Good stuff

I didn't watch any of the convention speeches last night after Clinton, but have been watching John Kerry's speech this afternoon (see here) and it was more lively and feistily engaging than anything he managed when a candidate himself. Worth a listen, not least for the way he called McCain on his double-talk and actual record. If only we could have nominated *this* guy four years ago...

A little after-mourning

A thread on kos gave me a brief what-might-have-been twinge...
While our President was doing this, his onetime opponent made this rather different stop.

Unspoken agenda

Rafe has an interesting musing on the degree to which the division between Bush and Kerry voters reflects real differences in comfort with violence, even though this is something rarely, if ever, discussed.

I favored John Kerry because I knew he'd be more reticent about using violence than President Bush. It doesn't surprise me that the people I'm talking about opposed him for exactly that reason. . . . Bush may be incompetent, but he's not going to err on the side of caution when it comes to killing people.

Worth a read.

It's over

Kerry conceded Ohio at about 11:00 EST, and thus the election. There must not be enough provisional ballots to be worth pursuing. I trust that if there were any scrap to hold onto, they would follow it out. So we're done.


Rumors of a speech from Boston at 1:00, but I haven't seen it documented in the news. The website still expresses hope about Ohio, so nothing helpful there.

I'm likely to stop reading the news for today, at least. May post a few thoughtful distractions later, if I get enough work done meantime. Hang in there, y'all.

Who are you for again?

I can't top this post from Rafe, who notes that Bush seems to be endorsing his opponent . . .

Update: Wes Clark spells it out, for those in need of a road map...

The New Yorker weighs in

For the first time in its 80-year history, they choose to endorse a candidate in the Presidential race.

The damage visited upon America, and upon America’s standing in the world, by the Bush Administration’s reckless mishandling of the public trust will not easily be undone. And for many voters the desire to see the damage arrested is reason enough to vote for John Kerry. But the challenger has more to offer than the fact that he is not George W. Bush. In every crucial area of concern to Americans (the economy, health care, the environment, Social Security, the judiciary, national security, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism), Kerry offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush’s curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery. Pollsters like to ask voters which candidate they’d most like to have a beer with, and on that metric Bush always wins. We prefer to ask which candidate is better suited to the governance of our nation.
. . .
[Kerry] is plainly the better choice. As observers, reporters, and commentators we will hold him to the highest standards of honesty and performance. For now, as citizens, we hope for his victory.

An image to stick?

The DNC has just released a new ad, which compares "the eagle that soars" to "the ostrich with its head in the sand." That feels to me like it captures much of the recent discussion about Kerry's flexible/informed approach to world events, contrasted with Bush's immunity to input. But it could be effective only for those who already hold those views, dunno. (I'm still amazed that the "this is your brain on drugs" ads were incomprehensible to much of the nation.)

http://www.democrats.org/

Let me know what you think. (there's a comment function! really, right down there!)

(tip via Political Wire>

A fight for the soul of the GOP

kos has a list of Republican former heavyweights (governors, etc.) who have come out in favor of Kerry. The Wiki server's dKosopedia has an expanded list of entries, including people who once held such exalted positions as EPA chief and Secretary of State in other Republican administrations but now feel unable to support their party's ticket -- also linked there are other groups, such as diplomats, scientists, and economists who have stated their opposition to Bush and his policies. They all feel that the current administration is no longer serving the principles that their party used to stand for, and they fear the repurcussions for both that party and the nation.I think Ron Suskind captures it right here:

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.''

I'm glad that this many serious players realize that it isn't about political power anymore, but about the fate of our country. (Of course, I'm hoping that we give them the opportunity for self-examination on the sidelines.)

Out of the mouths of babes...

A Nickelodeon poll of kids shows a resounding Kerry victory. (These results are thought to reflect their parents' true leanings better than direct polling.)

Nickelodeon, a unit of Viacom Inc., has organized its poll every election since 1988, and has a 100 percent record of picking the winner.

(via Katerina at dailyKos)

I guess I'm a basket case

It must be a measure of four years of pent up frustration, anger,shame, and hopelessness that this little video trying to help visualize a Kerry victory actually choked me up. (I suppose it might give the superstitious stomach aches.)

http://www.needlenose.com/win04/vote.htm

(via kos)

What constitutes an insult?

I've generally tried to stay out of the pseudo-furor over Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney in the last debate, since I think it was basically a well-deployed Rove distraction strategy to take the public eye off of Bush's more substantive gaffs (the lie about dismissing Osama, the "I hope it's not the Administration's fault, heh heh" joke). But the fact of the matter is that the level of professed outrage demonstrates only that "gay" is viewed as an insult, precisely (and only) by those claiming to protect Ms. Cheney. If Kerry had referred to the Bush twins as college students (as factual as that Mary is a lesbian, has been out, and has worked as a gay advocate in the corporate sector), would that have been a matter for all the finger wagging? Please. Anyway, I decided to acknowledge all of this because Andrew Sullivan, conservative megaphone, summarized the point quite nicely thus:

Alan Keyes goes on the attack again, saying children of gay parents will live in families where "incest becomes inevitable." I await the outrage of Matthew Dowd, Lynne Cheney, Bill Kristol, Bill Safire, Mort Kondracke, Maureen Dowd, and on and on. Oh, wait. It's only if you say a positive thing about gay people that you're a homophobe.

Quite so. On to reality-based news!
(link via Matthew Yglesias)

Thanks

To the New York Times, in their endorsement, for acknowledging that while this election is to a large degree a referendum on Bush's tenure, Kerry is "better than a modest improvement" and could actually be a great leader.

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

(emphasis mine) This is my impression too. I think Kerry might actually have the capability to return the country to civil debate about the issues that face us, a nontrivial gift in light of the bitter divisions and deaf partisanship that seems to have taken hold, from Congress down to our very neighborhoods. I'd sure like to give him the chance.

Final debate recap

This one a bit anticlimactic -- didn't even have anybody stop by to watch it with us. Much of the ground had already been covered, so little room for innovation. Probably Bush's best performance overall, and yet substituting a plastered smile-ette for his prior scowls didn't save him from looking just as piqued. Kerry managed to point out differences with his opponent that hadn't been addressed previously, as on protecting choice, restricting sales of assault weapons, rationalizing immigration, but Bush probably scored a few points with his "bait-and-switch" suggestion that K couldn't pay for proposed programs. Nothing here to change the overall momentum, which is all Kerry right now.

The news polls after the debates gave the win to Kerry. A quick Gallup poll said Kerry 52-39 (with a balanced sample). QWQ got this from the Times:

Wednesday night's was his most appealing presentation so far, but it was so at odds with his others that some voters might be left puzzled by the inconsistency.

DemfromCT over at Kos has a good wrap-up of the view from the talking heads, which resonates with my take. That is to say, Kerry is Presidential material, and Bush is hiding from questions about what he'll do differently.

Now it's all a war on the ground. Make sure that nobody that you know decides to stay home on November 2! As digby says,

The next two weeks are going to be a wild ride, but the wind is at our backs.

Update (10/15): DemfromCT over at Kos has a nice wrap of how the total effect of the debates is being played, now that the press has had a chance to mull it all over. Let's just say, the Conventional Wisdom has been successfully redirected!

Hey, he scares me already!

Nice one from the Onion:

In an announcement that has alarmed voters across the nation, Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he will personally attack the U.S. if Sen. John Kerry wins the next election.

(and, of course, kos makes the link to this other related classic)

Phila Inquirer endorses Kerry

Not a given, but not a surprise. The surprise is the dire language they used....

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/9878518.htm

"The choice is vivid. The stakes are vast."
(via Atrios)

Second take on second debate

ABC had a poll with 33% Dem/Repub respondents and the rest undecided. Apparently they gave the debate to Kerry 47% to 41%. That sounds about right to me.

also, Kos has some positive pundit spin from the first hour post-debate...

Update: Conventional wisdom (as of Saturday) now puts it at a slight Kerry victory. 'Dem from CT' over at Kos has a nice summary of what this means for the state of the race (and how that has changed in the last couple of weeks), complete with good analysis of what has happened to the perception of the candidates strengths and weaknesses. Another poster ('thirdparty') gives a wrap-up of sound bites from around the press that depict Bush as shrill.

Two words for President Bush: anger management.

Quick post-debate response

Bush managed to look marginally better, but Kerry still outshone him on poise and policy. Our crowd watching thought it went well -- certainly no change to the direction of momentum, which means it cements the impressions from Debate #1. Online polls giving Kerry a wide victory, but the pundits seem to think that Bush pulled it out -- perhaps because he didn't seem as petulant as he's now shown he can... Anyway, nobody is doing immediate polling tonight, so will have to wait to see what impressions are nationwide.

Favorite quotes of the night:

1. On the coalition: if the troops from Missouri were taken as a group, they'd be the third largest country in the alliance, by level of involvement. ouch!
2. "It's the job of the military to win the war; it's the job of the President to win the peace." well put.

More when I've had some sleep!