Let's have a quick look at the people Obama and McCain have picked for their second in command. First, Joe Biden reacting to the first Presidential debate:
That says as much about the men who picked them as it does about the vice-presidential candidates themselves.
My strongest reaction to the first debate between Barack Obama and John McCain was, "McCain has not looked at Obama throughout the entire debate. What's up with that?" This is extremely odd behavior in a setting like this. Is it simply a case of McCain was cranky and Obama was cool? Here's Joan Walsh at Salon:
I wish I'd organized a drinking game around the number of times John McCain said, "Sen. Obama doesn't understand," or found some other way to sneer at Obama as naive and inexperienced. For the most part he refused to even look at Barack Obama over 90 minutes. What an ass.
Other writers noticed the strange body language on display by McCain. From James Fallows at Atlantic.com
Unless it happened when I glanced away, up until this moment, 77 minutes into the 90-minute debate, John McCain has not once looked at Obama -- while listening to him, while addressing him, while disagreeing with him, while finding moments of accord.
This is distinctly strange -- if anyone else notices. Obama is acting as if this is a conversation; McCain, as if he cannot acknowledge the other party in the discussion.
My impression was that McCain was afraid to look at Obama. That doesn't make any kind of logical sense, but that was the feeling I had. Which made this comment all the more interesting (via Josh Marshall):
And here's another note from TPM Reader TB. I guess I'm really not sure quite how to characterize it ...
I think people really are missing the point about McCain's failure to look at Obama. McCain was afraid of Obama. It was really clear--look at how much McCain blinked in the first half hour. I study monkey behavior--low ranking monkeys don't look at high ranking monkeys. In a physical, instinctive sense, Obama owned McCain tonight and I think the instant polling reflects that.
So McCain may have given away his status as a low-ranking monkey. I'd never even considered monkey rank.
Late Monkey Science Update: In case anyone's wondering, I looked up TPM Reader TB's page at the University he teaches at. And no doubt about it, he appears to be a genuine monkey scientist, or to be more specific a researcher on social cognition and behavior in primates.
On substance, I didn't think McCain did any better. One particular charge McCain made struck me as simply bogus. Joe Klein says it better than I could:
As for McCain's remark about Obama not knowing the difference between a tactic and a strategy—McCain was wrong. The counterinsurgency methods introduced by David Petraeus in Iraq were a tactical change, a new means to achieve Bush's same strategic end of a stable, unified Iraq. If Bush had decided to partition the country, or to withdraw, that would have been a change in strategy.
After McCain's theatrics this week in trying to avoid the debate so he could save the country in the midst of its financial crisis, this performance revealed him as a grumpy, sarcastic, condescending jerk. Obama came off as even-handed, thoughtful and statesmanlike. The debate probably didn't change anyone's mind. In that regard, it's a win for Obama.
You may have heard that John McCain was scheduled to appear on David Letterman's late night show on CBS on Wednesday night. At the last minute, McCain called to cancel, saying he was hurrying back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis. It turned out that the crisis McCain had to deal with was Sarah Palin's interview taped that morning with Katie Couric. McCain scheduled an interview the same day with Couric, thereby bumping much of the Palin interview from the evening news cast (though it was still available on the Internet). Here' David Letterman talking about the situation on his show that night:
The economy is in a mess. Had you heard? After the initial totally over-the-top proposal from the White House ("Just give us $700 billion, no questions asked, and trust us.") it looked like leaders in Congress were working together in a bipartisan way to come up with an acceptable solution that would address the immediate crisis without handing over a blank check and shredding the Constitution. And then...John McCain rides in to the rescue! That's just what we needed. Or was it? via Mahablog:
This morning a number of news stories say that McCain was a near non-participant in yesterday’s White House
photo opmeeting. Adam Nagourney and Elisabeth Bumiller write for the New York Times,At the bipartisan White House meeting that Mr. McCain had called for a day earlier, he sat silently for more than 40 minutes, more observer than leader, and then offered only a vague sense of where he stood, said people in the meeting.
That was the “giving McCain the benefit of the doubt” version of the story. David Kurtz provides a little more detail...
This is the latest political stunt in a campaign that has devolved into directionless chaos.
According to Bloomberg News:
Obama called for the overhaul of the financial-regulatory system and tougher enforcement well before this past week's traumas.
Detached observers who watched him last week, especially in a Bloomberg Television interview, were taken by how conversant and comfortable he was on the subject, despite his thin record. Few detached observers came away with that impression watching the Arizona senator.
And what is the principled position of the House Republicans that McCain has rushed in to champion? From Politico.com:
According to one GOP lawmaker, some House Republicans are saying privately that they’d rather “let the markets crash” than sign on to a massive bailout.
“For the sake of the altar of the free market system, do you accept a Great Depression?” the member asked.
Right. Less government regulation and tax cuts for rich people. That's the answer.
The Bush administration's $700 Billion investment banker bailout plan could be called the "Authorization to Use Monetary Force" because it's just as short-sighted and suspect as the previous AUMF. People will not sit still for spending billions of dollars to reward companies whose irresponsible and illegal practices have led to this situation. Any plan must focus on keeping people in their homes and not providing golden parachutes to corporate executives.
What's the hurry? Bush and Paulson have been telling us up till just recently that everything was fine and the situation was under control. Here's Paulson on April 20, 2007:
"I don't see (subprime mortgage market troubles) imposing a serious problem. I think it's going to be largely contained."
And on January 7, 2008:
"... our financial institutions entered this period well-capitalized, and we expect them to remain so."
And on March 16, 2008:
"... I've got great confidence in our financial market, our financial institutions. Our markets are resilient. They're flexible. Our institutions, our banks and investment banks, are strong. And I am very confident with the help of the regulators and market participants we're going to work our way through this."
Then on September 15, 2008:
Paulson said he is taking Monday’s stock tumble as a good sign — because the fall was less-severe than expected and occurred in a relatively orderly way. “I think we’re making progress,” he said. [...] "I’m playing the hand that was dealt me.”
Were they lying then, or are they lying now? Or are they just greedy and clueless? Those are not very attractive options, but they appear to be the only ones.
In case you're not aware of it, I want to recommend a new news commentary program, The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. I've been a fan of Rachel's since I heard her on the local Air America Radio station a few years ago. She impressed me as being smart as a whip and able to handle herself in any situation. A couple of weeks ago, MSNBC gave her a show of her own after she had demonstrated those qualities repeatedly as a guest on their campaign coverage and other shows, like Keith Olbermann's Countdown, which she also guest-hosted.
Sam Boyd at the American Prospect writes:
Maddow has broken the broadcasting mold. She has succeeded as an avowed liberal on television precisely because she is not a liberal version of conservatives like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. Unlike so many progressive media figures who sought to replicate the on-air habits of the aggressive shock jocks of the right, she stumbled upon a workable style for the left. She is liberal without apology or embarrassment, bases her authority on a deep comprehension of policy rather than the culture warrior's claim to authenticity, and does it all with a light, even slightly mocking, touch. She proves that liberals can attract viewers on television when they actually act like, well, liberals.
One of the catch phrases on her show's graphics is "Mind over Chatter." That neatly sums up her show. Catch her on MSNBC weeknights at 8:00 PM central time or, for those who don't have cable TV, you can see her on the web at MSNBC.com
Here's a sample to whet your appetite:
This is the kind of thing that gets you labeled a "conspiracy nut" if you even mention it. Still, it's very disturbing to me. via Glenn Greenwald:
Several bloggers today have pointed to this obviously disturbing article from Army Times, which announces that "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st [Brigade Combat Team] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" -- "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities."
Why is that a big deal, you say?
For more than 100 years -- since the end of the Civil War -- deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina).
Greenwald quotes James Bovard, writing in The American Conservative about Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 the legislation that made this move possible:
"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.
I've not taken seriously suggestions that the Bush administration might do something like "allow" some kind of terrorist attack to happen and use it as an excuse to declare martial law. I couldn't believe even they would do something so heinous. This story is very disquieting.
We've seen this many times before. It's a favorite Rovian political tactic: loudly accuse your opponent of doing something underhanded and unethical, with no real evidence to support the claim. Then do exactly what you accused your opponent of doing. Pointing out that you are, in fact, doing this underhanded and unethical thing, then becomes a case of "they all do it." The latest example is the deal McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis had with mortgage giant Freddie Mac, before it was taken over by the Government. Anonymous Liberal sums it up succinctly:
For the last week or so, the McCain campaign has been aggressively trying to tie Barack Obama to the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to suggest that Obama has somehow been improperly influenced by them.
[...]
And here's the kicker. If you look at donations from Fannie and Freddie's executives, board members, lobbyists, McCain received $169,000 in donations compared to Obama's $16,000.
But the New York Times tonight provides the ultimate coup de grace. It turns out John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, has literally been on the payroll of Freddie Mac from 2005 until last month, when the company was taken over by the government. And not only that, he didn't actually provide any services to the company other than access to John McCain...
You can pretty much bet, if you hear a Republican politician complaining loudly about something a Democrat is supposedly doing, from theft to abuse of power to sexual misconduct, the Republican is doing it. It just seems to work that way.
Here's some straight talk for you:
We need more people in Congress willing to say stuff like this.
By now most of you have probably seen the Saturday Night Live bit with Tina Fey as Sarah Palin and Amy Pohler as Hillary Clinton. In case you haven't, here it is:
