AlchemyToday

Just saying.

Spencer Ackerman worries about the effects of forgetting the definition of “terrorist” , as Palin says Bill Ayers is unquestionably a terrorist while she wouldn’t neccesarily go that far when it comes to abortion-clinic bombers or protestors hurling Molotov cocktails at police:

The point isn’t that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, which is also an absurd, lazy and euphemistic statement. It’s that when you start down this path, you lose the ability to draw necessary distinctions, and end up with an overbroad and counterproductive definition of your enemy. That’s a feature, not a bug, of calling something a war on “terrorism.” Bush started it. Palin embraced it. And now she’s trapped in its absurdity.

I have a different problem with Palin’s answer after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

My suggestion (elsewhere) following the Washington Post article about McCain’s planned stepped-up character attacks on Obama:

Obama should bring up McCain’s negative ads in the last debate, assuming they start by then. “John, you’ve been running ads for the last two weeks that lie about my record on taxes and abortion and ethics and say I’m too risky for the American people and that because I live in the same neighborhood with some people, I must agree with them. If this is so important, why didn’t you bring this up in our first debate? Why didn’t your running mate bring any of this up in her debate? If you’re so worried about my, quote, associations, why won’t you challenge them to my face instead of running negative ads. If the moderator will permit it, I’ll let you ask me any question right now and I’ll answer it directly and, as you’d say, give the American people some straight talk.”

And later, just before Tuesday’s debate (wondering whether Brokaw would bring up Ayers):

Brokaw was on Morning Joe or something this week saying that Obama’s never really had to answer questions about Ayers before, but frankly I want Obama to have a chance to take that head on and say something on the order of, “And if anyone has a question about people I’ve crossed paths with, know that I’ll be the first to cross swords with anyone who threatens America, and ask those questions to my face before you lie about my history in sleazy campaign speeches.”

Now, Obama on ABC News last night:

GIBSON: Were you surprised, A, that he didn’t bring it up last night at the debate and use that line of attack? And, B, since you must have prepared for it, what were you going to say?

OBAMA: Well, I am surprised that, you know, we’ve been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days that he wasn’t willing to say it to my face.

But I guess we’ve got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that — that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate.

The notion that people don’t know who I am is a little hard to swallow. I’ve been running for president for the last two years. I’ve campaigned in 49 states. Millions of people have heard me speak at length on every topic under the sun. I’ve been involved now in 25 debates, going on my 26th. And I’ve written two books which any — everybody who reads them will say are about as honest a set of reflections by, at least, a politician as are out there.

To preface, I’m trying to try to honestly post my pre-debate expectations here even though I’m writing this post-debate; I realize that gives me the opportunity to fake clairvoyance which I’ll try to avoid.

On the moderator, Gwen Ifill:

Pregame expectations: Ahead of the debate, Ifill was attacked from the right for “failing to disclose” that she’s got a deal to drop a book about how Obama’s changing the face of Black politics or something on inauguration day.  Odds of McCain campaign actually not realizing this until a few days ago when it was first brought up: extremely low.  Well, that’d be the case with any normal, competent campaign, anyway.  Reactions to this from the left varied from defense of Ifill to worrying that she’d be overly cautious to avoid any impression of bias to scheming to have Obama request Ifill be replaced to throw a last-minute wrench into Palin’s debate prep.

Postgame reviews: On the right, reactions are mixed (judged largely by posts at The Corner).  In roughly equal proportion, some people found her questions fair and others found her questions fair but are still full of barely contained resentment regarding her conflict of interest.  Also, complaints about no abortion questions.  On the left, it’s almost uniformly negative: Ifill didn’t ask any follow-up questions even though Palin didn’t always (or usually) come close to answering the prompted questions.  Also, complaints about no abortion/women’s issues questions.

My take: Remembering Ifill’s strict non-interventionism in the Cheney/Edwards debate, I wasn’t expected any Russertesque follow-up attempst.  That debate was in a more open, roundtable format, and Ifill didn’t use it to frequently press the issue even though the Cheney/Edwards experience gap almost perfectly predicted Biden/Palin.  Ifill’s smart; she clearly recognized Palin’s dodges and redirects and wasn’t just doggedly moving forward to the next question.  She redirected the debate when further clarification was possible, and moved on when it was clear that Palin was just going to fillibuster.

Here’s a section where Ifill damns Palin’s tactic with a subtle jab:

BIDEN: … Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. He did support deregulation almost across the board. That’s why we got into so much trouble.

IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?

PALIN: I’m still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I’m going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.

IFILL: OK, our time is up here. We’ve got to move to the next question. Sen. Biden, we want to talk about taxes, let’s talk about taxes.

This prompted Ifill’s question about major criticisms of the candidates’ tax plans, leading to Biden’s perfectly scripted answer about class warfare, and his “Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere” attack on McCain’s health benefits tax that Palin was utterly unprepared to defend.  Obama did a great job seizing the reigns on the tax debate a week ago, but Palin drew first blood here by talking about taxes when the question was about anything but taxes (it was about McCain support deregulation in health care).  Ifill recognized this, and basically said, “If you’re going to insist on debating taxes, we’re going to debate it on my terms.”

Attempts to hang Obama/Biden with the phrase “increased taxes” practically define the McCain campaign’s media strategy.  Palin was clearly given the task of redirecting the debate along those lines whenever possible, and after Ifill called her on it, she never brought it up again in any serious way.

I suspect the common-wisdom criticisms of Palin coming from the debate will include her simply not answering questions and redirecting to talking points that often (usually?) bore little relation to the quesiton at hand.  Had Ifill been overly aggressive in pointing this out, we’d instead be hearing about how Ifill attacked Palin during the debate for avoiding questions.  Most people aren’t stupid and they know when someone’s dodging a question and can read their body language when someone’s staring at notecards and reciting something that’s got nothing to do with Ifill’s question.  Criticizing Ifill for not actively pointing this out during the debate, I think, underestimates (barely) the intelligence of an average, undecided debate viewer.  Had Ifill interjected, the story would’ve been: Palin exceeded expectations and usually knew what she was talking about, but occasionally was chided by the moderator for straying off topic, maverick that she is!  Instead, the story is: Palin exceeded expectations but sometimes avoided issues and gave unrelated answers on questions that Biden showcased the depth of his knowledge.  There’s only room for two characters in a story about a debate, and I’d much rather it be about Biden and Palin than Ifill and Palin.

From an NPR interview today:

On whether he can imagine turning to Governor Sarah Palin for advice on foreign policy:
“I’ve turned to her advice many times in the past. I can’t imagine turning to Senator Obama or Senator Biden, because they’ve been wrong. They were wrong about Iraq, they were wrong about Russia.” He continues: “I’ve already have turned to Governor Palin, particularly on energy issues, and I’ve appreciated her background and knowledge on that and many other issues.”

From his post tonight at The Politico:

Most CBC members bailout bill

While President Bush and Sen. McCain — not to mention House leaders — couldn’t reel in the House Republicans needed to pass the bailout, a key constituency over which Barack Obama has considerable sway also opposed the bill.

More members of the Congressional Black Caucus, whose heavily black districts include many of Obama’s most ardent supporters, opposed the bill than supported it.

Few of these members are in, or will ever have, tough re-elections.

Obama, it seems, could have helped deliver some of these votes if he had been more invested in the bill.

The insinuation that Obama somehow holds more sway over the CBC than he does over nay-voters like, say, the Hispanic Caucus, the Blue Dog Democrats, or generally far-left Dems such as Kucinich is the obvious problem here.  Why does Martin think Obama should hold more influence over his old-time enemy Bobby Rush than he has Nancy Boyda or Dennis Kucinich or Linda Sanchez?

Coming on top of attempts to frame the credit crisis as a result of forcing dangerous loans to unreliable Blacks and Hispanics, this is really beyond the pale.

Here’s the votes by the CBC members (quick tally; might’ve made a mistake):
Ayes (17): Bishop, Brown, Clarke, Clyburn, Arthur Davis, Danny Davis, Ellison, Hastings, EB Johnson, Meek, Meeks, Moore, Rangel, Richardson, Towns, Waters, Watt
Nays (22): Butterfield, Carson, Clay, Cleaver, Conyers, Cummings, Edwards, Fattah, Green, Jackson, Jackson-Lee, Jefferson, Hank Johnson, Kilpatrick, Lee, Lewis, Payne, Rush, David Scott, Robert Scott, Thompson, Watson

Martin’s right that most of the CBC opposed the bill (as one would expect when their proposals are dropped in negotiations to gain GOP support), but a group so akin to Obama that he’d be able to sway them specifically on the basis of shared skin tone should vote en bloc, no?

Furthermore, anyone following the bailout negotiations as closely as Martin has to recognize that provisions that were dropped in the negotiations regarding equity in bailed out firms, stricter restrictions on executive compensation, and especially funding programs to prevent foreclosure were disproportionately advocated for by CBC and CHC members.  One of the tricky parts of crafting a compromise between so many parties with the frequency that occurs in Congress is that you have to learn to follow through when you say, “my vote is contingent on this being in the bill.”  These votes were knowingly given up by the Dem caucus in crafting the compromise, and by all reports the Dems delivered as many or more votes than were expected by the leadership of both parties.

Frankly, Obama probably could’ve made the number of calls required to get Dem voters off the fence on from the left and the right, but it’s ridiculous to pin the blame on him and allow GOP negotiators to get what they asked for into the bill (or out of in the case of foreclosure prevention) without having to put their reputations on the line as well.

So there’s some to-do about Obama trying to get ads off the air by the NRA because of distortions of his record or some other legal issue, but I hadn’t seen anyone complain about the imagery involved in these ads.  I just saw an ad, Veteran, that includes images of the plane hitting the second World Trade Center tower as well as a soldier standing over fellow soldiers’ graves, who I presume don’t neccesarily approve of this message.  Here are the two images with the voiceover accompanying them in the ad:

On the front lines, I knew I served a real purpose: defeating terrorism

The freedoms that I fought for--that my friends died to defend

"The review for 'Shark Sandwich' was merely a two word review which simply read 'Shit Sandwich'."

Memo to John McCain, Reps. Boehner, Blunt, Cantor et al: today was not Nancy Pelosi’s responsibility.  She delivered the votes she promised and gave you the compromise needed to get your guys on board at the expense of enough Black and Hispanic Caucus votes to have won a more party-line vote to placate your endless paranoid bitching about provisions inconsequential to the broader economy.  Rather, your half-hearted support of the bill and utter inability to whip your caucus was on display with this brilliant display of support:

McCain: I’d like to see the details but hopefully yes and from the outlines that I have read of it, that this is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with.

Boehner: In a closed-door session with House Republicans Sunday evening, Minority Leader John A. Boehner called the $700 billion financial rescue deal a “crap sandwich” — then said he plans to vote for it.

Cantor: It seems that when the Democrats decided to bring the vote to the floor, they just didn’t have their votes together. Hopefully we’ll be able to reboot, and bring a plan back that meets the needs of the American people, and that will hopefully help us avoid falling into further economic decline… I think what you saw today was the will of the American people having a real impact, as it should, on the legislative body.

If this is the level of enthusiasm from the folks who were supposed to convince wary Republicans that they’d have their back a month from now if they took a bit of risk, it’s not hard to see who’s largely to blame.

Depression-era soup line

The S&P 500 retreated 106.59 points to 1,106.42, as only one company gained, Campbell Soup Co. The benchmark index for American equities slipped to a four-year low. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 777.68, its steepest point drop ever. The MSCI World Index lost as much as 86.99 to 1,163.38, giving it the steepest intraday percentage drop since its creation in 1970.

Bloomberg via Wonkette via Sullivan.

Twitter’d Sunday morning:

Prediction: The bailout bill will go to the floor with the idea that it’s got substantial House GOP support, but they’ll vote against it.

There’s no reason for the House GOP to vote for the bill (none of the credit and all of the blame from challengers) and every reason to oppose (run reelection campaigns against the bailout and government waste and away from your record).  On top of that, although Blunt and Cantor (the GOP whip and deputy whip) eventually voted for the bill (reportedly, House.gov is currently out of service as millions of international financial officers scramble to figure out who the hell is in charge over here, anyway, and make some calls), they spent all day yesterday and this morning bemoaning it, and boy is this ever a compelling call for help from your caucus by Minority Leader Boehner:

In a closed-door session with House Republicans Sunday evening, Minority Leader John A. Boehner called the $700 billion financial rescue deal a “crap sandwich” — then said he plans to vote for it.