economic metaphors, anyone??

Here come the waves. 

It was nice knowing you, Senator Obama. You had a good run.  But really, what could we expect?


[predicting things are going to get very ugly.]

sigh.

McKeating (courtesy James)

Part 4: George W. Bush: you will be missed!

dear leader

Installment 3 of our retrospective

Bush retrospective part two...

Wondering what the post-bailout, post war-costs, post stagflation, post-Katrina, post-Bush future of the United States holds?  Tom Friedman lays out the bleak outlook with all the positive caveats of increased exports and necessitated dedication to improvement.  

Paging Jill Biden

So that Sarah Palin is at it again.  

Since her stellar debate, she has gotten me all wound up now on three occasions.  The first time is chronicled previously.  The second and third came in the past twelve hours or so.  First I read in passing on the cover of a newspaper I did not buy: Sarah says "I felt sorry for Joe."  and then again when I saw this video. 

Here is the NYTimes article Ms. Palin references, which in numerous occasions highlights the fact that Obama and Ayers were not close whatsoever.

What the Obama camp needs to do is send Mrs. Jill Biden OUT and on the ATTACK.  They should have her going after every little thing Palin says, attacking it's veracity, legitimacy, and intelligence.  Jill Biden is well regarded, white, and female.  She is the perfect candidate for going after Palin without offending the people who would be offended to see Biden or Michelle Obama do it.  The double standard that exists is unfortunate but certainly not non-existent.  Jill Biden is able to circumvent all of these petty prejudices and hit palin where it hurts the most: on substance.  This could be the Hillary Clinton role, but she has chosen a different tact.

Below are some Palin related links from the weekend's media, as well as a statement from the editor of this site.

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

I like this one.  

"The Democrats should be worried: Sarah Palin is at once the most ridiculous and the scariest woman on the planet."

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Maureen Dowd keeps it real.

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Hillary Clinton does not.  Her and Bill REALLY want to see Obama lose, and it is painfully obvious.  You all saw Bill on MTP last Sunday calling McCain a great man, and declining to say the same of Obama, right?

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Frank Rich lays out the Palin conundrum with some solid hits on McCain.

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Is Palin flip-flopping (for the better?), on gay rights, or just lying?

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

OK, that's it.  I'm officially declaring a SARAH PALIN Moratorium on this site.  Barring her doing something that just can't go unmentioned, this is it.  I reserve the right to embed the SNL Debate skit from this evening, which was stellar.  SNL is in top form.  A solid political season to lambast always does them well, and boy are they doing it currently.  Weekend Update is gonna be on Thursday Nights as well?  But even the non-political skits were good tonight (as they have been of late) and evry one tonight had me laughing out loud thoroughly, pretty much straight through the end of the show.)

Tina fey is just wonderful.  She always has been, as long time fans of the (modern version of the) show have long known.  Her Emmy winning 30 Rock is spectacular as well.  I think it is funny how her role as Sarah Palin (and the ensuing political coverage of the [dead on] impersonation) has exposed her to a whole other level of citizen in a way that no one could have predicted even two months ago.  Knowledge of just who exactly "Tina Fey" is must have skyrocketed recently.  Again, nothing new for SNL & 30 Rock viewers, but not all such citizens are regular viewers of such programs, apparently.  But Fey's impersonation is so rich and sublime and clever that what can you do but love it, and be sad at the same time????

Before i stop, and while I have you, let's watch some videos:

But in the spirit of "taking the gloves off" as Ms. Palin has promised to do, I'd like to offer this tibit of political insight:

F++k that b=tch.  

This being an election year, they're all wonderful people....

In honor of the end of an era, as well as in honer of the soon to be much maligned (by some) and applauded (by others) new Oliver Stone film W. we will be doing a highlights retrospective from the past eight years and beyond. We'll start at the beginning...

Grrrrrrrrrrrr.

Apologies to Shepherd Fairey, who is poorly imitated above, and lambasted HERE as a fraudulent hack.  Remember, Patrick, views and opinions linked on this site do not necessary reflect the views and opinions of those here on the scribald staff.  

Apologies to all of us, in consideration of the malarky below.  Poor Katie Couric really screwed the pooch, according to Mrs. Palin.  She also thinks that Obama has disqualified himself from the running due to some of his statements about the war.  While I'd like to dismiss this as baloney, I'd also like to presently examine the issue further, perhaps while you listen to Ms. Barracuda spout some of her sharp, sophisticated knowledge. (Ahem!)  Or, perhaps while you listen to the Fox News Commentators fall over themselves massaging this bright young whippersnapper.

Specifically, she is referring to his having said at one point a year or so ago that we are "air raiding villages and killing civilians.   I agree that one running for higher office should play this card close to the vest.  Especially, one should do so, in consideration of the uniformed men and women throughout the country and fighting these wars.  

The biggest reason why Obama having said this is offensive is because it can come across as demeaning to the troops.  That is certainly how it sounds.  And the men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan categorically do not deserve to be characterized so brazenly by anyone, let alone the POTUS.  These heroes are doing what they believe to be right, in that they are honoring their commitment to service to the utmost degree.  They may agree with the government's policies, or they may disagree, but they accept that it is not their job to make those decisions, but rather to be a warrior and to work as part of a team.  You can no more denigrate their service than you can that of the Americans who fought in WWII, the Revolution, or, unfortunately, all of the other wars we have fought.  (See: Achilles heal [of argument]).

That being said, if any person reading this or living in America does NOT think that we are killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are  completely disconnected from reality.  If you do not think this is a problem, then you are morally culpable.  That is, civilian deaths in time of war are, as the military so tastefully calls it, "unfortunate."  But they are also unavoidable consequences, and a well fought war approaches the lowest number of civilian casualties as possible.  

Of course, from a strategic and selfish (in the good way) standpoint, it is even more important to keep one's own troops alive, uninjured, and successful in their mission.   Where these goals collide is when civilian death tolls inevitably rise.  Nonetheless, the reduction of injury and death on both sides is important.  

This discussion will avoid, for purposes of brevity (I have late night house cleaning to do)  

a consideration of the goals in regards to the health and well being of "enemy" warriors, in that my long held notion of "I wish for my enemy to stop in his aggression, or in his defense against my aggression, so that we might sit upon this park bench and share some tea and Krimpets" has fallen by the wayside, circa the beginning of time.  Of course, I still hold it in high regard, except possibly for the part about my aggression....

Which brings me to my point.  Civilians are going to die in Iraq & Afghanistan, and believe me, they have NOT been waiting around for you to start paying attention in order to do so.  Thousands upon thousands dead.  Millions (perhaps) displaced.  Injuries in the tens and probably hundreds of thousands.  

These ugly facts are not solely the fault of the US, of course.  Unless you espouse some SERIOUS conspiracy theories, it can be assumed that US soldiers are not planting the IEDs and are not firing the RPGs and are not serving as suicide bombers to aid in the destruction of the countries.  These acts are being perpetrated by individuals who are angry about the US's presence, but are absolutely wrong to respond as they have, terrorizing their own nations to the brink of collapse.  

We all know this, and the position we put our soldiers into, even in the most ideal of situations, is tenable at best.  Therefore, in the interest of protecting their lives to the nth degree, and simultaneously, in the interest of minimizing civilian casualties, we should be dropping as few bombs as possible.  

Look at Iraq.  Petraeus' strategy, if it is in fact working, has been to inundate the neighborhoods with protective presence, rather than oppressive control.  Rather than work out of big bases and drop bombs on the "bad guys" (and their children) we have moved to a more cogent and intelligent strategy.  In order for you to protect the citizens, you must get to know them.  WALK AROUND A LITTLE BIT.  (The police forces of some of our cities might learn a thing or two from Dr. Petraeus, and where they have, they have achieved success.  No?  See: Who's the Man?)

That being said, this mantra of "the surge is working" is a bit conspicuous in its overuse. This especially coming from the man who in March was openly called out for trying to glad-hand us into believing all sorts of things about the safety and efficacy of the Iraq program.  

That said, it looks like, at least to some extent, the surge is working.  Of course, one could point out the simple fact that you can't really call it a "surge" so much as an "appropriate assignment of troop numbers to deal with the task at hand" which had theretofore remained unfulfilled.  

Afghanistan is a different bird, nerd.  Hills and caves and hideouts OH MY!  But it's all true, and that shady shaky border might just shimmy us into our next war...with PAKISTAN???  I hope not, and seriously think not, though I was surprised to hear that very conjecture today from someone (forget who) who I did not expect from whom to hear such things.  

Inevitably, there are going to be bombs dropped in Afghanistan.   Inevitably, civilians will die. And in some ways that is OK.  (After all, I encourage you, civilian, as the big bomb drops your way, to smile and remember the happy times and think to yourself, this too is OK, because it has to be, because I let it be that way for others)

But in other ways it is absolutely NOT OK, and MUST stop!  We must do everything we can as a nation, as a culture, and as a military to avoid the killing of non-combatants.  Beyond the moral imperative, it is good sense militarily.  As we have stepped into the neighborhoods and away from the air strikes (and lined the Iraq's pockets with as much money as they could fit in em and revealed ourselves as being WAAAAYYYYY cooler than that "al Qaeda" crew they were thinking about runnning with), our relationships with the Iraq's got better.  

Even though the tactic must be different, we have to make a point to make the same efforts of local diplomacy and peace-mongering in Afghanistan, so that we may solidify and strengthen the country from the foundation up.  

Again, I bring myself longwindedly to the point.  THIS is what Obama was trying to say (I believe).  He wasn't calling soldiers war criminals or murderers or disparaging them in any way, as Palin implies in her Fox interview.  Rather, he was being a policy wonk and speaking from a policy perspective, about factual and difficult realities on the ground.  Contrast this with McCain in Iraq in March.  To imply Obama's disrespect is to reveal your own, Ms. Palin.  

Endnotes:  Conservative, Republican, and disenchanted with the whole dang system?  Don't support McCain???  Can't support Obama???  Have I got the solution for you!  Coming soon.

Really????

I called it! Mediocre performance hailed as supreme success because it was not utter failure. Sigh.

Some fact checkin' on both sides.....(from the AP)

More fact checking from NPR

I was gonna add FOX to this list of fact checkers, but their article, to their credit, I suppose, was from the AP.  

Didn't watch?? Watch it here....

Biden shoulda not been so reluctant to be dismissive and 

abrasive, but what are you gonna do?  

The Drudge Poll above came up @ 69% for Palin having won by about halfway through the debate.   

What exactly did she answer??? 

I thought Biden did a good job overall, was sharp and on point and gave credible answers.  Thought Palin did alright too, though as Mark Halperin noted on Charlie Rose she was "graded on a curve."  She didn't lay any goose-egg, which was all she needed to do.  

My man Fareed Zakaria lays it out pretty nicely (and harshly) in a pre-debate analysis.  

But, also, as Halperin noted, the withdrawal of the McCain campaign from Michigan, thereby essentially conceding defeat there, is the HUGE story of the day, not the debate.  

Tonight's the night there's gonna be fight (in St. Louis)

Gotcha!

I don't know why she didn't just say she disagreed (or agreed) with "most" of them, or maybe a "vast variety of them."  

Tonight's debate is dangerous territory.  She been so shockingly bad in these interviews that she has lowered the bar very low, to the point that as long as she doesn't break out the ole "I'll have to get back to you on that one" or fail to remember her running mate's name, she'll probably be lauded as having been successful, no matter what she actually says or fails to say. 

The reports of her utter failures in preparatory mock debates only feeds into this game.  Let us not forget where this information is coming from (camp: McCain/Palin).    

Check this FASCINATING story, "getting to know Cindy McCain" from yesterday's Talk of the Nation.

I'm with it.

Tax and Spend Liberals!!!!

These McCain ads portraying Obama as a BIG TAXER are hilariously, adorably pathetic.  They sound so smarmy and are such obfuscations of truth.  Ugh.

Let 'em know, Joe!

YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!

I really didn't let myself believe it could really happen. Sure, I felt, initially, that Biden was the best choice for President, and therefore obviously I feel he is the best choice for VP. But I figured that in the end, we'd see Kathleen Sebelius or Evan Bayh or even

Hil-dawg be the last one standing. It became

clear it wasn't Hillary pretty quickly, but I just

couldn't bring myself to get my hopes up that

Big Joe Biden would actually be selected as the VP

choice. Well here we are, at 1:00 or so AM on

August 23, and sure enough, it looks like Delaware's

favorite son, Senator Joseph Biden, will be ON THE TICKET

for the Presidential election.

OH. MY. GAWD. I am giddy like a school girl. I spoke with an
elderly gentleman just yesterday,

and we agreed that an Obama/Biden ticket would be

tremendously fun for DE, but unlikely to happen.

It is going to be SO FUN! And, at the same time, Mr. Biden is

by far, in my opinion, the best choice.

He is a straight shooter and so very extensively experienced.

And he is a man of the people! Look at him above, sharing a moment with a well dressed Sean Dwyer.

Obama/Biden '08!!!!

(It's funny though, cause I saw and heard information implicating Biden as the choice on TV, radio, and the internet, and I have STILL not received a text message.)

What Bush got WHAT???

Earlier this week, I referred to the 2000 George W. as a child.  And while I was kinda being harsh on him, I also meant it as just a coy reference to how young he looked.  It is certainly an office to wear on a man.  

I also, less recently, hinted at Bush's being a revenge ravished man, intent on getting back at the man who had attempted to assassinate, essentially, his whole family.  

I believe I called him: an ideological, passionate, nepotistic and nepotized extravaganaire

intent on exacting revenge on a man who had, to be fair, (at least allegedly) plotted to kill his wife, father and mother, and two brothers,

But in all honesty, for the most part, these and other attacks on our soon to be former President do not quite hit the mark.  They are, in essence, too personal attacks on a man whose legacy, truly, has yet to be measured, and whose intentions, truthfully, have not yet been gauged.  

Zakaria's cover story this week details, from his perspective, "What Bush got Right."  As you all know, Zakaria is a pedestal of modern journalism: objective, substantive, and on point.  And he has at times been one of Bush's harshest critics.  Still, his measured is approach is appreciable and appreciated.  

The article speaks about all of the requisite topics: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, China, AIDS, and criticizes and complements as necessary.  It's funny, because even in this "corrective," he still manages to just tear W. up in almost every area.  "On the whole, Bush's record remains one of failure and missed opportunities."

But as Zakaria notes, it is not 2001, it is 2009, and some of the more considerate mantles that the (repudiated) Bush administration has taken up more recently deserve serious consideration from the new President.

So the promise of "change" is set up as mythical, in that this change that we ALL seek, so desperately, is not so much a change from the policies (so much) of this current administration, but moreso, the overbearing SYMBOLS of what this administration has come to represent, through the blustery echoes of its initial intents.  

In many, many ways this "dilution of the brand" was a self-caused debacle, from issues such as poor post-war planning to institutional failings, it wasn't so much the opposition that presented strife, but the administration's own policies and procedures.  

In almost every case, one can imagine a more precise and prepared narrative where the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are neat little clean up operations, and team America moves on to brighter pastures (Iran, Libya, Syria) swiftly and successfully.  No doubt, it was this fear that brought Muammar al-Gaddafi to the table a few years back.

Had the Rumsfeldian notion of a small troop force WORKED (only would have had they decided NOT to occupy) or the proper number of troops and equipment been brought in, a quickly stabilized Iraq (or an American force that was nimble and non-occupying)  would have allowed America the ability to pivot.  

As t stands, we are mired, and even the President, as of like, today, is apparently on board for a swift withdrawal.  (This is a big enough topic for its own entry, but for now: isn't it interesting how the powers that be seem to attempt to maintain a position of control by neutralizing oppositional stances?  ie: "Obama wants a troop withdrawal??  HERE's your troop withdrawal!....Gas prices killing you?? HERE's a moderate reduction in prices so you won't feel compelled to "vote on the economy."  I want to see a timeline of gas prices over the past 16 years, in correspondence to the elections.)

Why is the President on board for a quick withdrawal (from Iraq's cities, at least...)?:

+Even he sees it.  The jig is up, the cat is out of the bag.  The situation in Iraq is depleting, rapidly, America's international sway.  In the end, it is a small country in the middle of the desert, and we're putting everything we've got into it.  We're going broke and we can't even (honestly) defend ourselves.  (Can you imagine, if, today, there was an INVASION on American soil?  There would be American Riot Police and decommissioned National Guardsmen lining up in formation on the streets, to face some sort of organized military apparatus.  All of our best troops are overseas.)  Besides, since the oil contracts were all signed up last month, it just about lines up for us to smile, gingerly, at our cohorts and opponents in the game of Iraqi nation building, say "Gentlemen, it's been a lovely evening," take our hat and leave.

+ In case you missed it, and as an avid reader, you shouldn't have, as WE were first to break the story:  Russia kicked off the Olympic Celebrations with an invasion of Georgia!  Now, I know what you are thinking: do we really need peaches anyway?  But this is serious stuff, and Russia is even now threatening aggressive actions against POLAND, in response to our building missile interceptor technologies there.  So a boisterous, bellicose Russia is good reason for the American President to reconsider our military priorities. 

==

Going back to the idea that the majority of ill will towards the administration comes from its inglorious post 9/11 chest thumping and misguided adventure in Iraq, we can discuss the issues of legacy and intention. 

It seems to me that Bush's legacy will be forever tied to his intention, and that has yet to be fully revealed.  I think the Iraq/Anthrax link is a key element in this consideration.   

Many will vigorously argue for an "Iraq War for Irari Oil" narrative, and I for one will do little to stop them.  But another option for the primary motivation of the President and his men may have been the same medicine they were injecting in us: fear.  

9/11 was an incident of tremendous proportions.  But in the end, it was that: an incident.  It involved mortar and concrete and paper and dust and American lives, but could be swept up tidily in a mess of bureaucracy, an eventually, ten or so years later, something could rise again.  

It was a wake up call, but, in the realm of vigorous terrorism, a relatively innocuous one.  I know that is a terrible thing to say, and I don't even mean it.  But still, my point is: 3000 people died, not three million.  

The Anthrax attacks, on the other hand, were a different kind of wake up call.  This was the kind that pleasantly whispers in your ear, as you roll over to hit the snooze button: you just might wake up to three million dead Americans.  For all its bluster as a unique approach to warfare, 9/11 was essentially still conventional warfare.  It targeted citizens from the financial sector, which was certainly somewhat new, but it still, in the end, just involved explosions and the destruction of buildings.  

Biological warfare is a different cookie.  

In His book The Bush Tragedy, Jacob Weinberg describes the intense struggles of the white house after the anthrax scare.  Considered were national smallpox inoculations, and other sweeping reactions.  Smallpox seems to have been the biggest fear, as it could easily kill millions with little effort.  For the terrorist, the key aspect is access, and in the case of the anthrax used in the attacks, the US wasn't really sure where the hell it came from.  This was driven, of course, by the fact that it was OUR anthrax.  

If you believe the current line, Bruce Ivans did this on his own, out of anger and frustration.  If this is true, it makes sense why the government was so concerned.   They didn't know where the "terrorists" had gotten ahold of such good stuff, and it frightened the hell out of them that it looked so much like our own.

So Cheney was pushing for national inoculations, which can include terrible side effects like sickness and ARMS TURNING BLACK!  It was approved only for the military, and while Bush did bravely inoculate himself, Cheney, in the end, declined.

Still, there are plenty of Ivan doubters who feel the government's story does not line up, and that Mr. Ivans could not have done this alone, if at all.

Be this the case, perhaps then, the anthrax attacks are another in a line of false flag operations designed to manifest an atmosphere where planned maneuvers can be put into place.  I don't particularly agree with this line of thinking, but I ain't been convinced otherwise either.

Which brings me back to my point.  It is difficult to attack this man, and Cheney, and the rest, on a personal level.  It isn't fair.   Sure, they may be diabolical henchmen out to manipulate and bankrupt the government as they see fit.  But they may also be somewhat misguided heroes, on a quest to rid the world of evil and make it a place where babies can sleep comfortably through their 3AM wake up call.

The Bush Administration's legacy will be that of intention, and as these intentions come to surface through historical examination, only then, if ever, will we truly be able to measure the man against his failings.

cursing in public

I think I'm gonna need a second tv in the living room.  Can't watch Politix & Phils @ the same time.  See how I sacrifice for you? (checking Phils on the net [should break out a radio] {rough game, too})

God dammit!  I like that Barack Obama.  I'm watching him and the good "purpose driven" reverend on CNN, and for the most part, my man is ON POINT.  McCain is up next and I am hoping he delivers as well.  

This is most certainly the best preview of what you will see during the debates that you are going to get.  After the conventions there's gonna be three debates, and ideally, we will see some strong performances from both candidates.  

McCain is just getting started as I type, and so long as he doesn't provoke my yelling contradictory replies at the screen too much, I think we can hope for some substantive debates come fall.  

Wow! McCain just claimed his worst moral failure as his failed first marriage.  Touche' good sir, in that the drum has been beating on that since Johnny Edwards got that chick pregnant. (And yes, he did get her pregnant.  He shoulda just admitted when he took the big hit about the kid, rather than continuing to perpetrate a lie.)  But it's nice to see a candidate tackle a personal issue head on, sorta.  Notice he did not admit infidelity, though when you've married your current wife only a month after divorcing your former wife, infidelity is easily inferred.  Still, good for him.

(I bet, the sitch is that Edwards had sworn to his wife, up and down, that the kid ain't his, and that he had ended 'all of that' well before she got pregnant.  Stuck in this skewed timeline, he is now tied to carrying the lie all the way through until that brat is preening his silky brown locks and raving about his "millworker" granddaddy.)

notes on the debate.  not all carried through to logical confusions:

Drill now?  Really McCain?  I get it, but come on.  You know better than to play this harpsichord... 

Caleefornia???  Come on!??

He does redeem himself when talking about other energy options like hydrogen, solar, wind, nuclear, so that's good.

Say CLEAN COAL!  Say CLEAN OIL!  Note he doesn't mention either of these.  I missed Obama's opening questions, but I bet, if asked, he didn't mention these most important of issues either.  

Everybody is in somebody's pocket.  (But this is cynical.  Ater all, that is the misguided thinking that led me to vote for Mr. Ralph Nader in 2000.  Had people known the trajectory that the country would be taking, only 10 months later [and really, from day one of the W. White House] they would have seen the candidates for what they really were.  Gore: a droll, effective administrator, with a flair for prescience and occasional mild exaggeration.  Bush: an ideological, passionate, nepotistic and nepotized extravaganaire

intent on exacting revenge on a man who had, to be fair, (at least allegedly) plotted to kill his wife, father and mother, and two brothers,

and who would hand over the reigns to decades old neocons like Rumsfeld & Cheney, and who would allow and encourage his top officials to find ways to bend the law and rape the constitution where they see fit. 

All that being said, I would still LOVE to have a beer with the guy!)

So Democrats and Republicans are not the same.  Ironically, my friend Mr. Nader, still, after all of these years manages to speak most strikingly to my needs and concerns.  Still, Mr. Obama has consistently struck a similar chord as Mr. Nader on much of these issues, and I will be happy to vote Democratic in the fall. 

Really though, I am still holding out for Paris & Rhianna.

"McCain My friend(s)" count: 4-5

McCain circumspectly alleges Obama represents "class warfare and redistribution of wealth."  

Obama, on the other hand, lays out what he has said consistently every time I've heard him speak of taxes, which is that only those earning $250,000 will see an increase in taxes.  

McCain's answer is doublespeak for supporting the absurd Bush tax cuts.  Of course, McCain doesn't need doublespeak, since, despite his initial opposition on the basis that "giving tax cuts to rich people isn't appropriate" (paraphrased) he now openly supports said cuts for the most wealthy Americans.  For McCain to discuss, disparagingly, the concept of "redistribution of weatlth" (as code for higher taxes on the wealthy) is ironic, considering the fact that in the past eight years, the gap between rich and poor has gotten as wide as before the Great Depression.  

And note, in linked article, the ways in which this has happened.

Orphans!

The best Question of the night came from Rev. Rick, who wants them to set up a Presidential Emergency Commission to take care of the global "orphan" situation, which both candidates agreed to support.  At the time, I felt that this was a great idea (and with 100+ million orphans worldwide, something really should be done) but in retrospect, it is kind of a gimme question for the candidates.  DO YOU SUPPORT ORPHANS?  How's about the troops?  Would you be willing to kiss my pregnant baby?

"to the gates of hell to get Osama!!!!" says McCain.

Sure, buddy, "to the gates of hell."  Did you take that line from the W. catalog of empty Al Quieda retributory threats?

(We saw Step Brothers tonight, which was OK, and began with a classic, quality W. quote "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.")

McCain reinforces his homophobic opposition to "gay marriage." [I actually had to come back and edit this to add Obama's similar "man and woman" answer, although he lamely brings up "civil unions" and kind of gives a half supportive answer.]

Weak answer on Supreme Court.  Picks the four most liberal justices and names them as the ones he wouldn't nominate.

"Proud of Prez Bush for nominating Alito & Roberts."

Obama was prodded on Roberts.  His answer of Clarence Thomas was better and more difficult. He disagrees with Scalia but respects his intellect.  Also pretty good answer.

McCain calls himself, in reference to religion, as "saved and forgiven."  I like this well enough, for what it is.  But I can't help but recall the mob hitman I saw interviewed on TV who said he had no fear of "going to hell", because he had gone to reconciliation for his sins.  There is something awe inspiring about this capacity for (self?) forgiveness, and I do like that.  But I think if I killed someone, or numerous someones over a period of years, cold heartedly and on order, it might, perhaps, take a little more than six Hail Mary's and three Our Fathers to make me feel at peace in my spiritual equanimity with life.  But there is something comforting in it, I suppose. 

There is a great article on the Vatican Science Institute in this month's Discover Magazine...very enlightening.  Mad props to the forward thinkers in that particular building in the church.  Would link to it, but the article is not yet online.

Tonight was the second time this week I have heard McCain recount his merciful captor wrist story, where the guard shows him mercy and later reveals himself to be Christian, on Christmas.  As McCain said "for a minute, we were just two Christians worshipping together."  That's nice, but I had to laugh and chortle: "yeah, for a minute." 

The arisal of the McCain biography in his stumping is a sign of things to come, I bet.  Look for McCain to cut back, ever so slightly, on the attack ads, only to renew them with vigor during the coming convention and beyond.  For now, he will be focusing on his biography, I think.

Frank Rich thinks there is plenty you still need to know about McCain.

(pic unrelated: spazzatorium)