McCain, but also bring down Palin-in other words, say as little words as possible, while making Governor Palin cry by 10:30 PM tonight.

Stay tuned circa midnight for tonight's post-debate report on Notepad-I'll give my results and the results of the Big 3 and the Cable 3.

90 Minutes after the Debate

Well, it wasn't Lincoln against Douglas. But tonight's debate in Oxford, Mississippi, was the candidates' first showing since the National Conventions. Here are the opinions on the debate from members of the Big 6-the Network Big 3, and the Cable Big 3, to go along with PBS' The News Hour, whose anchor Jim Lehrer moderated:

ABC-Tie, but slight lean to Obama
NBC-Tie, but focus of debate (foreign policy) goes to McCain
CBS-Tie, but focus group of independents gave lean to Obama
The News Hour: Lean to Obama
MSNBC-Tie
CNN-Tie, but with slight lean to Obama; 52-38 in poll, with huge leads on both foreign policy and economy.

The main consensus of the news networks is one I believe in as well: that tonight's debate was, roughly, a tie. Nothing campaign-turning came out of this debate, but it provided a few eye raisers:

>Could anyone answer a question? It seemed as if, in the first half of the debate(the debate changed formats from simply foreign policy to both economy and foreign policy), no one could directly answer the questions that Mr. Lehrer put towards the candidates.
>Why was McCain smirking? And why was Obama smirking? I think they both got under each other's skins, and I think this will make the campaign even more interesting as we move on.
>The only moment I saw where a candidate took advantage of the direct exchange that was one of the unique features of these debates was in the debate section about Iraq, in which Sen. Obama hammered to McCain what he was wrong about in his view of Iraq-that was one of the turning point of the debates.
>I counted up all of John McCain's references to Ronald Reagan-it was only four references, surprisingly.

Here's my take:

Economy: No one really took a large lead, especially being such an important situation. Obama was the one the most on the offensive, so I give it to him. Energy was interspersed within this part, along with the foreign policy component, and I found that Obama did well in this part, actually showing the diverse nature of his policy, unlike McCain, who just focused on his offshore drilling and nuclear power(note to Sen. McCain: if you're going to build 40 nuclear reactors, where ya gonna put 'em?)

Iraq: While one of the two critical points of the debate (in my opinion) came here, no one really took the lead and went on the offensive-this secition was a tie.

Afghanistan and Pakistan: Here was the second turning point of the debate, in which Obama called out McCain on his war-hawk bravado, including his "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" singing earlier in the campaign. Gave this part of the debate to Obama.

Iran: I gave Obama the win in this round, but only slightly. The round centered around talks with President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad without preconditions, and whether or not Henry Kissinger reported such a claim. Obam aheld his own and was able to also do some attacking in this round.

Georgia and Russia: It sounded as if McCain had a 20th Century, Cold War-esque strategy for how to deal with Eastern Europe, but Obama never capitalized and went after McCain on it. Overall, a tie.

9/11 and Closing Arguments: Obama wins this round via his closing statement; he tied everything back to the story of his father and the American dream-the perfect crystallization point.

Intangibles: Obama kept is signature cool for almost all of the debate, although signs showed that he was getting a little irritated by Senator McCain. But McCain looked a bit more agitated from Sen. Obama's claims. I give the intangibles to Obama.

Obama wins the overall victory, but not by much. McCian saved himself from defeat in November tonight, and kept further momentum for Obama at bay. Expect a 1-2 point bounce for Obama.

On Thursday, October 2, in St. Louis, MO, Gwen Ifill of PBS' The News Hour will moderate the lone Vice Presidential Debate between Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), from Washington University in St. Louis. The Tuesday thereafter, on October 7, Senators Obama and McCain will debate again, this time in a town-hall setting at Belmont University in Nashville, TN, moderated by Tom Brokaw of NBC. The final debate will occur on Wednesday, October 15, the final presidential debate, on domestic policy, will take place at Hofstra University in Long Island, NY, moderated by Bob Scheiffer of CBS' Face the Nation. All debates will be at 9:00 Eastern Time. Stay tuned to Notepad for pre- and post-debate coverage, one half-hour before and and ninety minutes after each of the debates.

30 Minutes until the Debate

Well, it might not of happened. But Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) will debate in half an hour in Oxford, MS at Ole Miss. Here's what you should look for in tonight's debate:

1. The debate topic was flip-flopped: Sen. Obama was able to change the topic from domestic issues to foreign policy, to show what people believe to be lacking really isn't. If McCain is on the defense this debate, that could do it.

2. Obama did his homework: Sen. Obama and his advisors have been holed up over the last two weeks in Clearwater, FL, for debate camp; McCain didn't start studying until just two days ago at the Morgan Library in New York.

3. Obama's got the momentum: He's got a 10 point lead in most tracking polls, and electoral-vote.com has Obama leading 286-252. I think that if Obama does well tonight, that it might just be over.

Tonight's debate, from the Ford Center for the Performing Arts at Ole Miss, from 8:00-9:30, will be on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.

Stay tuned after the debate to Notepad for a post-debate wrap-up post(there might be video).

Daily Brief-49 Days until Election '08

Here's a new feature we're starting on Notepad, a daily brief of the news of the day in the 2008 Campaign; we'll be doing it now until Election day:

After a Dow drop of 500 points, including its first trip under 11,000 points since 2002, the worst day the Dow and the S&P 500’s worst day since 9/11, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the buyout of AIG by the Federal Reserve, and the impending sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, the 2008 campaign has swiftly changed to the economy. And Senator John McCain (R-AZ), has the same plan he has for the last two years. Siding with his former economic policy adviser, Senator Phil Gramm, who put us where we are in the first place by allowing deregulation and the entrance of speculators (the so-called “Enron loophole” of 1999), he has repeatedly stated that he is for deregulation and decreases in taxes on capital gains, windfall profits, and other business-related items in an attempt to maintain the practice of Reaganomics. Completely disregarding his other adviser, Robert Rubin, a senior adviser at Citigroup, which went down almost 3 bucks yesterday alone, and has been one of many companies who have suffered from the sub-prime mortgage crisis. However, while Sen. McCain has shown that he is more of the same, Senators Barack Obama(D-IL) and Joe Biden(D-DE) have actually put out a plan that will work, including real economic stimulus, the creation of a windfall profits tax, and raising taxes on the wealthy to give the common worker a fair shake with a tax cut. So when John McCain is attacked in two new ads put out by the Obama campaign yesterday evening, or how yesterday Sen. Biden attacked McCain as “Bush 44”, then you know why.

New Electoral map polls show McCain leading, but not with a majority. McCain leads Obama 257-247, with 34 electoral votes-in Pennsylvania and Virginia-tied, although Virginia is blue in a SurveyUSA poll, with Obama up by 4%.

New polls show Obama leading McCain by only 5% in New York(a lead that will strengthen since yesterday’s problems on Wall St.), McCain leading Ohio by 3-4 points in three different polls, Colorado by 2, and Florida with a 5 point lead(putting the state and its 27 electoral votes squarely in the red).

The prospective Senate, as per the polls, is 56-44 Democrats, with (in the closest races): Norm Coleman(R) leading Al Franken(D) by 2%, Mayor Mark Begich of Anchorage leading Sen. Ted Stevens by 2% in Alaska, and former Governor Ronnie Musgrove(D) behind to Sen. Roger Wicker in Trent Lott’s former seat in Mississippi.

Check in tomorrow for the news of the day, appearance information from the two campaigns (maybe in your area), and the Top 5 reasons not to vote for John McCain(and it ain't got a thing to do with Sarah Palin).

Remarks of the DNC and VP Choices

Well, the presidential campaign has almost officially begun. Barack Obama, Senator from Illinois, is officially the Democratic nominee for President, with Senator Joe Biden of Delaware as the nominee for Vice President. On the GOP's side, Senator John McCain of Arizona will oficially become the nominee for President in St. Paul, MN next week, with Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his presumptive running mate.

However, the true interest, beyond the choices of Vice President by the two major parties, is the jabbering of analysts about the choices. So, without further ado, my jabberings:

Democrats pick Joe Biden: I think that, while not the best choice, is a good one. Biden agrees with Obama on almost every issue(exceptions include nuclear energy-Obama is open to it, Biden is not-and NAFTA-Obama against, Biden for), he has almost 35 years of experience in the Senate, brings oodles of foreign-policy experience to the table, can speak to blue-collar workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, considering his blue-collar upbringing, and, since the DNC, really shows a teamwork component in the Obama-Biden campaign. However, one has to wonder: will Biden be able to win over the disgruntled Clinton supporters come November?

A quick bio of Sen. Biden:

*Born in 1942 in Scranton, PA
*Moved to Delaware at age 10
*Went to University of Delaware, majoring in history and political science
*Passed the bar in 1969 after studying at Syracuse University Law School
*Married his first wife, Neilia Hunter, in 1966
*Spent two years in the New Castle County Council(1970-2)
*After being elected to the Senate in 1972, his wife and infant daughter Amy were killed in a tragic car accident while shopping for a Christmas tree-his two sons, Beau and Hunter, survived.
*Did not want to take the oath of office(keeping his priority as a father over being a senator), but eventually did at the hospital bedside of his sons
*Since his first days as senator, takes the train every day to return to his family in Delaware.

Ratings of choice(all out of a possible 10 points):
Leadership & Experience: 10
Cohesiveness between candidates: 7
Efficiency to win voters: 7
Overall rating: 8

Republicans choose Sarah Palin: Days before this choice was made, even the most accurate of radars did not have Gov. Palin, the freshman governor of Alaska, on it. Sen. McCain could have picked Sen. Joe Lieberman(CT) or former Gov. Tom Ridge(PA), and the Republicans would have the White House(Lieberman probably wins over Jews in Florida and wins Connecticut, and Tom Ridge would probably help win Pennsylvania-a 42point swing!)) or he could have picked former Gov. Mitt Romney(MA), or Gov. Tim Pawlenty(MN-who wins you Minnesota, a 20-point swing). Or Gov. Bobby Jindal(LA), who despite being a freshman governor was a popular 2-term congressman, or Gov. Jodi Rell of Connecticut(also helps you win CT, a governor who cut through the corruption left by her predecessor), or Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas. But, instead, Sen. McCain picked Palin, governor for only 18 months and before that, a self-described "hockey mom" mayor of Wasilla(pop. 8471). I've been saying this week, that Brooklyn Cyclones GM Steve Cohen has more experience than Palin, as 'mayor' of a 'town' of over 8500 'residents'(fans at KeySpan Park) for 8 years. And the idea that Palin will help win over independents and disgruntled Clintonites? Give me a break! Palin is pro-life, pro-gun(she has a lifetime membership in the NRA and one of her hobbies is hunting), pro-drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, anti-polar bear(she's been noted for desiring to take the polar bear off the Threatened Species List), anti-same-sex marriage(even supporting a Constitutional amendment banning it), and doesn't believe that global warming is man-made. She was also for the "bridge to nowhere", although now she's against it(flip-flop, anyone?) Also, there is the discussion that, being in state politics for only 30 months, and not knowing much about foreign policy, that she is not ready to be "one heartbeat away" from the presidency, especially behind 72-year-old McCain. She's also only met with McCain once before becoming the nominee, showing possible lack of cohesion. Finally, can Palin provide the clout to win voters over, especially in the swing states, as good as or better than the potential VP's aforementioned?

Ratings:
Leadership & Experience: 4
Cohesiveness: 6
Efficiency to win voters: 6
Total: 5.5

And now, a quick bio of Gov. Palin:
*Born in 1964 in Sandpoint, ID
*Moved to Alaska as an infant(refuting the claim that she's a "lifelong Alaskan")
*Was a star athlete in high school, both on the track(the namesake for her first son, Track), and in basketball(where she earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" as she brought her high school the state championship)
*Came in second in the 1984 Miss Alaska beauty pageant
*Holds a degree from the University of Idaho in broadcasting journalism, and aspired to be an anchor on ESPN(possibly the namesake of her first daughter, Bristol?)
*Spent four years in the Wasilla City Council after being in the PTA, then became mayor for two terms
*Held a position for two years as Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission before winning the gubernatorial election in 2005
*Currently holds an approval rating of 76% in Alaska; however, she is also under investigation by a bipartisan board in the Alaska legislature due to the controversial firing of the Alaska public safety commissioner
*Has 5 children-Track, Bristol, Piper, Willow, and 7-month old Trig

Next week, remarks of the RNC and Senate Horseraces-I finally complete writing about the senatorial campaigns in 2008.

But, to close, a few quotes from the Democratic National Convention at the Pepsi Center and Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver, Colorado:

"John McCain may pay hundred of dollars for his shoes, but we're the ones who will pay for his flip-flops." --New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson

"We can't simply drill our way to energy independence if you drilled everywhere, if you drilled in all of John McCain's backyards, even the ones he doesn't know he has." –Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer

"If he's the answer, then the question must be ridiculous." --New York Gov. David Patterson, on John McCain

"To my supporters, my champions — my sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits – from the bottom of my heart: Thank you." –Sen. Hillary Clinton

"John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush over 90 percent of the time. That's not a maverick that's a sidekick." –Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)

"You know, folks, that's the America that George Bush has left us. And that's the America we'll continue to get if George -- excuse me, if John McCain is elected president of the United States of America. Freudian slip. Freudian slip." –Joe Biden

"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, but he won't even go to the cave where he lives." --Barack Obama

"For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy — give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps — even if you don't have boots. You're on your own. Well, it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America." --Barack Obama

"John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change." --Barack Obama

On Energy

On July 14, 2008, the United States energy plan officially shifted. Mr. Bush’s executive order lifting the executive branch’s ban on offshore drilling on the Eastern seaboard, and pushing of Congress to do the same (at the time of this post, the House has lifted the ban, while the Senate is in their break), was not only the pseudo-“liberation from foreign oil” that Mr. Bush, presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee candidate John McCain, and the rest of the Republican Party touts, but also the death knell by the Republican Party to any further change in energy policy. To many members of the Republican Party, this is sufficient to lower the price of oil, thus gasoline, thereby solving the energy crisis in this nation- the most important issue at this stage of the 2008 campaign, as per a poll by the Washington Post and ABC.

However, in short, this is inherently incorrect in so many ways. Beyond the fact that the Republican Party supports many other projects that are the pinnacle of debauchery by the GOP towards the special interests of said party (namely ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and other members of the energy market) that I will discuss later in this post, the plan inscribed by Messrs. Bush and McCain is one that shows absolute ignorance of the progress in the field of alternative fuels in the past decade and the plans inscribed by other members of the energy field, not to mention is the exact opposite of the “compassionate conservative” or “maverick” that each of this dynamic duo claims to be. First of all, the plan comes at a point where Mr. McCain had publicly opposed offshore drilling. This standpoint would support his slowly weakening claim that he is a ‘maverick’ in the Republican Party, that he’ll go against the grain as he has in the issue campaign financing, in which he supports a plan made by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA). However, he has gone against environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, as he had previously given his word that he would not allow drilling in the Everglades, one of the sites where oil exploration would occur. Second, the plan states that oil companies would be allowed to explore and drill on the eastern seaboard, although they have parts of the Gulf of Mexico where they are not drilling! Third, the plan does not take into account the fact that many oil refineries on the Gulf have closed since their destruction from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Finally, the McCain campaign states that “we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States.” However, such simple tasks as correct inflation of tires, keeping windows closed on highways, replacing air filters, and regular tune-ups of automobiles can increase automobile mileage by great margins (for example, by simply inflating all four tires correctly, that lowers one’s mileage by 12 percent), in effect equaling the amount of gas that would be achieved by offshore drilling, and has been endorsed by the American Automobile Association, and accepted by Mr. McCain, despite the RNC’s “Obama Energy Plan” tire gauges.

The McCain Energy Plan is primarily the gimmick of offshore drilling, the Barnumian policy to solve the problem by a gimmick, a pseudo-solution-much like the great P.T. Barnum circus exit “To the egress”, a way to reduce crowding-thereby confirming Barnum’s quote, “There is a sucker born every minute.” However, this is more. This includes support of alcohol-based fuels-which in turn cause worse greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline itself and can only fuel 12 percent of consumption for vehicles alone if we use the entire corn crop in the States, ‘clean coal’-hasn’t Mr. McCain ever seen Mary Poppins? Coal isn’t clean!- and nuclear power, including building 45 nuclear plants-which not only is not safe(where the hell do you go in a meltdown?) , is not clean (where the hell do you put the waste?), is not cheap (where the hell are you going to get the many from?), and is not supported (why the hell would I want that in my backyard?), but also, the money goes to private contractors to build the reactors, run the reactors, and bring the waste to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. He’s also against a windfall profits tax on oil companies, even though ExxonMobil had $11.68 billion in earnings in the 2007 fiscal year. And he’s for closing the “Enron loophole”, which is a good thing, as it gets oil speculators out of the oil business, which lowers prices more than offshore drilling-except there’s one problem: McCain’s former economic advisor, Phil Gramm, was responsible for the Enron loophole in the Senate when it was put into HR 5660 in 2000. Conflict of interest, anyone?

Such is the reason why, this week, the Democratic National Committee has launched their ExxonMcCain ’08, deriding Mr. McCain of his views in the terms that oil companies will reap the big bucks. There’s a reason to this-they’ve given huge bucks to his campaign. Oil companies have given over $2 million to the McCain campaign, along with the Victory Fund, a joint venture between the McCain campaign and the RNC, along with other organizations-more than any other candidate so far in this campaign. Days after McCain flip-flopped on drilling, ten members of the Hess Corporation (yes, where those cute little Christmas trucks are sold) gave $28,000 apiece to the campaign. Over a quarter of a million dollars handed to the McCain campaign in 10 days, from none other than the oil companies.

One reason the McCain campaign claims to show that their platform is better than his opponent’s, Mr. Obama, is because of the fact that his platform is not specific enough, as stated by former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani. However, along with the fact that, along with the candidates’ campaign platforms being of equal specificity (which, in truth, is not much), Mr. Obama also supports the plan formed by T. Boone Pickens, which is centered around alternative fuels, such as wind power in the Midwest, CNG vehicles, to go along with some offshore drilling. It’s also a plan endorsed by Al Gore, former Vice President and spokesman for the climate crisis. If we can combine environmental with efficient, we can truly create a new great energy policy.

New Video Details

So here's the big news the Notepad Team has: there will be a video show coming up for your viewing pleasure in July. From July to November, I'll be giving you all my take on the presidential, senatorial, and congressional elections. I'll be on Wednesday and Friday, probably posting it at 7:45 PM ET. If you want to send in questions to be read on Friday (I'll plan this as the "Town Hall" show), send it to Mailbag.Notepad@gmail.com, or send us a message on Skype to thenotepadshow.

If there is anyone you know that can be a guest on The Notepad Show, please, again, e-mail us, and we'll get back to you post haste.

Daniel

On Elmo and War

First, a belated happy Memorial Day to veterans and those in battle abroad. Your undying support for this country is why we are one of the world superpowers. For this, this is for you.

Last week, the Senate voted 75 to 22 in favor of the new GI Bill, written by Sen. James Webb (D-VA), which would allow for the expansion of education benefits for veterans who have served for at least three years since the attacks on our nation on 11 September 2001. It is also a bill that will be vetoed by our President, who states that the bill costs too much for the Armed Forces, as it would promote people to remain in the Army for one round of service. However, this marks a long line of malfeasance towards the troops by this President. For a man such as Sen. John McCain(R-AZ) to oppose the bill, this is okay; while it is indeed odd that McCain, who is a champion of veteran’s affairs, to oppose the bill, at least he has the military credibility and experience to back up his decision. But for a man who has never served in our armed forces, never gone overseas for our country, never had one mite of patriotism aside from a flag pin- the ultimate sign of standing draped in a flag to cover the Emperor’s New Clothes-such as our president, this is out of turn.

The Presidency ought to be the greatest champion of our military’s affairs. Just before the troops’ return from World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt passed the first GI Bill of 1944, granting the majority of WWII vets to gain a college education upon their return home. In 1952, Harry S. Truman passed the Veteran’s Adjustment Act, which offered benefits to veterans of the Korean conflict upon their return home. In 1966, Lyndon B. Johnson, another champion of social reform, passed the Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act, so that, at the very least, veterans of the quagmire of a war such as the one in Vietnam would be able to go to school. These Presidents did the responsible thing. Now it is Mr. Bush’s turn to make good to his promise of “supporting the troops.”

Oh, wait. That’s right: this man believes that the phrase “support the troops” is a sentiment on a Hallmark card, or a bumper sticker, or a little magnet. In his 2004 campaign, this president joked about the troops and WMD in Iraq, which he so asserted with such vim and vigor that some even thought it was there without even attempting to connect the dots. This is the same man who will not even support timetables to leave Iraq, saying that it is a path to failure, even though soldiers are going into their second, third, and sometimes fourth tours of duty. This is the same man who went AWOL as a member of the Alabama Air National Guard to campaign for a republican senatorial candidate, and the same man who was given special treatment as a First Lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard. A man, who never wore a uniform of the armed forces, and desecrated the uniform of the National Guard, is now trying to state that what is right for the troops and what will be good is, in fact, wrong.

And the effect of Mr. Bush’s lack of care towards the veteran’s affairs have been great. Five weeks ago, Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which produces such children’s television shows as the mega-hit Sesame Street released the Talk, Listen, Connect Program, a set of videos geared towards children that need to understand that their mother or father is going to Iraq, or is returning, or has suffered a disability from what is nearly unexplainable to a child, the idea of war. While in practice, this is a brilliant idea by the folks at the USAF and Sesame Workshop, as it aids families’ reactions to the war with the use of Muppets Elmo and Rosita as their parents leave for and return from Iraq. But in thought, not only is it saddening, it is horrifying.

The reason it is horrifying is that it still has to occur; the children’s lack of understanding, the children’s cries and wails on the subject. No parent- nay, no human- wants to hear their child say, “Why is daddy leaving?” “Why has he left three times in the past five years?” “Why can’t mommy be here for my birthday; why does she have to be away?” “Why does mommy not have a real leg?” This is the despicable act of this man and this presidency, for, first and foremost, the President-not non-profit organizations, not the Joint Chiefs, not the Senate, not the House-but the President must be a champion for veteran’s affairs!

These men and women are valiant individuals, the cream of their crop, the valor of our nation-yet this president has tarnished it, and not even given one thought to polish it back to the way it was! Why is it that children have to understand that their parent won’t be around for another six months? Why do they have to understand this three, four times? Why must they understand that their parent will never be able to walk the way they did, or play catch with their children? Why do they have to understand why their parent is in a bag! Now we know. Not only does this president not have the idea of patriotism in place in his mind, but not even the idea of humanity instilled in his soul.

Sorry

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. But be prepared to read the following articles:

On Elmo and War (seriously)
On Edwards, Elitism, and Ego

And also, be prepared for a Notepad video show, coming this July!

Daniel

On the Sanctity of Our Constitution

It has come into light that the Bush administration is in talks with the al-Maliki administration for a long-term agreement for U.S. armed forces to stay in Iraq long-term, form permanent bases, and cause us to defend the Iraqi people, instead of the Iraqi people defending the Iraqi people, almost forever. Remember that this is the last year of the Bush administration, and that at noon on January 20, 2009, 357 days from now, there will be a new president. Also note that Mr. Bush will not go to Congress for this ‘long-term agreement’, but rather sign it himself. Not only does this President want his or her ‘hands to be tied’, but we expect our Constitution to be carried out correctly and fully. And, with the Bush administration not going to Congress for this matter, he fails in the oath he took twice.

Now, this isn’t the first time that Mr. Bush has refused to follow the Constitution and its Amendments. Suspension of habeas corpus during an occupation, and not a “case of rebellion [n]or invasion”, as stated by Article I, Section 9, Provision 2 of the Constitution, the right to privacy, a definite 4th Amendment right, revoked by the USA PATRIOT Act, the right for peaceful assembly neutered by “free speech zones”, most notably at the 2004 Republican National Convention, where NYPD officers went to meetings of protesters, promptly arresting them during their protests, generally far away from the convention site of Madison Square Garden, alleged terrorists tortured by sleep deprivation, heavy headphones to cancel out all sound, blackout glasses, bright lights during questioning, and, most notably, waterboarding, violating the Geneva Conventions-a UN document signed by the United States-and the 8th Amendment, the same alleged terrorists not given a public trial by jury, but mere military tribunals-if at all, rarely with the aid or appearance of Counsel-a violation of the 6th Amendment, the most signing statements of any President, many of which destroy our system of law(see the piece “ON Executive Orders”)and, neither last nor least, circumventing Article II, Section 2, which states that the President “shall have the power to…by and with the consent and advice of shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law…”, by using recess appointments on countless occasions, most notably for a recess appointment for UN Ambassador John Bolton, the ruthless civil servant who yells and screams at his subordinates when disgruntled. These acts neuter, circumvent, and even destroy Constitutional rights and responsibilities. And all these by a man who swore on the Holy Book to, as enumerated in Article II, Section 1, Provision 7, “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” There you have it. The President didn’t sign on to just become Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; he signed on, with the (pseudo-)support of his countrymen to protect our civil writ, what we have lived on for more than 210 years, and is a contemporary to as early as 1215. And he has destroyed our civil writ, our sacred writ without a religion, the way our country works.

And now Mr. Bush is intent on doing so again, without remorse. Mr. Bush is willing to force our next President, possibly a President of change-both potentially historically and potentially ideologically-to continue with a botched policy, a policy that results in more parents having to see their children, some merely in their teens, with disfigurements, or possibly, in body bags. The Military Times had a poll more than a year ago which stated that troops were not satisfied with the Rumsfeldian policy-a policy which continues today. They don’t want to see this; they don’t want to serve in bases perpetually. And what can the 44th President of the United States do, now that he or she would have to follow an Iraq policy identical to that of this current president? And what can the 45th President do? The 50th? The 100th?

But this goes beyond merely a continuation of policy, an aforementioned ‘tying of the hands’. This is a misconstruing of our Constitution, our system of justice. Article II, Section 2, states that “[The President] shall have the power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. …” Mr. Bush cannot simply sign this into law-he must go to the Senate! It says it in black and white. And, while Mr. Bush is saying that it is not a treaty, this pseudo-pseudo-treaty cannot pass by. If it involves troops staying past 1/20/09, if it involves an extension of policy of one administration into the policy or policies of others, if it involves the alliance between or among countries, it’s a treaty. To quote the adage, “if it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it’s a duck,” if it looks like a treaty, and it sounds like a treaty, it’s a treaty. Thus, it must go to the Senate. It would be an injustice for it not to do so.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sadly, the misconstruing of our Constitution, a writ of sacrosanct civility (however oxymoronic that sounds), goes beyond the wrath of Bush. It should be noted that recently, former Governor Mike Huckabee(R-AR) said, “We should change the Constitution to fit God’s word, instead of changing God’s word to fit some modern way of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.” He may just be saying that there should be a Constitutional ban on gay marriage and abortions. First, social engineering was exactly what was attempted by the 18th Amendment, Prohibition-which was quickly repealed by the 21st Amendment; I doubt it will work in our “anything goes” society if it didn’t work then. Second, marriage is a state’s issue, not a federal issue; thus, this would violate the 10th Amendment, which states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Maybe we shouldn’t listen to what he says, some people say; after all, this is the same man who says that homosexuality is one step away from bestiality. However, maybe we should listen, and maybe he’s not just talking about Constitutional bans on gay marriage and abortions. Just as President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in his farewell speech in 1961 to “beware the military-industrial complex,” maybe we should take note and form another caveat. We must beware a theocracy, a nation run by a pastor, who takes to the “bully pulpit,” as President Teddy Roosevelt once called the presidency, with literal appeal-that is, using the pulpit for religion. We must beware of a country in which “In God We Trust” is taken too seriously. Here is a warning, a warning for all reading this to hear: beware of the religious complex. Because the Constitution, a writ of liberty to us, a beacon of hope abroad, cannot and shall not be misconstrued.