The Moment We've All Been Waiting for...

The Obamas picked a dog!

Kenneth the Governor

Saw this on Foote Steppes (great political blog) and had to share it.



Still not having seen the Republican response, I was skeptical when I heard of the Bobby Jindal/Kenneth the Page comparisons. Then having seen clips on Daily Show, I realized it was soooo true. If he really is the Republican party's only hope, I'm right now calling a 2016 race between Bobby Jindal and Alec Baldwin. And nobody messes with Jack Donaghy.

Does Anyone Understand Israeli Politics?

Now, I'm no expert on Israeli's political process. In fact, I know next to nothing about it. But that won't stop me from expressing my opinion on yesterday's election using only this New York Times article as my source. It's still gotta make me better informed than Fox News.

So to catch everyone up on the soap opera that's occurred ever since corrupt Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced he would resign, here's who the players are in this special election. There's Tzipi Livni (picture above) of the centrist Kadima party, who as the current Foreign Minister has been trying to negotiate peace with the Palestinians. Next, Benyamin Netanyahu of the right-wing Likud party, who has already been Prime Minister. Finally Ehud Barak of the left-wing Labor party, who is also a former Prime Minister, and shares just as little love from Israelis.

Now, in Israel, it seems voters don't vote for the Prime Minister, but for seats of the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament. With 99% of the vote in this morning, the score was 28 seats for Kadima, 27 seats for Likud, 15 seats for further right-wing party Yisrael Beitenu, and just 13 seats for Labor. And that's out of 120 seats. Which means no one is likely to form the coalition needed to lead anytime soon.

So the situation is this: Livni marginally won, but she needs a coalition to lead, which she's already failed once to get. Netanyahu thinks he should be forming the coalition, cause he could get that other right-wing party on board. You'd think Livni could count on Labor, but apparently they're taking their 4th place finish as a mandate to be even more irrelevant. According to New York Times, they want to be the opposition party....to the only party that sort-of agrees with them. Even Republicans got behind Obama for about a week.

Listen, my Israeli friends tell me that all of the candidates are equally bad and unlikely to accomplish anything. But at the very least, Livni hasn't already tried and failed. Her insistence on talking to the Palestinians makes her the most Obama-like of the candidates, even if Netanyahu thinks he's Obama in web site design and rhetoric. So Israel, any chance you can get over stupid political mongering to get behind Livni and actually create peace in the Middle East? Or are you determined to make our political process look good?

It is the Dawning of the Age of Obama

The day eight years in the making has finally arrived: Bush is gone, and we can finally say PRESIDENT OBAMA!!!

For anyone who couldn't make the streaming video work, I've got the big moments off of Youtube. First, the oath:



According to CNN, that awkward bungling of the oath was Roberts' fault, not Obama's. Despite being Chief Justice, Roberts somehow messed up the order of the words and Obama paused to give him a chance to correct himself. Roberts will probably be around for another 30 years though, so maybe in 8 years he'll get it right.

Now the big speech. Part 1:



Part 2:



I have to say, the first thing I thought watching this was, "Man, I didn't realize how much I missed Obama's big inspirational speeches." Since the election, his public appearances have all been a little more downbeat and serious, as he has tried to make sense of the mess the country's in. But today he was back in peak unifying form, speaking of how we can meet our challenges, of choosing "hope over fear," and of an "era of responsibility." No disappointments here.

As happy as President Obama must have been today, I think former President Bush (it feels good to type that) was even happier. I think he looked a good five years younger than usual. All smiles and handshakes the message was clear: Bush could not WAIT to get the hell out of that White House. As Bush said his farewell to Obama at the helicopter, you got the sense he was saying, "Have fun with this mess. I'm out of here, bitches!"

Also making a strange exit was former Vice President Dick Cheney, in a wheelchair over a back injury. The chair just made him look all the more like Dr. Strangelove as he directed everyone around him. So maybe that makes him more like Driving Miss Daisy. Driving Miss Cheney?

Another source of controversy going into the morning was Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation. As he stepped up, you could hear the polite but unenthuasiatic applause. After his very nice speech, the applause was considerably greater. Watch it here:



So, to paraphrase Jon Stewart, President Gallant has replaced President Goofus, and we finally got to open that bike we've known was under the Christmas tree all month. Tomorrow President Obama will start the extensive amount of work he has cut out for him in the next four weeks. But tonight, enjoy the parties Mr. President to celebrate this important and satisfying day.

Bush's Series of Unfortunate Disappointments

This week, President Bush gave a post-election Sarah Palin level of exit interviews, in which he tried to make sense of his legacy. As usual, Jon Stewart puts it all into perspective, hilariously:



There we go, Bush finally admitted to making a mistake...in the Mission Accomplished sign. Hey, it's a good start. Maybe by 2024 he'll say there should have been an occupation strategy for Iraq. Baby steps Bushie, baby steps. But it's unfair to blame Bush for things that were clearly our fault. The Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, the financial crisis, we let him down...somehow. And hey, complete obliviousness to anything that's happened in the last eight years is preferable to that imitation of self-pity he did. You just stick to your principles, insisting you'd rather be unpopular than....right?

Last Post of the Year

Happy New Year's Eve everyone! On my last post of 2008, I thought I should do some kind of reflection on the year. I have to see a few more movies and catch up on a few more shows before I can do my top 10 lists, but they are coming. As for what else is coming up: tomorrow is blog resolutions, Friday is a midseason TV preview, and next week will be season premiere recaps. Now back to 2008:

It's a really good thing Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, since that's about the only thing that kept it from being The Year That Sucked. Just look at today's news stories. In real news, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has come back full force, and controversy over disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevich's senate pick will spill far into 2009. In entertainment news, a Viacom/Time Warner dispute could mean no Daily Show for the forseeable future, while a SAG strike is still a possibility. And that's just this week.

Here's just a few things we've dealt with this year: the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the fall of Wall Street, the beginnings of the fall of Detroit, record-high gas prices, terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Russia's invasion of Georgia, the Eliot Spitzer scandal, the Rod Blagojevich scandal, a writer's strike that led to one of the worst TV seasons in memory, and a very weak year for movies.

But there were some bright spots, mostly in the election. From the epic Hillary/Obama primary battle to the conventions, debates, and Sarah Palin, the 2008 election was THE entertainment event of the year. People who never voted in their lives were suddenly political junkies, checking daily poll results and tracking debates like play-offs for the World Series. The election even spilled over to real entertainment, giving The Daily Show and The Colbert Report tons of material, and revitalizing Saturday Night Live with Tina Fey's instant-classic impersonation of Sarah Palin. And best of all, it had a happy ending.

While the overall field of movies and TV shows this year may have been weak, the best were comparable with any other year. The Dark Knight was the best superhero movie ever, one of the best crime epics ever, and featured one of the best movie villains ever. Wall-E was so much more than Pixar's best film, being as well a definitive look at our era. Slumdog Millionaire's frontrunner status for best picture may come out of lack of competition, but it would be at the top in any other year too. I'd put these three above my top three movies from last year, easily.

As for TV, I may not have added any new shows to my dvr in 2008, and a lot of my old favorites may have disappointed, but that didn't stop shows from continuing to wow. Lost, already the best tv show ever, proved it more by changing up the formula with flashforwards. Mad Men avoided a sophomore slump by going even deeper into its characters in year 2. And Dexter showed it could still be suspenseful without as compelling a central device as the Ice Truck Killer or the Bay Harbor Butcher.

So 2008 wasn't ALL bad, just mostly bad. On January 20th, 2009, Barack Obama gets sworn in as president. I certainly hope that means my final post for 2009 will be very different from this one.

Cabinet Games

President-Elect Obama announced his top national security picks today, which, when combined with last week's economic press conference, fills in most of the major positions. Sure, Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary isn't official yet, and important posts like Energy and Education are also still vacant. But with most of the jobs we pay attention to filled, I thought I'd weight in on the picks so far.

Secretary of State - Hillary Clinton
People tend to focus on the whole primary rivals aspect. But outside of the lead-up to Iraq and a few other things, their stances aren't all that different. The bigger concern is that she's more known for domestics than foreign policy. But people forget one important thing: people around the world LOVE her. If there's one person who can get Israelis and Palestinians to sit down and talk, it's definitely her (or Bill). Along with Obama's presidency, Hillary as Secretary of State will do a lot to make the rest of the world happy with us. So name recognition in this case makes up for any lack of foreign policy experience.

Secretary of Defense - Robert Gates
As the man hired to clean up Rumsfeld's mess, Gates is one of the more popular Bushies and a smart pick for secretary of defense. Gates may not technically be a Republican (apparently no one knows), but people thinking he is will give Obama the bipartisan credibility he wants. Gates does disagree about setting a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, but that shows Obama can take different opinions. So Obama gets a two-fer in someone who makes him look bipartisan and already has two years experience in the post.

National Security Advisor - General Jim Jones
Jones has an unfortunate name and doesn't seem to be much of a speaker, but otherwise seems like a powerhouse pick. It's nice to finally see someone with actual military experience in one of the top policymaking positions.

Secretary of Homeland Security - Janet Napolitano
Watching her in the press conference today, I know I wouldn't want to mess with her. She looks like exactly the kind of tough person we can trust with our homeland security. And Arizona loves her as governor.

Ambassador to the UN - Susan Rice
Despite her name and race, she does not seem to be related to Condoleezza. That would have been cool though. From what I saw today, she seems sufficiently ambassadorial (if that's not a word, it is now).

Attorney General - Eric Holder
He's another Clintonista, so I'm sure he's experienced enough. And his very serious mustache gives him added gravitas.

Secretary of Treasury - Timothy Geithner
This post is on everyone's minds given the prominence it has had in the past few months. While I don't know too much about Geithner, I do know: a. He's head of the New York Federal Reserve. b. He worked for the IMF. c. He speaks Chinese. d. He speaks Japanese. I'm sold.

So despite the early criticism that Obama was relying too heavily on former Clintonites, I think it's now clear he's got a powerful list. There's the experience of the Clintonistas with Hillary and Holder, new blood in Geithner and Napolitano, and different views from Jones and Gates. His transition has shown all of the intelligence of his campaign. Let's hope the presidency holds up just as well.

What Obama Can Learn From the Palmers

There's no doubt that the election of President Obama has brought one of the most hopeful times to the United States (and the world) in recent memory. Not only is it a historic election (I hate "an historic," the "h" is not silent!) because Obama will be the first non-fictional African-American president, but there's a real sense that he can unify the country and solve our problems for reasons that have nothing to do with race. There's no question though that he faces a near insurmountable to-do list right away: the economic crisis, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats in Iran and Pakistan, terrorism, the need for energy independence, health care reform, and so on.

But the little we have heard about President Obama's first steps as president-elect all seem like they are in the right direction. His short lists for key Cabinet positions all show a willingness to rely on experienced advisors and often across party lines. His first announced pick, Representative Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, has been criticized by some Republicans for showing less of the nonpartisan approach. As the fourth highest ranking Democrat in the House and a reputation for toughness in getting the job done, he's most definitely planted on the Democratic side. But that's exactly why he's a perfect pick. See, while Obama may be the first black president in reality, he has two predecessors in the land of 24. And their presidencies offer some very useful advice for how Obama should lead.

1. Hire a Chief of Staff you can trust
David Palmer thought he did with Mike Novick, a man who had stood with Palmer all the way back to the primaries. But when the war hawk Vice President tried to oust Palmer from power by inaccurately interpreting the 25th amendment, Novick jumped abord, betraying his boss. While Palmer refused the resignations of his Cabinet after the crisis passed, he demanded one from Novick. Because there's no use for a Chief of Staff who doesn't have your back. David went with his brother Wayne as a successor, but Obama should do just fine with fellow Chicagoan Emanuel.

2. Do not select a war hawk Dixiecrat as your running mate
Thankfully, this is a lesson Obama has already followed, as Joe Biden seems unlikely to invoke the 25th amendment the first time he and Obama disagree. Somehow David's brother Wayne failed to learn from his brother's mistake. Once again, a Palmer chose a running mate who barely resembled a Democrat, let alone one who shared his president's vision. While VP Daniels at least waited until Wayne was in a coma before taking power, his Cheney-like appearance and creepy affair with his assistant made him an unfortunate choice in VP.

3. Do not be perceived as soft on terror
David Palmer went down in history as one of the greatest fictional presidents for avoiding a war on false pretenses against "those three Middle Eastern countries." But everything Wayne did painted him as too young, inexperienced, and unready to lead. Watching season 6, Wayne Palmer seemed to be right-wing creator Joel Surnow's warning to America about an Obama presidency. But because this is a matter of perception, not policy, President Obama will be unlikely to suffer that fate. Wayne Palmer's biggest problem was that he came off as so unpresidential in his address to the nation. In that way, Obama better mirrors David.

2012 Preview

With the 2008 election over, those of us suffering election withdrawal have already begun to look ahead to 2012 as a patch. While any speculation now will likely prove meaningless in a few years, there's no harm in looking at the viability of various candidates. It does seem safe to say that 2012 will be a referendum on Obama's first term. If he can solve any one of the myriad of problems facing the country, he will coast to an easy reelection. But if the change he promises takes some time to occur, the Republicans will go full force against him. Who decides to run may depend on which of those scenarios occurs.

Currently, the most obvious choice is John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin. Love her or hate her, she's one of the most well-known Republicans around and will have 4 more years to gain experience and read a newspaper. Electoral Vote even has a theory that she will try to take Ted Stevens' spot in the Senate when he is inevitably kicked out in January. But she is far too polarizing a figure and has been too greatly maligned this campaign to be taken seriously by anyone outside the far right. The only way she'll run against Obama in 2012 is if his first term goes so well that Republicans designate Palin the sacrificial lamb. Then again, perhaps her presidency is the 2012 end of the world prophecy.

With his business background, Mitt Romney is the candidate Republicans wish they had chosen in this election. So with the light at the end of the financial crisis tunnel still miles away, Romney's looking like a solid guess for 2012. But he's got his downsides too. First of all, his viability depends entirely on whether the economy is still the biggest issue four years from now. Secondly, the reason he lost the primaries is because Americans saw him as the fake, sleazy, pandering politician he is. He's unlikely to change that in four years. Lastly, will his wife really let him use up the rest of his fortune on another bid after losing so much last time? The answer to the last question must be yes, because he will certainly try again, even if the results work out just like 2008.

Mike Huckabee would likely only be selected if Obama somehow really did turn the country socialist and people felt a need to go abruptly in the ideologically opposite direction. The person who challenges Obama will need to win back the moderates that backed him, which is not a man who wants Constitutional amendments to follow God's law. But you should never count out the clear winner of the "guy I'd like to have a beer with" contest. He has a way of making the craziest things sound completely reasonable. But while that makes punditry a good fit, he still won't be heading to the White House.

With those three also-rans out of the way, it's time for my early prediction of who will challenge President Obama in 2012:

Bobby Jindal is in many ways the Barack Obama of the Republican party. He's young, he's not white, and Republicans talk about him now the way Democrats talked about Obama in 2004. But he has a couple advantages that even Obama didn't have. He's a governor, so he gets to make the Sarah Palin "executive experience" argument. But unlike Sarah Palin, he was governor of Louisiana during Hurricane Gustav. That will be a huge selling point for any presidential bids. The only reason he might not be chosen is if Obama's first term goes well enough that he seems unbeatable. Jindal is young enough that he can afford to wait 8 years before running, and he might want to wait until he has a better shot. Politicians don't like to wait though, so I'm still predicting President Obama vs. Governor Jindal in 2012.

Where McCain Went Wrong

This will be the first of three post-election posts, the other two looking at Obama's next steps and thoughts on the 2012 election. But first, an autopsy on John McCain's campaign.

For those that missed McCain's very nice concession speech, you can watch it here:



That said, let's look at the top reasons why McCain's campaign was doomed for failure. No one reason is single-handedly responsible, even though many will will try to say so. They all worked together to put the final nails in the coffin built by President Bush.

But let's start with Sarah Palin. Going into the Democratic National Convention, the question was if anything could unite the party after the divisive primary battle between Obama and Hilary Clinton. A week later, we got the answer: Sarah Palin. Chosen partially to attract Hilary voters that wanted to see a woman on the ticket, her conservative record and complete lack of qualifications made even some PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) voters feel pretty good about voting for Obama. But in addition to uniting Democrats, she also drew independents and moderates over to Obama. The idea of someone who had difficulty forming a complete sentence and doesn't believe in evolution being a (cliche alert) heartbeat away from the presidency was terrifying. But while I think Palin ultimately hurt McCain more than she helped, the Palin Effect wasn't all bad. George W. Bush was elected for getting the type of evangelical Christians who would rather stay home on election day to get out and vote. Similarly, Palin's presence may have been the only thing getting McCain conservative support. But this election will prove that the Republican base is not the same as the United States of America.

Next, negative campaigning. Steve Schmidt may be taking even more blame than Sarah Palin for McCain's loss. There are a lot of reasons for why McCain's negative campaigning backfired. First off, a lot of the claims were just weak. He couldn't convince people that Obama sharing a charity board with a college professor proved dangerous judgement. The socialist claims were effective among some groups, but it did make him look erratic to go from "he will raise your taxes" to "he will lower them too much." With the economy on everyone's minds, the Ayers attacks were a blatant attempt to change the subject and showed McCain's lack of solutions. But above all, the campaign strategy backfired because it wasn't consistent with John McCain's character. Schmidt told him to become someone he was not as a means to the greater good of becoming president. But going against his honor and even his maverick policies (supporting the Bush tax cut, saying he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill) lost him the moderate support he expected. His legacy will not be the man we wish had beaten Bush in 2000 but for this bitter and desperate campaign.

The economic crisis. Many see it as a deus ex machina that gave the election to Obama. Given that McCain voted for the deregulation in 1999 that allowed the crisis to happen, maybe he couldn't survive it. But his attempts to do so only made him look worse. Suspending his campaign was endlessly mocked as a false way of appearing presidential while not actually helping. His insistence on sticking to earmarks reform in the debates instead of addressing the crisis made it appear that he really didn't know what to do. There's no question that the economic crisis helped the map become as blue as it was last night. But I'm not convinced it was the sole reason for McCain's loss.

Because in my opinion, the election was destined to go to the Democrats ever since the primaries. With an approval rate around 27%, Bush had just done too much damage for any Republican, even one as different as McCain, to stand a chance. With a massive deficit, a low standing in the rest of the world, and two wars that have dragged on far too long, the country desperately needed a change. While people focused on the divisiveness of the Democrat primaries, the more interesting divide was in the Republican primaries. Between McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee, the primaries showed a full-scale breakdown of the Reagan coalition. McCain was foreign policy, Romney was the economic conservative, and Huckabee for social values voters. All these months later, the election has shown this coalition was not willing to unite for John McCain. Reaching out to Huckabee voters with the Palin pick lost the Romney voters. We'll see in 2012 whether this coalition can reunite again.

Proud to Be American

This will not be an incisive look at what happened in the 2008 election. I am far too happy and drunk to offer that. All I can offer is my joy that, for the first time since I have paid attention to politics, the best man won. For the first time in 8 years, I will believe in my president and his ability to lead us to a better future. But even more than that, I think about what this means for America. In electing Barack Obama president, we have instantly raised our standing in the world by at least 60%. We have declared a willingness to work with our allies to build a better future.

Although I am still obsessively watching CNN in hopes that the final states and Senate races will be called before I go to bed, I would like to offer a few thoughts on the concession and acceptance speeches. I thought McCain's concession speech was not delivered by the 2008 McCain, who had given in to Steve Schmidt's fear-mongering tactics, but the 2000 McCain that I would consider voting for. He ended his campaign as the honorable, bipartisan man that he is, and he reminded us that he is a true patriot. I believe that McCain could potentially be one of Obama's greatest allies in getting bipartisan support for his legislative goals as president.

As for Obama's acceptance speech, it was every bit as joyful and inspiring as I could have hoped. He began the speech by reaching out to every American, reminding us of his greatest appeal. I believe Obama has run one of the most inclusive campaigns in recent history, not dividing the country into "real America" and "fake America," but trying to unite America for a common goal. He reached his high-point as he led a refrain of "Yes we can," the slogan that he has used since the primaries and has carried him this far. At this point, it seems appropriate to change that to "yes we did."

Obama faces the more challenges in his first term than any president since FDR. I fully expect the elections of 2010 to shift to Republicans as America becomes frustrated by Obama's inability to save the world in 2 years time. But if we are patient and believe in him, he will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents, as he brings us out of this economic crisis, ends the war in Iraq, and brings us into a new era of American prosperity. I'll be doing a series of entries in the next few days that highlight where McCain went wrong and what challenges Obama will face, in addition to other election-related topics. I will also, I promise, return to entertainment soon enough, with 3 movie reviews I owe you (Slumdog Millionaire, Synecdoche NY, and The Visitor). But tonight, let's just bask in the victory we have achieved, proving that young people will go out and vote when a candidate is worth supporting, as Barack Obama has clearly proven to be.

Barack the Vote

It's election day, and that means if you haven't sent in absentee ballots, it's time to get out and VOTE! Today's polling is looking good, with Pennsylvania +10% Obama and national polls averaging 7-8% Obama. Karl Rove even made the same electoral vote prediction I did, which I hope doesn't speak to my character. But as good as it looks, we can't give up yet. I just got back from voting for Obama, where I saw Will Arnett standing just a few feet in front of me in line. Be like GOB Bluth and do the right thing for the country. Regardless of how long the lines are (it took me about an hour) or how expected your state's results are, you need to do your part. Let the world see that the youth vote is a powerful thing when there's a candidate we believe in. So get on out and make Barack Obama the next president of the United States!

Election Predictions

With a day before the election and many of the final polls released, I've made my own predictions in the map above. This is admittedly a somewhat optimistic prediction, as Florida and Ohio could very easily turn for McCain. On the other hand, I gave swing states like North Carolina and Missouri to McCain. But regardless of how far Obama seems to be ahead or how un-swingy your state is, make sure to vote tomorrow. This is far from a done deal, and Obama needs everyone's votes to make this happen. None of us wants this to be yet another election where the pundits talk of the failure of the youth vote. So do the right thing and Barack the vote tomorrow.

Now a look at the map state-by-state, starting with the most important.

Pennsylvania

It's looking like Pennsylvania will be this year's Ohio/Florida as the state that decides it all. With polls showing Obama well ahead in Pennsylvania for months now, this hardly seems like the biggest swing state. But there's 2 big reasons why this is the state to watch:

1. Polls have tightened enough that Obama's lead has gone from 14% to 7%.
2. It is one of only two plausible scenarios in which McCain can win.

With 21 electoral votes, Pennsylvania is a must-win state for McCain, and has the potential to shift the electoral tide. Pennsylvania hasn't voted Republican since 1988, but McCain has put all of his resources into it in the last few weeks. 7% is still a lot to overcome in a single day, but this is still a worrisome state for Obama supporters. Still, a McCain win in Pennsylvania is not a death knell for Obama. There are three scenarios in which Obama can lose Pennsylvania but win the election:

1. Win Ohio.
2. Win Florida.
3. Win Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada.

So while Pennsylvania has started to worry me recently, I still believe it will pull through for Obama just as it did for Kerry and Gore despite far scarier polling in the days leading up to the election. But it will still be "too close to call" for most of the night.

Virginia and Colorado

Now on to two states Bush won in 2004 that seem like they're heading for Obama this time around. If Obama wins all Kerry states + Iowa and New Mexico (a safe assumption barring the analysis above), he only needs one of these states to clinch the presidency. But securing all other Bush states and both of these is McCain's second most plausible way of winning the election, making these the next most important states to watch.

Virginia hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1964. But with high turn-out among black voters, excitement among college students, and Democrats moving into Northern Virginia (or the Fake Virginia, as Nancy Pfotenhauer would say), Virginia is looking more and more like a safe bet for Obama. But with some tightening in the polls that have brought Obama from +7% to +4%, this seems even less like a done deal than Pennsylvania. We won't know the results when polls close at 7, but I still think it'll be called for Obama before the end of the night.

Like Virginia, Colorado is a red state on the verge of turning blue, with polls currently at +5% Obama. Those have tightened from the +8% they were last week, but even the McCain campaign was admitting a few weeks ago that Colorado is probably out of its reach. If Obama can get Colorado, he just needs to hold on to Pennsylvania and New Hampshire for the win.

Ohio and Florida

As the key battleground states of 2004 and 2000, respectively, this time around their importance will be decided by other states. These are easily two of the closest races, with polls showing a statistical tie that slightly favors Obama. But while these are both must-win states for McCain, Obama only needs one if he loses Pennsylvania or Colorado and Virginia. I have optimistically followed the polls to suggest an Obama victory in both of these states. But as Ohio is polling slightly more for Obama than Florida, I could easily see them splitting candidates or both going for McCain. Neither state is likely to be called before midnight, and I'm hoping by that point the results won't matter.

Nevada and New Hampshire

These states are small but potentially crucial with 5 and 4 electoral votes, respectively. Nevada voted for Bush in 2004, New Hampshire voted for Kerry. Both are polling well ahead for Obama (+6% and +10%). But despite their size, they can make a difference. If Obama loses Pennsylvania, Nevada could still help him win the election. If he loses Colorado and Virginia (and all other swing states), Nevada could create an electoral tie. Like Colorado and New Mexico, it seems secure for Obama, but it is still one to watch.

New Hampshire, at 10% ahead for Obama, does not seem like much of a swing state. But since Obama was leading 11% in primary polls before losing to Hilary Clinton, NH polls clearly don't tell the whole truth. As "live free or die" followers, NH likes to buck conventions, and a poll saying they will vote for Obama may be the best way to get them to support McCain. Had Gore won NH in 2000, he would have been our president. It should ultimately go Obama, but I expect it to be a lot closer than the polls say.

North Carolina, Missouri, and Indiana

These three states are all serious red states that at various points have shown either a statistical tie or a slight Obama lead. Indiana has shifted for McCain recently, but North Carolina and Missouri are both certainly in play. In the event of an Obama landslide, all three could easily shift blue. But I bet in this case they'll all drop back for McCain.

Iowa and New Mexico

Both states voted for Bush in 2004, but it's hard to see either one going for McCain this time around. Iowa was the state that set Obama on the path to the nomination, and polls have shown Obama up around 14% ever since. New Mexico is a bit closer, but still shows an Obama lead of around 7%, which has steadily grown in the past few weeks. It seems highly unlikely either would switch back at the last minute.

And the rest...

Of course, other states could potentially surprise on election night. West Virginia, Georgia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and even McCain's home state of Arizona show weak leads that could be overturned in an Obama surge. On the other side, Minnesota and Wisconsin have been swing states in the past and polls have dropped enough that they could be again.

But at the end of the day, I still think it will come down to Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Colorado, and after a long night of excitement we will find out Barack Obama is our next president. I've given plenty of reasons above for why my map may not come to be, but many of the predictions on CNN show an even bigger Obama win. At this point, there's only two things we can do: Wait and see what happens, and most importantly, VOTE! As good as it's looking, the election is not over yet. So do your part and make Barack Obama the next president of the United States.

Obamavision

With the election only 5 days away, seeing Obama on TV is to be expected. But last night, he had an even greater presence than usual with a half hour infomercial airing on NBC, CBS, Fox, Univision (en español), MSNBC, BET, and TV One (but not Disney, Malia), and an interview via satellite on The Daily Show. So how'd he do?

If you missed the primetime special, you can find it here:



Certainly it was no Ross Perot and his charts. With the Oscar-winning director of An Inconvenient Truth helming it, the special felt more like a documentary than an infomercial. In fact, with the families in need of better health care, it felt a lot like Michael Moore's Sicko. But while the half hour was admittedly dull at times, it seemed to accomplish its goals. Obama gave his platform clearly with nice little talking points written at the bottom of the screen. The focus on the regular American families showed his ability to connect to people. Interviews with top Democrats provided some powerful endorsements. And probably best were the parts on his biography and family. That stuff may be cheesy, but it's the best remedy to the silly "who is Barack Obama?" accusations made by Sarah Palin.

The live ending was a bit of a disappointment. Advertised throughout the special and with rumors of Bill Clinton appearing, seeing Obama merely ask for people's votes was a bit of a let-down. Still, the only thing in here that could hurt him is if the Oval Office-like setting for some of it seems too presumptuous. Otherwise, the special may help more people be able to trust him, if only for his excellent narrating voice.

His interview on Daily Show was more entertaining. Watch it here:



Jon Stewart's questions weren't exactly hard-hitting, with such nail-biters as "how are you?" But he did set Obama up for a lot of really good answers. Whether on the Bradley Effect ("I don't think white voters have gotten the memo"), bipartisanship ("Some of the problems are ones we can't solve with just one party dictating a solution"), or whether he still wants the job with all of the country's problems ("If you went into public service thinking you could have an impact, now is the time when you can have an impact"). But there were plenty of funny moments as well, in Obama's rebuttal to the socialism claim, questions of whether Obama's white half will vote based on the Bradley Effect, and the un-undecided nature of the typical Daily Show viewer. Plus, you get to see Obama smile a lot.

America's Funniest Presidential Candidate

Last night at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial dinner in New York City, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama engaged in what could be called their fourth debate. But this debate was not on who is more qualified to be president, but rather who makes the better stand-up comic. It should be without saying that it's far more entertaining than any of the debates and is a nice reprieve from all the negativity of the past few weeks.

First up, John McCain, reminding us why we liked him before the campaign:



Next up, Barack Obama, proving if he somehow doesn't win the election, he'd fit right in on Daily Show:

John McCain's Last Stand

Last night's debate was easily the best on all levels: substantive, revealing, and dramatic. Rather than rehashing the same old arguments, moderator Bob Schieffer asked pointed and difficult questions that brought the candidates into new territory. And as in the last two debates, Senator Barack Obama remained collected and presidential while Senator John McCain looked like he could barely contain his disdain.

In every debate, McCain has started strong and Obama has ended strong, so the first half hour again went to McCain. He attacked Obama repeatedly on issues and connected to people through Joe the Plumber. But easily his best line of the night was, "I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush you should have run four years ago." It was strongly stated and addressed Obama's main attack . But why did it take so long for McCain to say it? Throughout the debates, McCain has seemed to forget that he no longer needs to worry about the Republican base. Sarah Palin has taken care of that. It's the independents he needs, and those are the ones who want to know how he differs from President Bush.

While it's true McCain was on offense during the first half hour, I found his strategy less effective than in the first debate. Back then, McCain dominated the discussion so that it consisted only of topics he wanted, making Obama look weak for defending himself. But this time around, Obama has learned how to play defense. He refused to let McCain's attacks define the debate, either repudiating them strongly (like using Fox News as a source on his side) or moving on to his topics of choice. McCain may have been more commanding, but he was hardly dominating Obama the way he could have.

Any lead McCain may have had early on evaporated with the negative campaigning question. Even though McCain's advertisements are widely seen as shamelessly negative, McCain played the victim card. He immediately brought up John Lewis, getting teary at the "hurtful" comments made about him. Even more so because Lewis is not part of Obama's campaign, McCain looked like a little kid crying about how life's not fair. It got worse for McCain when he voluntarily brought up Bill Ayers. Not only did Obama get to clear the Ayers issue once and for all, but he made McCain look petty for making it "the centerpiece" of his campaign. By calling out for a return to the issues, Obama looked like he was rising above McCain's petty sniping. If he had just avoided saying that McCain's ads are 100% negative (obviously false), this section would have been all good for him.

Another new and contentious topic was abortion. In general, Obama had been playing it safe, willing to sit on his lead. He wisely avoided the opportunity to bash Sarah Palin, letting her flaws speak for themselves. Yet while McCain answered the question safely, Obama was the one who turned a question about Supreme Court justices into a discussion on abortion. This was a risky move for Obama, as abortion is one of the subjects best able to divide voters up. Yet his answer was thoughtful enough to please anyone remotely pro-choice. He also drew McCain out into taking a full pro-life stance, that could potentially turn pro-choice undecideds against him. It's hard to know whether Obama's risk paid off, but it certainly drew major distinctions between the two candidates. This section then led to a final half hour in which Obama dominated, once again providing far better answers on health care and education. By ending in his comfort zone, the final impression left by Obama to voters was stronger.

While the issues discussed showed a lot about the candidates, their biggest difference was in demeanor. While some considered Obama flat, to me he seemed presidential. His cool, calm delivery stood in great contrast to the increasing emotion showed by McCain. McCain's emotion did sometimes work to his advantage, like in his line on President Bush. But as the debate continued, he seemed angrier and angrier. Reaction shots made him appear disdainful of Obama and like he was seething with rage. He brought to mind the sighs of Al Gore with his frustration. The visibility of his anger made Obama look all the more calm under pressure.

As much as we may focus on the issues, a lot of swing voters don't care about details. But they want someone who looks and acts like a president. And these people are likely to ask themselves who they want representing our country: Someone who is always cool under pressure, or someone whose rage boils visibly at the slightest provocation. McCain needed a decisive victory to turn the momentum around for his lagging campaign. Instead, he looked desperate as he flailed around for any attack that would stick. Two and a half weeks may be a long time in politics, and certainly something could happen to change the election around. But there's no question that these debates did nothing to improve McCain's chances.

Debate 2: More of the Same

With the polls shifting rapidly in Obama's favor, tonight's second presidential debate was considered a must-win for McCain. Yet it seems clear to me he was soundly defeated....by Tom Brokaw. That's right, in a night where both candidates repeated the same claims over and over again, it was moderator Tom Brokaw who was the real winner. Whether scolding the candidates like petulant children for breaking the rules or asking tough and worthy questions, Brokaw was on top. He may have given Obama and McCain that follow-up, but his look of scorn showed who was really in charge.

The town hall format caused a lot of the candidates' problems. With no follow-ups or rebuttals allowed, it quickly became clear that new strategies were needed for success. Even more than in the last debate, it was obvious when a candidate ignored a question to return to his platform. Attacking the other candidate too often made it look like they had no answers of their own. Yet despite how little these strategies worked, Obama and McCain just couldn't help themselves.

With less experience in town halls, Obama suffered most from the format. Obama continually forgot that he wasn't in a traditional debate, always harking back to McCain's previous answer. In the first half, he suffered from an acute case of Sarah Palin Syndrome: ignoring the question in a clunky and obvious way. He also has yet to learn from his biggest difficulty in the first debate: responding to McCain's accusations. He let himself play defense by continually correcting McCain, even when it wasn't his turn. Here he could learn a thing from Joe Biden, who sometimes left Palin uncorrected if it would make him look better. Lastly, Obama suffered from continually trying to break the rules. His worst moment came when he fought to respond to McCain's comments on taxes, then talked about it anyway during a Social Security question. He seemed to cross Brokaw more than McCain, which doesn't make him look good.

But if the rules threw Obama off, he did gain by talking directly to voters. He talked to them with respect and appeared presidential throughout. The voters may have also helped him talk clearer than he has in the past, free of the Al Gore need to live in statistics. When he stuck to the topic, he had many shining moments. In discussing health care, he laid out his plan clearly and made it personal, scoring him a big win in the debate. Foreign policy gave him many strong moments, whether promising to chase Al Qaeda or bringing up the United States' moral need to stop genocide. When he went beyond repeating his well-worn statements, the debate was his.

McCain had neither the lows nor the highs of Obama, giving a performance free of embarrassment or inspiration. The town hall format is one McCain loves, so you could see the joy in his face as he walked around the room and said "my friends" about ten times more than usual. But many of his efforts to connect to voters seemed to fall flat. He kept trying to make jokes that came out more condescending than funny (I'm not referring to calling Obama "that one," which seems overblown). He may have thought he was treating the audience like friends, but sometimes he just seemed to be turning himself into Sarah Palin.

His paraphrasing of Teddy Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a big stick," may have worked against him. I don't know about the stick, but there was a whole lot of soft speaking coming from McCain. When not blasting Obama on taxes or namedropping General Petraeus and Ronald Reagan, McCain's vocal cadence dropped to some pretty soporific levels. But what did wake me up were some "what the fuck" statements. First off, did anyone else hear McCain refer to some of the $700 billion going to terrorists, with no follow-up? Second, his plan to buy up all the faulty mortgages: has he talked about that before or did he just make that up on the spot? Third: a repetition of his promise to freeze all spending. Is anyone going to ask him to explain that? None of these is really a misstep, but it continues to seem odd to me the way he makes provocative statements without putting any context around them.

With strengths and weaknesses on both sides, it seems to me like tonight's unlikely to change anyone's mind. Most of the debate felt like a rerun of the first one, with even some of the same lines given (Obama's hatchet line was effective the first time, but less so now). There were no gaffes on either side, but nothing to really win people over either. And in both their favor, there were no mentions of Bill Ayers or the Keating Five. But with the polls what they are, a tie favors Obama. McCain's only got one more shot to turn the momentum around.

The Doggone VP Debate

Tonight, Senator Joe Biden rather handily won the Vice Presidential debate, but the question of who won is completely irrelevant. Everyone knew Biden is the superior debater, so the real competition was not of Biden vs. Governor Sarah Palin, but of each of them against their own expectations. After the Katie Couric interview last week, Palin became a national joke who most people thought couldn't even put a sentence together, let alone run a country. While the only time Biden could get himself on TV was if he had some silly gaffe, leading the average American to have no sense of who he is. So with expectation as the real test, it's clear that each of them performed way above their expectations.

I'll begin with Palin, who was the reason most people were so excited about the debate. While some may have expected her to embarrass herself tonight, she instead quite capably held her own. While she was rarely on top of the issues, she refused to let Biden steamroll her, consistently fighting back every assertion and leading the debate back to her comfort zone. She may have been nervous, but she spoke clearly and coherently. Her performance will clearly go a long way to freeing her of the stench of the Katie Couric interview, and few are likely to still think she's a complete idiot.

All that being said, there were a number of mistakes she repeatedly made throughout the debate. It was obvious she was coached to avoid difficult questions and steer her responses to areas she preferred. John McCain used this tactic all through the first debate and did so brilliantly, keeping a full half hour on pork barrel spending and making Obama play defense. Unfortunately, without McCain's practice, Palin's attempts were obvious and clumsy. She often began her answers with long pauses followed by stating she would like to return to a previous topic. Other answers just segued directly into talk of Alaska when it was irrelevant. Her continuous changing of topics made it seem like all she could talk about were Alaska and energy, which helped add to the belief that she is completely clueless about the country and the world.

She also presented two different Sarah Palins, both of which presented problems. On the one hand, about 80% of what she said sounded like McCain soundbites that were hammered into her head over the past week and that she desperately wanted to remember. Her recitation often sounded rote and forced, and she seemed nervous a good portion of the time. The rest of the time, she was the "folksy" Alaskan hockey mom who's "just like you." This character she's created was certainly her biggest selling point when she first entered the national stage, and it was likely to make a lot of people remember what they liked about her in the first place. But she's come a long way from winning people over with jokes about pitbulls. The constant winking and use of the word "doggone" caused her to seem like a cartoon character completely removed from reality. What all that means is the "breath of fresh air" she came in as has dissipated into a carefully crafted characterization that may be just as ungenuine as the talking points she spouts. Of course, that's just my take on her, and I expect many to still be lapping it up.

With Palin taking all of the media spotlight this campaign, Biden has always been the forgotten VP candidate. If he was mentioned in a sentence, it was either regarding one of his gaffes or calling him a safe and uninteresting pick for Obama. So while everyone expected him to do well against Palin with his greater knowledge of foreign and domestic policy, what was less expected is the way he completely stole the show. He managed to balance his tone nicely - treating Palin with respect but still willing to hammer her on certain points (usually indirectly, like when blasting Cheney after Palin defended him or purposefully mentioning the Bush Doctrine). He was passionate without seeming over-the-top. And for all of his lawyerly, politician-to-the-core style, he somehow came off as more genuine than the "real American" Sarah Palin.

Biden's biggest mistake was a recurring case of John Kerry/Al Gore Syndrome, in which the candidate gets caught up spouting facts and statistics that are difficult for anyone outside of Washington to follow, even if accurate. This is the difficulty of the broad vs. specific debate. Palin had 0% substance as threw out words like energy and education without ever going into any details. But at the same time, she got her points across a lot better than the deep analysis Biden sometimes gave.

But if this condition hurt Biden early on, he quickly corrected it in the second half. He learned to make his biggest points stick, often dramatically repeating them. While his method of numbering his arguments may have seemed very lawyerly, it also kept him organized and easy to follow. The numbering method also helped him respond to all of Palin's attacks when she often ignored all of his. Last week, Obama had trouble defending against McCain because he had to keep saying "that's not true," putting him on the offensive. In this way, Biden proved more effective, staunchly denying a claim from Palin while simultaneously shooting out another back at her.

Lastly, he effectively used his personal life to keep him from seeming elitist while also not overdoing it. By now, we've heard about McCain's time as a POW so much it has little effect, and Palin can't start a sentence without the word Alaska. But by mentioning his personal tragedy only once, and only in response to one of Palin's comments, Biden really hit it home. If that move was just calculated on his part, then he certainly used it effectively. But I tend to think the moment may have actually been geunine, and that's certainly the response it elicited from my viewing group.

So with both candidates doing so well by their own standards, it's hard to say what effect the debate will have. I imagine Palin's performance will reassure McCain supporters who had considered jumping ship over the past few weeks, so those huge Obama gains in the polls may slow down as the conservatives come back. But I think Biden's stronger performance will do more to win over independents, who tonight clearly saw the gap in leadership between these two candidates.

Gut Reactions on the First Debate

Tonight's debate is not the type where you can clearly say that one candidate won while the other lost. For the most part, Obama and McCain both stayed true to the message they are sending voters and repeated the points we've heard many times before. To the crowd I watched with this meant a pretty expected and uninteresting debate. But behind that cool, politician exterior, the candidates did let out a few moments of debate drama gold. And for that reason, it's worth looking at how they fared.

The biggest irony of the debate was that McCain's finest half hour was the first one, focused on the economy. During the first third, McCain had complete and utter control of the discussion, whipping out accusation after accusation against Obama. The fact that most of the accusations were either untrue or heavily distorted only added to his dominance: they forced Obama to go on the defensive. Obama spent so much time correcting McCain's false assertions that he couldn't make any of his own. By putting Obama on the defensive, McCain made him look weak, which is the best thing a Republican can do to a Democrat.

But as the second third hit and the focus shifted to international politics, the playing field became a bit more even. Suddenly, Obama went on the offense, speaking out strongly against the Iraq War and in favor of stopping Al Qaeda. But McCain fought right back, name-dropping General Petraeus on a biminutely basis and voicing his support of the surge. But it was also at this point that McCain began to make some mistakes. His constant references to Reagan might have mobilized the Republican basis, but his continued insistence on mentioning politicians last relevant before I was born seem unlikely to help. More significantly, his suggestion that the bailout be paid for through a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran's affairs, and something else seemed out of the blue and erratic. Beyond the obvious pandering to veterans, it showed a McCain willing to act on temper that we would see again very shortly.

If the score so far is first third to McCain and second third tied, I have to give the final third to Obama. Here Obama made some of his more popular points, such as advocating (for the 6th time or so) alternative energy and speaking of restoring America's reputation in the world. But while these are points McCain essentially agrees upon, he failed to connect himself to them. When asked how he felt about America's position in the world, he ignored the question to talk yet again about Iraq, missing a surefire way to gain some immediate approval. He also provided the night's most shameful display of pandering by speaking against a "second Holocaust" in an attempt to show he loves Israel more than Obama. If any Jew falls for that, I will be deeply ashamed for my people. But his weakest point in the debate came when Obama attempted to quote Henry Kissinger against him. McCain's interrupting, outraged tirade about how he's known Kissinger since before Obama could read made him look not like a president but like a child throwing a temper tantrum. John McCain of the erratic temper showed his face today as Obama asked moderator Jim Lehrer to ask a new question.

So overall, I expect the debate to go down as a draw, as each candidate ably outlined their plan of how to fix our country while ignoring every question Lehrer asked. But forgive me if, perhaps through bias, I feel that Obama came out of this debate stronger. They may have been an even match in policy, but Obama passed what many Americans look at as the stronger test: who can appear more presidential. While McCain yelled and spent his listening time looking like he wanted to punch Obama, Obama remained cool and collected throughout. Their closing statements each aptly summed up their performances. Obama summed up his platform again, while McCain mentioned his Vietnam experience again. Obama mostly played it safe tonight, giving a solid if perhaps uninspiring performance. But he also did nothing to embarass himself, which cannot be said of the bold emotionality of John McCain.

UPDATE: I watched the Kissinger clip again and admit that I may have (greatly) exaggerated McCain's temperament. It may have been less a case of temper taking over than of just being very firm with his statements. But even if McCain did not lose it as I suggested, he still looked angry a good portion of the debate and did not appear as presidential as Obama.

The Wisteria Lane Theory of Foreign Policy

A review of Choke (releases tomorrow) and thoughts on the season premieres of The Office and Grey's Anatomy are coming soon. In the meantime, enjoy my favorite clip of the day: