Saturday Night Live strikes again...

Obviously anyone with a brain will not let either of these clips affect the way they vote... but they sure are funny:



Here's one of the McCain/Obama debate. It's obviously lopsided against McCain:

First Presidential Debate

Watched the majority of the debate. It's hard for me to be objective but I'll try.

I think that both the base of the Republican and the base of the Democratic party will be happy with their candidate's performance. The most rabid Republicans and Democrats will think that their man absolutely trounced the other. McCain supporters will see him "giving Obama a lesson in foreign policy (as Guliani's spin was--interestingly Palin declined appearing next to Biden :-) . Obama supporters will see him as hitting the nail on the head issue after issue.

So what will the swing voters think, people like me who hate the party system and the way it pushes candidates to play to their base rather than say what they really think?

First, my hunch is that most younger voters will not react favorable to McCain's snide and condescending remarks and name calling. On several occasions Obama complimented McCain. By contrast, McCain generally responded with dismissive or denigrating responses. I heard Guliani's summary and it's hard for me to see most middle ground people under 40 seeing it as anything other than the despicable spin they have grown to detest and associate with people like Karl Rove. Guliani infuriated me--McCain and Obama did not.

It's really hard for me to imagine how a "Reagan democrat" would respond. I'm not sure. They might like what I perceived to be McCain's "trust me I have experience and he doesn't" approach. On the other hand, Obama's responses sounded intelligent. He didn't come off as inexperienced, even when McCain responded with, "Son, put your pacifier back in because I've actually been to South Ocetia."

Again, it's hard for me to see myself, but I thought McCain repeated himself and often just gave lines that could just as well have been memorized. I thought Obama came off more composed and, in general, more presidential. It will be interesting to see which one America thought won the debate.

Rick Warren hosts Obama, McCain

I caught most of the interviews last night between Rick Warren of Saddleback and Obama and McCain. I think how you respond to the debate depends a lot on your age and, obviously, your political positions.

But let me suggest broadly how people would respond based on their age, trying to remove the political positions part from the equation. In this case, I think how you respond breaks around 40-45 years old.

Those older than 40-45, like Pat Buchanan afterwards, see McCain as a hands down winner. (Of course Buchanan has become a spin meister too.) McCain had clear cut answers, which this crowd sees as leadership. He decisively jumped in even before Warren could get the questions out. He was confident, unlike Obama, who hemmed and hawed and, in Buchanan's mind, surprisingly didn't seem to know Theology 101.

Those younger than 40 might see it differently. McCain wouldn't have even needed to show up because his answers were so scripted to the party line, especially the sterotyped evangelical party line, that anyone could have given them for him. He had the answers memorized like an old time school boy who can hardly wait to get the question right. Oo, oo, can I tell you the right answer to that question too, now, or do I have to wait.

Obama, on the other hand, gave his real answers in the face of a hostile audience. He tried to find common ground with an opposing position. He was authentic, not canned. He gave realistic answers rather than the kinds of dreamy idealistic ones that got us into the Iraq War (you defeat evil--yeah, that's worked for us, hasn't it).

Enough of the Pastor Stuff on Both Sides...

I've had enough of the "death by association" pastor stuff. McCain obviously doesn't agree with Hagee on everything and Hagee doesn't agree with McCain on everything. I pronounce anyone "dumber than a door knob" who thinks that the gyrations of an obscure pastor hammin' it up for a crowd that wants to see him perform must obviously be exactly what Senator Obama thinks.

This is the height of illogic, it's not even worthy to be called the ad hominem fallacy because it's attacking Obama through the back door. I guess you would call it the circumstantial fallacy, attacking the circumstances of the person to smear the person's ideas? Let's come up with a new name, "Smearing someone by finding anything even loosely associated with them that we don't like" fallacy.

I once had liver. You don't like liver. Ah, logically, then, you must not like me.

Come on--are we really this stupid in America??? Obama wasn't there. Obama didn't say these things. How many people agree with everything their pastor says? How many people go to church because of the preaching?

Good grief. If the American people and the media (especially FOX news) are this stupid and unable to reason like homo sapiens, then there's no hope for our future. We're no better thinkers than your garden variety slug.

We will no doubt be taken over in the next 100 years by some other nation smarter than we are.

McClellan vindicates everything I've said since 2004

For all who beat their chests at me when I started my other blog in 2004 and argued that Bush needed to be fired as CEO of the country then, for all the illogicians who defended the Bush administration and FOX News while I could see it all as the mounting evidence and voices overwhelmingly have shown it really was, to all those at whom history is already wagging its head, I submit Scott McClellan, along with Colin Powell and so many others.

It's no use. You've not learned anything. Religion and politics rarely have anything to do with rationality or truth.

Is McCain Insane?

No, I don't think he is, even though he has just endorsed Bush's surge.

I thought that McCain's support of Bush's policy in Iraq might actually be fatal to his presidential bid. He can't do any more damage there... BUT he can try to turn it into a strength. One of Hilary's big problems is her previous support for the war. She could stand by her vote to keep from looking like Kerry, but it's not clear how profitable that will make her with her party.

It's different with McCain. Standing firm on the war for him might just strengthen his base enough to win him the Republican primaries.

Some might be surprised to know that I have never been sure what to make of this surge. I don't trust Bush's foreign policy or military judgment any further than I can throw him. But I'm not sure that setting timetables for withdrawal is the right tactic either.

Long and short--I think McCain would be an infinitely better president than Bush. I don't think he would have gone to war with Iraq, if he had been in the hot seat at the time. And I think that regardless of what he might feel he has to say at this point of the game.