This is coming from anonymous officials, but the Huffington Post is reporting that Senator Hillary Clinton was offered the Secretary of State job by President-Elect Barack Obama in a meeting Thursday in Chicago. Of course, I’m not too happy about the pick, seeing as Clinton did not make an appearance in my ideal Cabinet. Here’s a quick rundown of the pros and cons.

Pros:

1. Clinton has relationships and credibility with foreign leaders that she’ll be working with, and she has bulked up on foreign policy experience in her time in the Senate as a member of the Armed Services Committee, so she will know what’s going on.

2. This pick appeases Clinton supporters who think that her experience was shortchanged in the campaign.

3. More importantly, tapping Clinton for the highest ranking Cabinet position would appease Clinton herself and would remove a potentially attention-seeking rival from the Senate.

4. Clinton would add some gender diversity to the cabinet. There has been talk of Obama’s potential picks leaning a bit too much toward old, white men. She would also probably focus on women’s issues at the State Department, building on her 1995 speech to the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing.

5. She’s power- and influence-hungry, so she will probably try to get resources and responsibilities directed towards the State Department.

Cons:

1. Clinton has no real experience running a diplomatic outfit or actually formulating foreign policy. Considering that the State Department is at a huge disadvantage compared to the Defense Department in terms of appropriations and mandates to act, it may be a bad idea to appoint someone who doesn’t know her way around Foggy Bottom.

2. Bringing back the 1990s. Although Republicans warmed to Clinton during the primary, there is still a lot of bitterness left over from the 90s. I doubt Obama wants a bruising confirmation fight where old GOP bugaboos like Whitewater are brought back to life.

3. Bill. Obama and former President Clinton don’t have the best relationship, and many doubt his ability not to try to hog the spotlight at every possible opportunity. Would Obama and Hillary be able to keep him under control? It’s unclear.

4. Hawkishness: Yes, my pick Richard Holbrooke is a liberal hawk, but he at least has considerable experience and diplomatic chops to back him up. Clinton, on the other hand, is a hawk without the experience. Considering that Obama was promising change from the 90s/early 2000s Republican-lite style of Democratic foreign policy, picking Clinton would certainly send mixed signals.

5. Iran. On the trail, Clinton said that if Iran were to attack Israel, she would “totally obliterate” them. Not that diplomats should be expected to kowtow to theocrats, but a tendency to use such intemperate, nay, undiplomatic language is not becoming of America’s chief diplomat.

6. Nuclear proliferation. During the primaries, Obama pledged to promote the goal of total nuclear abolition and, in the short term, to significantly reduce stockpiles. Clinton, although endorsing stockpile cuts, talked about nuclear retaliation and pointedly refused to sign on to abolition. As Secretary of State, she would be responsible for overseeing, implementing and even formulating non-proliferation programs. Obama probably wants someone who shares his views on the issue.

More than anything, this potential pick is a surprise. There had been a lot of speculation surrounding John Kerry and Bill Richardson, two Democratic foreign policy eminences that endorsed Obama in the primary. Of course, this speculation could all be for naught. The reports could be false or Clinton could decide that she wants to be a Senator-for-life from the Empire State. I guess we’ll see.

Seven pages, 63 questions. That’s what someone who’s looking for a job in the Obama administration is going to face. All political appointees and White House employees have had to face scrutiny from the incoming administration before they were offered jobs, but many think Obama’s questionnaire is the most extensive and invasive yet. It was leaked to the New York Times, where it was described as the “most extensive [and] invasive ever.”

Not only do they want your résumé, they want every résumé you have submitted in the past 10 years. Question seven is another standout: “If you or your spouse have ever lived or worked abroad, please describe the circumstances.”

Numbers 13 and 14 are especially invasive. The first asks for a record of any “electronic communication, including but not limited to an email, text message or instant message, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you.” And as if the administration’s request for the now-regretted late-night G-chats wasn’t enough, they then ask for the job applicant to describe the contents of his or her diary, but only if it contains anything “that could suggest a possible conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect if it were made public.”

It gets even better - question 45 asks the applicant to provide records of any arrest, investigation or conviction of you, your spouse or “any child over 21.” But don’t worry, if you’ve had traffic tickets under $50, you don’t have to report them.

The one bit catching much of the attention is question 10. Not only does it ask for a copy of each “book, article, column or publication” (bad news for our current and former sex columnists), they also ask the applicant for “any posts or comments on blogs or other websites” along with “list all aliases or “handles” you have used to communicate on the internet.” Did you adopt the name YankeesRule89 to go an espn.com message board to speculate about Mike Piazza’s sexuality? You have to report it. Or did you make an anonymous Tumblr that you only updated while intoxicated? The incoming administration would like to know.

So, Northwestern students, if you want to have a chance of playing-out your Josh Lyman fantasy in a 2012 Obama administration, then clean up those Facebook pages, stop anonymously posting threatening or obscene message on internet forums, and make sure to keep all your traffic tickets under $50. Someone a whole lot more important than Mary Dessler is watching.

The entire questionnaire is available here.

A few weeks ago, I profiled the five most interesting state ballot propositions. And while you guys were all busy witnessing history in Grant Park, Missourians, South Dakotans, Californians, Massachusettsians and Washingtonians were voting on five of the most contentious ballot referenda in the election cycle. Here’s how they fared.

California’s Proposition 8 - which would amend the California constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, overturning the California Supreme Court decision which legalized gay marriage six months ago. After months of contentious and expensive campaigning (the proposition battle was the second most expensive election this cycle), the proposition passed, 52-48. The fate of the 18,000 or so married couples is unclear. Kenji Yoshino, professor at NYU’s School of Law, wrote in Slate that any number of outcomes were possible, including the marriages being invalidated by the state of California, but still recognized by other states, such as New York. One of the most commented-upon aspects of the race was the racial and age breakdown of the vote. According to exit polls, whites narrowly opposed it, with 51 percent voting against it, Hispanics split 63-47 in favor, Asians were 49-51 against and African Americans were 70-30 in favor. Voters aged 18-29 voted 39-61 against, while all other age groups supported the proposition by at least a 20 point margin. Obama won the state 67-31.

Missouri’s Amendment 1 - which would mandate that English be the only language spoken in government meetings, overwhelmingly passed 86-14. It won every single county. No word on whether Brian Nieves, the state representative who championed the proposition, lunged at any colleagues in celebration.

Washington’s Initiative 1000 - a proposition that intended to legalize assisted suicide, passed 59-41 (though not all votes have yet been counted.) As of now, it’s unclear if anyone has died of excitement.

South Dakota’s Initiated Measure 11 - which was yet another attempt to force a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade by banning abortion except in cases where a mother’s life or health were at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, failed 55-45. Don’t expect an outbreak of abortion to sweep over South Dakota. The state only has one abortion clinic, and it’s staffed by doctors who live in Minnesota.

Massachusetts Question 2 - which will essentially decriminalize marijuana by making the punishment for possession of up to an ounce a $100 ticket, passed 65-35. Now in Massachusetts, you don’t have to be afraid of a possession conviction sending you to jail or being put on your permanent record when you spark up. But watch out, those of you who like to get baked in the Bay State, the new law doesn’t take effect for 30 days. Sure, it’s a long wait, but maybe you can invite your gay Californian friends out for a pick-me-up New Year’s.

Editing’s cool and all, but making history is where it’s at tonight — which is why virtually the entire editorial board of North By Northwestern is at Grant Park. Call us irresponsible, or call us the elite liberal mainstream media. Either way, we peaced.

But we’d never desert you altogether, which is why we’re doing what we do best: text messaging. We’ll keep you updated on the best soundbites and observations from the crowd at the Obama rally, from the first whispers of a riot to the shouts of “You’ll never take me alive, coppers!” Hey, it’s bound to be an interesting night.

Photo by perke on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons.

Even though this election feels like it started more or less around the time we lost our baby teeth, if 2000 taught us anything, it’s this: It ain’t over ’til it’s over. The politics section, after months of ignoring all news headlines that didn’t include the words “McCain,” “Palin,” “Obama,” or “bailout,”, has come up with some predictions for how the longest election in recent history will end. Feel free to add your own in the comments.

Ben Armstrong: I predict that Barack Obama will become the president-elect with 349 electoral votes and 52.1 percent of the popular vote to McCain’s 46.0 percent. Of the questionable states, Obama will win Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Missouri. He will lose Indiana, Montana, Georgia, North Carolina and North Dakota. His late campaign push in Florida – coupled with disproportionate housing woes – will give him a small edge: one or two points. Missouri will be close, too, but it will not break its streak of picking winners. The Democrats will pick up six Senate seats and 17 House seats. Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Norm Coleman (R-MN) will hold on to their seats, while Ted Stevens (R-AK), John Sununu (R-NH) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) will lose their Senate offices. The Dems will pick up open seats in Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico. Bottom line: capitalizing off of economic discontent, Democrats will sweep.

Anna Stark: I predict that in a sudden upset on the morning of election day, the Supreme Court will un-deny Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr’s lawsuit to remove McCain and Obama from the ballot in states where both failed to meet the filing deadline for certifying their presidential candidates as they would appear on the ballot. In a come-from-behind victory, Barr will take Texas, whose Aug. 26th filing deadline was violated, and all other red states will follow its lead, because Texas is big and scary. The remaining swing states, thoroughly confused, will go to McCain fearing hostile takeover and/or the dreaded backwards-cheek-B’s, giving Barr a slim lead in the electoral college, and securing the first Libertarian president elect in the United States. Immanuel Kant smiles lovingly down from heaven.

Well, okay, I may be willing to admit that this is not the most likely of all possible outcomes. I’m going to terrify my parents by saying that, even with Texas going to McCain, Obama will take the electoral college, as indicated by his strong lead in the polls. Unless Biden says something ridiculous in the next 24 hours, and then God only knows will happen. I do not, however, think that the Democrats will end up with a Senate supermajority, no matter how much Nancy Pelosi wants them to.

Matt Zeitlin: I think Obama will win all of Kerry’s states along with Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia and Florida. So McCain gets the rest of the swing states: North Dakota, Montana, North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri. Basically, I don’t think the Democrats can turn out votes in deep-red states like Indiana or North Carolina, or if they can, the Republicans can still it do it better. The deep-red states that I do think will turn, namely Virginia, are going through long-term demographic and political realignments that are making them much more purple, and in the case of Colorado and New Mexico, blue. Under my optimistic, Florida-goes-Obama scenario, Obama wins 338 electoral votes to McCain’s 200. The popular vote will be 52-47. As far as the Senate goes, I think the Democrats will win seats in New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire, Alaska, Virgina, Oregon and Minnesota. That’s seven new seats, which, with Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, would give the Democrats 58 Senate seats. As for the House, the Democrats will pick up a net of 34 seats, giving them a 240-165 advantage in the House. Also, just for fun, one million people will gather in downtown Chicago to celebrate Obama’s win, and Sarah Palin will ritually slaughter 13 moose to make herself feel better. Also, bonus prediction: Expect an uptick in the birth rate in liberal parts of the country. No better way to lower inhibitions than winning back the White House. The baby name that will have the biggest jump in popularity in 2009? Barack.

Jason Plautz: The polls stay open way later than any television station wants them to because of record high turnout. Even so, they’re able to call the race for Obama early, thanks to North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Ohio going Democratic. Early exit polls even have him taking Arizona, but that turns out to be a pipe dream. In the end, it’s a washout for Obama, who clears 320 electoral votes. However, it’s not such a big win for the Democrats in Congress - they only turn five seats, leaving them short of the Magic 60, but still giving them a sizable majority. And John King’s magic map will malfunction around 8:30, throwing the Best Political Team on Television into utter chaos for ten minutes.

Caleb Melby: Following a 2000 political awakening, I am a Pavlov blue dog Democrat, classically trained to accept Democrats’ inability to win some of the most seemingly winnable elections in history. So conditioned, I have spent the last couple of months forging doomsday scenarios where Democratic Senator Barack Obama loses out to Republican Senator John McCain. But take a look at the numbers, and it becomes hard to imagine any situation in which McCain can win. Let’s say the Bradley Effect is legitimate, and it can be expected that some of the projected support for Obama goes to McCain. If this is true, closely contested swing states like Indiana and North Carolina will go red on Tuesday. Counting all states save Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida (using the latest in reliable polling data), that puts Obama at 270 electoral votes (the number necessary to win) to McCain’s 200 (with 68 toss-up votes). To win, McCain is going to have to pick up these three swing states, including the significantly blue Pennsylvania, plus yet another more modestly-sized electoral morsel (perhaps Nevada) to win. His chances are looking grim. Predicting that Florida and Ohio go to McCain (states arguably within the realm of “too close to call,” and perhaps also within danger of being bumped by the Bradley Effect), and concluding that Pennsylvania stays blue (as polls overwhelmingly suggest), I predict the winner to be Barack Obama with 291 to 247 votes.

Faces only a voter could love. Photo by Joe Crawford (artlung) on Flickr, licensed under Creative commons.

For some reason, one of the most memorable details from that sad day in 2004 when John Kerry lost was a simple piece of trivia: The winner had already been decided a few days early. Apparently, history has shown that whichever candidate’s face sells more Halloween marks will go on to win the election. It was true for both of George W.’s victories, and it was true for Clinton.

And now, *fingers crossed*, it’ll be true for Obama. The freakish rubber face of the senator from Illinois outsold the crinkly John McCain mask by a ratio of 2:1, according to The Age. Stupid, right? But stupider things have affected this election.

America’s most important youth vote barometer has come out and the results have got to be encouraging for the McCain campaign. In the Nickelodeon Kids Pick The President Poll, Obama won with just 51 percent of the vote. McCain pulled 49 percent of the 2.2 million votes.

The results of an admittedly unscientific poll from the network that airs “SpongeBob SquarePants” and “iCarly” wouldn’t seem to matter that much, but they’ve actually been pretty accurate. Just like Ohio almost always goes the winner’s way, the Nick kids have picked correctly in four of the last five elections, the only hiccup coming in 2004, when they went with John Kerry.

The real question is why was the race so close? Obama is supposed to be the candidate of the youth- he’s the one that has energized college campuses and lit up the Internet. John McCain, on the other hand, isn’t an electric speaker and looks like he could haunt kids’ nightmares after an episode of “Are You Afraid of the Dark?”. Obama only pulling 51 percent could be perceived as a loss, especially considering that Kerry, who’s just slightly more dynamic than Olmec from “Legends of the Hidden Temple,” pulled 57 percent of the Nick vote. Obama seems like he’d appeal to kids - he has adorable daughters, attends soccer games and has a hip appeal, especially among young adults. He even pulled 64 percent of youth voters (ages 18-29) in a Washington Post poll. There’s not much data available about who voted in Nick’s poll (for some reason, Nickelodeon doesn’t keep strict demographic data like Gallup), so we can only speculate as to why Obama polled low. Their politics are probably coming from their parents, who must tend more conservative. That could also come back to the age issue - with a lot of Obama’s popularity coming from the under-30 demographic, there are going to be far fewer of his supporters with kids.

But whatever the reason, Obama’s going to want to capture that youth set before they reach voting age. My recommendation: get slimed!

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced his support for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on Sunday. Even though Powell has been a long-time player in the Republican party, his endorsement of Obama does not come as a shock following months of rumors that Powell would speak at the DNC in August. Now, most Obama-obsessed superfans (aka college students) love this kind of endorsement — a former Bush Cabinet member, retired general — but does Obama really want this endorsement?

Powell was one of the chief reasons the U.S. invaded Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, he gave a speech to the United Nations Security Council, citing “evidence” that Saddam Hussein in fact did have weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Later, Powell himself said, “It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading.”

Deliberately misleading is exactly the problem with what Obama calls “politics as usual.” It is almost insulting for Powell to endorse Obama. Although Powell didn’t return to the Bush Administration when Dubya was re-elected in ‘04, Powell has not paid his dues.

It is impossible to say that Powell was responsible for going to war, but he had a big part in it. His careless and deceitful ways have killed thousands of American soldiers and Iraqis. He may have apologized, but that is simply not good enough.

Massaging CIA intel to support George W. Bush’s obsession with invading the Middle East is not something that should be forgotten, especially by the huge amount of young voters who were only in middle or high school when these things happened.

But maybe he’s being deliberately misleading — he might actually be voting for McCain.

With less than three weeks until the election, it seems that the Tribune’s endorsement of Barack Obama yesterday came late considering Obama’s history in Chicago politics. Although the reason for the delay was probably because the paper has never endorsed a nominee of the Democratic Party for president (Teddy Roosevelt is as close as they’ve come), the editorial was saturated with romance and pride. The endorsement says “Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government”, an assertion opponents find abstract and empty.

Still, the news comes without much shock. This is not only because Chicago is Obama’s home town, but because Obama has been collecting newspaper endorsements with ease since the race started. He has collected 64 endorsements to McCain’s 18, including ones from the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, The Boston Globe, and the Washington Post.

Newspapers have a history of supporting candidates; indeed, editorial endorsements have become an integral part of print journalism. But whether or not openly endorsing candidates is beneficial to elections should probably be examined. Support for a party or candidate would inherently create a suspicion of subjectivity in other intended straight news stories. In New Zealand, the Electoral Finance Bill challenges the use of campaign money used for advertisements and even attempts to prohibit the use of endorsements by newspapers.

Clearly, the notion of limiting press rights is both dangerous and absurd, but if newspapers intend to preserve their intrinsic validity they should practice some self restriction. Ideally, newspapers should avoid endorsing candidates and instead focus on maintaining an impartial perspective. It could be argued that it would be more honest for newspapers to be upfront about their personal biases if they exist, but journalists should understand that their profession requires neutrality and embrace that idea rather than try to deviate into opinion writing.

The solution wouldn’t be to go entirely the way of NPR and BBC, but private news outlets would be wise to discourage endorsements in any case. The New York Times, for example, has yet to endorse a candidate, but they did endorse Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the primaries.

The mass of leftist endorsements have yet to surprise anyone though, since the “mainstream media” has been given a liberal reputation, which is not unjustifiable. In Bias, Bernard Goldberg, a former CBS reporter, points out that “89 percent of journalists polled said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 compared to 43 percent of the non-journalist voters. 50 percent said they were Democrats, 4 percent said they were Republicans.”

So to prevent subjectivity in the press, the media should focus on reflecting the public. The most effective way to do this would be to discourage endorsements, without outlawing them. Each independent newspaper has a societal responsibility to create that tradition.

 Loading ...

It’s the third and final presidential debate of the season, and anything can happen. From Hofstra University in New York, the two will supposedly focus on the economic crisis. But this is also one of the best opportunities for John McCain, who’s been slipping in the polls, to make his case that he’s the best man for the job. What will the last question of the debates be? Follow along with our live-bloggers and find out.

We asked our bloggers to summarize the debate in a haiku. Here’s what they came up with:

Matt
McCain got testy
but Obama kept his cool
Bob was big and strong

Jenny
John McCain is old
Obama can be a snore
Nobody fucked up

Lana
Obama stayed cool
McCain scowled, interrupted
But who’s Joe Plumber?

9:31 p.m.
Lana: Seeing the two of them next to each other just kind of bowls me over.
Jenny: So does “healthy” discussion.
Lana: That education question was an interesting way to end all the debates. The last question for Kerry/Bush was how strong women influenced their lives. I’m glad this one at least has something to do with the election
Matt: Strong women are always relevant!
Lana: Yeah but now Palin can represent all of them!
Lana: Damn it, he used the word fundamental
Matt: Obama is not getting much of a reaction. McCain’s story was much more personal, which was quite effective. Obama is being pretty vague and platitudinous.
Lana: There’s something new.
Matt: but, as always, when he says middle class, his rating shoot up.
Lana: “Go vote now. It’ll make you feel big and strong.” Best moment of the debate and it wasn’t said by either candidate!

9:28 p.m.
Lana: Did McCain just equate autism and Downs syndrome?! Oh. My. Goodness.
Matt: But how will we do that if we have a spending freeze?
Lana: Yeah, McCain really vetted Sarah Palin. He doesn’t even know what her kid has Downs syndrome.
LanaObama just looks so much more adult. he looks calm, and serious, and grown up, frankly. McCain cackles and shifts around and just looks like some angry middle school bully
Jenny: Vouchers aren’t working.
Matt: There will never be enough vouchers, there aren’t enough private schools, they won’t increase capacity fast enough. vouchers are good for some schools, but improving the public system will help the most people

9:25 p.m.
Jenny: No Child Left Behind. Oh, what a terrible idea. Did you know that Evanston HS has failed the past 3 years?
Matt: Isn’t it better that we know that, instead of before, when schools could be shitty and there was no way to evaluate them. Clearly, NCLB isn’t perfect, but some testing and evaluation has to be part of the program.
Lana: Women are big fans of educating the next generation.
Matt: Any of you read Freakonomics? The kids that get vouchers are doing the best anyway. Also, no voucher program is big enough to actually get people into better schools. Thirdly, it leaves behind all the special education kids and problem kids in the public schools, which screws over the vast majority of kids that attend public schools.

9:22 p.m.
Jenny: Well, it sounds perfect. More money for teachers. More programs for kids. Just, how do we make that actually work?
Lana: Wait, there are still children left behind? that can’t be right….
Lana: Wait, so being in the army automatically qualifies you to be a teacher? Nothing against the military, but that can’t possibly be right.
Matt: I mean, if you want to encourage people to enter the profession, you need to pay them more, that requires more spending.
Jenny: Wait. Obama didn’t go to a super great school. He didn’t grow up rich like McCain.
Matt: Something tells me that it was the GOP behind not fully funding special education….

9:19 p.m.
Lana: So the unborn get rights, but gay people don’t? McCain’s so just.
Matt: I dunno, he’s probably opposed to unborn marriage.
Jenny: And interracial marriage. He remembers those good old days.
Lana: Aw, this education question is depressing. Pretty much: how come we’re so stupid if we spend so much money on education?
Matt: I mean, sounds like a good question to me. DC public schools have remarkably high per student spending, yet their results are bad.
Matt: Wow, Obama is getting really high ratings for his education spiel.

9:15 p.m.
Lana: Partial birth abortion is a “bad, terrible procedure.” Umm, it’s an incredibly rare one that is done nearly exclusively in the case that a woman’s health is in serious jeopardy.
Lana: Man, Obama’s a witty guy. “If it sounds incredible… that’s because it’s not true.”
Matt: McCain is left handed. Did you know that during the middle ages, left handedness was considered a sign of the devil?
Matt: “Cavalier activity” sounds like a good time to me….

9:12 p.m.
Lana: It’s interesting to see that men and women are pretty much reacting evenly to this whole thing.
Matt: Aren’t all issues moral issues? I never understood the distinction between moral and other issues. Aaaaand the women are digging this.
Matt: Obama should talk about this more. The ledbetter case was very clear. She had gotten totally screwed and the conservative judges didn’t award her anything.
Lana: Obama’s defending my future paycheck? Gotta love the man.
Matt: “Statue of limitations.” Ledbetter didn’t know that she was getting paid less than the men. In McCain’s world, it would be near impossible for women to sue for equal pay.

9:09 p.m.
Matt: Wut woh! Abortion time!
Lana: The Supreme Court question is a good one. Some of those guys are getting gray around the ears
Matt: “I would never impose a litmus test.” Ummm, yeah.
Lana: Elections have consequences? No way. thank goodness for McCain’s wisdom.
Matt: Voted against Justice Breyer? BREYER WAS APPOINTED BY CLINTON! Did you mean Scalia? I think so.
Lana: Pointing out McCain’s mistakes is just being ageist. he has “senior moments,” remember.

9:06 p.m.
Lana: I thought we’re only supposed to trust non-partisan groups when they agree with our parties….
Matt: What point is unfair? The point is that the individual insurance market sucks and screws over those who have preexisting conditions. This is the big problem.
Benjamin: That is not his critique. Obama says that McCain’s plan is exerting a new tax burden…that is not necessarily true.
Matt: they will receive more money with the tax credit, but they will be in the individual insurance market which is more expensive, because there aren’t pools that get healthy and sick people together.
Lana: Do I get one with my insurance plan, or something? Because I am so voting for that candidate.
Jenny: … transplants are sometimes necessary to live. I’d like my insurance to cover that. I don’t think that’s like a boob job.
Lana: What money in our pockets? In this economy, that’s not all that much.

9:03 p.m.
Benjamin: Women are giving McCain bad marks for this
Lana: I’m so tired of Joe. Unless it’s Joe Biden with that dreamy smile….
Matt: OH WOW. McCain just looks shocked.
Lana: McCain looks so flabbergasted. “You just crushed my whole argument! NOOO!”
Matt: John McCain is like “what are all these numbers and policy details”
Jenny: Oh, I don’t mind when Obama says “You” straight into the camera to me.
Benjamin: His critique of McCain’s plan is unfair — non-partisan groups have labeled it untrue.

9:00 p.m.
Lana: It’s really hard to say no to paying less for healthcare. I’m not saying I approve of Obama’s total healthcare plan, but when he phrases it that way, it just doesn’t give McCain much to disagree with
Matt: Oh, Obama is talking about his health care plan. My heart is fluttering.
Lana: McCain’s talking about putting a band-aid on a severed limb.

8:57 p.m.
Matt: But really, this Columbia free trade agreement is a distraction. It’s a tiny agreement that won’t really affect anyone or anything.
Benjamin: It will affect Colombians.
Jenny: He needs the Hispanic vote in Colorado.
Lana: Even the polls have shown that his negative campaigning hasn’t worked. Can’t he learn from his mistakes and just become, oh, a little sweeter?
Matt: Women are not liking this stupid talk about Hugo Chavez. Which makes sense, cause it’s stupid.
Matt: Herbert Hoover also imposed a spending freeze in the midst of a recession. Sound familiar?

8:54 p.m.
Jenny: I should be angry, now. I’m Chinese.
Lana: “You really have to pay attention to words,” says McCain. Pot, kettle.
Matt: I mean, McCain is much more likely to, say, start a war with China.
Matt: It’s worth pointing out that these bilateral, two country free trade agreements are really just drops in the bucket. The Doha round was rejected and won’t be revived anytime soon.
Benjamin: The same government that is infiltrated by those tied to the Coke industry.
Lana: Look at McCain’s smile! He totally gets this look of “I did it! I used a zinger!”

8:51 p.m.
Lana: Plans only cost money when Democrats propose them, d’oh.
Matt: Clean coal technology, something of a crock.
Benjamin: No, Matt, the Canadians sell it to us at a special price… they throw in some maple syrup on the side.
Matt: “That’s about a realistic time frame.” Umm, no.
Benjamin: Obama is looking at the camera…great stylistic choice.
Matt: When Obama made that point about South Korea last time, all the Koreans in Hinman booed.

8:48 p.m.
Lana: McCain smiles whenever Obama uses logic, like it’s this quaint little practice.
Benjamin: That was not Biden’s idea. He wanted one country with three semi autonomous regions.
Lana: This is the closest Obama has come to losing his cool. He’s not interrupting or anything like McCain, but I think you can tell it gets under his skin
Benjamin: Schieffer is so senile… “Climate control”… That deserves a laugh.
Matt: OH WOW MCCAIN DOESNT UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS!
Benjamin: Does McCain know how much nuclear plants cost?

8:45 p.m.
Lana: Palin is a role model to women?! What?
Lana: Gosh I hope I grow up to be just like her. Or at least have her taste in glasses.
Matt: Notice how men like this talk about Sarah Palin…and women aren’t really feeling it.
Jenny: “She saw corruption and resigned.” I want a fighter, c’mon!
Lana: Because women are supposedly hoping that one day they can be appointed to political positions rather than voted into them.
Lana: Wait, Palin has gotten people who have never been involved in the political process to get interested? Wasn’t that Obama with his record-setting primary votes?
Matt: Obama is doing everything he can to avoid saying that she’s qualified to be president.

8:42 p.m.
Lana: I miss the Bush-Kerry debates. I can’t imagine McCain offering Obama some wood in this one.
Matt: A little background. Obama had challenged McCain to bring up Ayers to his face. Clearly, they had that answer prepped and Obama delivered it well. This isn’t true. Here’s Ayers explanation of what he meant in 2001: Ayers meant that the country and himself didn’t do enough to stop the vietnam war. This is unambiguously true….
Lana: I can’t believe McCain has the chutzpah to pretend that he’s actually focusing on the issues.
Lana: To bring us up to date: Obama and McCain have to justify how their running mates would make good presidents. Let’s see what McCain says…
Jenny: I don’t think we need to provide any witty retorts on this one. Palin speaks for herself.

8:39 p.m.
Jenny: “Destroying the fabric of American society…”
Lana: Obama just mentioned Northwestern! This is the best moment in our history as a school
Matt: ACORN “greatest fraud in voting history…destroying the fabric of democracy” This is total bullshit. Acorn pays people to register voters. Those workers will submit bullshit registrations to get more money. ACORN, by law, is not allowed to throw out any registration forms. So, you get “Superman” and “Tony Romo” registered to vote. These people don’t vote, there is no voter fraud. Registration fraud isn’t voter fraud.
Lana: Is McCain trying to get some shut-eye, or just reading notes?
Jenny: He’s using a Sharpie. I think this means he’s a huffer.

8:36 p.m.
Matt: Woah, those sighs of McCain are REALLY loud.
Jenny: Those are the death moans.
Benjamin: McCain is making me so angry. He is moaning and groaning because he is getting his ass kicked. Get over it. Stop acting like Obama is your grandchild. Stop making him the bad guy for Code Pink. Obama needs to pick up the pace, jump across the table, SOMETHING!
Matt: The point is that people are saying racist, offensive things about Obama at McCain rallies. And no one at the rallies is stopping them or showing disapproval. This is a problem.
Lana: I’m glad Obama is trying to get back to the point. It reminds me of Edwards during the Democratic primaries… before he became creepy.

8:32 p.m.
Jenny: DING DING DING! Obama + Economy = Love
Matt: Is anyone going to be impressed by McCain complaining about mean ads?
Benjamin: 1. Misportray is not a word…2. Why does McCain, the king of false ads, get to take the high road on these ads?
Lana: Ohio voters are reacting much more favorably towards McCain this debate than before.

8:28 p.m.
Lana: What a great question! Holding them accountable for their own campaigns.
Matt: Is Bob challenging the candidates to stop being such punks?
Matt: This is the lamest thing ever. Because Obama didn’t want to do town hall meetings, his VP said Obama palls around with terrorists. That’s not because of the lack of town hall debates.
Jenny: And wasn’t it McCain who threatened to not go to the first debate?
Lana: Shh, McCain can’t remember that.
Matt: “Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any political campaign in history” that’s because Obama has more money than any political candidate in history

8:25 p.m.

Matt: “Across the board spending squeeze all over America” That’s because states and municipalities can’t run deficits. The federal government can. In a recession, we have to. I hope that McCain understands that.
Lana: Hey now, it’s not the candidates who are supposed to ask questions, is it?
Matt: “Even Fox news disputes it.” ZING!
Matt: Actually, McCain hasn’t shown independence on torture. He hasn’t endorsed legislation to stop the CIA from torturing.
Lana: Wait, it’s the Republicans who tortured McCain?

8:22 p.m.
Lana: Wow, he had no interest in answering that question
Matt: “Balance the budget in four years.” There is NO WAY McCain can do that. That’s why he isn’t answering the question.
Lana: Hmm… actually, McCain kind of had a point. Obama’s relying a little too heavily on comparing McCain to Bush.
Lana: You can’t exactly “eliminate” spending. At best you can curtail it.

8:19 p.m.
Benjamin: He’s like Palin. Question is on the deficit, he wants to talk about home ownership… or energy… dontcha know.
Lana: Hey, he can’t use Obama’s scalpel!
Jenny: Obama has not opposed off-shore drilling — even though he should.
Matt: Defense spending cuts? I think there’s a war going on…. That stuff costs a lot of money.

8:16 p.m.
Matt: It would be nice if Obama mentioned that richest 1% are richer than they’ve ever been… I think they can pay more in taxes.
Lana: Why is Obama wearing a Republican-colored tie? Mistake!
Benjamin: Obama was doing better when he was looking at the camera.
Matt: OK, everyone, Keynesian economics time. When the economy is slackening, you need to increase demand. Because people are unsure of the economy’s strength, they are less likely to spend and invest. So the government needs to step in and stimulate demand by investing in infrastructure projects or by sending out checks. Otherwise, we get in a spiral of decreasing demand and decreasing growth. Hoover cut spending in the early 30s…that didn’t turn out so well.
Jenny: Someone should run on the platform of abolishing taxes.
Lana: Like Ron Paul? That ended well

8:13 p.m.
Lana: His 95% figure is wrong, according to factcheck.org. So I get sad every time he says it.
Jenny: They need to stop looking straight into the camera.
Matt: Isn’t that the camera’s fault?
Matt: “we need to spread the wealth around” this is why we’re seeing the highest inequality since the late 20s… “Why would you want to increase the taxes on anyone?” Oh, I dunno, so the government can pay for stuff?
Lana: I swear I see the devil on his shoulder egging him on
Benjamin: This Joe the plumber conversation is really condescending.
Do I call you McCain the geriatric?

8:10 p.m.
Lana: I love when Obama mentions the middle class
Matt: You and all the women watching debate the undecided women, of course
Lana: They’re my people. We’re in this together!
Lana: Although it creeps me out when Obama looks right into the camera
Jenny : It might just be the screen but it looks like McCain’s eyebrows are horns.
Matt: “This could be a giveaway to banks if we’re paying the full price for mortgages” good point. McCain’s plan is a giveaway to failing, corrupt banks. Obama’s is a giveaway to the vast majority of people. “He had an encounter with a plumber.” Was there any crack involved?
Lana: Did he just say “Joe the plumber”? I thought Joe was a six-pack.
Matt: Plumbers can drink too!

Good evening, Northwestern. What happens on Tuesdays around here? Nothing, which is why you’re also probably watching the second presidential debate tonight, being held as a town hall meeting. Live from America’s heartland — Evanston, IL — our bloggers will try to translate Main Street into words you Northwestern kids can understand. And we’re off!

Post-debate limericks:

Jeremiah:
There was a man named Tom Brokaw
Who was the meanest man the candidates ever saw
They tried to eloquently speak
But his responses made them look bleak
And he made them get out of the way of his teleprompter so he could lay down the law.

Matt:
There once was a candidate from Chicago
He went up against a guy as cold as fargo
He talked change
While his opponent stank like mange
And back to Arizona the old coot did’go.

Jamie:
Tom Brokaw furrowed his brow
As the men tried to take their bow
But as they they stood in place
He almost punched them in the face
Blocking the prompter, he wouldn’t allow.

Natalie:
Tonight John and Barry debated
Zingers and jabs they traded
The answers were more of the same
But most of the questions were lame
And Brokaw had to be sedated.

Ben:
There once was a man who hated pork
Whose running mate was kind of a dork
He got kind of mad
Because Obama was rad
Americans still don’t have work.

Jennifer:
There once was a lass with an ailing
That sent all her sentences flailing
She left off the ends
Of her words, so her friends
Never knew that her real name was Paling.

Julia:
There once was a man named Tom Brokaw
Who thought both the candidates jokers
No questions were followed
Which made him appalled
He wondered if they were both tokers.

9:33 p.m.
Jennifer: And that concludes tonight’s debate.
Julia: A steady hand on the tiller… wait, doesn’t McCain have shaky hands?
[Tom Brokaw chastises the candidates for blocking his teleprompter.]
Natalie: Tom Brokaw is now the angriest man in America.
Matt: I’m in ur teleprompter, blocking ur view.

9:30 p.m.
Natalie: I like how [Obama] talks to the people in front of him as if they are Iran.
Jamie: If you change your behavior, we’ll give you a pony! Incentives!
Jennifer: Who would look cuter on a pony: McCain or Obama?
Matt: LAST QUESTION!

9:27 p.m.
Ben: McCain: a second holocaust, we must avoid.
Natalie: Thanks, Yoda.
Jennifer: Why do we keep suggesting that another holocaust might take place!!?!? This is terrifying me.
Natalie: Yeah, that’s a little upsetting. Do they know something we don’t?

9:23 p.m.
Julia: Russia: making mischief
Natalie: SO MANY POINTS for saying “mischief”
Jeremiah: I doubt Putin cares about mischief
Ben: Is Russia evil? McCain: it depends on us.
Matt: John McCain is being surprisingly forthwright. We can’t ignore their bad actions, but ramping up the rhetoric isn’t helpful. Snaps for McCain.

9:20 p.m.

Natalie: Oooh! Ask Palin this one about Russia!
Natalie: Last time she said we might start a war with them!
Julia: Are they just gonna keep repeating what they’ve previously said? The third debate is gonna be tedious.

9:17 p.m.

[McCain says he knows how to get bin Laden]
Matt: “I know how to get him.” Then why haven’t you told the president…
Matt: We should all remember that Richard Nixon bragged about having a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam.
Julia: McCain just said telegraph… instead of email… a telling statement.
Natalie: Why does he know where bin Laden is? I want to know where bin Laden is!

9:15 p.m.
Jeremiah: They sound like two little shits bickering back and forth about each others record.
Natalie: I always joke about Iran!
Matt: “I was joking with an old friend.” That’s not really an explanation. He’s a senator.

9:11 p.m.
[McCain mentions that Teddy Roosevelt is his hero]
Natalie: What? I thought it was Reagan!
Natalie: He has a whole team full of heroes!
Natalie: Justice League!
Julia: But they can’t help him now, ’cause they’re all dead.
Matt: It’s funny that McCain is talking about popularity in Pakistan. He, of course, supported Musharraf until the bitter end. To put it lightly, he wasn’t very popular in Pakistan.

9:08 p.m.
Natalie: STOP SAYING GOOD THINGS ABOUT REAGAIN
Reagan.
Julia: Reagan = McCain’s dear leader.
Jamie: Rogain?
Natalie: Sorry
Julia: He could use some.

9:00 p.m.
Jennifer: WHOA, and McCain is the only suited to lead the GREATEST FORCE FOR GOOD IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.
Natalie: Come on, now. I wouldn’t call us peacemakers. Not by a long stretch. Switzerland, now there’s a peaceful spot.
Jeremiah: All this “peacemaking” is why terrorists hate us.
Julia: Do you think he will mention that he was a POW?
Natalie: He ALWAYS mentions that he was a POW. He mutters it in his sleep.
Matt: I mean, he was tortured for five years, I would probably mention that in my sleep too…

8:57 p.m.

Zach: Healthcare… Obama owns it.
Ben: CNN numbers are off the charts.
Zach: He has no Hillary to fight now.
Natalie: The men do not like discussion of children.
Matt: Holy shit, Obama is talking about health care and women have been giving him the highest rating for about a minute. It’s a straight bar at the top.
Natalie: Ladies, voting with the ovaries since the 60s!
Jeremiah: where is McCain going? he just walked behind his chair….I think alzheimers is setting in.

8:51 p.m.

Natalie: “Costs go up” = “skyrocketing costs.” Stalling much?
Ben: Let’s have walk-in clinics to impose efficiencies — McCain. And then he bashes government.
Jeremiah: McCain is trying to scare the American people with socialism talk.
Natalie: I thought we were giving tax breaks to parents a few minutes ago.

8:50 p.m.

Matt: This debate isn’t nearly nasty enough. I was totally ready to get angry at McCain for talking about Ayers.
Jennifer: Do they practice their faces and poses for while the other candidate speaks?
Matt: Yay! Talking about health care. McCain wants to cut health care for old people by 1.3 trillion dollars and he wants to throw everyone out into the individual market where they can be rejected for having a preexisting condition.

8:48 p.m.

Ben: McCain just loves to talk about pork…
Julia: mmmm… pork
Natalie: Don’t say “bridge.”
Ben: bridge the gap…to where?
Matt: nowhere
Natalie: That’s a dangerous word for this ticket
Ben: McCain talks about pork…soft power jab at Islamofascists.

8:38 p.m.

Julia: Woooo tax breaks!
Jamie: He sounds like he’s telling a fairy tale.
Natalie: OMG! We get child tax breaks! We’re like the anti-China!
Matt: Leaving the tax rates alone would mean that we let the Bush cuts expire. To maintain tax rates at the current level, we’d have to actively extend the tax cuts Bush passed.
Jennifer: His arms are being operated by remote control right now.
Ben: This small business talk is nuts. Obama is promoting small business growth.
Jennifer: The INTERNET.
Julia: A question from the Internet!
Natalie: GASP!
Julia: What does it want to know?

8:37 p.m.

Gabe: I’ve got some news, Senator Obama: we won World War II!

8:36 p.m.

Julia: He sounds like he’s trying to entice you into the back of his car… or something.
Natalie: The womenfolk are not digging this
Ben: CNN voters are not liking it.
Natalie: McCain read the news!

8:32 p.m.

Zach: These candidates need to stop promoting clean coal. There is NO SUCH THING as clean coal. It’s a crock.
Ben: Toyota has plants in America…it’s only the money that goes to Japan. Doubling the peace corps?
Matt: There’s also no such thing as an America car worth buying…
Natalie: Fuck that shit. I drive a Geo. Now THAT’S patriotic
Jeremiah: I believe GM killed their electric car 12 years ago…now they cost 100 grand.
Ben: I walk…while wearing an American flag to cover my extremities.

8:31 p.m.

Ben: Obama said 9/11 (gasp)…ready to link it into sacrifice..
Jamie: Tell me ‘bama
Natalie: Oh, you know. Just 2 days before my birdthday
Gabe: Is Obama’s tie a little purple?
Matt: 9/11 meandering = no one giving Obama good ratings.
Natalie: Obama, you’re veering very close to Giuliani territory
Jamie: His outreach to the gay voters. Very subtle.

8:30 p.m.

Matt: “Some programs that we may have to eliminate” Like the occupation of Iraq? Sounds like one that isn’t working Also, his rant about defense spending is lame. What drives up defense spending is a foreign occupation and maintaining military bases all over the world.
Natalie: What the fuck is a spending freeze?
Jamie: A bad call.
Ben: No appropriations except for necessities (annual deals), I think.
Natalie: It sounds like a bad day for Victoria Beckham.
Matt: John McCain should really specify what these “really good projects” are. For example, in a recession, we need to increase unemployment benefits, public works spending and food stamps. This is to provide income support and to get people back to work. Does McCain support freezing those programs?
Jeremiah: This spending freeze probably has him thinking cryogenics
Jamie: Look, America is not a 15-year-old girl at the mall. You can’t just cut up our credit card.

8:26 p.m.

Jamie: Once again, his hands are too short to reach across the aisle.
Natalie: Tom is PISSED
Zach: No no no, he can’t lift his arms high enough to reach across the aisle
Matt: Tom Brokaw gets the passive agressive award.
Ben: Obama looks so comfortable.
Gabe: Mac’s a MAVERICK. He don’t need no rules
Ben: Obama can’t come up with petrostates beyond Iran and Venuzuela
Matt: russia…
Zach: Obama’s talking to the middle class, talking about the actual voters
Matt: alaska…
Ben: natural gas more than oil
Gabe: I feel politicians only reach across the aisle to hold hands and dance under each other’s arms. Y’know?
Natalie: Have you heard you can see Russia from Alaska?

8:25 p.m.

Ben: Does the 700 include the money hidden in emergency spending legislation?
Zach: Yeah… he said it twice during one answer.
Matt: “Reform entitlement programs” That means cuts 1.3 trillion from Medicare. No one wants that to happen.
Natalie: Reaching across the aisle: 2

8:24 p.m.

Jeremiah: Cindy McCain said today that “Obama has waged the most negative campaign in history.” After hearing John’s answer to this question I beg to differ.
Jamie: That’s not even getting a fair chance…
Natalie: I’d rather run away, thanks
Ben: Good article on soft vs. hard energy policies in the NYT business section today…is there a joke for soft/hard energy policies?
Matt: This obsession with earmarks is really stupid. Earmarks represent $18 billion, our budget is THREE TRILLION. The Iraq war has cost roughly $700 billion. Just putting that out there.
Gabe: Tom Brokaw is getting peeved by McCain’s lack of consideration to the debate rules.

8:21 p.m.

Jamie: It’s been mounting up, big changes are needed, and not just in the legislature.
Gabe: CNN Ohio voters are loving this.
Matt: Speaking of spending cuts, John McCain’s chief policy person said that they would cut Medicare by 1.3 trillion dollars over 10 years. That should be really important when we start discussing health care.
Natalie: How can you be a consistent reformer?
Ben: McCain: I have been a consistent reformer…there has to be a joke for that.
Jamie: “Consistent reformer” well he did remarry…
Natalie: Isn’t that an oxymoron?

8:20 p.m.

Matt: Both parties got us into this crisis? I’ll note that the housing market turned into an unsustainable asset bubble under Republican administration, specifically Fed Chair Alan Greenspan continually pushing for lower interest rates.
Gabe: She’s a commie!
Jeremiah: I LOVE how we have to be reminded that we are the best country in the world all the time
Jamie: But you know what, people need to learn fiscal responsibility too–yes, this is the result of shitty policies, but also the result of poor financial skills on the part of the US population.

8:17 p.m.

Jamie: It will get worse before it gets better; whoever is president next will have to deal with a shaky weak economy that will NOT magically get better.
Ben: Obama: “we have an archaic regulatory system”…is Barney Frank going to revolutionize it?
Matt: Coordinate with other countries! But they hate our freedom! Would we coordinate with Spain, a county that McCain hates….
Natalie: Master of the obvious! Points to McCain!
Ben: McCain: it depends…if we give it the maverick treatment, the economy will sparkle like Palin’s glasses. McCain lies about how good the “fundamentals” of the economy are. Call him out, Obama…fundamentals are not people…it’s an insult!

8:14 p.m.

Natalie: I hate. How. McCain. Says. The. Letter. S. He hissssssses. It’s terrifying. It’s like parseltongue.

8:13 p.m.

Matt: I should note that these are all “undecided voters.” But this isn’t a very representative group. They are also trying to make it demographically representative, which means that 12 percent of the group should be black. But since 90 or so percent of African Americans support Obama, an undecided black voter is a pretty unrepresentative figure for the population as a whole. Also, because Obama is up in the polls, undecided voters will tild right.
Jamie: Undecided voters tend to lean Obama, I believe. Or is it new voters?
Ben: Oliver’s question: what in the bailout package is going to help people who are having a “tough time”
Natalie: There will also be two 20-year-olds.
Matt: If this guy, who’s African American, is “undecided” he represents less than 10 percent of the black community.

8:11 p.m.

Gabe: And how many Americans have been benefited by Berkshire Hathaway? A little mroe than 1.3 million
Jamie: YES, but McCain, you are the cronyism!
Matt: This is weird for Brokaw to ask for a name. It’s illegal for a candidate to name his cabinet before he takes office.
Ben: They can project.
Jamie: That’s interesting.
Ben: They are not supreme court candidates, though Obama would rock the court better than the White House.

8:08 p.m.

Natalie: STOP CALLING US YOUR FRIENDS
Matt: John McCain’s going on about energy independence really shows how his approach to the economy is seriously flawed. Although energy independence would be nice, opening up drilling right now will do nothing to open up credit markets or prevent the increase in unemployment.

8:07 p.m.

Zach: If Obama wants to win tonight he has to stick to the economy. He has to pin John McCain to his failed economic policies and not let McCain attack him.
Natalie: I feel like most questions tonight will involve the economy.
Natalie: Since they’re coming from “real” (read: pre-screened) people
Ben: McCain jab: Good to be with you at a town hall meeting. Obama turned him down to town hall meeting dates earlier in the summer.
Gabe: I want to see some wet slacks.

8:05 p.m.

Ben: Obama seems like a professor describing the crisis to a lecture hall.
Natalie: I mean, it is a hall full of people.
Gabe: Obama seems like a strong man reaching into my heart.
Natalie: Kind of similar, no?
Zach: Maybe we can have the next one at loevorne
Ben: But he is auditioning to be president, not Mark Witte.
Jamie: Honestly, Obama has always seemed professorial to me… doesn’t mean I’d make my econ professor my president.

Jonathan is our conservative blogger.

Just as the Obama campaign anticipated, McCain rolled out a fairly harsh attack of Obama’s honesty this morning, just hours before the two meet in Nashville tonight in their second debate. However, the attack is not on Obama’s associations, as was anticipated. I would assume that they’ll leave more personal attacks to Palin’s speeches.

For my part, I thought the ad itself was pretty weak. First off, the leading news footage about Obama wanting the state to prosecute political distortions is just not very clear. Instead, try starting a commercial with an Obama comment like this (kudos to CNN and Campbell Brown for finding this one): “I don’t think there is any doubt that John McCain’s public record about issues that he’s apologized for and written about is not germane to the presidency.” That was in reference to the Keating Five scandal, which Obama’s campaign has now created a mini-documentary about. I think that an argument along those lines might be more successful.

But that could all be beside the real point. Yesterday, I said that bringing Obama’s character and judgment into question might be all the McCain camp has left. And it may well be the only thing they have left up their sleeve. I sincerely think that McCain has an upper-hand on this issue; Obama’s record on sketchy associates is pretty awful. But the problem is, it’s not an issue that will resonate, unless it’s secondary to something bigger.

It’s hard to have an argument on personalities and associates (and character judgment) when the economy is failing. As John McCain looks to positively define an economic message, talking about earmarks and wasteful spending isn’t going to cut it.

McCain’s economic policies are good for this economy and this country. Raising taxes (as Obama would do) during a recession is a recipe for disaster. Cutting taxes and introducing more capital into the market would be productive (as McCain proposes to do). Unfortunately, McCain hasn’t been able to spell this out for the American people to date. Until he can successfully argue this simple concept, don’t expect the negative ads to do much for his chances.

Read Jonathan’s previous post | Read his liberal counterpart.

    

Jonathan is our conservative blogger.

After having the chance to see Gen. Wesley Clark speak tonight about the many troubles facing our nation at home and abroad, I came back to my dorm, disappointed to read news of the increasingly negative, caustic tenor of the presidential race.

Apparently Obama, after hearing rumors this weekend of a more aggressive (and negative) McCain advertising strategy, decided to preempt any such attack by, well, attacking. Launching a totally new series of websites, complete with a full documentary, “fact list,” and issue-specific attacks, the Obama campaign is effectively aiming to undermine McCain’s moral credibility, before he goes on the offensive.

This is incredibly stupid. First of all, Obama just lowered himself into the same gutter of “old politics” that he has continually renounced. He also just conceded the “you started this negative campaign” line to the McCain camp (although anyone who thinks that this campaign hasn’t been negative so far needs to open their eyes). And besides, the judgment and associations battle is not one that an Illinois politician should plan on winning.

I read a post on this blog from yesterday, and thought I’d correct the record on the “associations argument” from the Right. First, let’s get straight what McCain’s campaign is doing: they are painting Obama as out of touch with Americans (vis-à-vis his radical friendships) and lacking in judgment. That’s it. It has nothing to do with race, as some have claimed. (If you want to know what it is about, read this. Thomas Sowell is incredibly intelligent, as always.)

However, Obama has been known to associate with radical figures: Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Rev. Wright, to name a few. True, being friends with a man like Ayers doesn’t make you a terrorist. Nobody’s saying that. But it means that you have poor judgment, at least. True, attending the Trinity United Church of Christ and listening to Rev. Wright doesn’t necessarily make you a racist. But at least the McCain campaign can claim: “You should have known better.” This argument, combined with the inexperience argument that Hillary tried to use against Obama earlier this year, seems to be the McCain campaign’s chosen path, at least for now. I’m not sure it’ll be enough to stem the swelling Obama surge, but at this point, it may be all McCain has left. Here goes nothing.
Read Jonathan’s previous post | Read his liberal counterpart.

Sarah Palin doesn’t think Barack Obama is a terrorist, just that he hangs around “with terrorists who target their own country.” She made the accusations yesterday, following the release of a New York Times article that acknowledged that Obama had worked with the founder of a terrorist group in the past.

The basis of her allegation comes from meetings the candidate had with Bill Ayers, a founder of the terrorist group Weather Underground. Unfortunately, Palin read the New York Times wrong. The Times said that while the men had met, they did not seem to have been close. She also apparently forgot that Obama was 8 years old when Ayers committed his terrorist actions.

To be clear: both men live in Hyde Park, and Obama claims that he ran into him last year. But living in the same neighborhood in Chicago does not make you besties.

This is just another desperate attempt by the McCain campaign to draw attention from the failing economy in light of slipping poll numbers. Basically, Palin can’t talk about her own policies–she doesn’t have any–or Obama’s policies–she doesn’t understand them–so she tries to question his moral character. Politics as usual?

If you watched the debate on Thursday and you had strong feelings one way or another about Governor Palin—whatever those feelings were—chances are those feelings are stronger.

As Gail Collins wrote on Friday in the New York Times:

“The Republicans were euphoric over Sarah Palin’s debate performance, particularly the part in which she stood tall and refrained from falling off the stage.”

After her colorful interview with Katie Couric the week before last, pretty much everyone expected her to be spectacularly disastrous.

But after walking away from the stage with such gems as “Say it ain’t so, Joe!” and by reminding Joe Biden that his wife’s “reward is in heaven,” Gov. Palin’s supporters didn’t miss a beat: they declared her the winner. Cute-as-buttons.

Never mind, for one moment, that she regarded the questions asked of her as a loosely inconsequential, nagging suggestions for what she might talk about to be ignored at her preference. Or that she seemingly couldn’t decide if she and John McCain promised strict oversight of the American financial system to better regulate private enterprise or if they vowed to angrily to expel government from private life completely. Or that half of her sentences simply did not make sense—Maureen Dowd noticed this gem: “With the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that, as governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change subcabinet to start dealing with the impacts.”

Look—we cannot say that Joe Biden mopped the floor with her. He didn’t—though to his credit, this was much less a debate than it was a two-play Broadway production with call and response (or no response, in the Governor’s case). Joe Biden himself hit a bump here and there, but he appeared to have moments of genuineness that seemed befuddling when compared with the performance that his opponent was acting out right next to him. Also, what would be the shame in picking a leader that can say what’s on her mind without having to sound like a crazy plucked out of a Horatio Alger novel? I’m not trying to be a snob; I just don’t think it’s much to ask that one of the most public faces of our country get a message across directly and clearly.

Last week, prior to the debate, a bunch of my friends who would have otherwise voted Republican agreed with me. One of the biggest fans of Senator McCain that I know said that he did not know that he could, in his right mind, support a ticket that puts Gov. Palin “a heartbeat away.” On Friday morning, everyone seemed to have forgotten the Couric interview, the Gibson interview, and the remaining media hurricane that has characterized her journey to the Naval Observatory thus far. The expectations for her going into the debate were so outrageously low that Gov. could have showed up in a Bullwinkle costume (though it’s true that people might just write this off as an Alaska thing). She avoided questions so obviously that she just proved exactly how rehearsed she was.

If you want to convince me that Gov. Palin was not a totally disastrous choice to stand beside John McCain, her performance in the debate did not do it. Au contraire, my friends—au contraire.