Sarah Palin? I mean, really? My initial reaction was delight that you’d thrown a wild card on the table, and I couldn’t wait to see what her secret was.  But it turns out there was no secret. Maybe it was a misguided attempt around to try to win the hearts of… someone. Women, the religious right, a Republican base that’s become irrelevant in the last four years, who knows. Or maybe you did it in a fit of pique. Word has it that you had a couple others in mind for VP but the your campaign managers convinced you otherwise. The old John McCain would have told the Republican machine to go fuck itself. What were they going to do, publicly un-nominate you? Instead, you’ve offered us the most polarizing, the least knowledgeable, the  most unimpressive VP choice in recent memory.

I do have to give Palin credit for one thing, however: she’s succeeded in doing the impossible. She may be even more unlikeable than Hillary Clinton. So conservatives will have carried the day in at least one area this election season. But really, I’d have been happy to cede the title.

And these halfhearted attempts to paint Obama as an elitist or a terrorist or socialist or whatever the throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks innuendo of the day is… you’re not even selling the accusations well. For you to convince anyone, the audience has to think YOU believe it. And you clearly don’t, which leads us all to believe that you’re just saying anything to get elected, a trait which is always met with universal distaste from voters. Oh, sure, we expect it, but we also expect you to at least pretend you’re not doing it.

In your defense, you did have the bad luck to go up against the sort of politician that comes along once in a generation, but those are just the breaks, and you made your choices long before he became the official opposition. Even after he was nominated the election was still winnable, but you blew your chance. You make a great deal of noise about Obama’s lack of executive leadership experience, but who did a better job of managing his campaign?  Yours looked like amateur hour compared to his.

I’m going to cast my vote tomorrow, and it’s going to be for Barack Obama.  I disagree with him on a number of issues, but the one thing I think the United States can’t stand right now is to have a weak President (yes, it’s even more important than Iraq or the economy or energy policy or health care - all that desperately needs fixing, but to have any chance of success Washington needs leadership rather than blind flailing around - which is what we’ve seen from the McCain camp over the last year)  and that’s what you would be. To be a strong leader, the next President can come at it from one of two directions: one would be to forge popular support into an overriding mandate to put the country on a new track; Obama will have that support, and you will not. The other approach would be to take the Reagan approach, to offer a vision of the future so strong that it electrifies the country and allows the President to lead from the top. Again, Obama offers that, while your bag of tricks seems to consist of a patchwork of unconnected sound bytes.

I voted for George W. Bush in the last election. Tomorrow I’ll vote for Barack Obama.

I admit I was much more interested in McCain until the Palin pick. Put me in the anti-Palin camp. Picking her really made me question McCain’s decision making. Plus I sort of feel like he’s sold out over the last few years to get the Republican nomination.

Here’s Tom Brokaw introducing the debate… Brokaw’s speech patterns are more soft and liquid forever. How long has it been since he was a regular figure on TV. He tells us the audience has promised to behave… good luck with that, Tom.

The candidates come out, McCain in a red tie that protrudes annoyingly below his buttoned jacket. Obama’s got on a lavender tie… what kind of Presidential candidate wears a freakin’ lavender tie?

Tom leads off, telling us that things have changed “and not for the better recently” opening it up for the first question, from someone who asks what the “fastest” solution is to our economic crisis. Obama is first up to answer, saying “we are in the worst financial crisis since the great depression” and everyone is worried, going on to call the problem “a final verdict” on the policies of the last eight years. He calls for “strong oversight” of the financial package that was passed last week, and making sure that execs of bailout companies not get golden parachutes, citing AIG spending $400k on an executive getaway. He also calls for helping states fund infrastructure projects. McCain says “Americans are angry, they’re upset” and “I have a plan to fix this problem.” He starts off by arguing for energy independence, so we don’t keep sending money to countries that hate us. He says we need “a package of reforms” and that “we have to do something about home values…. as President, I would order the Secretary of the Treasury to [buy up bad mortgage debt…. Is it expensive? Yes.” But believes that until we fix that, nothing else will work. Tom asks both who he will appoint to the Secretary of the Treasury… McCain, trying to buy time, says “not you, Tom” but the joke falls flat. He goes on to say it needs to be someone who inspires trust and confidence, suggesting Warren Buffett and Meg Whitman as possible names. (Meg? Really?)  Obama agrees that Warren Buffet would be a great choice, but then goes off into talking about McCain’s recent statement that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” and calls for a middle class tax cut.

Point to: McCain. He came out and said clearly “I have a plan”… Obama wasted his time talking about the last eight years, McCain actually talked about doing something.

Other thoughts:  Hang on to your has folks, this economy is going to be no fun at all.

Someone named Oliver Clark speaks up and asks what in the bailout package is actually going to help anyone out. McCain says it’s more like “rescue” than “bailout,” and that he suspended his campaign and went back to Washington to make sure the bill included protections for taxpayers. He goes on to say that a large part of the problem was the operation of Fannie May and Freddie Mac, saying we may not have even heard those names until this latest crisis - silly talk, who that pays attention at all hasn’t heard of them? - and then says that Obama and others are responsible for how they were run poorly, striking “the match that caused this forest fire” and that he has historically been against the way they operated. Obama says the fundamental problem is the increasing unavailability of credit, which is having an adverse effect on everybody. He offers to “correct Senator McCain on his history, not surprisingly” and says that McCain has historically been in favor of deregulation, and touts his own actions in trying to warn the world about the impending subprime mortgage collapse. (Him and everyone else who can do simple math.) Obama  says that this is the beginning of the process, not the end, and the next President must help individual homeowners, not just bankers. Tom follows up by asking if he’s saying the economy is going to get much worse, to which Obama says “no,” but that a lot a work has to be done. McCain says whether or not the economy gets worse all depends on what we do, and says it all comes down to whether or not we can give American workers a chance.

Point to: McCain. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Congress’ fault, not the Bush Administration. 

A woman named Teresa Finch asks “how can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got us into this global economic crisis?” Obama understands her skepticism… “you’re right, there’s a lot of blame to go around” but that it’s important to remember “that when George Bush came into office, we had surpluses” but now we run large deficits, and that “Senator McCain voted for four out of those five budgets.” He goes on to say we must make healthcare more affordable, invest in energy, and make college more affordable, and says that he will also cut more from the budget than he will spend. McCain says “I see why you feel that cynicism and mistrust, because the system in Washington is broken, and I have been a consistent reformer,” citing his history working with politians from both parties. “Senator Obama has never taken on the leaders of his party on a single issue” and says that Obama has the most liberal, big-spending record in the US Senate.

Point to: neither. The implication of the questioner was right, both parties’ hands have blood on them.

Tom asks what the biggest priority is between healthcare, energy, and entitlement reform. McCain says you can work on all three at once, but that we can’t promise future retirees the same deal that current retirees get. He says we need nuclear power, clean coal, tidal, etc. He also says healthcare is important, but that all three are national security requirements, and that we have to do them all at once, but we can do them all at once. Obama, on the other hand, says we have to prioritize. He mentions energy first, saying that it’s not just a budgetry problem but a national security problem, calling for us to be free of mideast oil in ten years. Healthcare is Obama’s priority #2, because it’s making our businesses less competitive in the world market. He names education as issue #3. Education wasn’t on Tom’s list… is Obama dodging the entitlement question?

Point to: Obama. We have to prioritize, and energy should be #1.

McCain gets the first Internet question: “what sacrifices will you ask everyAmerican to make?”He says that he’ll ask the American people to understand we’ll have to eliminate some programs that aren’t working. He mentions waste in defense spending as an example, again citing his role in the air force tanker funding bill. Okay, I’m sick of the freakin’ tanker story. He goes on to say he’ll impose a spending freeze across the board, except for a few programs like defense and veterans affairs. He mentions another favorite theme, eliminating earmarks. Obama asks us to recall the spirit of 9/11, and how we were willing to come together to make America a better place, and how George Bush wasted the moment by merely telling the Americna people to “go out and shop” rather than offering a higher calling. He would ask Americans to save energy, and he would like to double the Peace Corps.  He goes on to call McCain’s blanket spending freeze an unfair sharing of the burden. McCain says that the last President to increase spending during an economic crisis was Herbert Hoover.

Point to: neither. They’re both partially right: McCain with freeze everything; what government program doesn’t spend too much money? But it’s important to our national psyche for us to think big, and Obama gets that.

The next Internet question is about entitlements, and Tom asks them both if they would give Congress a deadline to fix social security and medicare. Obama says that he can’t promise it will be done in two years, but he hopes that it can be done in his first term. Obama turns the conversation to taxes, saying that if you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down under his plan, while McCain wants to give tax cuts to the wealthy. McCain says “it’s not that hard to fix social security” but it requires willingness to make tough decisions. Medicare is “going to be a little tougher, because we’re talking about difficult and tough issues” and he calls for a commission to figure out the fix. McCain then slams Obama on the tax question, saying again that Obama will raise taxes.

Point: Obama. McCain offered no specifics at all… if it’s not hard to fix social security, tell us how. 

Ingrid Jackson asks what McCain would do in the first two years to make Congress act as fast on the environmental crisis as they did on the economic crisis. McCain says that he’s historically disagreed with the Bush administration on climate change, and that the best way to solve the problem is nuclear power which is “safe, clean, and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.” Obama says that this problem is one of the biggest challenges of our times, but also an opportunity. He says that by creating a new energy economy we can create five million new jobs, and start a revolution akin to that started by the computer. Obama favors nuclear power, but only as one component of our new energy policy. Obama says that McCain has voted against alternative fuels 23 times. Tom asks if we should fund a “Manhattan-like” project to solve the energy problem, or if we should fund a hundred thousand garage operations. McCain says that government involvement is important in the beginning, but that at some point the projects should be turned over to the private sector. He goes on to cite a Bush/Cheney energy bill that Obama supported but that he opposed.

Point:  Neither one answered the question. I question Obama’s suggestion that clean energy will create five million jobs, as opposed to just transferring them from traditional energy sectors.

Lindsey Trella asks if healthcare should be treated as a commodity. Obama says that “we have a moral commitment as well as an economic imperitive” to do something about health care. His plan would let you keep the coverage you currently have if you like it, and your cost will go down because he will help fund it through your employers and look for efficiencies in the current system, but if you don’t have coverage you will be able to purchase it by entering a pool with all the other uncovered people. He criticizes McCain’s plan for giving you money with one hand and then taking it back with the other. McCain says that we need to put health records online (Am I the only one who hates that idea? I don’t want my records online) but criticizes Obama for suggesting that we fine people without coverage. McCain says he will give everyone a five thousand dollar tax credit, and let you shop for health care across state lines (imagine that, a Republican blurring the lines between states) and that because of that health care would be more affordable. He says that the problem is increasing choice, not establishing mandates. Tom: is healthcare in America a priviledge, a right, or a responsibility. McCain calls it a responsibility, saying that it’s the responsibility of business and government to make it available. (I heard this question differently, as in “is it your responsibility to provide for your own health care.”)  Obama calls it a right, and goes on to detail his plan again. Obama says that the problem with McCain’s state-free plan is that insurance companies will set up shop in the state with the fewest requirements.

Point: Obama. He made a much better case for his plan than did McCain. But I don’t think either plan will really fix anything… health care will continue to be too expensive and a complete hassle from the first sneeze to the last pill.

The next questioner asks about the relationship between the economy in our role in the world as a peacemaker. McCain calls America the greatest force for good in the history of the world, but the trick is to know when we can benefit the outcome of a crisis and when we can’t. McCain says that question can only be answered by someone with experience, and he believes that his record is better than Obama’s: “we don’t have the time for on the job training.” Obama says “McCain says I don’t understand; there are some things I don’t understand” … like why we invaded Iraq when the real enemy was in Afghanistan. “There has never been a nation in the history of the world that saw it’s economy decline” and maintained its military superiority. Tom seeks to establish the “Obama Doctrine” and the “McCain Doctrine” for intervening in humanitarian concerns. Obama says that we may not always have national security concerns, but we might have moral concerns, asking if we could have stopped the holocaust, who among us would not have done it? If we can do some good “and we stand idly by, that diminishes us” but that there’s so much cruelty in the world, we can’t do everything, suggesting that we engage the international community for help. McCain brings up Iraq, saying that if we had gotten out according to Obama’s schedule, it would have been a disaster. “Obama would have brought our troops home in defeat, I will bring them home in victory and honor.” He says we must do what we can to stop genocide, but that the coarse requires a steady hand at the tiller.

Point: McCain, but only slightly. I give him the edge because Obama was the first to bring up the UN.

Katie Ham asks if the US should not pursue terrorists into Pakistan… Obama: “We have a difficult situation in Pakistan” and believes that part of the reason is that we got distracted by the war in Iraq, and says that Afghanistan remains the central front on the war on terrorism. He says that we must change our policy in Pakistan, and that we can no longer “coddle” dictators. He wants to expand our non-military aid to Pakistan and insist that they do more, but that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights, we must “kill” him. McCain says that his hero is Teddy Roosevelt, who said “talk softly and carry a big stick,” but that Obama “talks loudly.” He says that our relations with Pakistan are critical, and we must get their support, particularly of the people.

Point: Obama. I love me some Teddy Roosevelt, but quoting him is no way for McCain to fight off the age problem. Pakistan has never been our friend, and never will be. I suppose we have to pay them lip service, but if there are terrorists to be killed it’s up to us to do it.

Tom asks about statements this week that “we cannot win” in Afghanistan… Obama says that we are going to have to withdraw our troops from Iraq in a responsible way, and send “some additional troops” to Afghanistan because “our bases are now targets” for more aggressive Taliban attacks. McCain says that General Petraeus has assumed a new position that will allow him to set the tone for the war in Afghanistan, which he says will help.

Point: neither. On Obama’s side, when have our bases not been targets? As for McCain, I’m sick of him talking about Petraeus as if he’s the second coming of Sun Tzu. I’m sure he’s fantastic, but c’mon. 

A question on Russian aggression: McCain says his analysis of Putin consists of three letters: K-G-B, and that the Russians must understand that their recent actions are not acceptable, and we will use our leverage, along with our allies, to alter their behavior, hopefully without restarting the cold war. Obama says he largely agrees with Senator McCain, but that we can’t just provide moral support, we must help them rebuild their economies. We’ve also got to see around the corners, and anticipate these problems ahead of time.

Point: neither. Putin’s a bad guy. My question for Obama, though, is how can we possibly talk about helping other countries fix their economies when ours is tanking so badly.

Tom asks “do you believe that Russian under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?” and asks for a yes or no answer. Both candidates fail to provide the one word answer… both basically say we have to be careful.

Terry Shirley asks if the candidates would defend Israel if attacked by Iran, or if we would wait for approval from the UN? McCain says that of course we would not wait for UN approval, and that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire middle east, and criticizes Obama for offering to meet with the Iranian leadership. McCain instead suggests sanctions, but that “we can never allow a second holocaust to take place.” Obama: “We can never allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon” and promises “to never take military options off the table” and that we’ll never “provide veto power” to the UN, but the best thing to do is not to get in the position to have to make those choices. He says that it’s important that we have direct talks not just with our friends, but with our enemies. “It may not work… but we have a better chance at better outcomes.”

Point: neither

Peggy from Amherst, HN asks “what don’t you know, and how will you learn it?” Obama: the challenges we’re going to face are immense, and we don’t know what we all are. But he does know that he wouldn’t be standing there if this country hadn’t given him the opportunity. McCain says that “what I don’t know is what all of us don’t know, and that’s what’s going to happen both here and abroad…. what I don’t know is what the unexpected will be.”

Point: Neither

Kind of an anticlamactic ending… I’d like some closing statements. Overall winner? Obama. Two reasons: he had a very slight win in tonight’s debate, but on the larger stage he’s  a complete winner. McCain had to do something dramatic tonight to have a chance of pulling the election out, and he didn’t come up with anything. All Obama had to do was not insult George Washington or something equally stupid, and he got away without doing it.

As for Biden.. he’s been a public figure so long I think we all know what we’re going to get with him. Even if you don’t like the guy, he can be a lot of fun when he starts talking off script. I hope we get some of that tonight. I doubt he can say anything to change the vote one way or the other, even if he completely tanks. Palin on the other hand… she’s got to be perfect. Even that may not be enough, but if she’s not, it’s over.

The debate will be moderated by Gwen Ifill, she of the recent book controversy, which is much ado about nothing.

Gwen opens up with a brief statement, telling us that each candidate will have 90 seconds to answer questions. Ninety whole seconds? How can they possibly fill that kind of time?

Biden and Palin come out on stage… she’s walking faster than he is. Nerves? Aggression? Eagerness? Youth? I wonder.

Gwen’s first question is whether the activities over the bail-out bill in the House this week represents the best of Washington or the worst of Washington? Biden describes what a tough position Congress is in, having to fix mistakes committed by the Bush administration over the last eight years. He goes on to describe what Barack Obama thinks would constitute a good bailout plan. Palin responds immediately by saying that if you want to know how bad things are, all you have to do is talk to parents at soccer games - a mistake, I think, she needs to prove she’s something other than a soccer (or hockey) mom.

Biden references the line from McCain a couple weeks ago, about the fundamentals of the economy being strong, citing that as proof McCain is out of touch. Palin jumps to McCain’s defense, offering the explanation that the strength to which he was referring was the American worker. My take: no, he wasn’t. It was a weak excuse when he offered it, and it hasn’t got better with age.

Point: Biden

The next question is about the mortgage crisis. Palin blames dishonest lenders, who talked people into mortgages they couldn’t afford - apparently the American people are incapible of math. She drops a “Joe Six-Pack” and hockey mom reference… trying to highlight Obama’s supposed elitism, I suppose. Biden responds by attacking McCain over his support for deregulation, mentioning a quote that McCain says his goal is to bring deregulation to health care. That’s a rather effective point given the situation we’re in now.

Point: Biden

I need to start counting how many times Palin uses the phrase “Darn Right!”  Ten minutes in, at the count is up to at least three so far.

Biden says Palin is not responding to the charge about deregulation, and Palin responds by lecturing Biden. This could get fun if she keeps it up… she’s trying to provoke him, I think. He’ll take the bait, too.

Gwen asks Biden about raising taxes… Biden responds that, where he comes from, that’s known as being fair, that people who have more should pay more. Biden claims that McCain wants to give corporate tax breaks while ignoring the middle class. Palin accuses Biden of espousing “redistribution of wealth,” and says that he’s ignoring the problem of small businesses paying more taxes.  She also whips out the line where Biden says it’s patriotic to pay more taxes… I assume he’s sorry he ever said that.

Point: Even

Gwen asks Palin if she would like to explain McCain’s health care plan. She explains that McCain wants to give everyone a $5k tax credit to buy insurance, whereas Obama would let the government take over health care, saying that with the way government runs things, we all ought to be excited by that. She also sais McCain will eliminate artificial boundaries between states, allowing nationwide competition - imagine that, a Republican ignorning tates’ rights. :)  Biden responds that McCain’s tax credit is actually paid for by more taxes paid by you… that you’ll be paying $12k for a $5k benefit, which he calls the “absolute bridge to nowhere.”

Point: Biden

Gwen asks what promises, given the economy, will each campaign be unable to keep? Biden says they’ll have to slow down their committment to doubling foreign aid. Palin says that the nice thing about running with McCain is that he doesn’t tell different audiences to different things.  She then turns the subject to energy, saying Obama voted for an energy plan that gave tax breaks to oil companies, whereas she as governor had to take those back. Gwen again asks Palin to answer the question, and Palin says that in five weeks she hasn’t made a lot of promises, but that she’s sure McCain hasn’t made any promises she can’t keep. Biden salutes Palin for imposing a windfall profits tax, saying that’s exactly what Obama wants to do, and he hopes she can talk McCain into doing the same.

Point: Biden

Gwen asks about climate change. Palin says that she doesn’t want to argue about what causes climate change, but coming from an arctic state she understands the problem and that we need to fix it. Biden says that you can’t fix something if you don’t understand the problem. He also cites the problem of China’s coal use, suggesting that we invest in clean coal technology and export it.

Point: Biden

Gwen asks if Biden supports granting same-sex benefits: “absolutely.” And says that in an Obama-Biden administration that there will be no distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals under the Constitution. Palin says she wouldn’t support the expansion of benefits if they would go towards the weaking of traditional marriage, but that we shouldn’t construe that answer to mean she wouldn’t be “tolerant” of other relationships. She’ll tell Americans “straight up” that she doesn’t support changing the definition of marriage. Asked directly if he supports gay marriage, Biden says “no.” Nor does Palin.

Point: None, really.Both of them don’t want to seem anti-gay, but neither will come to the logical conclusion and grant homosexuals equal rights. I suspect it’s because Palin thinks homosexuality is wrong, and Biden thinks it’s an untenable political position. Either way, they’re trying to have it both ways. Either support homosexual rights or don’t, but do it clearly.

Gwen asks which is the biggest threat, a nuclear Iraq or an unstable Pakistan. Biden says that one significant thing is that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and that while a nuclear Iran is a terrible thing, if an attack comes it will come from the hills from Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that McCain is dead wrong when he believes that Iraq is the center of the war on terror. Palin says that Petraues and Al Queda agree that Iraq is the central battleground, never mind what McCain thinks. I swear Palin is saying “nucular” ala George Bush. She goes on to attack Obama for suggesting we meet with the leadership of Iran.

Point: Tie

Palin says that a two-state solution is the answer to the Israei/Palestenian problem, but that Israel is our best ally in the region and that we owe it to the Israelis to support them. Biden says “no one” in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel that Joe Biden, and that while he gives Rice credit for trying to pull things together at the eleventh hour, Bush’s policy in the middle east has been an “abject failure.” Palin says that she doesn’t think that it’s been an abject failure, but she’s so glad to hear that they agree on Israel. (Jaz hands!) Biden scores points by saying that if there’s a difference between Bush’s policy and McCain’s policy, he doesn’t know what it is.

Point: Biden

Biden throws out a statistic that we’ve spent more in three weeks in Iraq than we have in seven years in Afghanstian. Really? I’m floored. That’s a fantastic point. I’m not anti-Iraq-war, but that’s ridiculous.

Asked how a Biden administration would differ from an Obama administration, Biden says he would carry forward Obama’s policies, going on to detail what some of those policies are, saying that he agrees with Obama on every major initiative. Palin says “of course” we don’t agree 100% on everything, but that she would continue “the good work” he is committed to.

Point: Tie

Palin mentiions several times when Biden is critical of records, that for such a forward-looking set of candidates, they do too much finger pointing backwards (which is a ridiculous thing to say.)

Asked about the vice-presidency, Palin goes on to detail the constitutional responsibilities. Biden says he’s had an extensive conversation with Obama about his responsibilities, and while it will partially be to use his influence in the Senate, but that while Obama will be President, he’ll have input into every major decision, even if he disagrees. He goes on to call Chaney the most dangerous vice president we’ve ever had, calling his notion that the VP is part of the legislative branch “bizarre.”

Point: Biden, big-time. That was the best description of what someone would do as VP that I’ve ever heard.

Final question: can you think of a single issue in which you had to change a long-held belief? Biden: yes, that the ideology of a judge matters, not just their qualifications, citing specifically Robert Bork. Palin: says she may have “caved” on some budgets that she should have vetoed, but she went forward because she didn’t have the support… but says that she hasn’t had to compromise on anything major. (Really?)

Biden adopted a brilliant tact tonight, directing his attacks toward McCain rather than Palin, thereby not seeming meanspirited to her, but still making his points. If you look at my summary, above, in my judgement Biden clearly won on points. However, I expect perception will be completely diffferent… Palin showed up well. She didn’t make as good a case for Biden, but popular perception will be that she did quite well. She actually did… but I still got all image, no substance. Her style drives me crazy… it’s like the Lancome lady from MadTV a few years ago.

“Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered for the nomination for vice president of the United States.

I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.

I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election against confident opponents at a crucial hour for our country.

And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions … and met far graver challenges and knows how tough fights are won — the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.

It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.

With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost — there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.

But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.

They overlooked the caliber of the man himself — the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Sen. John McCain. The voters knew better.

And maybe that’s because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership … a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.

Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.

He’s a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I’m just one of many moms who’ll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm’s way.

Our son Track is 19.

And one week from tomorrow — Sept. 11 — he’ll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.

My nephew Kasey also enlisted and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.

My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five children.

In our family, it’s two boys and three girls in between — my strong and kind-hearted daughters, Bristol, Willow and Piper.

And in April, my husband, Todd, and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.

That’s how it is with us.

Our family has the same ups and downs as any other — the same challenges and the same joys.

Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.

And children with special needs inspire a special love.

To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.

I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.

He’s a lifelong commercial fisherman … a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska’s North Slope … a proud member of the United Steel Workers Union … and world champion snow machine racer.

Throw in his Yup’ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.

We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he’s still my guy. My mom and dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.

And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.

My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and haberdasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.

A writer observed: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity.” I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.

I grew up with those people.

They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America who grow our food, run our factories and fight our wars.

They love their country, in good times and bad, and they’re always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.

I was just your average hockey mom and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids’ public education better.

When I ran for City Council, I didn’t need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.

But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.

Politics isn’t just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.

The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.

No one expects us to agree on everything.

But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and … a servant’s heart.

I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor’s office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau … when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol’ boys network.

Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That’s why true reform is so hard to achieve.

But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.

And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.

I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor’s office that I didn’t believe our citizens should have to pay for.

That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.

I also drive myself to work.

And I thought we could muddle through without the governor’s personal chef — although I’ve got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending — by request if possible and by veto if necessary.

Sen. McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest — and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.

Our state budget is under control.

We have a surplus.

And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

I suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

I told the Congress “thanks, but no thanks,” for that Bridge to Nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, we’d build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged — directly to the people of Alaska.

And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.

As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.

And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly 40 billion-dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.

The stakes for our nation could not be higher.

When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies … or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia … or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries … we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.

And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We’ve got lots of both.

Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems — as if we all didn’t know that already.

But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines … build more nuclear plants … create jobs with clean coal … and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.

We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I’ve noticed a pattern with our opponent.

Maybe you have, too.

We’ve all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.

And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot — what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger … take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights? Government is too big … he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much … he promises more.

Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes … raise payroll taxes … raise investment income taxes … raise the death tax … raise business taxes … and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that’s now opened for business — like millions of others who run small businesses.

How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you’re trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio … or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia … or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.

How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here’s how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.

In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.

And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.

They’re the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.

Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.

And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They’re the ones who are good for more than talk … the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Sen. McCain’s record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency — from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.

Our nominee doesn’t run with the Washington herd.

He’s a man who’s there to serve his country, and not just his party.

A leader who’s not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either. Harry Reid, the majority leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.

He said, quote, “I can’t stand John McCain.” Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we’ve chosen the right man. Clearly what the majority leader was driving at is that he can’t stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of “personal discovery.” This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn’t just need an organizer.

And though both Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, “fighting for you,” let us face the matter squarely.

There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you … in places where winning means survival and defeat means death … and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their country.

It’s a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a 6-by-4 cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.

But if Sen. McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.

It’s the journey of an upright and honorable man — the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country, only he was among those who came home.

To the most powerful office on Earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless … the wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God … the special confidence of those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pinhole in his cell door as Lt. Cmdr. John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.

As the story is told, “When McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn toward Moe’s door and flash a grin and thumbs up” — as if to say, “We’re going to pull through this.” My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through these next four years.

For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.

For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.

If character is the measure in this election … and hope the theme … and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.

Thank you all, and may God bless America.”

Update: video of the speech itself can be seen here:

Disney’s official Festival web site has the basic information, and if you’re lucky you might even get a printed brochure in the mail sometime before the Festival starts… but it will be far too late to actually be of any use in making reservations. Of course, if you’re like me, none of that’s quite what you want anyway… what you’d really like to see is a quick guide to what will be going on during the dates you’re in the World. Or maybe you pick one main event you want to travel to attend, and want to see everything else that’s going on that weekend. So here you go:

A downloadable Excel spreadsheet of everything, sorted by date and color coded by event type. Let me know if you like it… I’d get a kick out of knowing someone else found it useful.

One disclaimer: I tried to make the spreadsheet accurate, but it is in no way official or sponsored by Disney. Please, please, please, confirm the times/locations/prices with official sources before you make any plans based on what you see here.

Other F&W thoughts: My overall impression is of a much less attractive schedule than last year:

• Not to be too negative, but the Signature Dining series has been gutted. Too bad; that was one of the highlights of the Festival for me, and I had looked forward to attending several events this year. Doesn’t look like it now. This is a real disappointment.
• Exquisite Evenings are gone, too. Another bummer.
• Regional Feasts are history as well. I suppose the City Tastes are supposed to be a replacement, but they don’t look quite as nice to me.
• Major kudos to Epcot for getting the Bocuse d’Or. This is a big deal.
• Fewer Wine classes/seminars… vertical tastings down from 7 to 3 over last year, Epcot wine schools down from 7 to 4.
• A big comedown on the food and wine pairings, too, with them only being held in Japan, Italy, and Morocco (last year was Japan, Morocco, Living Seas, Canada, France, Italy, and a Scotch pairing at the Rose & Crown)
• The French Regional Lunch series is potentially interesting.
• Much more concentration in Epcot and less use of other WDW properties… you might argue that it’s more convenient this way, but I sort of liked the impression that at any given moment there were lots of things happening all over the World.
• The schedule is coming out later and later every year. Thanks Big D.

The one aspect I’d say has held it’s own is the Eat to the Beat lineup. Big Bad Voodoo Daddy is a fantastic addition, and there are several other worthy newcomers.

Get your dialing fingers ready if there’s anything you just have to do… the good stuff always fills up fast. Despite my complaints, I’m looking forward to this year’s Festival. See you there!

• September 26, at the University of Mississippi, in Oxford. The candidates will answer questions from moderator Jim Lehrer, and the focus will be on foreign policy and national security.
• October 7, at Belmont University in Nashville. It will be a town hall style setting, moderated by Tom Brokaw. Topics will be determined by the audience and viewers will also be able to submit questions via the Internet.
• October 15, at Hofstra University in New York. The topics will be the economy and domestic policy, with questions put to the candidates by moderator Bob Schieffer.

In addition, the two vice presidential candidates will have one debate on October 2, at Washington University in St. Louis.

I’d go more with “dumb looking.” C’mon, people, why does economical have to mean ugly-as-hell? Some clever car company is going to take something like this or the Yaris or something and put a decent-looking shell on it and make a killing. They’ll still be underperforming roller-skates, of course, but at least you won’t cringe every time someone recognizes you in it.

Detroit? Are you listening? What have you guys got to lose?

I’m generally not a comic book movie person; for instance, after seeing the Fantastic Four movies I wished I’d poked my own eyes out first.  Still, some rise above the rest, and the Batman series has historically been one of the better efforts - at least,  the first two Burton movies and the reboot of the franchise with Batman Begins have been worth seeing. Plus I do like big event type movies, so while I wasn’t there at midnight, I did take the trouble to catch a reasonable early day-after showing of The Dark Knight.

Verdict: It’s good. Very good.

You’ve heard the best part by now, of course: Heath Ledger. His performance is everything it was rumored to be… simply brilliant. I started the movie wondering how I’d be able to forget Jack Nicholson’s performance  long enough to give Heath a fair appraisal, but honestly I’d forgotten about that question twenty seconds into his first screen appearance. He’s that good… Oscar-territory type stuff. (He probably won’t actually have a fighting chance because of the type of movie The Dark Knight is, but that will be the shortsightedness of the Academy voters, not a failure of Heath Ledger.)  Heath’s performance is more akin to Malcolm MacDowell’s in A Clockwork Orange than to Jack’s earlier Joker.

The other actors are much more spotty.

• Christian Bale either completely tanks or is completely brilliant, I can’t decide which. Batman is, of course, hidden behind the mask, and the Bruce Wayne mindless playboy stuff is right on - but I can’t decide if it’s acting. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and give him a pass here.
• Gary Oldman is never, ever bad.
• Michael Caine is also never, ever bad (he won’t hesitate to be in some awful movies, though.)
• Morgan Freeman is fine, but has little to work with.
• Aaron Eckhart is as good as he has to be, but not much more. His performance put me in mind of a slightly younger Bill Pullman.
• Maggie Gyllenhaal was the real surprise for me. Sure, I could watch her do her sexy girlfriend walk around Bruce’s party all night, but I’ve got to say I never thought I was watching anything but someone playing a part. I’d expected more from her.

Overall, I’d rank this easily as the most substantial member of the Batman franchise, the only one that aspires to actually be called a film rather than a summer movie. I don’t know if it quite makes it, but it doesn’t fall terribly short, either.

The primary characters - both Batman and the Joker - are much more than the standard cardboard cutout superheroes (or supervillains) … both have reasonably believable motivation, and the stereotypical banter back and forth (e.g., “You’re more like me than you want to admit!”) is done rather better than it usually is. There are several ethical dilemmas and philosophical points along the way that are at least worth considering, even if only during late night debate sessions among friends, and that adds a depth to the movie that the others in the series lacked.

Is it perfect? No. This is partially due to several things:

• First up, the movie gets ridiculously gadget-happy at times.  Batman was always one of the darker comic book heroes (at least for his original era) and the movie is at its best when it’s dealing with character development and motivation. The technology has long been an important aspect, but it ought to be window dressing, not integral to the story. For example, the Bat-cycle was a stupid, pointless, unnecessary addition and will forever remain a bad idea. (It should be noted that, in the theater I attended, a large number of the audience actually applauded the bike at one point, so I could be culturally way off-base on this one; that doesn’t, however, make me wrong.)  There’s also an extremely silly bit in Hong Kong that  tears the fabric of the movie for a while.
• The dialog needed polishing at a couple of points. There’s the usual a-real-conversation-would-have-used-a-contraction-there stuff (e.g., “I will be seeing you” instead of “I’ll be seeing you”) but there’s one particularly lumbering piece of expositional dialog right at the end.  One other grating moment was  when Morgan Freemen gets to do a little bit of blatant political grandstanding, which was distracting.
• A couple spots look like there was some editing for length, and the scenes suffered for it. It’ll be interesting to see what comes out of the closet for the DVD.
• There are one or two ham handed comic moments that don’t really fit the mood of the movie (picture the ubiquitous action movie street drunk who happens to see a hero do something fantastic and mutters a confused “huh?”)

But that’s all quibbling, knocking the movie from something in 9.6 territory down to maybe a 9.2, and most of that’s because of the gadget idiocy.  All in all, very much worth seeing… in fact, it’s the first movie in I can’t remember when that I wanted to go see again the very same day.  I can’t wait to see what Christopher Nolan does with the next one.

Other notes: there were FAR too many previews, most of them completely forgettable. Watchmen looks good; Death Race looks terrible. The theater next door was showing Mama Mia! … the plot escapes me, but I think it has something to do with Meryl Streep having to decide which member of Abba to give to Nazi prison guards. Turns out there’s no wrong choice.

The conversation should go something like this:

“Hil? Barack. Yes, fine, fine, how are you? Really? Bill? Chelsea? Great. Now, about this veep thing. I hear you’re interested? Yes, yes, your name has come up over here, too.

But here’s the thing that’s worrying me: I’m not sure I can work with you. Now, fighting the good fight is one thing, but you persisted long after you knew it was over and that you were damaging my general election effort. No, no hear me out. And then the speech after the last primary… it was anything but conciliatory, almost as if you’re willing to cause a ruckus if I don’t publicly offer you a spot. I’m afraid there’s too much water under the bridge, Hil. I hope we have a productive relationship with you in the senate, we can do a lot of good, but the VP spot is out.

Yes, yes, I’m sorry you feel that way, but that’s just the way it is. What do you mean, we’ll just have to go through the convention? Fine. Have it your way. Just between you and me: you just spent the last two years confirming everything the Republicans ever said about you - only now, Democrats are all saying the same stuff. People flat-out hate you, Hillary. Our party has tolerated you as long as they have because 1) it looked for a while like you were going to win, and 2) out of nostalgia for your husband’s administration. But you’ve played those cards. Fight me at the convention and you’ll be forever remembered as the bitter shrew that screwed up the biggest cakewalk election in American history. You’re out of allies, Hil.”

In short, Obama doesn’t need her. Moreover, I think selecting her would be pretty shortsighted; Hillary polarizes people in a way that will actually cost him votes.

I hear Joe Biden is on his short VP list. Now THERE is an interesting choice. The one knock on Obama is his foreign policy chops, and Biden could cover him on that.

I’m liveblogging this as it unfolds. I don’t claim this represents every single word that the candidates said, but I think it gives a fair impression of the points they were trying to make. Where I can’t resist commenting my thoughts are clearly indicated by italics so you can take those parts with however many grains of salt you deem appropriate. My usual disclaimer: this is coming out in real-time, with minimal editing. I trust you’ll forgive any grammatical/punctuation/spelling mistakes.

Interesting debate tonight. If Obama hadn’t offered up the “bitter” speech recently, this would just be a formality. Clinton was about to lose, and that briefly let her off the ropes. I still think she loses, but if she lands a haymaker tonight, who knows?

Away we go.

Opening Statements: Obama addressed the “bitter” comment right off the bat in a veiled way, saying in his opening statement that he’s noticed the “frustration” among the Pennsylvania voters as he has toured the state. Clinton noted that they are meeting tonight in the city where “our founders” (”Founding Fathers,” Hillary, “Founding Fathers”) met to decide the course of our nation, and points out that neither she nor Obama were included in their plans. She promises to work to perfect the underlying promise of America.

• Gibson asks about their “disproportionate” appeal to disparate groups, and asks if they will agree with Cuomo’s suggestion that they will both pledge to take the second spot on the other’s ticket should they lose. The audience laughs. Obama takes up the gauntlet first, giving his usual canned answer that the decision of a running mate is premature. Clinton says she will “do everything I possibly can to make sure that one of us takes office” Sounds to me like she’s opening the door… smart of her, what with her probably losing the election. Obama would be foolish to accept her as a running mate, but that’s a different story. She might need to him to win, but I don’t believe he needs her, and given a choice he certainly doesn’t WANT her looking over his shoulder for four years.

• Gibson asks Obama about the “bitter” comment. Obama says “I can see how people were offended… it’s not the first time I’ve made a statement that was mangled up, and it won’t be the last.” What he meant to say was that “people are going through very difficult times” and that makes them “focus on things that are constant, like religion…. and on things like guns, where traditions have [been handed down] generation to generation.” He sees an opportunity “to break through that frustration, and that’s what our campaign is all about.” Clinton responds that she’s the granddaughter of a mill worker who attended church and that she “doesn’t believe my grandfather and my father… cling to religion” when they feel like Washington isn’t listening to them. “I just don’t believe that’s how people live their lives.” She goes on to say “I can see why people would be offended, taken aback, by the remarks.”

• Stephanopoulos asks Clinton about her statement to Bill Richardson that “Senator Obama can’t win” … does she believe that, or not? She responds that “Well, we have to beat John McCain…. he will be a formidable candidate” but that he has wrong ideas about America. Stephanopoulos asks again “do you think Senator Obama can win?” Clinton: “Yes, yes, yes… now, I think I can do a better job.” Stephanopoulos asks the reverse to Obama: do you think Senator Clinton can win? Obama: “Absolutely.” During his extended comments, Obama compares to the recent charges he’s elitist to the episode years ago where Hillary said something along the lines of “should I be at home baking cookies?” and saying that he knows that’s not who Hillary is, and she should know that the “bitter” comment does not reflect he is. He did a very nice job of reminding the world of Hillary’s gaffe without making it seem like he was attacking her, or leaving her room to get righteously indignant. Well played, Barack.




• Gibson asks Obama about a statement Jeremiah Wright made that Obama uninvited him from the announcement of his candidacy. Obama, looking ever so slightly annoyed, doesn’t really answer the question, but reiterates earlier statements about his love for the church rather than the pastor, and that Rev. Wright said offensive things which he denounced. Gibson asks Clinton about her statement that he would not have been her pastor, and that she would have removed herself from the church; Gibson notes the good work the church does, and asks if all 8,000 members should have quit the church. Clinton also looking annoyed says that she was responding to a personal question, and cites the fact that Wright’s first sermon after the 9/11 attacks denigrated America. Obama speaks back up rather lamely, IMHO and says he was unaware of the remakes as he “wasn’t in church that day” and then mentions Clinton’s own pastor’s support of Reverend Wright. Do I think Wright’s statements reflect Obama’s views? No. Do I think he cynically stuck around the church because of some local political advantage? Absolutely.

• Stephanopoulos asks Obama the stupid question where or not he believes Wright loves America as much as Obama does, and what he will do with the inflammatory clips from Wright are constantly replayed if he gets to be President. Obama dodges the first question, and says that the idea that “the American people will be distracted once again by comments made by someone made by someone associated with me” - “disowned the comments” - is not true. Stephanopoulos asks again if he thinks Wright is patriotic. Obama responds “this is someone who is a former Marine… I believe he loves this country.” Clinton chimes in that she believes it’s not just Reverend Wright, but the endorsement of Louis Farrakahn and an invitation to Hamas to put a message in the church bulletin.

• A video question asks Clinton how she can reconcile her campaign of honesty with her story of coming under sniper fire. She responds that she’s recently said some things that she knew she couldn’t reconcile with the story she had written in her book, and that she’s apologized for it and that it was a mistake. “On a few occasions I was unfortunately not as accurate as I have been in the past” but that she’s proud of her trip to Bosnia. She’s sorry that she said things that “didn’t jibe” with what she knew to be true. Sorry Hillary, what you just defined with that last sentence is more succinctly termed “a lie.”. “Not accurate” might apply to forgetting whether or not you left the house at 6pm or 6:30, but running for cover from snipers is something that you would tend to remember.

• A video clip from Nash McCabe asks Obama whether or not “you believe in the American flag…. All our service men and women wear one, I wonder why you don’t.” Groan. Not this again. Let me guess, next will be a question about Obama in the tribal outfit. Obama’s response: “I revere the American flag… there’s no other country in which my story is even possible…. What I’ve tried to do is show my patriotism [by his treatment of veterans, by ending the war in Iraq, by ending economic inequities].”

• Stephanopoulos asks Obama about his relationship with Bill Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground who bombed government buildings in the 1970s. Obama says that “this is a guy who lives in my neighborhood” and whether or not that individual carried out bombings “forty years ago when I was eight years old” is not reflective of his views. Clinton said that Obama’s statement is okay as far as it goes, but that even though “Obama is a good man and I respect him” that this is an issue people will be raising in the general election. She suggests that Republicans apologize for the Bush/Chaney years, drawing laughter from the audience. She says that she’s the best candidate to withstand Republican attacks. Obama responds that on the Weather Underground issue, Bill Clinton pardoned two of the members of the organization himself. I don’t know that I agree with Obama’s dismissal of the issue, but from a tactical point of view I think he deflected it very well.

• Mandy Garber asks whether or not either of the candidates have a real plan to exit Iraq, or if they’re just posturing. Gibson asks Clinton if she intends to withdraw the troops even in the face of advice from the military that such an action would be disastrous. Clinton responds “Yes,” and cites civilian control of the military. She goes on to explain that she believes it’s in the best interests of the both Iraq and America, and promises to ask her military advisers to devise a plan that will allow her to begin to withdraw troops within sixty days. “I think it’s important that this decision is made and I intend to make it.” Gibson asks Clinton if she’s saying “I know better” than the military commanders. Clinton responds no, but that what she does know is that no one can predict. Clinton believes that exiting Iraq will allow us to focus more on other problems facing us. If we stay in Iraq, Clinton believes that the Iraqi government will never take responsibility for their country, our military will be stretched thin, and we cannot regain our global leadership role. Obama concurs, saying “the commander in chief [sets the mission], not the generals” and criticizes President Bush for using the military’s advice as an excuse to stay. “Ultimately, the buck stops with me as commander in chief.” I’ll just say that I think both of them are being extremely shortsighted about the mess we’ll leave behind in Iraq if we just pick up and leave, and I’ll stop there.

• Stephanopoulos asks Obama if America should extend an old cold war policy and treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it’s an attack on the United States. Obama responds that our first goal should be to keep nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands and that he will directly engage them about a whole list of issues, including terrorism. He goes on to say that they need to understand he would take no option off the table in responding to an attack on one of our Allies. Clinton says “of course” that she would make it clear to Iran that an attack on Israel would “incur massive retaliation” from the United States. She says not only that, but that we should extend an umbrella of deterrence beyond Israel. She suggests “enlisting the region” in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran, offering other countries in the region a defense agreement with the United States if they “forswear” the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

• Stephanopoulos asks Clinton about a McCain statement that both Democratic candidates will raise everyone’s taxes, and asks Clinton if she will pledge not to raise taxes on people making under $200,000 and whether or not she will insist on rolling back the Bush tax cuts if the economy is bad a year from now. Clinton responds that she will raise taxes on everyone making over $250,000, believing that it will not hurt the economy. She affirms that she will roll back the Bush tax cuts and goes on to pledge that she absolutely will not raise taxes on the middle class. Obama says not only will he not raise middle class taxes, but that he will offer tax relief to the middle class.

• Gibson asks Obama about his support for an increase in the capital gains tax in light of data that every recent time the tax rate has been lowered revenues have gone up. Obama responds that he has said he will look at raising the capital gains rate “in the interest of fairness” and mentions the Warren Bufett story, without naming him, of extremely wealthy people being in a lower tax bracket than their secretaries. Asked again about the revenue increase in the face of a tax cut, Obama responds that “it might happen or it might not… it depends on what is happening on Wall Street.” Clinton says we need to get back to an economy “that works for everyone,” citing the 1990’s as an example. She suggests investing in green energy as a way to create jobs, and endorses “good union jobs with a good wage.” Clinton goes on to say we need more relief for the housing crisis and we need to figure out what we should invest in as a country. Asked if she would raise the capital gains tax, she says she certainly wouldn’t raise it above what it was during her husband’s administration, if she did it at all. My personal portfolio is… yes, let me check… damn near nonexistent, so I stand nothing to gain or lose, but it seems to me investment is what’s driven every economic boom in my lifetime. It seems foolish to give the folks with money less of an incentive to give American industry the funds to compete with the rest of the world.

• Gibson, noting that it’s the anniversary of the shootings at Virginia Tech, asks the candidates about gun control, suggesting that both candidates are softening their positions on gun control for the purposes of the campaign. Clinton says that our police are outgunned by criminals, and suggests that 80% of the guns used in crimes are in the hands of the culprits illegally, and says making federal information available to local law enforcement will help the problem. I’m confused here. There’s a registry of who owns guns illegally? Gibson asks Obama about the DC law that bans private ownership of certain types of guns. Obama says he’s not terribly familiar with the exact law in question, but that “as a general principle” people have the right to gun ownership, however that doesn’t mean that state and local governments can’t “constrain that right.” He goes on to talk about the tradition of hunting. Obama says “I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns” but thinks we can take measures about the problems of guns on the streets. Stephanopoulos asks Clinton if she, as a homeowner of Washington DC, supports the ban. Clinton says she supports the ability of local governments to protect their citizens. Asked again whether or not she thinks the ban is Constitutional, she responds that she thinks a wholesale ban might be found unconstitutional but she doesn’t know the facts. She goes on to again say that different restrictions might be appropriate for different locations. So, Clinton doesn’t believe that abortion, which she views as a Constitutional right, shouldn’t be subject to local control, but the rights of the Second Amendment should be? Whatever side of the issue you’re on, that’s just inconsistent.

• Stephanopoulos asks Obama’s statement that affirmative action ought to apply to poor white children, and not to affluent black children. Obama responds that colleges ought to be able to take into account a persons history when making admission decisions, “I still believe in affirmative action” as a means of overcoming inequities, but it can’t be a quota system and needs to apply to all people locked out of opportunity. Clinton says we need “affirmative action generally” to apply to all disadvantaged people. Sorry, both of you are wrong… affirmative action is legalized discrimination and every bit as immoral as the problem it was designed to correct.

• Gibson: “What are you going to do about gas prices?” Clinton suggests that we apply a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies and put the money back into highway programs Which doesn’t lower gas prices, does it? And that long term we must need to develop alternate energy policy. Obama suggests that we apply the windfall profits tax and investigate price gouging, and that long term we must increase fuel efficiency on cars, ultimately reducing demand for gasoline. Obama suggests a “Manhattan project” to develop alternate energy sources.

• Stephanopoulos: Senator Clinton, you’ve said you believe in using former Presidents. How would you use George W. Bush? Clinton: I’m going to have to put some thought into that. Laughter. Obama: “I’m more likely to ask advice of the current President’s father… I don’t believe Democrats have a monopoly on good ideas.”

• Final question: how are they each going to convince convention delegates that they’re the right candidate? Clinton says she will tackle the problems that have been waiting for a champion in the White House. “I’m ready to be the commander in chief… I will turn this economy around, we will get back to shared prosperity…. You know where I stand, you know that I will fight for you, and together we will take back our country.” Obama: “Our nation is at war, our planet is in peril, our economy is in shambles, and our people have lost faith in their government…. [When I ran] the bet I was making was a bet on the American people…. Change does not happen from the top down, it happens from the bottom up…. My bet’s paid off…. My point to the superdelegates will be… we’ve got to [form a new political alliance in this country.]”

That’s it. Summary/Conclusions:

Interesting night. It was arguably the most substantive, considered debate of the season - which may not be saying much, but there you have it. Hillary didn’t go after Obama, perhaps having seen the backlash of her recent attacks in falling poll numbers this week. Obama didn’t go for the finishing move, either. Both candidates seemed very serious; perhaps this was weariness after the grueling campaign, but I’d like to think they finally determined amongst themselves to give us a little better tonight. Regardless, it was a very good hour and a half.

Winner: Obama. He deflected several issues - the Weather Underground supporter, Reverend Wright, the “bitter” comment, getting through them and right on through to making the points he wanted to make. Clinton also did well - if she’d been this on her game the whole time, she would have had the nomination months ago - but this debate was really about America wanting one last sanity check on Obama as a candidate, and he delivered.

Pennsylvania numbers come in next Tuesday night. After that, on to the conventions. I hope you join me for them.