Topobo Video

this has nothing to do with politics

Live from New York...
It's 1-3 points nationwide!!!
want some wood?

John Forbes Kerry just won the second debate. Not the one that was broadcast live from Washington University in St. Louis (holla) friday night, but the one broadcast live from NBC studios in NYC.

Or, he just won the prior by absolutely cleaning up in the latter. Think back to 2000. The conventional wisdom about the debates was that Gore lost because he seemed so different at each debate. But polls taken right after the debates aired showed that people thought Gore won. It wasn't until Saturday Night Live spoofed the debates that the image of Gore as pandering reallt gelled. And I'd bet that you remember the SNL debates as well or better than you remember the actual debates.

Now, the friday debate: It was on a Friday night during a Yankees/Twins playoff game. Undecided voters aren't undecided because they, after watching C-Span/CNN/Fox religiously, just can't choose. They're undecided because they would rather go out on a friday night, or watch the Twins and the Yankees, than watch Bush and Kerry. And so the spin and the process of forming the Conventional Wisdom for this particular debate are much more important in terms of moving votes.

I thought it was a tie when I watched it. But now that my mind has been made up for me by television, I echo JFK's line from last night:

"Mr. President, you're 0-2."

and the last round, a domestic policy debate in the one-on-one format of the first contest, W isn't likely hit one out of the park.

remainders: is the forced airing of the Anti-Kerry movie on network TV one of Rove's October surprises?

(also there's a great Victoria's Secret ad I just saw that used "Monkey Man" by the Stones as the backdrop. It will not matter in the presidential campaign.)

Dred Scott, Explained: It's About Abortion

I didn't get it, when Bush said it, but now it makes sense. Code words and winks for the base. Got it. A Dred Scott litmus test is a Roe v Wade litmus test.

and this isn't the right place for it, but....

Bush-Cheney '04: Because I need some wood.

Tucker Carlson loosens the bowtie. He and Begala had literally been crowdsurfing not 4 minutes earlier.

Appetizer Baby for Hungry Candidate

Mom, turn on the TV! I'm about to play Hardball!

Aaaaaaaiiight!

yeah, uh...that wasn't even a particularly useful lie, mr. vice preseident

umm..ok, sure.

actually "light bulb" was one of the first phrases I learned as a baby. my first word was "bus"

Jeffrey M. Stambovsky, Appellant,
v.
Helen V. Ackley et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York
July 18, 1991

Whether the source of the spectral apparitions seen by defendant seller is parapsychic or psychogenic, having reported their presence in both a national publication and the local press, defendant is estopped to deny their existence and, as a matter of law, the house is haunted.

Might as well forget Poland after all.

you forgot poland

CNN's "undecided" voter is actually a patriot

I know my nose is a bit stopped up. Even so, this smells a bit like dirty tricks.... A similar odor wafts from this dude as the stench from the guy who snuck into that Kerry event, held up a Bush sign, then had his son, dressed up like a Union man, rip up the bush sign, so that his daughter cried.

By any means necessary...

GeorgeWBush.com :: Breaking Pre-Debate Fact: Kerry For Lights Before Against Them

Honestly, are the folks at the Onion doing Bush's spin? "Breaking Pre-Debate Fact"???

Breaking fact: John Kerry looks silly windsurfing! He surfed left before he surfed right!!

I thought breaking facts was the job of the CBO, or the treasury secretary.....

Kerry vs. the Rules, Bush vs. His Temper (washingtonpost.com):

You think Mike Allen might have written some of this piece, or at least the title, before the debate started? Or did he just feel bad about titling it Bush v. Temper? Because there really was no "Kerry v. Rules" tension that I noticed during the debate -- it was Bush who was consistantly going over the alotted time -- and there's no mention of such tension in the piece as it's written now (first graf included, link above for the rest):

"Kerry vs. the Rules, Bush vs. His Temper

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 1, 2004; Page A08

CORAL GABLES, Fla., Sept. 30 -- President Bush has thrown Sen. John F. Kerry's words back on him during nearly every speech of the campaign, but he rocked back in irritation during the first presidential debate Thursday night when the Massachusetts senator did the same thing to him."

EDIT: The name has changed on the site to "Kerry v. the format...." but that's still a lame name for a story that's all about how bush was flustered. Now, in fairness to Mike Allen, it's usually copy editors, not reporters, who title pieces. And the Post's copy editor must be wed to some notion of he-said, she-said fairness over accuracy. Because, if you don't actually read the story, just the headline, it looks like the story said it was a tie. If you don't get past the fold, or the jump, you assume that the section on Kerry's wrangling with the format comes later, and maybe we'll get there, but let's read about the Expos (soon to be Washington Grays) first. Actually, the jump's not a problem here, since the story's buried on A8, but still.