Franco Un-American?

No, that's not my family.


Link...

The bogeyman resurfaces

So the State Department sought to suppress the release of the new Bin Laden tape. It's an interesting wrinkle in the latest of late October surprises.

The appearance of bin Laden, alive and not desperately unhealthy, during the race's final weekend is obviously cause for rumination. The timing -- Friday afternoon, quitting time EDT -- seems orchestrated to coincide with the beginning of our reflective weekend free time.

Bin Laden, the worst mass murderer on the planet, addresses Americans directly in a way that we've not seen before. Gone, it seems, are his rants about 15th century Spain, infidels in the holy land and the blood of Americans raining down in his grand vengeance. The new bin Laden is more soft-spoken, seems like he's seen Fahrenheit 9/11, asks us to please reconsider putting the screws to the Muslim world if we value our safety, and according to the AP, uses "what appeared to be conciliatory language." This can't be: a kinder, gentler UBL?

Whether it will help either side, I can't say for sure. The State Department's attempt to quiet the release of the tape does tip its hand somewhat, though. And the more times Bush pronounces UBL's name, the more we are reminded that he's still at large and that mission has not been accomplished. I'm tentatively giving the edge to Kerry on this development.

My freaky Republican correspondent in Texas expresses surprise that UBL "didn't explicitly endorse Kerry," but wonders if he "was just trying to stay within the bounds of McCain-Feingold."

Meanwhile, the other tape does appear to be Gadahn, according to recent reports. Yikes.

Bush league

And the Bay State says, Curt, how could you?

Link...

The lesser of two Dowds

It's time for Maureen Dowd to lose her job. Today she delivers yet another nonsensical column, ostensibly retelling the story of the Iraq war using Halloween terminology. As is her wont, she spends most of her time trying to make people look silly or childish (naw, she isn't either of those things). She finishes off this pointless exercise, as usual, by making up a funny name for an elected official.

Dowd makes my blood boil. I'm embarrassed to agree with her, when I do. There are usually about two sentences of worthwhile prose in any of her columns. This time they come from a must-read Boston Globe column rather than from her own sad, twisted mind. It's getting hard to believe that Dowd's shinola runs in a major newspaper (the Grey Lady, no less!) and that people -- intellectuals! -- actually enjoy this stuff.

She actually reinforces the common but generally untrue criticisms that the American left is all negativity and all hot air rather than substance or solutions; that its brand of name-calling is no better than Rush Limbaugh's; that it's full of cocktail-party chatterers who are more interested in stunning metaphors than cogent arguments. To use hers from today's column, she's nothing short of a horror show these days.

So that's Maureen. Tom Dowd, on the other hand, is heroic.

Brain droppings

This is better than it had to be.

Link...

Making flippy floppy

Correction on a previous post: It seems that everyone's favorite British political intellectual (drunk division), Christopher Hitchens, tentatively endorsed Bush in The Nation, then even more tentatively nodded for Kerry in Slate.

It's a sign of how knotty American politics have become, and I suspect, how closely matched elections are going to be in the future. I think the political game has been so closely market-researched over the past few years that both sides have figured out how to get almost exactly half the votes. In other words, it's not necessarily that the nation is evenly split between left and right; it's that both parties have adjusted to nominate people they think can win the election. Neither candidate really represents the wishes of the parties; the parties simply nominate the people they think can beat the other candidate. (We, the voters, have even figured out how to vote based on our research. We've learned to think we're "sending a message" with our vote. Was it always like this?) But when both sides have access to the same polls and the same research, each winds up with half the votes. Which means, really, nobody wins.

Heard during A's telecast, 9/7/04

Ray Fosse: "Well the question is, if the Red Sox do win the World Series, what will their fans do?"

Hank Greenwald: "Well, they'll go on the biggest bender you've ever seen..."

Broward, of the County

On the day that the Times published a story suggesting that a measure allowing provisional voting may actually result in the courts deciding the Presidential election again, we see that ballot problems have already begun to plague Florida voters.

Florida's Department of Law Enforcement quickly ended its investigation, telling people to go vote early instead.

"Never again"? The snafus are happening already. Ugh.

Flip-flopping

You know the world is changing when Christopher Hitchens endorses Bush in The Nation, Andrew Sullivan says he's for Kerry in The New Republic, and TNR editor Martin Peretz believes a Kerry presidency would be "a disaster for Israel."

It's just too big a town

As with all my visits to New York, I've returned with a rhinovirus. I don't know whether to blame the planes, the handshakes and kisses, the evening chill, or the subway poles.

Some things I learned:

*Stupid boots are in this year.

*"Livin' On A Prayer" by Bon Jovi, is more popular than ever.

*San Francisco has a lot more homeless people than NYC. But I think SF has fewer than it did last year.

*It's hard to find a martini for less than $10 anywhere in Manhattan. It's easy to find one for more than $15.

*A good calzone will make you feel sated for, like, a day.

*Fresh air is not a priority in New York.

*The Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum is the place to go for cool-ass German chairs. And I have made a mistake by not going to the Met for fifteen years.

The freedom to be exploited

Unsurprisingly, nations with massive oil revenues fared poorly in a new study of government corruption. Iraq and Pakistan fared conspicuously badly, our amigos in Venezuela tied with the notoriously unctuous Zimbabawean leadership, and most of the former Soviet republics landed in the bottom third. Nordic countries seemed to be the least corrupt, while the U.S. tied for 17th place with Belgium and Ireland.

It's not an auspicious study for those who believe that the liberation of Iraq will spread freedom and democracy and thus transform the Middle East. The organization's chairman writes, "Without strict anti-bribery measures, the reconstruction of Iraq will be wrecked by a wasteful diversion of resources to corrupt elites." If we understood that the liberation of Iraq referred primarily to an economic freedom, it seems, we can expect that free market to be thoroughly exploited.

"We're not going to have any casualties."

From GWB's mouth, to Pat Robertson's, to your ears. Did he really say that?

Jazz on Fillmore

Happy to see that the owners of Yoshi's will be moving into the city. Jazz returns to the Fillmore after too many years of silence.

Fearlessly the idiot faced the crowd

Suddenly, Bill Safire decides that John Kerry is promoting an atmosphere of fear in order to get elected.

Wasn't Dick Cheney the one who said a couple of weeks ago that if we elect Kerry, we risk getting attacked again? Haven't you guys spent the last three years reminding us what a dangerous world we live in, tweaking the color codes and harping on "the evildoers," "what we're up against"?

Look, I know there is a very real terrorist threat. I didn't want to fly this week, but I'm going to. I am well acquainted with the odd feeling of conscious, willful fearlessness when I know intellectually that a potential disaster could occur, and I know intellectually that the odds of me becoming a target are very, very low, but that they do exist. That doesn't mean I'm going to jump every time they raise the stupid threat color level from yellow to orange. It doesn't mean I'm going to vote for you because you say "terrorist" and "threat" and "evil" over and over. I'm getting tired of it, quite honestly. And there is no question which of the two parties has promoted an atmosphere of fear for the past three years, right or wrong.

Jello said they want you to "shut up and shop." Right on to that.

This is Safire's second total strikeout in a row, following his nasty piece about Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney, fisked nicely by Andrew Sullivan in the New Republic.

Walking on sunshine

Curtis Leskanic's cousin is Katrina Leskanich.

I think she could've pitched better than he has against the Yankees.

Union of the snakes

Osama bin Laden, wherever he is, officially has a new ally in serial beheader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The Bush administration claims that he's been working with al Qaeda all along, but the connection has never been terribly clear. Reports have surfaced for some time that his network is actually quite disorganized. But this merger, even one of unequals, has to be regarded as a new threat. Even in last Sunday's Times, this story suggested that Zarqawi may be "a staunch rival" of al Qaeda's. (Not to mention a convicted rapist, which doesn't really surprise me.)

Off the top of my head, I'll still speculate: Might this be an act of desperation on Zarqawi's part? And, will uniting with al Qaeda simply make him easier to catch, since our intelligence network has to some extent penetrated their organization?

Getting pissed at the 540

I was late for last night's League of Pissed-Off Voters event at the 540 Club, but arrived in time to see my District Supervisor, Jake McGoldrick, speak for a little while, then hand over the microphone to punk rocker, activist, and onetime mayoral candidate Jello Biafra. Jello is one of the all-time best ranters, and this was one of his classics: he talked for nearly a full hour, well over the allotted time, ranging from local issues to national and international affairs. Sometimes he was nearly nonsensical, other times he was lucid. He does call people silly names and take potshots at decent people sometimes. And while there were times I disagreed with him intellectually, he said a lot of things people absolutely needed to hear.

Some of these progressive events are really just parties with a political spin. I think for some younger people, particularly in San Francisco, progressive politics is just one more way to define yourself, like being a Deadhead or something. When I try to talk to people about real issues at events like this, a lot of times I come away thinking that a lot of them are enraged -- and they should be -- but not necessarily very thoughtful. Are all corporations evil? Is everybody really brainwashed? Didn't I see you driving a 325i down Haight Street last week? Doesn't it make you uncomfortable when they associate rich people with evil people?

That's why Jello's remarks were so beautiful -- finally, a real if imperfect backbone rather than simple sloganeering and anti-Bush jokes. He laid bare the philosophical necessities, and the inconsistencies, of the progressive agenda. He suggested some actual remedies, which was very helpful and rather unusual at functions like this. Jello's junk-mail ban is a great idea (though of course it's an infringement on free speech, right?). He says we should "become the media"? Hey, man, this is the blogosphere, I'm on it. But why the anti-biotechnology research thing? He played it like it was all about Frankenfood, and played on people's fears. That's just backward. (The candidate himself, Jake McGoldrick, voted in favor of the biotech payroll tax break, and I would've done it too.) Biotech startups are not going to be the new dot-coms -- I simply can't imagine that field producing dorm-room-and-a-dream ideas that turn into venture-backed juggernauts that flame out in 18 months. Ridiculous, and wrongheaded. (Plus someone's got to fill all that empty office space.)

To no one's surprise

The Times endorses John Kerry. Though the piece pays lip service to Kerry's integrity and ideas, the endorsement once again highlights what has seemed obvious for some time: the challenger isn't that inspiring, but the incumbent simply must be ousted.

Is it possible Kerry could have a nightmarish presidency? Sure. I'll take that chance.

Celling the drama

I'm late for the bus on this story, but it's very thought-provoking. Are the pollsters missing a substantial segment of the population because they've gone wireless? And who, exactly, are they missing?

ANWR

Last week's New Yorker piece regarding our dependence on foreign oil mentions, but does not dwell on, the debate over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I notice that both the Republican incumbent and the Democratic challenger (who is currently the governor) are pro-drilling. (The challenger, Tony Knowles, also suggested that because he is a Democrat, he may have an easier time convincing other Democrats to drill. Senator Kerry, by the way, was among those defending preservation in this PBS spot almost two years ago; his energy plan relies more on other hydrocarbons such as coal and natural gas.)

I have to admit that reading John McPhee's wonderful Coming Into The Country has changed my view of the state -- it's really a vast place, and the act of drilling would despoil a relatively small part. (The same issues of conservation, preservation, and stewardship arise in McPhee's Encounters With The Archdruid, the best simple account of environmental wrestling I've ever seen.) And my visit to Lake Powell last summer, with a pair of environmental scientists, sharpened the point: of course something beautiful was destroyed to create something useful to humans, but would I ever have seen the beautiful place at all if it weren't for the destruction?

Still, the keys to farsighted environmental policy include realizing that the planet doesn't revolve around human needs, seeing around corners, making assumptions about what you don't know about the future, and erring on the side of environmental prudence when necessary. We would have to view drilling as a desperate act in order to make it happen, and quite simply, we're not desperate. I paid $2.47 a gallon yesterday, and although that's just about the highest price in the country right now, it's still worlds better than what they pay in Europe or Asia. "Many Americans also appear to believe that they are entitled to cheap fuel, regardless of how much they consume," writes John Cassidy in the New Yorker piece. "[F]rom an energy perspective an extended period of higher fuel prices might well be just what the country needs." And he quotes Clinton's Assistant Secretary of Energy, Joseph Romm, as saying, "If people cared about oil imports they would buy different cars. In response to 9/11, people started putting flags on their S.U.V.s and buying Hummers. That tells you something." All true. Drilling in the ANWR should be a last resort -- a concept the current Administration doesn't quite understand, it seems.

Bubble burst

While most of America is preoccupied with debate style points, I see this morning that suicide bombers have now penetrated the Green Zone in Baghdad. The news arrives just as I'm finishing William Langewiesche's brilliant Atlantic piece, which contrasts the chaotic scene of Baghdad with the relative calm in the Zone's bubble. (His digression on the way people drive there is just one of his memorable observations.) If you can't read that story online, there's an interview with the author too.

Amoeba windfall

Couple of interesting releases hit the stores yesterday: Camper Van Beethoven's New Roman Times, a rock opera about a disgruntled veteran-turned-domestic terrorist, and Calexico's World Drifts In DVD, which captures a live show at London's Barbican.

The Camper record might be the weirdest entry in an already weird canon. Judging by the subject matter, I expected it'd be the kind of record that would appeal to Camper fans who thought "Jack Ruby" was one of the best things they'd recorded. And while that might be true, it's also the most Monks of Doom-like record they've put out, which is to say it leans on tricky rhythms and spiraling guitar solos more than violin jigs or backwards faux-Arabic waltzes (though there's a share of that stuff too). As for the lyrics and the tale they tell, I'm occasionally reminded why Cracker hasn't really made an impact record in eleven years, but the old sarcasm can still be powerful. Anyway it's recommended.

It seemed to me that the great independent-minded rock bands of the 80s (Huskers, Minutemen, etc.) always seemed to be slowly moving toward commercial acceptance, as if they were falling in step with the times as the times caught up to them. But so many of them today are going the other way. Wilco and Radiohead used to play it relatively straight, and now they're becoming increasingly adventurous (though possibly less interesting, after a point). You used to hope your favorite band wouldn't sell out to the masses. Now you hope they remain coherent enough to remain worth listening to. (Maybe I'm just getting old.)

Anyway it seemed like Camper oozed toward normalcy during its Virgin years, while Cracker continued the frontman's path into commerciality; now, after a break, they're as weird as ever again. That's pretty cool. Mike Watt's latest album, by the way, is completely insane: another rock opera, this one about the burst perineal abscess that nearly claimed his life a couple of years ago, framed as a prog-rock epic with Uriah Heep organ and references to Dante's Il Commedia.

As for Calexico, who've called their music "desert-noir," the disc captures a few songs with a full mariachi band onstage (very cool), and a couple with a French chanteuse (not my favorite of their indulgences). I know I've seen them work absolute magic onstage, and the production values here are quite high, but I'm not sure it's their best work. Bonus points for including a couple of documentaries and tour films, as well as a few other goodies. They did this one right.

Fast Food Nation II

As China industrializes, it expands.

The world's biggest health problem in the 21st century will almost certainly be the lack of available clean water. But will undernourishment give way to obesity as a key health problem in the world's most populated country?

Meanwhile, last week's New Yorker says the life expectancy of Russian men has fallen by six years over the past decade, that almost half of them die before they retire, and that the nation is beginning to suffer from an AIDS crisis.

NYT: Bring on the New Goat

"When a reporter mentioned Bill Buckner's name yesterday, Damon noted that the Red Sox had already blown the lead before Buckner's critical error against the Mets in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. They know it is possible that a new goat could join Buckner in Boston lore."

Blowing it?

Slate's William Saletan logs Kerry's blown opportunities in the debate last Friday night. Some of his points are well-taken -- particularly on the final "three mistakes" question. I think Kerry's abortion answer was just fine, although I admit it's hard for me to imagine a Catholic's reaction to that exchange. But Saletan's Monday morning quarterbacking (or, following his metaphor, second-guessing the manager) seems to be the type that comes too easily to non-speechwriters. His charge of "trying to look like a man who takes notes" comes out of nowhere, and should have stayed there.

Kerry has made up a LOT of ground in the debates. I suppose Edwards helped too last Tuesday night, although I've seen widely differing accounts of who won that one. If he can take it to the house in the last debate, I'll finally believe he can win the election.... but of course there's no telling what will turn up in the final days before the vote.

My old professor Mark Crispin Miller writes in The Bush Dyslexicon that while working on his father's campaign in 1988, W himself "ensured that the notorious -- and effective -- Willie Horton ads could be blamed plausibly on mavericks unaffiliated with the Bush campaign. The first son raised the money for those ads and devised the cover operation that could then be said to have produced them on its own (a ruse that -- to paraphrase our president -- allowed Bush/Quayle to claim the high horse while taking the low road)." [Miller attributes to all of Bush's biographers, but notes J.H. Hatfield's coke-arrest-alleging Fortunate Son as the most detailed source.] Sound familiar?

Maybe he doesn't need Karl Rove after all.

Meanwhile, there's this too. Already declared illegal, I understand.

Got wood?

Bush really did own $84 worth of a small timber business. Kerry was right, and Bush had a right to be surprised.

Round Two

Senator Kerry lost no ground in tonight's second debate. The town-hall format better suits Bush in comparison to the format of the first debate, but I don't believe it was enough to send him to victory. Kerry came off as personable as I've ever seen him, gave straight answers when he had to, and ceded no territory as far as I could tell.

A few brief notes:

*Bush referred to the Internets, as a plural. Oops.

*I don't think the guy who asked Bush about his environmental record was impressed. Also, are "off-road diesel engines" for snowmobiles? Was that really the best he could do?

*Bush gaffed by interrupting Charles Gibson. That doesn't play well.

*Bush could not name three mistakes he'd made. He didn't try. I don't think that was the kind of black-and-white "straight talk" his supports admire him for.

*Kerry could only imply, but could not say directly, that a Supreme Court nominee from Bush could take away abortion rights. I wonder what would've happened if he went there.

I'm increasingly optimistic that Kerry can win the election after this event.

Bravely endorsing no one

The Phoenix New Times' Michael Lacey says he can't vote for either Bush or Kerry, then spends the rest of his confused 6,798 words fighting with Arizona State art students and fisking Michael Moore's movie all over again. Huh?

His main premise appears to be that Saddam's genocide is ignored by anti-war activists, and he has a point: I do believe it's too easily shrugged off. But it also seems like the main reason the world community (U.N., European dissenters, etc.) didn't come on board for the war was the transparency of Republican intentions to pick up the spoils. In other words, they'd have been a lot more likely to join in our efforts to stop the genocide if it didn't seem like we were doing it to free up the oilfields. The world has that impression, and they're right to be suspicious.

Lacey writes:

"There is something so insistently out of place with Democrats, moderates, liberals -- bleeding hearts all -- and their refusal to confront Hussein's genocide that I cannot help but wonder if Islamic bloodshed, like Rwandan, is simply too foreign to elicit sympathy."

I don't think that's the case at all. But are Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the war "too foreign to elicit sympathy" from Dick Cheney, who only counts Iraqi warrior deaths when it's time to debate John Edwards? Are genocides in Rwanda and Darfur "too foreign to elicit sympathy" when they don't take place above massive oil reserves? Y'know, in parts of the world that matter?

Theatre of Pain

You know it's been a long time since hair metal ruled the world when Mick Mars has hip replacement surgery.

Can you hear me now?

http://www.isbushwired.com/

Fear and Loathing

This is very nicely done.

The fundamental question is, at what point does the threat of occasional attacks -- even massive, horrific ones -- become less than the threat of the widespread erosion of constitutional rights, the daily wars fought on America's streets and in its homes and workplaces, the struggles of seniors and of young people raised in an environment of fear and inequality, the permanent destruction of environmental resources, and the threat of top-down economics serving too much top and not enough bottom?

Not to mention the part about taking over a country that didn't, and couldn't, attack us.

Meeting Across the River

So Cheney and Edwards actually had met each other before. Once. I'm afraid that's still not very convincing evidence that Edwards spends much time on the Senate floor. It's been a long time since I saw him on C-SPAN, and by the look on his face last night it sure seemed like Cheney's allegations were true.

Is Cheney really "up there most Tuesdays," though? I thought he spent most Tuesdays five hundred feet below Nebraska with his finger dangling above The Button, or at least somewhere else out of sight.

Stern warnings

Satellite radio has reached the tipping point.

Deregulation of the dial, which allowed companies like Clear Channel to control most of what you hear, has produced an environment where too few people decide what you can and can't hear for free. Now it's payback time for companies like that. The man who made Mel Karmazin look like a genius will now become the man who transforms a whole new medium.

Companies like Sirius and XM have spent incredible amounts of money trying to get off the ground. (Check out XM's history of post-IPO secondary offerings sometime; they've gone to the well for something like $1 billion.) To date, they've signed up only a few hundred thousand customers apiece, despite generally positive reviews. Today's deal represents the moment of arrival for both companies, really, but Sirius has scored a major coup.

It's really amazing what can happen when someone tries to translate his love of pornography to the radio. Ba-ba-booie to that.

Phantom WMDs

The more I hear about Saddam's lack of WMD, the more I wonder: Did he try to keep inspectors out because of what they would find, or for what they wouldn't find?

Saddam's power lay in worldwide fear of him. Would people be afraid if they knew he was blowing all his money on palaces and hookers, rather than nuclear material and anthrax? In other words, was he bluffing all along?

Debate over. Game on.

Hi. Welcome to a night of feverish blogging. I set up this site yesterday, and finally started writing during the Cheney-Edwards debate tonight. If you want to follow my reactions to the proceedings chronologically, kindly scroll down and start at the bottom. I wrote four entries while the debate was in progress, then wrote some final thoughts (this post) after it was over. So here you go.

*

Cheney repeatedly accused Edwards of getting his facts wrong, and Edwards countered by saying Cheney distorted the facts. This makes me call into question Edwards' preparedness. He rarely seemed to have his own facts to counter Cheney's. In many ways he appeared to be exactly what Cheney suggested he was: a neophyte who was blowing smoke but didn't have the experience or knowledge base to back it up.

The all-important style category may have belonged to Edwards, although I suspect that people who bother with the VP debate are more swayed by substance. It's so rare that we hear Cheney talk, and he came off as what he really is: the silent partner who is actually running the show. He has clear but wrongheaded notions about remaking the world in his own way -- in essence, ruling it -- and seems smart enough to be sinister if he wants to be. Edwards? He's been mostly absent for the past couple of months, and I think I saw why tonight. He really doesn't have much of his own to say.

Edwards, the North Carolinian, may have seemed like a smart choice for Kerry a few months ago, though I'm not convinced the Dems will carry a single Southern state. (Is Florida officially Southern?) But in terms of knowledge, grasp, expertise and experience, Cheney is clearly the winner in this debate. If I came in knowing nothing, I could only support Edwards on style over substance. I came in knowing more, though, and I still believe in the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Debate in progress, #4

Edwards was smart to bring up 2-cent-screw victim Valerie Lakey. (That sounds like an absolutely gruesome incident, by the way.) Fortunately, he did not say he was going to love her as best he could.

The entire healthcare question was essentially stolen by both candidates' digression, forcing Edwards to return to it during the AIDS discussion. He seemed to know almost nothing about AIDS. Cheney somehow managed to win AIDS; wish we'd heard more about healthcare.

Cheney's bit on tort reform was unwise, although I'm not sure people will feel that the high cost to factory operators of liability insurance is more troubling than the potentially dire situation of the workers who would lose that insurance. I'm afraid he may have lost some votes there.

Cheney not-so-subtly accused Edwards of political opportunism when he said that he (Cheney) would make decisions without worrying about their effect on his career. Edwards didn't really even address specific differences between him and Cheney when the question was posed, merely opting for a broad-brush reiteration of the same old stuff. Cheney punted the clock for the third time.

Twins/Yanks

Jacque Jones is playing ball hours after burying his dad, and he just homered off Mike Mussina. Wow.

Debate in progress, #3

Tax policy was a draw: a simple articulation of liberal and conservative ideas, essentially, with neither candidate adding anything new. Edwards was warmer on gay marriage, if compromising, and probably won over swing voters by calling it a political football, while Cheney seemed like the distant, un-emotional dad that people spend thousands of dollars in therapy to get over. Cheney just punted on 30 seconds for the second time. I think Edwards is beginning to save himself.

Also, Cheney needs to pin his microphone about three inches higher.

C-SPAN rocks.

Debate in progress, #2

Cheney nearly killed Edwards by saying he'd never met him on the Senate floor. That's the closest we've come to a "you're no Jack Kennedy" moment. To his credit, Edwards hit back with by mentioning Cheney's record on the MLK holiday, Mandela, Meals on Wheels and HeadStart, which is about as well as he could have done.

This followed further Halliburton discussion, which merely provoked Cheney. At the very least, Cheney is coming off as a crochety asshole on heart medication, even if Edwards looks like he's in over his head. But Cheney's still taking this one to the house. Here comes the domestic stuff....

Debate in progress

Sad to say, Cheney is winning in a walk. Edwards is merely reiterating Kerry's remarks from last Thursday, and in fact parroting his actual verbiage. Cheney, by contrast, is able to say what Bush could not articulate. Right or wrong (read: wrong), Cheney's world view is coming through loudly and clearly, and Edwards is showing little besides his ability to stick to the script. Cheney has gotten in a number of sharp blows -- specifically about Edwards not showing up for a key vote and failing to count Iraqi casualties -- which Edwards has been completely unable to counter.

Edwards should say "Halliburton" more (he's done it once so far, and Cheney didn't respond) and hope they move onto healthcare and jobs sometime soon. Otherwise he's toast.

Hope the viewership is lower than the Presidential candidates' debate -- either because nobody cares about the Vices or because people love the Yankees.