Hick on a High Wire: The Sarah Palin of Game Change

By the time [Governor Palin] went on Saturday Night Live, the definitional war over her had ended. She retained the ardor and loyalty of her fans, who continued to turn out for her, root for her, and defend her. But in the eyes of the broader public—and even more so those of the national media and political establishments—any traces of her image as a maverick reformer had been erased. For them, Palin had been reduced to nothing more than a hick on a high wire.
--Game Change, p. 410-11

Ms. Zsa Zsa Gabor. Given the subject
of this rant, it's only natural that the
photos feature non-hicks on high
wires. Sort of.

Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime, Mr. John Heilemann and Mr. Mark Halperin’s book on the 2008 US presidential election descended on the nation by storm. With more than a few (but not quite “many”) juicy tidbits, and a breathless roll out by Mr. Anderson Cooper and 60 Minutesfeaturing a visibly angry Mr. Steve Schmidt,Game Change promised (almost) to be (pretty much) one of the last words on campaign 2008. Maybe not The Making of the President 2008 that Mr. Theodore H. White would have written, were Mr. White still writing those books—but close.

But is it? Well—depends. For anyone who has a decent life and a significant other, Game Changeis good enough. But for the obsessive-compulsive who are entering their second presidential administration sans girlfriend (cough cough), Game Change really could have used another hundred pages or so. Just my personal opinion, based on The Battle for America 2008by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson, Going Rogue by Sarah Palin--and lots of episodes of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

What’s right about Game Change? The Dirt, Baby!

Game Change has more juicy stories than Balz & Johnson’s Battle for America—but not a lot more. For example:

Senator Harry Reid v. Senator Trent Lott

The story that’s gotten the widest ranging press was the racially insensitive quote attributed to Nevada Senator Harry Reid. While Senator Reid publicly insisted he played no role in encouraging Senator Obama to run for the Presidency, Game Change reports “[Senator Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama—a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately.” (p. 36)

When Governor Palin appeared on Mr. Bill O’Reilly’s program, both of them were 1) rending their garments over the horror of it all, 2) Shocked SHOCKED that Senator Reid appeared to be getting a pass on this, and 3) those statements were “just as bad” as the statements that then Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) said—but Senator Lott was “forced” to resign his leadership positions. Here’s the clip:



Conspicuous by its absence is any specificity of just what it was that got Senator Lott into so much trouble. For those of you who don’t remember so good, did Senator Lott say the word “negro” or mention anything about dialect? To be fair: no, Senator Lott did not. To be more fair, though, the occasion was Senator Strom Thurmond’s 100 birthday, during a quasi-public gala celebration of the milestone. The tributes and praising of the South Carolina scion were flowing freely, and Senator Lott (apparently caught up in the moment) said that it was just a crying shame that Strom Thurmond was not elected President in 1948—because if he HAD been President, we would have not have had all of “these problems” (unspecified). No doubt those of you who have significant others with whom you sleep with on occasion have been able to set aside any residual anger you feel about the 1948 U.S. Presidential election, and aren’t blowing gaskets at Senator Lott’s asinine statement. Let me help you.

Ms. Gina Lollobrigida. If you're going to
be talking about high wire non-hicks,
you KNOW you need to highlight the
best in the business.

The 1948 election was a wild four-way race, featuring incumbent Democratic President Harry Truman, Governor of New York Tom Dewey (with then California Governor Earl Warren as vice president) nominally the GOP candidate (but actually running on the “I’m not Harry Truman” ticket), former FDR Vice President Henry Wallace on the “Progressive Party” ticket, and South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond on the “States Rights Democratic Party” or Dixiecrats. What did the Dixiecrats want? It all started when the mayor of Minneapolis—a trouble maker named Hubert Humphrey--introduced a platform plank at the Democratic convention, supporting civil rights for African Americans: "The time has come for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!" was how Mayor Hubert put it. Apparently preferring to stay out of all that sunshine, Governor Thurmond led a walk out southern delegates from the Convention. Those delegates created a party dedicated to racial segregation and the Jim Crow laws which preserved the state governments that served as the model for the Nazi’s Nuremberg Laws. While Governor Thurmond did not win the Presidency, he did win 2.4% of the vote and carried four states (South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana).

The question becomes, Senator Lott, what exactly WERE “these problems” that an avowed racist President Thurmond would have guided our nation to avoid? If you guessed the trauma over the civil rights movements of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, culminating in the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and a battery of other civil rights’ legislation—you’d be wrong! Senator Lott later INSISTED what he MEANT was that a President Thurmond would have guided our great nation in such a way to avoid (also in a manner unspecified) the “problems” of President Clinton’s impeachment, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and pull my finger (Okay. I made up that last one). Sure…Uh huh….Whatever you say, big guy.

Private Citizen Palin: "Pot Calls Kettle
Anti-Black."

So, in handing out awards for “Open Mouth—Insert Foot,” Senator Reid’s private comments about skin tone and flexible “negro” dialects barely rate a mention—especially compared to Senator Lott’s lavish public praise for Amerika’s champion of South African styled apartheid.

In short, but for all the flapping at Fox News, the Senator Reid story is not even VAGUELY juicy.

So, What are the Juicy Stories from Game Change?

Here’s one:

“FUCK YOU! FUCK, FUCK, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck!!!”
McCain let out the stream of sharp epithets, both middle fingers raised and extended, barking in his wife’s face. He was angry; she had interrupted him. Cindy burst into tears, but, really, she should have been used to it by now.
Game Change, p. 279

Like anyone else who pays attention, I had heard references to Senator McCain’s “explosive” temper in general—but nothing specific. Game Change has a fistful of specifics. To be fair, the book mention several exchanges between Senator McCain and his wife Cindy that are sweet enough to make a person say “Awww……” (Well—I did, but I’m a softy), but still—eleven (count ‘em: eleven) shouted fucks in the face with a double one fingered salute to the Mrs.? Especially a Mrs. like Cindy McCain? That is not something that today’s hip hop happening groovy feminist cats from Nowsville would put up with—not even vaguely.

Ms. Betty Hutton. Second only to Ms.
Lollobrigida when it comes to the high
wire. Unfortunately, for reasons I am
unable to fathom, I am unable to find
any pictures where she does not look
slightly silly....

Here’s another one:

“The McCains fought in front of others, during small meetings and before large events, to the amazement and discomfort of the staff. Things could escalate quickly. She cursed him; he cursed her. She cried; he apologized. Cindy fought back, too. I never wanted you to run for this, she said. You ruined my life. It’s all about you. When it came time to film campaign videos of the couple, the camera crews had to roll for hours to capture a few minutes of warmth.” (Game Change, p. 280).

Or how about this one?

“At a scheduling meeting to discuss [daughter] Meghan’s college graduation, McCain learned that the commencement was a multiday affair that would require him to make several round trips to New York. ‘How many fucking times do I have to go to fucking New York this week?’ he yelled. ‘How many fucking times can you fucking graduate from fucking Columbia?’” (Game Change, p. 283).

For example.

All in all, Game Change details three aspects of Senator McCain that really surprised me. First, the many specific instances of crazy temper: “During a rehearsal for the first GOP debate in 2007, [McCain aide Brett] O’Donnell pressed [Senator McCain] on a question to the point where McCain finally snapped. ‘John, what is the difference between a gay marriage and a civil union?’ O’Donnell asked. McCain replied ‘I don’t give a fuck.’” (Game Change, p. 390). Second, I was familiar with the Senator McCain’s “suspension” of his campaign and flying to the Capitol crying “Here I come—To save the day!” (c.f. Underdog), but from the perspective of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Wall Street Bankers. At another time, I’ll go into detail (trust me—exhaustive detail) about the Great Economic Meltdown of September 2008. But I had no idea just how spectacularly unhelpful Senator McCain was. Game Change quotes Secretary Paulson’s chief of staff Mr. Jim Wilkinson saying “I’m a pro-life, pro-gun, Texas Republican. I worked all eight years for Bush. I helped sell the Iraq War. I was in the Florida recount. And I wrote a letter to John McCain asking for my five hundred contribution back, when he pulled that stunt and came back to D.C. Because it just wasn’t what a serious person does.” Mr. Wilkinson is then quoted as deciding he would be voting for Senator Obama, to Mr. Wilkinson’s “amazement.” (Game Change, p. 393).

What surprised me the most, though, was Senator McCain’s bizarre disorganization. Much more so than Senator Obama, Senator McCain had the luxury of long deadlines to make crucial decisions—but (according to Game Change) pointedly avoiding making decisions, until forced to do so. For example, Senator Obama didn’t secure the Democratic nomination until June third, when he won the Montana primary (to Senator Clinton’s South Dakota), and enough “superdelegates” decided to commit to Senator Obama. Nevertheless, by the first day of the Democratic National Convention on August 25, the Obama campaign had all their ducks in a row, especially vis-à-vis the vice presidency.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, first squandered his position as front runner prior to the campaign, so that by the end of 2007 was lagging badly behind Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Nevertheless, for a variety of good and bad reasons, on January 4 2008, Governor Romney stumbled badly in the Iowa Caucuses, losing to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Governor Romney never recovered, losing to Senator McCain in the January 8 New Hampshire primary. To the extent there was going to be any question who the 2008 GOP nominee would be, the January 19 South Carolina primary and the January 29 Florida primary would make or break the Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Thompson campaigns. Senator McCain won both primaries, thus facing only nominal opposition in the 24 primaries and caucuses that made Tuesday February 5 “Super.” After Super Tuesday, Senator McCain had won the GOP nomination.

Ms. Debra Paget. Remember her?
Me neither. But that is NOT the
smile of a hick, believe you me.

The point is, Senator McCain had a four month lead on Senator Obama to select a vice presidential candidate. Nevertheless, seven months after Senator McCain had sewed up the nomination, he was still dithering over choosing between Senator Lieberman, Florida Governor Charlie Christ, or Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. With the GOP convention on September 1, on August 27 the McCain campaign flies in a 44 year old Governor with twenty months of experience, from a state whose population is smaller than San Francisco. And a moron says “What?”

In both The Battle for America and Game Change, the sloppiness and rank idiocy behind selecting a vice president was emblematic of the McCain campaign, with the responsibility laying square on Senator McCain’s cranky shoulders.

Any Good Dirt on Sarah Palin?

I thought you’d never ask:

Following the August 27 meeting with Team McCain, where the VP is offered to Governor Palin and she accepts it, Governor Palin and McCain Campaign chief of staff Mr. Steve Schmidt are flying back to Alaska. Governor Palin is described as appearing “perfectly serene:”

“Five days earlier, this woman, for all her success in Alaska, had been living in relative obscurity, without the faintest inkling that she was being seriously considered to be McCain’s running mate. And yet here she was, totally unruffled, utterly unflustered, not even terribly excited.
‘You seem very calm, not nervous,’ Schmidt said to her quizzically.
Palin nodded and replied ‘It’s God’s plan.’
(Game Change, p. 364)

In Going Rogue, Governor Palin also makes numerous references to the hand of “God” reaching out, and how the will of Providence took an active role in bringing the Governor to the national stage. Unfortunately, no one asks what I want to know: Was that also God’s will that Governor Palin look like a moron in her interview with Katie Couric? (God and that wacky sense of humour of His!) Was it also part of “God’s Plan” that Governor Palin be selected as Senator McCain’s running mate, with the two of them go on to be badly spanked in the November election, and then Governor Palin would find herself so unable to govern a one of the smallest states, and then resign in virtual disgrace? Now that’s one Mysterious Way….

Ms. Claudia Cardinale. Not necessarily
known for her high wires, she is by any
measure not a hick.

Here’s another one: Prior to the GOP convention, ABC News’s Charlie Gibson asked Senator McCain about Governor Palin:

“‘Can you look the country straight in the eye and say that Sarah Palin has the qualities and has enough experience to be commander in chief?’
‘Oh absolutely,’ McCain said—and then cited Palin’s largely ceremonial role as commander of the Alaska National Guard, an argument his own campaign had rejected as ludicrous.”
(Game Change, p. 368).

More? On Tuesday, the day before Governor Palin was to make her GOP Convention speech, the scene in Governor Palin’s hotel suite is described as follows:

“Boxes of Manolo Blahniks were piled up four feet high and stretching twenty feet along one wall of the living room. Neiman Marcus bags were everywhere, along with several rolling garment racks loaded with suits and dresses—maybe sixty outfits.”
(Game Change, p. 369).

The beginning of the scandal known as “Clothes-gate” to the cognoscenti (that sounds better than “loser nerds”). But what does Governor Palin say about Clothes-gate?

“The first wardrobe story hit on October 22: ‘RNC Shells Out $150K for Palin Fashion.’ The headline was highly misleading, as was the article itself, which said according to campaign finance disclosures, the McCain Campaign had spent $150,000 ‘to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family.’
“I never asked the New York stylists to purchase clothes, many of the items were intended for the use of other people, and in the end the wardrobe items were all returned.”
(Going Rogue, p. 314).

Ms. Joan Collins. Before Dynasty, she
had to do SOMETHING to bring home
the bacon...I suppose.

(“Returned” where? Back to Neiman Marcus? Doubtful. Game Change also describes how Governor Palin’s suite also included a seamstress, who was working steadily altering and tailoring outfits, specifically for Governor Palin).

Governor Palin continues:

“My family is frugal. We clip coupons. We shop at Costco. We buy diapers in bulk and generic peanut butter. . .So the portrayal of my family wasting other people’s money on clothes was a false one. And many wondered at the same time why no other candidates or their spouses were being asked a thing about their hair, make up, or clothes.
“Elizabeth Hasselbeck had a theory . . . 'Now, with everything going on in the world, this seems a bit odd,' Hasselbeck said from the podium before a crowd of thousands. 'But let me tell you, this is deliberately sexist.'"
(Going Rogue, p. 325).

(And here I thought it was part of Jehovah’s Master Plan that campaign finance disclosures listing expenses of $150K for a vice presidential candidate and her family are newsworthy. Apparently, God’s a bit of fuck up).

“’I’m glad Elizabeth brought it up because it gives me an opportunity without the filter of the media to tell you the whole clothes thing,’ I told the cheering crowd. “Those clothes are not my property. Just like the lighting and staging and like everything else the RNC purchases. I’m not taking them with me. I’m wearing my own clothes from my favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska.’ There, simple, it was over, and it was truthful.
“Word quickly came back from headquarters that I’d done it again—I’d gone rogue. What I had actually done was speak up to defend my ethics and my family, but still, the hammer came down.
“. . . [T]he campaign folks, especially those who had vetted and chosen me, also knew the truth. But as the story grew legs, they didn’t lift a finger to correct the record. I couldn’t understand why until I realized that by the end of the campaign, the wardrobe fairy tale [sic] had become convenient.”
(Going Rogue, p. 317).

What? Don’t all candidates announce that the campaign’s mandatory financial disclosure statements are a pack of lies?

As I write this, MSNBC’s request for e-mails from Governor Palin’s office shows (among other things) that the frugal Palins not only charged Alaska to purchase and set up a tanning bed in the Governor’s mansion, the Palins tried to hide the fact by “disguising” the electric bills for the mansion. Maybe then Governor Palin was billing the State for her tanning bed, so she could afford to buy name brand peanut butter.

Ms. Joan Leslie. What? Who says you
can't swing in four inch heels?

But is Governor Palin that Stupid?

“. . . Schmidt, Wallace, and other members of [Governor Palin’s] traveling party . . . found that, although, she’d made some progress with her memorization and studies, her grasp of rudimentary facts and concepts was minimal. Palin couldn’t explain why North and South Korea were separate nations. She didn’t know what the Fed did. Asked who attacked America on 9/11, she suggested several times that it was Saddam Hussein. Asked to identify the enemy that her son would be fighting in Iraq, she drew a blank.”
(Game Change, p. 397).

Well…..yeah. On 60 Minutes, Steve Schmidt also said (which is not mentioned in Game Change) that Governor Palin did not know Africa was a continent, as opposed to just one nation. In her chats with Bill O’Reilly, Governor Palin hotly denied that she didn’t know about the two Koreas, and insisted she knew all about Africa. However, she did admit that she knew as much as the “average American” knew about Iraq, so conceded that much was true. (Governor Palin also uses the same weaselly language in Going Rogue, about how she knows what “average Americans” know, and countless times brags on her “common sense conservatism” and “common sense solutions.”)

But how ignorant is Governor Palin? In Game Change, McCain chief of staff Steve Schmidt assigns Mr. Steve Biegun (who is not mentioned in Going Rogue) and Randy Scheunemann to tutor Governor Palin. “You guys have got a lot of work to do…She doesn’t know anything,” Schmidt is quoted as saying. Game Change continues:

“Scheunemann and Biegun took Schmidt at his word. They sat Palin down at a table in the suite, spread out a map of the world, and proceeded to give her a potted history of foreign policy. They stated with the Spanish Civil War, then moved on to World War I, World War II, the cold war, and what Scheunemann liked to call the “the [sic] three wars” of today—Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terror.”
(Game Change, p. 370-71)

Brief interjection: Now, weirdos like me honestly DO think the Spanish Civil War was damn important—but to start there? I think the Game Change editors/proofreaders whiffed on that one, with Palin’s tutors beginning with the Spanish-American Warinstead of the 1936 Civil War.

Here's what Sarah Palin said about Mr. Schmidt to Mr. Bill O'Reilly:



Be that as it may, the question remains: is Sarah Palin smarter than the average bear? Probably—but I do know that for someone who aspires to be a political player on the national state, Sarah Palin’s intellectual capacity is abysmal. Here’s why I think so:

Ms. Gina Lollobrigida. I could hear
rumblings from the peanut gallery that
a swing was not a high wire, so I better
slip in another Ms. Lollobrigida. Happy?

First, Sarah Palin has a Bachelors in “communications,” attended five (count ‘em: five) different colleges, and took ONE class in economics (“Macroeconomics,” she says in Going Rogue), where she scored a D. Now, none of those things in themselves spell “idiot,” but that’s a whole lot of “idiot” smoke.

Second, Going Rogue is wall to wall generalities about “common sense” and what the “average American” thinks, and nothing more specific than that. Those are also huge red flags.

Third, looking at the specific allegations of idiocy from Game Change and Mr. Schmidt’s 60 Minutesappearance, the fact Governor Palin doesn’t understand the concepts on that list is not terribly surprising. Beginning with the “two Koreas,” I am sure that Governor Palin knows the name Kim Jong Ill, and that North Korea is “communist” and South Korea is “free”—but not anything more than that. The Korean War, Syngman Rhee, Kim Il Sung, and the 38th Parallel probably mean less than nothing to her—even if she has watched a whole bunch of Alan Alda on MASH.

As for not knowing what the Federal Reserve does—I can see how the vagaries of our nation’s money supply is probably a closed book to most Americans (and probably Governor Palin as well). There’s not one word about the banking system in Going Rogue, and her platitudes regarding the 2008 credit crisis are mealy mouthed and nonsensical in the extreme. Still—I don’t think it’s too much to expect the Governor of Alaska (and the mayors of San Francisco and all cities larger than The City) to know SOMETHING about the banking industry. I mean, doesn’t anyone issue government bonds in Alaska?

Not Saddam Hussein. But also not a
key architect of the 9/11 attacks.

As for the 9/11 terror attacks, despite the best efforts of President Bush, Condeleeza Rice, and Dick Cheney, if you think any of the following were connected to the sky jackings, you are an embarrassment to the genus primate: Saddam Hussein, Iran, North Korea, Vladimir Putin, orBooberella. So, considering that Private Citizen Palin admits she thought Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks puts her square in the the “idiot” box. Moreover, the fact Governor Palin’s SON was shipping over to Iraq, the fact she did not know the difference between Shiite and Sunni (and probably Iran and Iraq as well) is disgraceful.

Moving on to the “Africa” story, several of Private Citizen Palin’s defenders insist that the Private Citizen knew all about Africa, from the missionary work her church did, as well as collections to combat AIDS. My personal opinion: most Americans don’t know squat about Africa, and Sarah Palin would have no reason to be any different. On the one hand, I think Mr. Schmidt may be overstating the case when he said that Private Citizen Palin didn’t understand that Africa consisted of several different countries. But on the other, I would bet money that prior to her special tutorials, Private Citizen Palin could not have named five African nations.

Again, is Sarah Palin an idiot? Yes—in the sense that she doesn’t even know the limits of her own ignorance, and views the degree to that she’s uninformed as a strength. That point is stressed in Game Change, The Battle for America, and even in Palin’s own Going Rogue.

But Are Ms. Palin’s Pants Really on Fire?

Big time, as Vice President Cheney would say:

“The first signs of trouble appeared immediately after the convention, when the campaign staff began digging in a systematic way into Palin’s background, and noticed that she had a tendency to shade the truth. Had she really said ‘thanks, but no thanks’ to the Bridge to Nowhere? Well, no. Had she really sold the state jet on eBay? Not exactly. Had she and Todd really been without health insurance until he got his union card? Actually, the story was more complicated…The campaign quickly discovered that consulting her about any issue…invariably yielded a sanitized version of reality.”
(Game Change, p. 396)

Battle for America presents almost an identical laundry list of occasions were Private Citizen Palin looked reality square in the eye, and denied it. Regarding the line in her stump speech about how Alaska said “Thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere, and how if Alaska wanted a bridge, they’d build it themselves—what was left unsaid was that Alaska still received the all the money, they were just not required to build a bridge with it. Palin told the campaign that she had “no recollection” of whether the town of Wasilla charged victims of sexual assault for rape kits and examinations. “McCain’s advisors could not believe that” (Battle for America, p. 359).

Ms. Gene Tierney. Just because
someone has you dress like an
idiot, that does not make you a
hick. It does not hurt if you
also happen to look like Ms.
Tierney.

Both Game Change and Battle quote the McCain campaign as surprised and embarrassed when the final report came out regarding “Troopergate” (when then Governor Palin pressured (and ultimately fired) Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire a state trooper who was also Palin’s ex-brother in law. Governor Palin immediately claimed the report wholly vindicated her, when it did nothing of the sort. Even in Going Rogue, Private Citizen Palin fuzzes over what the report actually said: “The ‘independent’ investigator ultimately issued a strained and nonsensical decision in October that actually declared that I had been well within my legal rights to reassign Commissioner Monegan” (Rogue, P. 369).

And then there’s the story about the Alaska Independence Party:

“…Palin got into a fight with Schmidt when she insisted that the campaign put out a statement denying Todd’s involvement in the Alaskan Independence Party. Palin contended that Todd had mistakenly registered with the party and rectified the error; she also claimed that the party had nothing to do with secession. Schmidt curtly informed her that secession was the party’s reason for existence and that, according to the party’s records, Todd had been a member for seven years” (Game Change, p. 410).

Or as Palin puts it in Going Rogue: “My husband, for example, isn’t registered with any party, for sound reasons, having been an eyewitness to the idiosyncrasies of party machines” (Rogue, p. 384). Sure. And how about this one? “Piper Indi Grace was born March 19 [2001], a Monday. Todd flies a Piper plane, but I just liked the name. ‘Indi’ for ‘Independence’ (though the Indy 500 is pretty cool too)…” (Rogue, p. 76). Right—Your daughter is named “Indi” because of a motor race in Indiana, and not because Todd was active in the Alaska Independence Party at that time.

But Private Citizen Palin gets right to the heart of the problem: "It was one lie after another--from rape kits to Bridges to Nowhere. All easy enough to disprove if the press had done its job" (Rogue, p. 237). See? The problem was not Ms. Palin; the problem was the mainstream media's bad habit of pointing out discrepancies. It's a running theme in Going Rogue that it's the media's job to make Ms. Palin look good--not that it's Ms. Palin's job to make herself look competent in front of the media.

Rest assured, not only are Ms. Palin’s pants on fire, she is also hanging from the proverbial telephone wire.

What Does Game Change Miss?

What Game Change (and to a lesser extent, Battle for America) misses out on are three areas: the Democratic Convention, the GOP Convention, and Private Citizen Palin’s performance in her debate.

Democratic Convention

Given that the last time a political convention actually meant something was the Democrats in 1960, where there really was a question as to who would be nominated, I’ll concede that it is difficult to stage a convention that is worth a damn. Perhaps because there wasn’t a “convention bounce” in the popularity polls, the size and substance of the 2008 Democratic Convention does not get the play it rates. Nevertheless, that convention was a replay of the Iowa Caucuses, meaning that it was going to be bad news to be a Republican in 2008. While a respectable 119,188 people showed up for Iowa’s GOP caucuses, that number was dwarfed by the 239,000 odd people who attended the Democratic Caucuses. If the Republicans were going to hang on to the White House, Iowa was a state they’d need—and the numerical disparity of caucus attendance was not a good sign.

Ms. Adele Jergens. Just because you
have a really big hat, that does not
make you a hick.

Similarly, the numbers attending the Democratic convention in Denver were huge. Not only was the convention hall filled, but when then Senator Obama gave his acceptance speech, he gave it before a filled Mile High Stadium. That’s a whole lotta people committed to go work in the so-called swing states. Additionally, sharing the stage with Senator Obama were a large number of military men, all of whom endorsing Senator Obama’s ability to be commander in chief. While the McCain campaign certainly tired, they wouldn’t get any traction over the fact that Senator McCain was a former POW in Vietnam, and Senator Obama had never served in the military. At any given time, Senator Obama had more (and higher ranking) military officers endorsing his candidacy that did Senator McCain.

Just seeing the size and scope of the Democrats at their convention meant they were going to be a formidable force in the election, regardless of the immediate polls.

GOP Convention

While this isn’t really the time for me to go into a rant about how the GOP’s 2004 Convention was the sleaziest in recent memory, there’s no question (well, in my mind) that the GOP’s 2008 Convention was the saddest. The Bush-Cheney team had set new records (the bad kind) in popularity, such that none of the (at one time) fourteen GOP contenders ran as a member of the incumbent party. Every one of them (Governor Romney especially) were running on a platform of “change.”

When it came time for the convention in Minneapolis, candidates stayed away in droves. From the Pacific Northwest, both Oregon incumbent GOP Senator Gordon Smith and Dino Rossi, Washington GOP challenger to Governor Gregoire both claimed “scheduling conflicts” prevented them from attending any part of the convention (both went on to lose their respective races anyway). The only candidate in a close race who played a significant role was Senator Tim Palwenty, host of the convention (who also went on to lose his seat).

During the convention itself, the GOP lighting people set bright lights on the small number of people on the main floor, leaving the bulk of the hall in darkness—all in an effort to disguise the small turnout. The sitting President made a brief statement via camera, and other than that, his name was not mentioned. Ostensively, both the President and Vice President’s speeches, which were scheduled on the opening day of the convention, were nixed because of an approaching hurricane—and could not be rescheduled. Given the number of hicks and dips who didn’t hold elected office but nevertheless spoke at the convention, the fact that a two-term sitting President couldn’t be wedged in is a little suspicious…..

All in all, the 2008 GOP Convention was a convention without either a message or an audience.

Ms. Adele Jergens. Okay--Admittedly,
sitting on a pile of hay, chewing on a
piece of straw is pretty hick-like. But
not if you're also wearing heels.

The Vice Presidential Debate

What all parties make clear (even Ms. Palin herself in Going Rogue), by the time the vice presidential debate rolled around, expectations for Governor Palin couldn’t be lower if she were a third grader—as opposed to someone sitting a heartbeat from the Presidency. Nevertheless, the pressure was on Biden not to be condescending or rude regarding what was sure to be a streams of Palin-style idiocy.

“The debate went well—from my perspective, anyway,” is how Ms. Palin puts it (Rogue, p. 297), once again invoking the immortal Ronald Reagan quote about how we don’t pass “freedom” on to our children: “We have to fight for it and protect it and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we’re going to find ourselves spending out sunset years telling our children and our children’s children about a time in America back in the day when men and women were free.”
“That’s what I wanted Americans to remember,” Ms. Palin concludes (Rogue, p. 297). What Ms. Palin DOESN’T want America to remember is that when Ronald Reagan made that speech, the programs that were going to destroy freedom for his children, and their children’s children were Medicare and Medicaid. So, is Ms. Palin calling for a repeal of Medicare and Medicaid? Oddly, she doesn’t say.

There are two points that infuriate me about that debate. First, the fact that Ms. Palin largely received a “pass” as to whether she would answer a given question. Several times, Ms. Palin gave a series of non-responsive platitudes instead of answering a question—and then she flat out SAID that she very well might not answer the question the moderator asked. At that point, it’s the role of the moderator to call the rogue (to coin a phrase) participant to task. Unfortunately, Moderator Gwen Ifil might have felt she was hamstrung, because the McCain Campaign had questioned Ms. Ifil’s integrity, because she was writing a book on African American politicians (including Barak Obama).

Nevertheless, if any other candidate at any time deigned to declare it was within the candidate’s sole discretion to answer any question, that campaign would be over before the debate was finished. But not Sarah Palin: “Well, she’s pretty stupid—so we’ll let her pick and choose which questions fit best with her memorized platitudes.”

The second point that angered me beyond the power for rational thought was Ms. Palin’s persistent winking during the debate. At first, I thought I was seeing things—but she did it several times. What is THAT supposed to mean? Is she being cute? Who is she supposed to be winking at? What the hell was the point of that? What if Mitt Romney or Chris Dodd winked while they debated? I don't even want to think about it......

In conclusion, I thought Game Change was weak on the conventions, and gave Ms. Palin a pass on her “performance” in the debate.

Ms. Ginger Rogers. I chose this photo to show that she didn't HAVE to do everything in heels and backwards....

So—Where is Governor Palin Headed?

Not a regular gig on Fox News

Say what you want about Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Bill O’Reilly et al, but not just any idiot can wander in off the street and do their job. Sarah Palin just does not have the intellectual depth to be a talking head. She couldn’t even be one of the flock of idiots on Fox & Friends. For example, when Glen Beck asked Private Citizen Palin who her favorite “founding father” was, she gave the deer in headlights flash, and then spit out “George Washington.” Not to dis on the “Father” of our country, but if Washington is your “favorite,” then you’ve got an excellent malpractice suit against your high school history teacher.

During her brief sojourn with Bill O’Reilly, virtually all of Governor Palin’s comments were “uh huh” and platitudes about “common sense solutions” (and not anything more specific than that). She couldn’t hold up her end of the conversation, something that both Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly agreed on:



Another position in electoral politics?

Forget it. If you can’t be Mayor of Alaska (there’s not enough people who live there to support a “governor”) because of (literally) a handful of ethics complaints, you can’t do anything else. That’s the easiest ride out there. Moreover, if your idea of “unfair, got ya” questions are the softballs Katie Couric handed Governor Palin, what would she do with all the Helen Thomas wannabes?

A missionary position?--Wait, that didn't come out right

Governor Palin is positioning herself to take over some large evangelical foundation—like Focus on the Family, founded by James Dobson. One of my favorite Alaska bloggers, The Immoral Minority, first suggested that career path, and it makes sense. What is Sarah Palin good at? Reciting crap that she’s memorized by rote. She can’t think on her feet, because of too shallow of an intellectual base and too jumpy of a personality. Heading up a group like Focus on the Family allows her to work with a variety of ghostwriters, the luxury of never having to move off a set stump speech, plus you make lots of money. Beats working.

How Sure are You that Governor Palin’s Political Career is Over?

Pretty sure:

“In late October [2008], Obama’s focus group maestro, David Binder, was conducting a session with a group of swing voters in a Cleveland suburb. A middle aged woman let loose with a string of not-unfamiliar broadsides against Obama. He’s a Muslim. He’s soft on terrorism—because he’s a Muslim. He doesn’t put his hand on his heart during patriotic rituals. We’re not even sure he was born in this country.
“Binder was confused. This was supposed to be a group of undecided voters. If you think all those terrible things about Obama, he asked the woman, how can you possibly be undecided?
“Because if McCain dies, Palin would be president, she said.”
(Game Change, p. 416)

Ms. Laraine Day. Ms. Day is a graduate of the Sarah Palin Correspondence School of Debate.

Books cited in this note:

Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin (Harper 2010)
The Battle for America 2008: The Story of an Extraordinary Election, by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson (Viking 2009)
Going Rogue: An American Life, by Sarah Palin (Harper 2009)

Heroes, Then & Now: The Twin Sagas of John McCain and William Ayers

There’s something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say "Be non-violent toward [Selma, Alabama segregationist sheriff] Jim Clark," but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children."
--Martin Luther King, Jr. 'Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"

The more important the rule, the greater is the likelihood that knowledge is based on avoided tests.
--American Sociologist Harold Garfinkel, “Studies in Ethnomethodology”

Thanks to the McCain-Palin campaign, Bill Ayers has more name recognition today as a former bomber, than he ever had back in the day when he actually was conspiring to plant bombs. Just why Mr. Ayers felt compelled to plant bombs forty years ago, however, is a question left unasked. Likewise, no one feels particularly compelled today to ask John McCain what exactly did the senior senator from Arizona do during the Vietnam War. The agreed upon consensus is that the former was a “terrorist,” while the latter was a “hero.” Everybody knows that.

Which I find troublesome, and not just because the kindler gentler race mobs that pass for Governor Palin’s political rallies also “know” that Senator Obama is the Manchurian Candidate Muslim prophesized in the Revelation of St. John as the communistic socialist Anti-Christ--after all, there’s no denying his people killed Christ.

So, why is William Ayers a “terrorist,” while Senator McCain a “war hero”? Unfortunately, even at first glance, the clear answer starts to blur. Bill Ayers and the loose confederation that made up Weather Underground were a self-anointed American wing of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front, or Vietcong. Consequently, they were on a mission from god (so to speak) to place raggedy, homemade bombs in “military targets,” to help discourage America from bombing Vietnam. So far so good: he's a terrorist.

But why was America in general, and John McCain in particular, bombing Vietnam?

Just what exactly makes Senator John McCain's combat experience "heroic"? How should--or even could--you explain how John McCain was 'fighting for his country' in Vietnam? Why isn’t Senator McCain a terrorist, not entirely dissimilar from the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center Buildings and the Pentagon? And if there are no good answers to those questions, then why isn’t Bill Ayers a hero, for putting his life and liberty at risk, in a futile (if not silly) effort to stop an activity most of the world considered (both then and now) a crime against humanity?

The Vietnam War

These facts are not in dispute. During the Second World War, several Vietnamese nationalist groups formed the Viet Minh, under the nominal leadership of Ho Chi Minh, to fight Japanese occupation. After Japan was defeated, the Vietnamese expected they would be granted their independence, in recognition for their contributions to the Allied war effort. France, however, refused to give up its holdings in Indochina. The Viet Minh, having trained from fighting the Japanese, began fighting the French. In 1954, a peace conference was held in Geneva, involving France, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (what eventually became North Vietnam), Laos, the Peoples' Republic of China, State of Vietnam (South Vietnam), the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom. The United States had been supporting France's efforts to preserve colonial rule, even aiding the newly created Vietnamese National Army to combat the Viet Minh. However, the United States refused to participate in or even recognize the Geneva peace conference.

On April 27 1954, the conference produced the Geneva Accords: Vietnam was nominally given its independence, and the country partitioned into northern and southern zones. The Accord also provided that Vietnam would be unified, following internationally supervised free elections in July 1956.

In 1955, elections (as such) were held in South Vietnam, with Emperor Bao Dai running on a platform to restore the monarchy, opposed by Ngo Dinh Diem, who vowed to create some unspecified form of republican government. Diem, though, did have a base of support in Vietnam's Catholic minority, as opposed to the Buddhist majority. Additionally, Diem had the backing of the Americans, as well as control over the existing governmental apparatus in the South (such as it was). Even though Diem would have been elected president under any semblance of a free election, he preferred to be 'elected' by 98.2% of the vote, including winning 133% of the registered voters in Saigon.

As the date for the July 1956 elections drew near, it was clear that Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh would win by a substantial margin in every part of Vietnam. Rather than face certain defeat, President Diem and his American backers withdrew from the elections, claiming that the Republic of Vietnam had not been part of the Accords, and therefore was not bound by them.

South Vietnam under the rule of President Diem and his extended family quickly devolved into a morass of incompetence and corruption. By December 1960, disparate South Vietnamese groups of communists, nationalists, and people generally opposed to President Diem formed the National Liberation Front (Vietcong), to fight the autocratic rule of the Diem family. Most of the fighting of the 'Vietnam War' prior to 1968 was between Southerners: the Vietcong versus the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). That changed, however, following February and March of 1968, when the entire nation of South Vietnam exploded in combat during the Tet Offensive. In putting down the Tet Offensive, significant numbers of Vietcong soldiers and cadre were killed, leaving the Vietcong virtually destroyed as a fighting and political force. Only after Tet did the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) start sending large numbers of soldiers into South Vietnam to continue the war against escalating numbers of American troops and an increasingly ineffective ARVN. An excellent book on Tet and its aftermath is Ronald H. Spector's “After Tet, The Bloodiest Year in Vietnam” (Free Press, 1993).

With that background in mind, here are the circumstances of Senator McCain's combat experience. On October 26 1967, Senator McCain was flying his twenty-third bombing mission, bombing Hanoi. His plane was a A-4E Skyhawk, which carried 9,900 pounds of bombs and four missiles. His plane was shot down by a Vietnamese missile, and he was badly injured when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi. He was pulled ashore, then badly beaten. Senator McCain was then placed in a POW camp, where he was badly treated, frequently tortured, and released five and a half years later, on March 14 1973. Almost two years later to the day, in April 1975, the South Vietnamese Government collapsed, with the debacle of US helicopters desperately airlifting refugees from the roof of the American embassy. Seventeen years of war had ended, and ended for less than nothing.

Had the United States honored the Geneva Accords, and allowed the July 1956 elections, Vietnam would have been united--but united under a system that would have had to recognize the pluralistic nature of its society. By 1975, much of the Vietcong as a governing body had been killed, and no opposition remained in the North. The totalitarian communist nightmare predicted by the west came true--but only after another generation of Vietnamese lost to war.

Senator McCain’s Sacrifice was of No Help to Vietnam . . .

How did Senator McCain’s war service benefit the Vietnamese people? And what were the American interests Senator McCain was fighting for in Southeast Asia?

There is no dispute that American military involvement in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia was nothing less than an unmitigated nightmare in the lives of those peoples. During America's involvement in Vietnam, North Vietnam was one of the world's poorest countries. Nevertheless, the world's most powerful nation dropped more bombs in tonnage on an area the size of New Jersey, than were dropped in the entire European theater during the Second World War. That level of bombardment does not even include the napalm, the Agent Orange and other defoliants, or the 'anti-personnel' weapons that were dropped. If you are interested in more information, I recommend “Hearts and Minds,” the 1974 documentary by Peter Davis. Specific to Senator McCain’s role, Senator McCain’s twenty-four bombing missions were aimed at civilian targets, because there were no targets in Hanoi that could be defined as “military.” From the perspective of radical Islamists and the third world (as well as the Americans selecting ‘military targets’ to bomb in Baghdad, Belgrade, and Afghanistan) the World Trade Center was a much clearer military target than anything 1967 Hanoi had to offer.

Nor can it be argued that Senator McCain was bombing North Vietnam to help preserve “democracy” in South Vietnam. Presidents Diem and Thieu, as well as the circus of incompetent Generals who seized and lost power in South Vietnam, did not even pretend to build any semblance of a representative democracy, or even a government that existed for any purpose other than to enrich the current ruling clique.

Therefore, Senator McCain's military service cannot be considered heroic, in the sense he was helping the Vietnamese people.

. . . Nor Did Senator McCain’s Service Support Any American Interest

So, if Senator McCain's bombing of Hanoi was not assisting the Vietnamese people, then what American interests were advanced by his service? The short answer is “none.” In 1967, the rationale for American involvement was to prevent Mao Zedong's China from establishing domination in southeast Asia. Ho Chi Minh and the North Vietnamese were seen by the West as puppets, under the complete direction of China. Even at the time, that view was ridiculous, and acceptable only to people wholly uninformed about the history of the Chinese and Vietnamese peoples. But from the perspective of 2008, the 'Mao's Puppet' rational is even more absurd. While China gave Vietnam military supplies during the long war with the French and the Americans, the two nations always had--at best--an uneasy relationship. When China and the Soviet Union began competing for power and influence in the Socialist world, Vietnam was always closer to Moscow than Beijing. Later, China actively supported the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, while the Khmer Rouge maintained an on-going border war with Vietnam. After Vietnam invaded Cambodia in late 1978, driving the Khmer Rouge out of the capital of Phnom Penh, China invaded Vietnam. The two nations fought a bloody, month long border war, after which both sides claimed victory—probably because there was ample evidence to show how both sides had lost.

So, to say that Senator McCain's service in Vietnam was 'heroic,' because he fighting against China's domination of Vietnam--the 1960s era rationale—that is simply wrong. Additionally, no one--not even in the 1960s--honestly considered the Viet Minh a military threat to America, so Senator McCain was not 'protecting' America from anything.

Certainly, Senator McCain's actions as a POW were admirable--particularly his refusal to be repatriated until all POWs were released. But to say that his actions in bombing Hanoi were 'fighting for his country' is (at best) a distortion of history. Senator McCain, as I would argue were all Vietnam Veterans, was lied to and badly used by his government. Both he and the Vietnamese people deserved better.

So—John McCain v. Bill Ayers: Who’s the Hero?

Not John McCain. But because I live in Oregon USA, not Bill Ayers either. By the close of the 1960s, a clear majority of the country had turned against the Vietnam War, led in no small part to the truly heroic eloquence of Martin Luther King Jr. As a nation, we should be embarrassed that every school child is inundated with Dr. King’s 1961 speech from the March on Washington (“I have a Dream”), much less so his final “Mountain Top” address in Memphis 1968 (“I See the Promised Land”), and his 1967 speech at Riverside Church on the Vietnam War (“A Time to Break the Silence”) is largely ignored. Dr. King lost almost all his supply of political capital when he publicly opposed the Vietnam War, the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover seized that opportunity to escalate his private war against the civil rights leader.

But I have never lived in Hanoi. Or Hue. Or Khe Sanh. Or had my town torn up, and relocated to a prison camp called a "strategic hamlet." Or see my neighbors chopped into pieces from machine guns on a Bell Huey Helicopter or a Douglas AC-47. The now-obsolete technology on the latter could fire 300 rounds a minute, and the accompanying documentation bragged how it could "put a round in every square inch of football field in less than a minute." Would I feel the same way about the niceties of a republican democracy and non-violence on the other side of the planet, after Puff the Magic Dragon made a few passes down my block? Or seen a pregnant woman miscarry, after being poisoned by Agent Orange? Or a child with plastic shrapnel in his leg from an anti-personnel weapon--designed so that an x-ray will not locate the pieces under the skin? Michael Herr in "Dispatches" quotes a marine saying "Spooky understands." I am so fortunate in that I can choose not to understand. For my generation and those that followed, Phoenix is nothing more than a place where it gets too hot in the summer.

The Bourgeoisie Always Wins

Following the Presidential debate of Senators Obama and McCain, I am less than stunned than most cognoscenti score the debate as a draw, and the public scoring the bout with the candidate they support prevailing in a split decision. I, on the other hand, score debates differently. Under the 'Bill System,' I pretend that I am reading a blind transcript of the debate, to see if I can tell who's the bleeding heart tax & spend liberal and who's the corporate tool spend & spend conservative. The easy way to do this is listen to what a candidate says, and then imagine if the opponent could have said the same thing.

Moderator Jim Lehrer. His hobby is asking

questions that people ignore.

Honourable Mention for Mentioning of Honours--and Other Empty Gestures

Moderator Jim Lehrer, the forces of random probability and natural selection bless him, tried his hardest, but both candidates, like the oak growing by the river, they shall not be moved. When asked what changes their administrations would make following the $700 billion USD bail out of Wall Street (on top of $500 billion USD in guarantees to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $85 billion USD to AIG, and lots of massaging for the takeovers of Bear Sterns and Washington Mutual. Then there's the $560 billion USD (so far) in the Iraq war--all yet to be paid), both candidates took blood oaths to make sharp reductions in the Department of Unspecified Deadwood. Other than that, Senator Obama waxed eloquently on the importance of health care, education, development of alternative energy sources, and tax relief for families making less than $225,000 USD a year to pay for the high cost of energy (all excellent in points--had the question been about the high cost of energy, tax cuts for families making less than $225,000 USD a year, development of alternative energy sources, education, or even health care. But it wasn't.). Senator McCain made broad sweeping gestures with his pen, bragging on how he would use his veto super power against out of control spending (viewers watching with the sound off may have wondered why Mr. Lehr asked which candidate had the best impression of Zorro).

Senator McCain did offer one specific suggestion: an across the board spending freeze--except for military spending, entitlements, and veterans' benefits. That was the night's comic highpoint. After adding up the above mentioned federal hand outs, interest payments on the existing federal debt, 'entitlements,' and 'military spending,' a McCain administration might be left slashing the budget for Federal Allocation of Paperclips & Misc Paper Fasteners, Other Than Staples--but not much else.

Both candidates' responses were shameful, and frankly dishonest. Each candidate dusted off penny ante examples of how their personal intervention on some specific program saved some large sounding amount of money, that is actually peanuts compared to the budget numbers. Senator McCain dusted off his old saw about the $3 million USD the US Geological Survey allocated to study grizzly bear DNA, and

Ms. Ingrid Bergman. She was not present for the debate. But if she had, she would have been candid about how the Wall Street bail out would limit a Bergman Administration.

how he doesn't know if that's a paternity issue or a criminal issue. Ho ho ho (it's actually a 'paternity' issue, whether the bear should be covered by the endangered species act). That little ditty has been in Senator McCain's bag of tricks so long, he's probably spent more than $3 million just in the telling.

For individual voters and game shows, $3 million USD is lots of money. It's not. Even under the most conservative estimates, the United States spends $15 billion USD a month on the Iraq War. Assuming a thirty day month, $3 million will pay for just over eight and half minutes of the Iraq War. How big is the federal budget? On September 28 2008, the US Congress passed and sent to President Bush a budget of $634 billion USD, to fund the government for four months--through the end of January 2009--and that does not include payments for any of the above bail outs. For Senator McCain to repeatedly highlight a $3 million expense, as if that was the source of our budgetary woes, is ridiculous. If Senator McCain and his busy veto pen thinks nixing $3 million programs will balance the budget--well, he's going to need to find over 5,000 of them, just to pay for one month of a war that's been going on for over five years. On the other hand, if Senator McCain can eliminate a mere 187,000 programs at $3 million per--that would pay for the Iraq War!

In terms of differences between the candidates, Senator McCain insisted he would cut taxes more than Senator Obama, but was not specific regarding renewing President Bush's steep tax cuts for the top two percent of taxpayers. Senator Obama won some credibility by insisting that not EVERYONE could get a tax cut--but more than lost it by insisting that 95% of the population (his figure) COULD get a tax cut. Other than that, the candidates' platitudes on the economy were interchangeable.

Guess Who Supports This Issue--It's Easy and Fun!

A. Offshore Oil Drilling

Rather than repeat Mr. Thomas Friedman's arguments as to why Drill Baby Drill is not just mistaken, but idiotic, I urge you to read his columns at nytimes.com. Nevertheless, both candidates supported offshore oil drilling.

B. Nuclear Power

Senator McCain stressed how he was way more in favor of building nuclear reactors than Senator Obama, but for all of Senator Obama's half-hearted reservations, Senator Obama still supported more reactors. Senator Obama did express concern about where nuclear waste should be stored, mentioned the controversy over the proposed facility in Yucca Mountain Nevada. Senator McCain had no such reservations, but made no mention where waste should be stored.

Senator Barack Obama. He's not a Republican--but he frequently plays one on TV.

There are three problems with nuclear energy, and both candidates are well aware of them. First and foremost, there is no permanent storage facility for nuclear waste. The closest we have is a proposed storage site in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The enabling legislation to complete this facility is affectionately known as the 'Screw Nevada' bill. Residents of the Silver State remain skeptical this nuclear trash can will in fact safely store the most toxic substances on earth for the projected 10,000 years the waste will remain harmful, and that there is no danger in trucking waste from all over the lower 48 to southern Nevada. If Senator McCain is sincere is his strong implication that we need nuclear power now, and we cannot wait for a permanent facility, then he needs to do one of two things. Either he must endorse the Screw Nevada bill, and push for completion of Yucca Mountain; or he must say where else a facility should be built, what needs to be done to complete that facility, and how waste can be safely stored until completion. Senator McCain's unspecified assertion that we are already safely storing waste, or that 'we'll find a way' is disingenuous.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, hardly scores better. He gets no points for mentioning the Yucca Mountain controversy. He only mentioned it as a controversy, without taking a position. In fact, Senator Obama gets negative points by trying to have it both ways: he's solidly *for* nuclear power--but maybe he's *against* nuclear power (kind of), because there is no permanent storage facility.

The second problem with nuclear power is the tremendous start up costs. Nuclear reactors generate electricity the same way coal-fired reactors do. Both boil water, and the resulting steam spins a generator, and out pops electricity. The difference is in how the water is heated: the former uses heat from a nuclear reaction, while the latter burns coal. Regardless of how much water is boiled or electricity generated, no nuclear reactor has generated enough money to pay for the cost of its construction and operation (nevermind storage costs of waste). Neither a McCain nor Obama administration will be in a position to spread economic largess to build enough of these economic rat holes to make a difference in America's energy picture. However, Senator McCain gets a special markdown, for the ever popular and always irresponsible crowing of 'job creation'--as if building nuclear power plants were a New Deal era Works Progress Administration (WPA) project.

Finally, there is the problem of lost opportunity costs. Both candidates paid lip service to the holy grail of 'alternative energy sources' in the same wistful tones Ronald Coleman used to describe Shangri-la in Lost Horizon. But anything more specific than the obligatory invocation of 'wind, solar, geothermal, biodiesel, and other sources' would wait until another day. Looking at where the United States will get the best use out of its energy dollars, investments in those technologies and even mass transit would be far more effective than another nuclear reactor.

On the issue of energy, Senator McCain did win extra points for specifically opposing continued subsidies for ethanol production ('Go for Huckabee, will ya? Well, SCREW YOU Iowa!'). I don't know whether cutting those subsidies is a good idea or not--but it was an point of difference between the two--maybe. Senator Obama did not take a position on ethanol production.

C. 'Clean' Coal

Both candidates love coal, and consider something called 'clean coal' an 'alternative energy.' Because burning coal predates even burning oil, I am curious how burning coal is an 'alternative.' More importantly, coal fired power plants do tremendous environmental damage, as sources of both carbon dioxide and acid rain--regardless of how 'clean' the coal is.

I cannot help but rank the 'clean' in clean coal in the same category as the 'fruit' in Froot Loops.

D. Missile Defense

The judges were divided on this issue, as to whether the candidates were deluding themselves or if they were simply pandering. Ultimately, we decided it did not matter, because either way both candidates were marked down.

Both candidates supported the $60 plus billion USD program building anti-missile systems in Poland (and even expanding the program at additional cost), to protect against 'rogue states.' Both candidates also gave the impression that such a system would be effective. Senator McCain even boasted that he supported President Reagan's proposed SDI system, 'even before we knew whether it would work.' Well, anti-ballistic missile systems (ABM) do not work for two reasons. First, we cannot hit the proverbial bullet with a bullet. The technology does not exist. Both candidates disgraced themselves by leaving the impression that technology does exist, and can protect against missile attacks. Second, and more importantly, even if and when we are able to hit a bullet with a bullet, those bullets will not disappear. During the 1970s debates over the ABM Treaty (broken by President George W. Bush), one of the most persuasive arguments against ABM Systems (and in favor of the Treaty) was that the people behind the 'missile shield' would die if the ABM missiles missed--but would still die from the resulting explosions if the ABM missiles did hit their targets.

Given the weak economic position we were in prior to this current real estate, banking, and Wall Street collapse, the fact both candidates still endorsed these rat-hole systems is a disservice to the country.

However, both candidates did score ahead of President Bush in their Chicken Little warnings about Rogue States. President Bush prefers to leave the identity of his Rogues unspecified, in that maybe someday, somewhere, someone will suddenly jump out of Zeus's forehead, fully armed with intercontinental ballistic missile systems, ready for battle. In contrast, both Senators Obama and McCain agreed on the boogeyman: not Russia, India, or Pakistan (who actually HAVE both atomic bombs and missiles), but instead pointed to Iran and North Korea. Unfortunately, they both lose points, because while insisting we need to live in fear and trembling of North Korea, both also acknowledged that North Korea could hardly generate electricity and was wholly unable to feed its own people. Senator McCain even mentioned on average, North Koreans were three inches shorter than their Southern counterparts, due to malnutrition. Neither mentioned that during North Korea's bomb 'test,' the yield of the explosion was substantially smaller than what should have resulted from a working atomic bomb, creating doubt that they actually have such a weapon--let alone the ability to place it on a missile.

As for Iran, both candidates joined the Bush White House assumption that Iran was actively building an atomic bomb, and neither mentioned the recent CIA report to the contrary. Neither also mentioned that Iran--like North Korea--is unable to feed its own people, and despite having one of the world's largest oil reserves, they cannot produce enough gasoline for domestic use.

If a Presidential candidate wants me to lie awake at night, shaking with fear, they need more than the spectre of two of the most dysfunctional governments on the planet--one even being one of the poorest.

E. Invading Pakistan to Get Bad Guys

This point is a little more subtle. Senator Obama said several times that we need to find and kill Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the September 11 2001 attacks, as well as leaders of the Taliban and anti-American forces in Afghanistan. If the United States knew where these bad guys were--even if it was inside of Pakistan--we should go kill them. Senator McCain was appalled, and expressed indignation that a US President would ever say anything like that. Moreover, the fact that Senator Obama said something like that out loud was proof of Senator Obama's inexperience and naivety.

Now, you could say that I agree with Senator McCain: I think violating Pakistan's territorial integrality to kill people death-squad style is irresponsible--but you'd be wrong. Senator McCain thinks invading Pakistan (or anyone else, for that matter) to kill people he does not like is a great idea. What Senator McCain is vehemently against is saying so OUT LOUD.

Ostensively, such operations should be kept secret--which leads to the logical question of 'secret from whom?' Certainly not secret from the Pakistanis (or whoever else is invaded). Buildings blowing up all around is a dead give-away. No, the only ones left in the dark are the American people. Senator McCain wants the freedom to blow up and kill all the people he wants, while still preserving Americans self-delusion that we don't blow up and kill people. Senator McCain wants to make sure that Americans still have no idea why 'they' (unspecified) hate us.

Both candidates lose points for naive military adventurism, but Senator McCain gets a severe mark down both for intellectual dishonesty and wanting to keep Americans the dumbest people in the solar system.

F. Georgia: Capital of the Universe!

Both Senators had a spirited pander off, to see who could say the bestest and nicest things about Georgian President Saakashvili (I scored it a tie). Not surprisingly, both strongly condemned Russia and Vladimir Putin; insisted the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia should remain part of Georgia; wanted Georgia, the Ukraine, and pretty much anyone else not named 'Russia' to join NATO; wanted Russia to obey the terms of the truce--if not withdraw from Georgia completely; the United States should send money to rebuild Georgia's infrastructure; and Russia was not going to get away with bullying its neighbors--not on President McCain or President Obama's watch!

At this point, I also declared a tie for the 'Blowing Smoke Up Your Ass' award. What, pray tell, would the United States really do if Russia did something to Georgia that we did not like? Launch an amphibious invasion of the Kamchatka Peninsula? Air strikes on the Crimean winter homes of the Russian elite? Call for a worldwide boycott of stacking dolls?

This is what I wanted to hear about Georgia: The Russian invasion was certainly bad, but to think there is anything the United States can do besides symbolic and meaningless gestures is delusional. Georgia should not be a member of NATO, because Russia would not tolerate that any more than we would tolerate Mexico or Quebec joining the Warsaw Pact.

Ms. Sophia Loren. While not a candidate for Vice President, she knows a lot about Iraq--mainly because Italy is much closer to Iraq then either Arizona or Illinois.

Right now, United States is no position to condemn anyone for invading another nation in violation of the UN Charter, until we get our own house in order about how we violated the UN Charter by invading Iraq. Rightly or wrongly, the rest of the world will just dismiss us as hypocrites. Nor can the United States glibly insist that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are Georgian territory, and should not be autonomous regions, after the United States's strong support of Kosovo's independence from Serbia.

Like it or not, Russia is still a nuclear power and has missiles that work. The United States will not just push Russia around. Of course, the Georgia invasion had everything to do with pipelines and selling energy to Europe, and virtually nothing to do with the supposed oppression of South Ossetia--but so what? At this point, the Russian people have lost pretty close to everything they had since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and their democracy is in a precarious situation. Any windbag belligerence from the United States will only strengthen the totalitarian, anti-democratic forces, and do nothing to help the Georgian people.

The only effective action the United States can do is to take is take a backseat to the European Union, supporting their efforts to bring Russia to heel, and rebuild our standing in the United Nations, helping to broker a resolution through that body. To do anything else would be pointless grandstanding, in an effort to pander only to American voters.

Next, I'd mention New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's article about his pleasant surprise on seeing a headline about $1 billion USD going to rebuild Georgia's crumbling infrastructure--followed by his biting disappointment that it was Tibilisi and not Atlanta.

And I'd also point out that Mr. Putin was now the Prime Minister, and even if you believe Mr. Putin is still pulling the strings, you will not get anywhere if you don't even acknowledge Mr. Dmitry Medvedev, the current President.

G. We Love You Henry!

There was a meaningless dust up about Henry Kissinger, of all people, but the bottom line was that both candidates cited the old War Criminal favorably, and as an authority for their positions.

While both candidates deserve praise for breaking with President Bush's foolish refusals to meet with people he does not like--like the Iranians--Senator McCain repeatedly tried to invent a difference between the two candidates, by insisting that Senator Obama wanted to have discussions with Iran 'without preconditions.' To do so, Senator McCain went on to say, would be an express endorsement of everything that Iranian President Ahmadinejad ever said--especially all that nasty rhetoric about Israel. That was just childish, and Senator McCain knows better.

Unless there are areas of disagreement to resolve, there is no reason for nations and their representatives to meet. Moreover, simply meeting with the representative of a nation--even the nation's chief executive officer--in no way endorses everything that leader says and believes. For example, did all the nations who engaged in the multi-party talks with North Korea agree that Kim Jong Il is a quasi-divine being? It's doubtful that prior to meeting, there was a 'precondition' that everyone could maintain their own opinion of the Beloved Leader's godhood.

Iranian President Mohmoud Ahmadinejad. He may hate Israel--but rumour has it he loves NASCAR.

More importantly, Senator McCain knows that meeting with President Ahmadinejad does not mean accepting Iran's views on Israel. If Senator McCain is sincete in his refusal to speak with any nation, absent a prior agreement that Israel can and will exist as a Jewish religious state, best of luck with the Muslim world. Does anyone think Iran's views of Israel are not shared by Saudi Arabia? How many of the Afghan Mujideen 'freedom fighters' supported Israel's right to exist? (Hint: It rhymes with 'zero'). Will a President McCain refuse to meet with Iraq Prime Minister Al-Maliki--or a representative of that government--until Iraq agrees that Israel has the right to exist?

That point of the debate was Senator McCain at his most dishonest.

H. Who Loves Ya, Veterans! Oh, and We're Sending More of You to Afghanistan

Both Senators openly pandered to veterans, trying to outdo each other in praise for their great job, successes on the ground, and their soulful sacrifices. I give Senator McCain the edge in effusiveness of pandering, almost getting misty in his insistence that veterans 'knew' a President McCain would 'take care of them.' However, I felt neither candidate did enough to separate themselves from the disgrace of President Bush's VA healthcare.

And in the 'Sucks to be You!' news, both candidates are sending lots more of Americans to Afghanistan.

I. There's No Home like Homeland Security

Sadly, both candidates endorsed the wrong-headed premise that we are fighting a global war on terror, and love the job that the Department of Father--WHOOPS! Homeland Security is doing. At a later date, I will explain my objections to the War on Terror model. Senator McCain made a quick 'both ways' play, at separate times crediting the federal government for Homeland Security and cursing the federal government for expanding by more than 40% during the Bush administration (I hate when that happens).

J. Torture is Bad

With all the strum und drang I'm bringing to my review, there was a singular high point. On his own initiative, Senator McCain said that we must stop torturing people. There were none of President Bush's disgraceful dodges about how 'we don't torture,' and 'torture is whatever the law says it is--and we don't do it.' Without breaking his arm while patting himself on the back or making a song about it, Senator McCain acknowledged we have engaged in torture, and that torture is wrong. Even Senator Obama took a moment to thank Senator McCain for Senator McCain's longstanding and vocal opposition on this basic violation of human rights.

You Say I-rack, I say IR-rack; You say Afghan, I say Afghani. I-rack! IR-rack! Afghan! Afghani! Let's Call the Whole Thing Even....

To the extent there was a material difference between the two Senators, it was over our twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After the dust settled, I had to give the edge to Senator Obama for two reasons. First, Senator Obama was more candid (ie honest) than Senator McCain, and more importantly, Senator McCain took a position that was largely indefensible.

I was pleasantly surprised that Senator Obama stuck to his guns with his strong insistence that the Iraq War was a mistake from the beginning, and the United States should never have invaded in March 2003: Iraq had no WMDs or nuclear program, Iraq had no connection with the September 11 attacks or with al Qaida, and Iraq was not supporting terrorist movements. While that certainly is all true, that position invites the question: 'Does that mean my child died in Iraq, pretty much for nothing?' Yes it does.

Senator John McCain, explaining how he coulda been a contenda.

I would have preferred Senator Obama draw an express admission of the above three points from Senator McCain, because a significant percentage of the Republican base STILL believes those assertions are true. Republicans even today are pimping on that misinformation, most recently during Governor Palin's good bye speech to her son's Iraq deployment. Senator McCain tried to dodge the issue, popping the trusty blue smoke of 'regardless of how we got in Iraq, the next President will have to consolidate our recent gains.' Senator McCain then stripped open his shirt, and carved the word SURGE! across his chest. Wow! The Senator hardly had the words to express his personal outrage that Senator Obama had the temerity to OPPOSE the surge when it was first proposed. Senator Obama, according to the GOP Nominee, does not understand the difference between a 'strategy' and a 'tactic.'

While both candidates were happy to proclaim the surge a success (McCain more so than Obama), and pledged undying love for General Petraeus (again, McCain more than Obama), I was very disappointed with Senator McCain's assertions. The basis for my view is from Mr. Steve Coll's article on General Petraeus, 'The General's Dilemma,' in the September 8 2008 edition of the New Yorker magazine.

As I wrote in my Un-Valentine to Bob Woodward ('All the President's Stooges'), what is identified as the 'surge' is actually two separate entities. First, there is the large influx of American troops. But second, there is also the complete change of strategy, from a heavy firepower and incarceration of massive numbers of Iraqi 'suspects,' to a counterinsurgency strategy. Under General Petraeus's direction, the US forces stopped "fighting" and became peacekeepers. Instead of large bases, Americans maintained a presence in Iraqi neighborhoods. That part of the surge strategy has been successful: many Iraqi neighborhoods have been pacified.

What Senator McCain did not mention, was the reason why the surge strategy was so controversial, and initially opposed by almost everyone. The problem the United States was having with Iraq was that the Maliki government was refusing address real problems. Years had passed, and yet there was no legislation on allocation of oil revenues (allowing easy misallocation of money based on ethnic grouping or corruption), no movement on opening the political process to the Sunni minority, and no efforts to deal with the tensions between the Kurds' and the Shiites' desire for regional autonomy--and the rest of the nation's desire to address endemic corruption facilitated by this 'autonomy.' The question was, how to get the Iraqi Parliament to step up? The clear majority (The Iraq Study Group, majorities in Congress, Ms. Condeleeza Rice and the State Department, the Pentagon, etc. etc.) took the position that if the Shiite government had not done it by now, they weren't going to do it as long as the United States was there, holding its hand. Therefore, the numbers of American troops needed to be reduced. Just in case the message is too subtle: Start governing Maliki government--or you're going to die.

A typical disorganized meeting of the Iraqi Parliament. No wait--I forgot: this is a bowl of Froot Loops. My bad.

The minority view (President Bush, General Petraeus, and yes: John McCain) was that the Maliki government could not govern, because the country was out of control. What was needed was more American troops to reduce the level of violence, and THEN the Parliament would rise to the occasion, making like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

Right now, what General Petraeus is taking great pains to do is 1) NOT proclaim the surge a success, and 2) NOT appear to be taking sides in a partisan dispute. While important gains have been made in terms of reducing violence, those gains will be disappear, unless the Shiite government does what it has what it has consistently refused to do since Paul Bremer's Coalition of Provisional Authority (CPA) 'handed over' the keys to the kingdom. So far--it's not looking good.

General David Petraeus. He wants you to know he only GRINS like Howdy Doody. But there's no strings on him--Just like Pinocchio!

I am disappointed in both Senator McCain and General Petraeus, the former for using and abusing the latter's authority, and the latter for allowing Senator McCain to continue doing so.

The candidates also differed on where the next President needed to focus. Senator Obama (correctly) pointed to Afghanistan, because that's where al Qaida (with the Taliban) has their leadership and structural apparatus. Senator McCain, name dropper par excellence that he is, announced he, General Petraeus, and Osama bin Laden all agreed on one point: Iraq was the lodestone in America's war on terror. It's not.

My final point on the Iraq-Afghanistan issue, is another note of disappointment at Senator McCain. General Petraeus's promotion to Commander, US Central Command, will have him calling the shots in both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Senator McCain said (implying he got the straight dope from his close personal friend General Dave hisself) that General Petraeus will be using the same 'surge' tactics that were so successful in Iraq in Afghanistan--so in no time, Afghanistan will be all better. That was shameful. Senator McCain knows that the counterinsurgency tactics that General Petraeus implemented in Iraq are primarily geared for urban areas. Afghanistan presents a far different environment than Iraq: the terrain is more rugged, and there are far fewer urban centers. If (and it is a big if) the United States is going to succeed in Afghanistan, it will be with a different strategy. If you are interested in more information, I strongly suggest reading Mr. Michael Scheuer's 'Imperial Hubris' about the difficulties of war in Afghanistan.

. . . And the Winner is:

What do we know about Senators McCain and Obama that we did not know before the debates? For me, I was shocked that with a little trimming here and there, Senator Obama could pass for a moderate Republican. Outside of that revelation, a President Obama generally appears more likely to spend money on the 'butter' side of the guns v. butter continuum than a President McCain, but a President McCain would probably spend more overall than a President Obama, because a President McCain wouldn't hesitate to re-gild the gilded lilies at the Pentagon. Of course, a President Obama would not exactly be one to tell the Pentagon 'no.'

Senator Obama has a slight edge in telling the truth (very slight), but both candidates still promise the sun, the moon, the stars AND LOWER TAXES at the drop of a hat.

On the other hand, at this debate Civil Discourse was a clear winner. Even the few times when the candidates interrupted each other, or mumbled 'That's not true!,' there weren't any of the bald-faced lies or blinding personality attacks made popular by George W. Bush.

Losers, though, have to include the American people. The Presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush have driven the United States economy beyond bankruptcy. For us to pay our bills, the next four years will really hurt. Heck, it's going to hurt even if we DON'T pay our bills. What we need is a candidate who will take off the rose coloured glasses, and stop telling us we CAN have everything--we deserve everything!

Still, the big winner was the Military-Industrial Complex. They always win. What else could you expect in a contest between two people able to each raise over $100 million USD in private funds? But that's another rant.

Ms. Elizabeth Taylor. She is standing in for the United States Military-Industrial Complex.