MicahBrwn's Xanga

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:09:10 GMT

Obama wins NE-02, GOP whines
The Republican Party never ceases to amaze me. They'll have no problems with a certain system, so long as it benefits them, but when it works the way it's supposed to … but benefits the Democrats, they cry foul. About a year ago, the California Republican Party tried to change how the state allots its 55 electoral votes, all but guaranteeing the 15 or so electoral districts that make up Orange County (and other conservative bastions of the state) would go to the Republican presidential candidate. They failed.

Now that NE-02 has gone for Obama, giving Obama a single electoral vote from Nebraska, undeniably "purpling" the state, the Nebraska Republican Party has announced they'll try to pass a bill through the state legislature to have the state's electoral votes be "winner-take all" as opposed to the current system. Guess the Maine-Nebraska system's only a good thing when it's used in a blue state, eh? .

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2008/11/07/news/local/doc4914d398e3e58589699188.txt

Obama claims 2nd District electoral vote
BY DON WALTON / Lincoln Journal Star
Friday, Nov 07, 2008 - 09:25:01 pm CST

Barack Obama may have made a little more history Friday, apparently banking a presidential electoral vote in Nebraska and running up his score.

With the early vote count completed in Douglas County, Obama grabbed a 1,260-vote lead over John McCain in the 2nd Congressional District and his supporters laid claim to one of the state’s five electoral votes.

“Today, Nebraska’s 2nd District voters added an Obamaha-shaped exclamation point to Barack Obama’s historic election,” Sen. Ben Nelson said.

“It really is a new day in America when he even picks up an electoral vote in Nebraska.”

But the results remained unofficial Friday, with almost 5,300 provisional ballots in Douglas County to be considered next week.

But those ballots, some of which will be ruled invalid, are not expected to vary much from other Douglas County results favoring Obama.

An Obama victory would rack up the first Democratic electoral vote in red-state Nebraska since 1964, when Lyndon Johnson captured the state.

And it would bump Obama’s electoral vote count to 365, far above the 270 required to win the presidency.

The metropolitan Omaha district is composed of Douglas County and portions of Sarpy County.

Here’s Friday’s unofficial 2nd District count:

Obama, 134,168.

McCain, 132,908.

McCain had led Obama by 569 votes Wednesday. But the additional count of early ballots in Douglas County added these figures to the results:

Obama, 8,434.

McCain, 6,605.

Sarpy County totals already had been completed.

The Obama campaign mounted an unprecedented field operation in Omaha, registering new voters and prompting a record outpouring of early voters.

Nebraska awards one of its five electoral votes to the winner of each of its three congressional districts. The other two votes go to the statewide victor.

It was that split-vote system that generated an exciting presidential race in the 2nd District this year, Nelson said.

“It shouldn’t be tampered with by those with partisan motives,” he said.

Republican leaders have signaled their intention to attempt to repeal the district-vote allocation in the 2009 Legislature, returning to a winner-take-all system of awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the statewide winner.

These knuckleheads find every reason in the book to oppose a certain way of doing things if it works for their opponents. As I recall, although the Nebraska Republican Party urged the state legislature to vote against the current method of allotting Nebraska's electoral votes in 1991, but ignored it when the entire state went red in the previous four presidential elections. Now that a corner of the Cornhusker State has gone blue, they cry foul and demand the "problem" be fixed immediately. In 2004, a referendum was held in the state of Colorado to adopt the Maine-Nebraska system of allotting electoral votes. Thanks to the Republican Party crying foul, it was defeated by a pretty slim margin.

Here's another example – Republicans are just dandy with a Governor choosing a replacement for a deposed or deceased Senator. But when that Governor happens to be a Democrat (and especially if the senator being replaced for whatever reason is a Republican), they start whining about how there should be an immediate special election and how we should keep politicians out of the process.

Now, to be fair, I have no problem with the Maine-Nebraska method of allotting electoral votes. However, it should be done across the board. All 50 states, plus the District, should use it. In a great many states (which only have three electoral votes to begin with), this won't change anything. But it'll make things interesting for states like California, Texas, New York, and a couple others. Thoughts?

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Sat, 08 Nov 2008 17:49:32 GMT

Obama’s Cabinet

Before I begin discussing the matière du jour (or "topic of the day", for us Americans), there's an update on the Electoral College tally. No, they haven't finished counting Missouri (which is nothing short of incredible in itself). In my last post, the tally was 364 electoral votes going to Obama and 163 for McCain. Today, it's 365 for Obama … and 162 for McCain. No, there wasn't a typo made by the media. The number of electoral votes are alloted to individual states depending on the number of Representatives and the number of Senators who represent that particular state — Florida sends 25 Representatives and two Senators to Congress, ergo, Florida has 27 electoral votes.

Now, in most states, the winner of the entire state takes all the electoral votes alloted to that state, regardless of whether the candidate wins by 50.06% or by 75%. However, Nebraska and Maine do things a bit differently. The state's Board of Elections looks at the vote tally in each of the congressional districts. Whoever comes out on top in a particular district will win one electoral vote. Whoever wins the overall popular vote in that state will get two electoral votes. Since Maine and Nebraska decided to do it that way, nothing's really changed. Whoever won the overall state, also won each of Maine's four (and Nebraska's five) electoral votes. But things were different this year. This year, Nebraska's second congressional district went overwhelmingly for our next President, Barack Obama. Way to go!

Since Barack Obama was declared the winner of the presidential election, he's hit the ground running. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D, IL-5) will be his Chief of Staff. Pete Rouse, currently Barack Obama's Chief of Staff in his Senate office, will be one of the Deputy Chiefs of Staff (think Josh Lyman). David Axelrod will be the Chief Adviser in the White House. Robert Gibbs will continue his role as communications chief of the Obama campaign, in the capacity of White House Press Secretary. So that covers his staff, his inner circle, so to speak.

But being President is more than just having the West Wing run smoothly. He also needs a decent cabinet. Yesterday, the Washington Post had a good article listing the top contenders for Obama's cabinet. I won't copy-paste the whole article here (but I have linked to it), but suffice it to say, there's some good names there. As you may have noticed, there were a couple positions — namely State, Transportation, Treasury — that didn't exist in the WaPo article above. The contenders for those missing cabinet positions come from a similar article compiled by the Associated Press. Note that in many cases, the AP's list differs from that of the Post. I do not agree with many on the AP's list, which is why I'm only using the AP's list for the positions not mentioned by the Washington Post.

Here's my thoughts and predictions:

Agriculture Secretary:
It'll be Vilsack. Not just because Vilsack was central to Obama's victory in Iowa in the primaries and the general election, but because he knows his stuff. As much as I like Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, we need as many Dems running "red" states as we can get.

Attorney General of the United States:
It'll be Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York. The reasons are obvious.

Commerce Secretary:
It'll either be Gov. Rendell or Fred Smith. Pennsylvania has been hit hard by the economic downtu— er, the recession, especially the coal and steel industries. But even so, Rendell has done his best to combat that in his state on his own. As for Fred Smith, well … if we're going to have a guy who's been running a Fortune-500 company in the Obama administration, the Department of Commerce is a good place to put him.

Defense Secretary:
I can honestly see Gates staying on for a year or so. Will he? That's the question. But President Obama may prefer to have a guy heading The Pentagon who will stay through his first term … in which case Hagel is his best bet. If Obama is going to have a Republican in his cabinet, Defense is the best place to show that he's serious about bipartisanship.

Education Secretary:
Wow, lots of good names there. But honestly, if I was President-elect Obama, I'd pick Joel Klein. He's had experience running one of the largest school district in the country (if not the largest), so he knows how to deal with underpaid teachers, underfunded programs, and the rest of it. Better to pick someone who's been in the trenches, so to speak, rather than someone who has made his or her mark on the theory side of the equation. Particularly given the New York Public Schools struggles with NCLB.

Energy Secretary:
Damn, lots of good names here too. Gov. Schwarzenegger? While he's done good work with pushing for alternative energy in California in his capacity of Governor of California, I really can't see him being given the nod. But he'd probably accept if asked. But far more likely options are Gov. Granholm of Michigan or Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA). If Jennifer Granholm can figure out how to begin to free Michigan from being dependent on oil for energy, she can do the same for the rest of the country. And Markey's got some good points in his favor too. He led the call to "adjust" our Daylight Savings Time period, for one. But the question is, given that he's been in the House for 32 years, is he willing to give up that kind of job security for "only" four to eight years of heading up the Department of Energy? I really can't see former CIA Director James Woolseley or Jeff Bingaman even being asked.

Health and Human Services Secretary:
Again, lets start with discussing who it WON'T be. Honestly, I believe there's no way Howard Dean will leave his post as Chairman of the DNC, not after his 50-state strategy has been vindicated twice in a row. Now he's got to do it a third time, for 2010. Tom Daschle probably won't do it either … from what I hear, he's happy in his retirement. My money's on Kitzhaber. He's a licensed physician, has fought hard for expanded Medicare and Medicaid, and really kicked ass as Governor of Oregon.

Homeland Security Secretary:
It won't be Janet Napolitano, for the same reasons that Sebelius shouldn't be Secretary of Agriculture. Plus, I suspect Napolitano's got her sights on John McCain's senate seat when he's up for reelection in two years. Sen. Collins of Maine won't accept, even if asked. As moderate as she is, she is a Republican senator. When she leaves office, a Democrat will replace her … and I suspect she'll have a lot more influence with her party – and with the Senate – if she stays where she is. If I had to pick, it'd be LAPD Chief Bill Bratton. A police chief of the second-largest city in the country who's had to deal with innumerable threats after 9/11? Add to that, he's been commish of the Boston PD (beginning his career as a "street cop" there) and the NYPD as well. I'm sold.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary:
It'll be either Anthony Williams (formerly Mayor of Washington, DC), Dennis Archer (former Mayor of Detroit, MI), or Shirley Franklin (also a former Mayor of Detroit). If ever a Cabinet position was made for a former mayor of a highly urbanized city and the problems that comes with it, HUD is it.

Interior Secretary:
In a perfect world, it'd be RFK, Jr. But given his baggage (failing the bar exam twice, his heroin bust, the fact that he talks funny), it'd be perfectly understandable if he says no. If he does turn down running the Department of the Interior, it should be Jay Inslee. The last Democratic governor of Alaska? If that's not someone who was made for heading up the Department of Interior, I don't know who is.

Labor Secretary:
Andy Stern, head of the powerful Service Employees International Union is a tempting choice, but I have my doubts with the wisdom of putting a union boss in there. The Department of Labor isn't only about backing the unions, after all. And you can bet anti-union businesses like Wal-Mart will have something to say about Mr. Stern, if he's given the nod. Hence, I'm betting that Rep. George Miller, (D-CA) will do it, if asked. If not him, it'll be someone we never even thought of.

Secretary of State:
My money's on either Lugar or Richardson. President-elect Obama owes Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico big for helping him with the Hispanic vote, and this is a good place to put him. As for former Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), if Richardson won't do it, Lugar will. The only reason Lugar isn't my first choice is because he's a Republican. Bipartisanship is all well and good … but there's such a thing as too much of a good thing, particularly when it comes to the plum cabinet positions. Or is that unfair? Bill, if you're given the nod, shave. Due respect, you didn't look good with all that facial hair on the campaign trail.

Treasury Secretary:
I'm willing to bet money on Paul Volcker. The man's a former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, for heaven's sake. If that's not a guy who knows how to go to the mat for Barack Obama's tax plan and get Congress onboard, I don't know who is.

Transportation Secretary:
Personally, I don't like the AP's list of contenders for Transportation Secretary – former head of the FAA Jane Garvey? Clinton-era deputy Transportation Secretary Mortimer Downey? Ugh. No imagination whatsoever. So I did my own looking … and I think there's two possibilities. Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) or Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) – the only one to bike to work, as opposed to taking a Lincoln Town Car or whatever like his fellow Members of Congress. Yes, you read that last name correctly; he's my old boss when I was an intern in the House five years ago. The only real downside to having Earl heading up the Department of Transportation is we'll lose a valuable advocate for mass-transit in Congress. But on the plus side, we really need someone who can push hard for viable mass-transit options at the national scale. If anyone can expand the infrastructures of Amtrak and Greyhound, Earl can. But the question is, will he want to leave Congress? He's been doing a lot of good work on Capitol Hill since he was elected, particularly since the Democrats gained the majority two years ago. Honestly, I'm betting that our new Transportation Secretary will be someone none of us has heard of all that much.

Veterans Affairs Secretary:
Max Cleland, no question. Here's a guy who's been in combat, wounded in action, and had to deal with the VA as a patient. I'm putting down good money that he knows how to improve the system. And we need a guy like that immediately.

Please note that there are quite a few departments I didn't mention. I intentionally did not include positions that do not require Senate confirmation (i.e. National Security Advisor) or positions in which there's only one contender (i.e. UN Ambassador). Your thoughts?

Friday, November 07, 2008

Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:41:03 GMT

YES, WE CAN! YES, WE DID!

::happy sigh:: Sorry for the hiatus, boys and girls. Since November 4, 11:00pm, PST, I've been in a state of utter euphoria. I've voted in every single election since 1998. The 2000 and 2004 elections left me utterly demoralized and disappointed with my party. I was elated in 2006 – after 12 years, the Democratic Party finally, finally hard a (slim) majority in Congress. For the past two years, I was frustrated with Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the leadership's apparent inability (or unwillingness) to hit President Bush hard, the way he deserves. Where were the hearings on war profiteering on the part of Enron and KBR? Where was the insistence that we pull troops out of Iraq? The first order of business was to wring their collective hands over a non-binding resolution in regards to the Iraq war that did NOTHING. But I understood what the leadership was trying to do. It was a one-seat majority in the Senate and a 12-seat majority in the House — to say nothing of the large contingent of Yellow- and Blue Dog Democrats that helped make up our majority.

Tuesday night, though … I was stunned at how well the Democratic Party did. Not just winning the Presidency, but expanding our majority hold on Congress with far greater numbers than anyone dared think was possible. As far as Obama's win, well … who would have thought that Virginia – the bastion of the Old Confederacy, would not only go "blue" for the first time since 1964, but would vote for a black man? Who would have thought other states … considered deep red bastions, untouchable by Democrats, would follow suit? Indiana, North Carolina – a state that didn't even vote for Bill Clinton in '92 or '96, and not just one but two swing states (Ohio and Florida) would be called for Obama early in the evening? I had my hopes about those two states; to be sure. But for them to go so overwhelmingly for Barack Obama so as for those states to be called within a few hours after the polls closed? No. I dared not hope that much. And yet … it happened. As of last night, only one state's electoral votes are yet to be determined. Missouri's. Honestly, I'm surprised. In the past eight years, it's gone pretty red. My prediction is, for what it's worth, that McCain will come out on top in Missouri. It'll be close, but … With 364 electoral votes going to Obama and 163 to McCain (with the Show Me State's 11 electoral votes still up for grabs), Obama won more than twice as many electoral votes than McCain. That's seriously gotta burn. I'm still grinning up a storm knowing that our 44th President of the United States is a man called Barack Hussein Obama.

Lets talk about Election Day. Thanks to progress and the Help America Vote Act, things improved dramatically since the chaos of the 2000 election. Many states made it easier to vote absentee, or even vote earlier than the First Tuesday after the First Monday in November. But even so, we saw the highest turnout of voters in almost 100 years, numbers we haven't seen since the ratification of Amendment XIX of the Constitution of the United States, granting suffrage to women. Surprisingly, there were no widespread problems. No allegations of voter suppression, no widespread reports of technical glitches in electronic voting machines, no shady poll workers turning away voters because of the color of their skin. We saw news reports of voters lining up around the block, on Election Day and during early-voting periods. People waited up to two, three, some even four hours in line just to cast their ballot in this historic election. Is this a turning point? Will Election Day in 2012 be the same way? Or will we Americans return to the apathy we've become accustomed to, resulting in the low electoral turnout we've seen in years past? Only time will tell. But let me just say, "Yes we can" will be our unofficial motto for the next four years. Yes, we can keep turnout high. Yes, we can have an electorate who is passionate about this country not just during the election cycle, but during the other three years and eight months. Yes, we can! ¡Sí, se puede!

Let's also talk about Congress, starting with the Senate. Libby Dole of was sent back home after just one term as Senator of NC. Nobody, but nobody would have thought it possible this time last year. Why did North Carolinians boot her out? The simple answer is because she was never "home." Most of her time was spent in Washington, DC; only to return home when she needed her constituents to vote for another six-year term as Senator. Democratic former governor of Virginia Mark Warner is now the new senator of the Old Dominion. As of last night, the junior senator from Oregon, Gordon Smith, is out of a job, replaced by Jeff Merkley. Tom and Mark Udall have been elected to represent New Mexico and Colorado, respectively, in the Senate. Yes, they're related; first cousins, if I remember correctly. In Minnesota, Al Franken and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman are still slugging it out to decide who'll represent the North Star State for the next six years. It looks like neither current Senator Saxby Chambliss (R) or Jim Martin (D) have the necessary votes needed to avoid a runoff election in Georgia. A Democrat coming within a hairsbreadth of winning a statewide election in the Georgia? Did anyone prior to Tuesday night think that possible? Speaking for myself, I hope Chambliss loses. I still haven't forgotten (nor will I ever forgive him for) that absolutely reprehensible ad he ran against then-Senator Max Cleland in order to get elected … comparing Cleland with two other men: Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It was so over the top that even other Republicans and conservatives like John McCain and Zell Miller condemned the ad. But it worked; and Cleland, a man who went to Vietnam and got two legs and his left arm blown off while he was in-country, was branded a traitor and booted out of the Senate by the good people of Georgia. Now, the House. Tuesday night, the Democrats picked up eighteen seats to further pad the majority. This doesn't mean that only Republicans lost, of course. Of the seventeen incumbents who ran for reelection and were defeated, four were Democrats. So while it was win-some-lose-some for both parties (as Election Day should be), the Dems came out on top. Yeeeeeha! As of last night, the tally in the Senate is 57 Democrats and 40 Republicans, with three races still undecided. As I discussed above, Georgia's race will go to a runoff election, in accordance to state law. Minnesota probably won't be determined at least until next week. And surprisingly (and disappointingly), Alaska's race is still too close to call. As for the House, 264 seats are on the Democratic side of the chamber and 163 seats are Republican. Eight seats are still too close to call – two are in Louisiana (the 2nd and 4th Congressional Districts), as Tuesday's election was a "jungle primary" in that state (don't ask me to explain how that works, the Bayou State does things oddly), and the actual election between the top two finishers will be held on December 6; the other six seats that are still too close to call are California 4th, Virginia 5th, Alaska At-Large, Washington 8th, Ohio 15th, and Maryland 1st.

Okay, enough celebrating (or mourning) Tuesday's results. Lets talk about the road ahead. In the aftermath of Obama's victory, I watched both McCain's concession speech and Obama's victory speech. And I gotta say, boys and girls, McCain's speech was excellent. Frankly, that is the John McCain I respected eight years ago (and to a lesser extent four years ago). I don't know what led him to run a campaign so unlike who he really is, but I just hope he learned a lesson – don't sacrifice who you really are in order to please your base. He'll need to take that lesson to heart when he faces a tough reelection fight in 2010. Now, Obama's speech. Four years ago, I was in tears because of John Kerry's trouncing at the polls. Tuesday night, I was also in tears, but for a different reason. I won't quote his entire speech, but please bear with me as I share several excerpts. I'll provide a link to the entire speech at the end so you can see the victory as I did.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and hes fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nations promise in the months ahead.

See what he did here? In the aftermath of his victory, he congratulated Sen. McCain for his service to this country – past, present, and future. And it's important to note that when Obama mentioned John McCain, the crowd, hundreds of thousands strong, cheered. In contrast, when John McCain mentioned Barack Obama and congratulated him for a hard-fought victory, the crowd at his celebration in Pheonix booed. Lets move on to the second part:

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nations next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy thats coming with us to the White House. And while shes no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

I was in tears at this point. I know how hard it must have been for Barack Obama to deal with the loss of one of the women who raised him, but be forced to push on and ensure victory. And I agree with him that Obama's grandmother is somewhere above, smiling and laughing, sharing in our victory with Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, John and Bobby Kennedy, and Abraham Lincoln. Next:

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generations apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

Indeed it is. And I was cheering right along with the crowd on CNN.

I know you didnt do this just to win an election and I know you didnt do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how theyll make the mortgage, or pay their doctors bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who wont agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government cant solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way its been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

This section absolutely floored me. It's one thing to make promises on the campaign trail, to say that the country would be better off in charge with him in charge … all politicians running for President do that … but to admit that maybe things won't be so smoothly as we hope. I was stunned and in a good way.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we cant, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

By this point, I was weeping openly. No cheers or clapping along with the crowd at Grant Park, only tears and sobbing in utter and complete happiness and pride in our future President. I'm saying it once more. I haven't felt this good about being an American in a very long time. I'm stunned, moved to tears, and I'm really looking forward to the future. God bless America, indeed. What's particularly cool is it was given on the anniversary of the 1968 Democratic National Convention. That night, forty years ago, the crowd was in tears because of the gas canisters thrown by the National Guard and the Chicago Police. Tuesday night, the crowd was in tears because of our 44th President of the United States; Barack Hussein Obama.

Barack Obama's oratory at Grant Park in Chicago reminded me of just why I was an Obama supporter from the very beginning. Every time he speaks, he blows away the expectations game and raises the bar to even greater heights. I fully expect his inauguration address in 10 weeks to be discussed for years, nay, decades to come. It'll be compared to John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, and yes, even Ronald Reagan.

I seriously recommend each and every one of you experience the Election Night victory speech as it was delivered that night in Chicago. The best way to experience the speech isn't looking up the text on CNN. It's to watch it on the New York Times website. They've got it set up so you'll see video of the speech on the left, and you can follow along with the transcript on the right-hand side of your screen. It's almost as good as captions. Enjoy.

Barack Obama's Victory Speech — The New York Times

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:33:09 GMT

Verdict!
Well, I called it. After a couple days of deliberation, the replacement of one juror who went off the radar after flying to Texas for a funeral with an alternate juror, and a weekend at home to ease tensions, the jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in the matter of U.S. v. Theodore F. Stevens came back with a verdict yesterday. Senator Stevens was charged with seven counts of making false statements as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1):

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

Specifically, the statute makes it a crime to knowingly fill out a federal form falsely. Count one of the indictment says Stevens "knowingly and willfully engaged in a scheme to conceal … his continuing reciept of thousands of dollars worth of things in value" from VECO Corp., an oil services contractor. Counts two through seven say he knowingly checked the NO box on financial disclosure forms for the years of 2001 through 2006, asking whether Stevens or his family received gifts valued at or more than $260.00, even though VECO paid to renovate his house, among other things.

As I quoted from Doonesbury a couple days ago:

Let's go to the AP article. As always, stuff that's important is in blue text, stuff that's really important is in blue and bold text, and stuff that's must-read is in red and bold text.

Stevens Convicted On All Counts

MATT APUZZO AND JESSE J. HOLLAND | October 27, 2008 04:10 PM EST | AP

WASHINGTON — Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted of seven corruption charges Monday in a trial that tainted the 40-year Senate career of Alaska's political patriarch. [My note: That's putting it mildly. I'd say it ENDED his career.]

The verdict, coming just days before Election Day, adds further uncertainty to a closely watched Senate race. Democrats hope to seize the once reliably Republican seat as part of their bid for a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Stevens, 84, was convicted of all seven charges he faced of lying about free home renovations and other gifts he received from a wealthy oil contractor. Jurors began deliberating Wednesday at noon.

Stevens faces up to five years in prison on each count when he is sentenced Jan. 26, but under federal sentencing guidelines, he is likely to receive much less prison time, if any. [My note: ::deep sigh:: I really wish we could see a judge come down hard on a Senator or someone powerful and say "What you did is a betrayal of public trust. If it were up to me, I'd give you consecutive maximum sentences totaling 35 years in jail. As it is, I'm bound by federal sentencing guidelines and sentence you to a year and a half. Enjoy prison!" *bang of gavel*]

The monthlong trial revealed that employees for oil services company VECO Corp. transformed the senator's modest mountain cabin into a modern, two-story home with wraparound porches, a sauna and a wine cellar. Stevens never paid for VECO's work.

The Senate's longest-serving Republican, Stevens said he had no idea he was getting freebies. He said he paid $160,000 for the project and said he believed that covered everything. [My note: Just like Capt. Renault had no idea that there was a casino at Rick's, right? And I have a very hard time believing that the renovation was done without foreknowledge of what would be done to his house. And who thinks that $160,000 will cover the building of a second story, wraparound porches, and a wine cellar. The cost of labor alone for that project would easily be $100,000!]

Stevens asked for an unusually speedy trial, hoping he'd be exonerated in time to return to Alaska and win re-election. He kept his campaign going and gave no indication that he had a contingency plan in case of conviction. [My note: Denial does funny things to people.]

Despite being a convicted felon, he is not required to drop out of the race or resign from the Senate. If he wins re-election, he can continue to hold his seat because there is no rule barring felons from serving in Congress. The Senate could vote to expel Stevens on a two-thirds vote. [My note: ~~IF Stevens is reelected, and the Senate expels him, that means Sarah Palin picks Alaska's next senator. And I'd lay good money that she'll pick herself. GAG! GAG! She might as well,~~ given that her political career is over. More on this paragraph later. EDIT: Never mind. See below.]

"Put this down: That will never happen -- ever, OK?" Stevens said in the weeks leading up to his trial. "I am not stepping down. I'm going to run through and I'm going to win this election. [My note: As I recall, he also said he'd be exonerated at the beginning of the trial. Funny how that goes.]

Democrats, who are hoping to capture a filibuster-proof Senate majority, have jumped at the chance to seize the once reliably Republican seat. They have invested heavily in the race, running television advertisements starring fictional FBI agents and featuring excerpts from wiretaps.

Stevens' conviction hinged on the testimony of Bill Allen, the senator's longtime drinking and fishing buddy. Allen, the founder of VECO, testified that he never billed his friend for the work on the house and that Stevens knew he was getting a deal.

Stevens spent three days on the witness stand, vehemently denying that allegation. He said his wife, Catherine, paid every bill they received. [My note: Shouldn't the first clue of getting freebies from VECO have been … you know, not receiving any bills for services rendered at all?]

Living in Washington, thousands of miles away, made it impossible to monitor the project every day. Stevens relied on Allen to oversee the renovations, he said, and his friend deceived him by not forwarding all the bills. [My note: Oh, please! He expected the jury to buy that?]

Stevens is a legendary figure in Alaska, where he has wielded political influence since before statehood. His knack for steering billions of dollars in federal money to his home state has drawn praise from his constituents and consternation from budget hawks. [My note: How does that go? "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." (Proverbs 16:18)]

Okay, now my thoughts. First off, Sen. Stevens is an egotistical schmuck who's getting what he deserves. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be substantial jail time. So what does this mean? First off, Mark Begich, the Democratic candidate in the 2008 Alaska Senate race now has a huge advantage. All he has to do is run ads with Sen. Stevens' face and the word GUILTY stenciled over it, and it's very probable that he'll win. But, what if, by some miracle, Sen. Stevens pulls it off, and ekes out a win? Well, two things are possible. One, he resigns. Not likely. Two, the Senate expels him. Given that it looks like the Dems will have overwhelming numbers, it's very possible they'll have the 2/3 majority needed to expel a member of the Senate – that is, 60 votes – as all they really need is to convince two or three moderate Republicans that expulsion is in the best interest of the body as a whole.

Now, if that happens, I think it's entirely likely (if not probable) that Gov. Palin will appoint herself as Stevens' successor and resign from the Governor's Office of Alaska, should she and John McCain lose the presidential election. Honestly, its the only chance she's got of salvaging her political career. Since she was nominated McCain's running mate, her political cred in Alaska and across the nation have gone down the tubes. You can bet the Alaskan Legislature will marginalize her for the rest of her term, and she will be defeated should she run for reelection. As for her party, well … despite the "If you were against Palin after the primary, you're out of the Party" talk, odds are the national party (and most likely the Alaskan Republican Party as well) will treat her as a pariah. EDIT: Never mind. After Gov. Murkowski caused a lot of waves by appointing his daughter to complete his term after he resigned from the Senate in order to take office as governor (leading to accusations of nepotism), the people of Alaska passed a referendum in 2004 that amended the state constitution, which requires the Governor to call a special election in order to fill the vacant seat. Looks like Sarah's royally fucked.

Lets focus on Sen. Stevens himself. Alaska is one of 20 states (the others are: Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) that disenfranchise those convicted of a felony – that is, a crime punishable with a year or more imprisonment, while serving sentence in prison. Once their sentence (and parole, if applicable) is completed, the right to vote is returned to them. So what does Alaska law specifically say? The Constitution of Alaska (Article V § 2) strips citizens convicted of felonies involving "moral turpitude" of the right to vote until they've completed their sentence and/or parole. So the question is, does "moral turpitude" include violating 18 U.S.C. 1001? Let's look at the relevant portion of the Alaska law (Alaska Stat. 15.60.010(8)):

"felony involving moral turpitude" includes those crimes that are immoral or wrong in themselves such as murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual assault, sexual abuse of a minor, unlawful exploitation of a minor, robbery, extortion, coercion, kidnapping, incest, arson, burglary, theft, forgery, criminal possession of a forgery device, offering a false instrument for recording, scheme to defraud, falsifying business records, commercial bribe receiving, commercial bribery, bribery, receiving a bribe, perjury, perjury by inconsistent statements, endangering the welfare of a minor, escape, promoting contraband, interference with official proceedings, receiving a bribe by a witness or a juror, jury tampering, misconduct by a juror, tampering with physical evidence, hindering prosecution, terroristic threatening, riot, criminal possession of explosives, unlawful furnishing of explosives, promoting prostitution, criminal mischief, misconduct involving a controlled substance or an imitation controlled substance, permitting an escape, promoting gambling, possession of gambling records, distribution of child pornography, and possession of child pornography;

Hmm. Sure sounds like it does. According to Alaskan law, deregistration from the voting rolls is automatic upon conviction. However, to be "officially" convicted in the federal courts is a bit different than how the Alaska Superior Court works. So the real question is, is Sen. Stevens actually a "felon" under the law, as he hasn't actually been sentenced yet – and won't be until February – to say nothing of the appeals you know he'll file to try to avoid having that on his record; and if he is, doesn't that mean that he can't vote next week, as disenfranchisement under Alaskan law occurs immediately after conviction?

Another interesting note — given that in a lot of states, one needs to be an eligible voter in order to run for office. So I did some digging. The official Alaska candidate handbook [http://www.elections.alaska.gov/forms/b05.pdf] says one of the qualifications of being a candidate for office in the State of Alaska is that: "…the candidate is a qualified voter as required by law." So if Sen. Stevens is a felon under Alaskan law (and thus is ineligible to vote), surely he can't run for office? So does that mean he'll have to withdraw from the race? Hmm.

Please note: I'm not a lawyer. The above are just theories based on my humble interpretation of the law. The ability to untangle that is why lawyers earn lots of money.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:31:28 GMT

My Civic Duty

In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.

Law & Order has it partly right. There are actually three parts to the criminal justice system. The third part is the jury. Twelve (or six) ordinary citizens, chosen at random, impartial and fair, beyond reproach; to judge the defendant in a case.

Yesterday, I was called up for jury duty … and let me tell you, it was one of the most interesting experiences I've ever had. The process for being picked for a jury actually began back in August. I received a letter from the Multnomah County Courthouse saying my name came up to be a juror and asked me to attest to my eligibility for service beginning in late September – no, I haven't been on a jury in the past 18 months; and no, I've never been convicted of or served time for a felony or misdemeanor. Okay, I'm eligible. Only thing left was to check the little box requesting a sign language interpreter and mail it back. The trial I was initially chosen for was predicted to last six weeks, so I was kind of looking forward to that. Then a couple weeks later, I got another letter. Because of my request for an interpreter, I received a deferment to October 23. No problem. So two or three weeks ago, I got an identical checklist and filled it out the same as the first letter, and sent it back.

On Monday, I called them, asking to confirm that there will be an interpreter waiting for me during my service. Then yesterday morning, I got up butt-early and arrived at the courthouse at 7:45am, as per the jury selection instructions. At around 8:30, a judge got up and reminded us that serving on a jury is a civic duty we should all take very seriously, yadda yadda. After another 20 minutes, someone from the jury selection office got up with her laptop to read off the names of the first batch of people who were selected for a trial. Those not selected would stay in that very large room until they got called up — if at all. The rule for jury service is (at least here)" one day or one trial." Which means if you get chosen for a jury, you stay with the trial until it's over, regardless of whether the trial lasts a day or a month. If you're not chosen for a jury, you don't have to worry after the day's over.

Surprisingly, I was one of those called first! So me and 14 others trooped upstairs to a courtroom on the third floor and took our seats in the jury box. We were told that only six of us would ultimately be chosen for a trial. Fine with me. Then the bailiff swore us in (to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) and asked us to identify ourselves, then give basic information like occupation, where we live, do we have family or friends who are police officers, do we drive, have we been victims of a crime, and have we ever been involved in a court proceeding before. We were a pretty diverse group – accountant for the Air National Guard, correctional officer, college professor, manager of a big cat sanctuary, a guy who likes to hunt, and so on.

Then came voir dire. Basically, the lawyers for both sides asked us all questions based on our answers to the judge's questions. Could those who are personally acquainted with police officers be impartial and not give any testimony by police officers extra weight than, say, the defendant's? Do we feel that a crime is a crime, or that "lesser" offenses should be given a pass when compared to murder, armed robbery, and so forth? After roughly 30 minutes of this, we were given 10 minutes to get some water, use the restroom, or whatever. Then we came back in the courtroom and the judge read off the names of six people. I was one of them! It was this point where we were shown our personal jury room where we'd deliberate or just basically hang out during recesses. The nine people not chosen went back down to the main room to wait to see if they'd be picked for another trial.

Then, the trial began. First, we were sworn-in as the jury for the case at hand. The charge: Driving with a suspended license. Apparently, the defendant had been charged with a DUII back in June and as a result of his Breathalyzer test, he was sentenced to a 90-day suspension. In the State of Oregon, a license suspension for any length of time is given 30 days to appeal or to find other means of transportation. 33 days after the initial arrest, he was pulled over. Apparently he was on his way home from his local Starbucks that he uses for the free broadband (why he drove only four blocks, none of us understood). A background check revealed he had a suspended license. So we listened to the prosecution and the two police officers he had as witnesses – those who arrested him for driving with a suspended license. All well and good. They did the check, compared his photo with the one the DMV's got on file, and it's the guy in the grey sweater. Then we recessed for 15 minutes. So it's me in a little 10X15 room with six other people and a bathroom to the side. Right off the bat, someone asked "So can we talk about the case?" Uh, no. So then we discussed the virtues of hunting big cats (like cougars and bobcats) versus, you know, leaving them alone. Given one of us thinks they should all be shot; and another helps run a big cat sanctuary (out in Gladstone, I think), you can imagine how heated it got.

Then it was the defense's turn. I was pretty openminded at this point. His story was basically, well, he called the DMV to see if his license was still "good" or if it had been suspended. And he even called his insurance agent to make the same call on his behalf to confirm that, yes, his license was still good. After hearing his story, my reaction was basically, well, anyone could make a mistake, right? Then the defense rested. I realized that the defendant himself was the only witness for the defense. That in itself raised a red flag. Then we broke for lunch, for about two hours. I went over to Chipotle with two of my fellow jurors, which was perfectly acceptable; we just couldn't discuss the case at hand.

Then we returned to the jury room and waited for the bailiff to call court back into session. Time for closing arguments. Prosecution: "He drove with a suspended license. He admits it. The officers testified to that effect." Defense: "It's all the DMV's fault!" While closing arguments on behalf of the defense was, to say the least, entertaining, I wasn't that swayed. We listened to the judge's instructions, and went back into that little room. First order of business was to pick a foreperson. Me! I was pleased. I didn't really need to do anything formal, we just discussed the case at hand and just let our perspectives bounce off one another. I wasn't the only one to note that the insurance agent wasn't called as a witness. If I had been in the defendant's shoes, I sure as hell would want someone else to back up my story. So why did his lawyer keep the insurance agent off the stand? Why wasn't there any independent record of the phone call to the DMV – phone records of the defendant; of the insurance agent; even a call log record from the DMV call center? We only needed to vote once. Guilty. I checked the box of the paper and signed my name in the capacity as foreman of the jury. Then we let the bailiff know we reached a verdict. 15 minutes later, we were in the jury box, and I stood up and attested to the fact that, yes, we've reached a unanimous verdict. I handed the judge the paper and he read it out. The defense polled us, and saw that it was indeed a unanimous verdict. We were then excused. Then I went home.

I gotta say, guys, that it was a really, really cool experience. Everyone should want to serve on a jury. Not only can it be interesting, it's also, well, one's patriotic duty, don't you think?

EDIT: In response to Lolypup's comment: You are correct that jurors are not allowed to discuss cases, but that rule only applies to when it's ongoing. If I blogged about, say, "my first day of a six-week trial", that would be a violation of the rules. However, the trial is over. The judge made it clear that once a verdict was returned, we'd be free to discuss the case with others. And notice that nowhere did I include any names.

As for the interpreter situation, my apologies. Two interpreters were waiting for me in the jury selection room as I expected (since I called to confirm that they'd be there) as well as a student interpreter for observation purposes. When my name was called, they went up with me and before jury questioning and spoke to the judge privately regarding line-of-sight issues and so on. I didn't face any discrimination, nor was I treated "differently" on the part of the judge or the two attorneys; the court treated me exactly as though I was "just another juror", as did my five fellow members of the jury.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:36:50 GMT

News from Alaska!
Don't worry, today's blogpost isn't about Sarah Palin (although, I must say, I laughed at her appearance on Saturday Night Live this past weekend). It's about the other elections in Alaska … namely Sen. Ted Stevens' attempt at getting reelected a seventh time.

For those of you not in the know, the Senator from Alaska is facing federal charges. Bribery, corruption, not reporting gifts, and a couple others. And like others who have been in power for decades, he kinda thinks he's above the law. Now, the trial hasn't been without its wrinkles. The judge has admonished the prosecution (that's the US Department of Justice, boys and girls) for doing some ethically iffy things like sending witnesses back home to Alaska without waiting for the judge to approve it. For some time now, it looked like the case against the senior senator from Alaska would end in a mistrial. Not anymore, in this humble guy's opinion. And let me tell you, this is why I love politics. You learn new definitions for words like "is", "depends", and "gifts." As always, important stuff's in blue text, really important stuff's in blue and bold text, and must-read stuff's in red and bold text. Let's go to the article from the AP:

Ted Stevens' Trial Sees Him Butt Heads With Prosecutor: "So, If You Say It's Not A Gift, It's Not A Gift?"

MATT APUZZO AND JESSE J. HOLLAND | October 20, 2008 04:24 PM EST | AP

WASHINGTON — Jurors were offered conflicting views of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens during a four-week corruption trial: a cantankerous but credible senator who didn't know he was being lavished with free gifts, or a sour-faced, scheming one who thought he knew how to quietly get undisclosed freebies.

Stevens completed three days of testimony Monday with lawyers still trying to convince jurors of their portrait of the longtime Republican lawmaker, who has been charged with lying on financial disclosure forms about $250,000 in renovations and other gifts he received from oil services contractor VECO Corp.

Closing arguments were scheduled for Tuesday and jurors were to begin deliberating Wednesday.

Stevens has said he never sought gifts and wouldn't even accept a free lunch, much less the expensive remodeling services that changed his A-frame Girdwood, Alaska cabin into a large, modern home with a sauna, wine cellar and wraparound porches. He and his wife Catherine paid for everything they knew of, Stevens insisted. [My note: Except for the things that were given to him … but they weren't gifts. Right. ]

"Catherine paid for the work that was done at our house, she paid the bills and that's all there is to it," said Stevens, the last words he left the jury with before leaving the stand.

But prosecutors say he had a history of accepting gifts -- including an expensive massage chair in his Washington, D.C. home -- and omitting them from the financial disclosure forms. Stevens has insisted repeatedly that the chair was a loan from a friend, although it has been in his house for seven years. [My note: To be fair, Senator Stevens is correct. Borrowing something from a friend with no intent of returning it is not a gift. It's theft. Is the Honorable gentleman from Alaska admitting to theft? And given the chair costs thousands of dollars, doesn't that qualify as a felony?]

"How is that not a gift?" prosecutor Brenda Morris asked.

"He bought that chair as a gift, but I refused it as a gift," Stevens said. "He put it there and said it was my chair. I told him I would not accept it as a gift. We have lots of things in our house that don't belong to us." [My note: My God, does he actually expect people to buy this?]

Playing to the jury, Morris appeared confused. "So, if you say it's not a gift, it's not a gift?" she said. [My note: I want to know if the jury laughed and/or rolled their eyes.]

"I refused it as a gift," Stevens replied. "I let him put it in our basement at his request." [My note: Oy…]

Once an untouchable political force, Stevens faces a tough re-election fight and he's hoping for an acquittal before Election Day. Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, a Democrat, has sought to capitalize on Stevens' legal woes in the tight race. [My note: An acquittal? Not bloody likely.]

Morris grilled Stevens repeatedly about things VECO founder Bill Allen added to the senator's Girdwood residence, including a new porch, a balcony, a fully stocked tool chest, a gas grill, a steel staircase, rope lighting, a generator and leather furniture. [My note: Let me guess. VECO vandalized his house and upgraded it. Yeah, that's it. ]

Stevens has said he didn't ask for those things, and even tried to get Allen to take them away. Stevens added Monday that Allen, who has pleaded guilty to bribing state lawmakers, "stole" the furniture out of his cabin and replaced it with the leather furniture.
My note: So this is some new definition of "robbery"? Can I get robbed like this, please? Incidentally, wouldn't the actions of these contractors entering his home and, uh, "stealing" his furniture (and replacing it with nicer furniture) qualify as B&E? And by the way, what's this rubbish about his "asking for the stuff to be taken away"? If he doesn't want it, why not donate it to the Salvation Army or Goodwill? Not only would he not keep the furniture (which is what he wants, right?), he'd get a nice tax-write off!
"Why didn't you call the police when Bill Allen stole your furniture?" Morris quickly asked.

"It never crossed my mind to call the police at that time. I might now," Stevens said. [My note: ::facepalm:: … then ]

The gifts and the Girdwood renovations are at the heart of Stevens' corruption trial. The Alaska Republican appeared as his own star witness, trying to convince jurors that he paid every bill he received for his 2000 home renovation project and didn't know he was getting any freebies from the oil services corporation.

Stevens said he saw a clear difference between getting help from Allen and getting help from VECO. "One's a human, one's a corporation, ma'am," he said. [My note: Oh, brother.]

"You're saying you don't have to disclose gifts from a human?" Morris replied. Stevens replied again that he didn't get any gifts.

Though gruff, Stevens kept his temper in check despite needling from Morris. Through back-and-forth jousting with Morris, the senator did confirm for jurors the combative and cantankerous reputation of a man known in the Senate for his "Incredible Hulk" neckties. [My note: Please tell me he didn't wear that necktie to his trial…]

"Now, you go right ahead with your questions, miss," Stevens shot at Morris once. [My note: "Miss"? How demeaning. At the very least, he should have called her "Ma'am." Or better yet, kept his trap shut and waited for the next question.]

And when Morris asked him why an expensive fish statue Stevens has said is intended for his memorial foundation is sitting on his front porch, Stevens replied icily: "Ms. Morris, I have not died yet." [My note: Oh. My. God.]

———
On the Net:
Justice Department documents: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/us-v-stevens/

Just … wow. And the best part is, this is his defense. Does Sen. Stevens and his lawyers think the jury is this stupid? A month ago, the Los Angeles Times had this story. No color-coding necessary, it's all laughable.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stevens23-2008sep23,0,5873128.story
From the Los Angeles Times

Phone conversation may speak to Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens' state of mind
Prosecutors hope jurors in his corruption trial will get to hear one associate tell another: 'Ted gets hysterical when he has to spend his own money.'

By Richard B. Schmitt
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 23, 2008

WASHINGTON — The telephone conversation between the two businessmen concerned an old friend, Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, and the subject was money -- or at least Stevens' feelings about it.

"Ted gets hysterical when he has to spend his own money," said one of the callers.

"I know," replied the other.

In a corruption case where the core issue is whether Stevens knowingly accepted gifts in violation of federal law, the conversation, secretly recorded by federal investigators, could be crucial evidence.

On one end was a restaurateur who oversaw the remodeling of Stevens' Alaska home. Prosecutors contend the senator never paid for the improvements. On the other end was an oil executive accused of helping bankroll the home makeover and showering Stevens and his family with other gifts in violation of federal law.

The recording is part of the evidence that prosecutors hope jurors will hear as Stevens goes to trial this week in federal court in Washington. Jury selection began Monday.

The Senate's longest-serving Republican was indicted in July on charges of failing to disclose in financial reports $250,000 in improvements at his home in Girdwood, Alaska, and other gifts, including a Viking gas grill and a bargain price on a new Land Rover.

Stevens, 84, has said that he never intentionally violated the Senate reporting requirement and that in the case of the home improvements, he paid every invoice he ever received.

Beyond questions of guilt or innocence, the trial could open a window onto the backroom dealings and politics of a state that has come under scrutiny since Sen. John McCain selected its virtually unknown governor, Sarah Palin, as his running mate.

The verdict could also decide Stevens' political future. He sought a speedy trial so it would be over before Alaskans vote Nov. 4 on his bid for a seventh term. The senator remains popular; he easily defeated six challengers in last month's GOP primary despite his indictment a month before.

But polls show his race against Democrat Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage, to be far closer, and he will likely be sitting in a courtroom while Begich campaigns. Perhaps hoping to free up some time for electioneering, his lawyers, citing a need for Stevens "to fulfill his Senate duties," asked Monday that he be excused from a rule requiring a defendant's presence every day a federal trial is in session.

Prosecutors hope to show that Stevens regularly received gifts and other considerations without adequate disclosure, and that his actions in failing to report the improvements on his home were neither isolated nor innocent events.

The government has signaled, for example, that it intends to show how Stevens made a questionable $100,000 six-month profit in 2001 in a Florida condo deal in which he put up just $5,000. Prosecutors may also raise whether he failed to properly disclose receipt of a $29,000 bronzed sculpture of migrating salmon that they say has been sitting on the front porch of his Girdwood home.

Stevens' lawyers have objected, arguing that such evidence, which was not part of the indictment, is prejudicial.

Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia University's law school, said that although it may seem unfair to force a defendant to explain such actions, federal evidence rules are more liberal when the defense is based on lack of criminal intent, as is the case here.

The rules permit courts to "expand the frame of evidence . . . to get a better sense of what was going through his head," Richman said.

So far, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has sided with prosecutors in pretrial rulings on such issues, although he has deferred action on some of their requests.

The bulk of the gifts in question came from a now-defunct oil services company, VECO Corp., and its former chief executive, Bill J. Allen, prosecutors contend. VECO employees led the renovation of the senator's home, and invoices for the work were processed through Allen before being sent to Stevens.

Allen pleaded guilty last year to providing more than $400,000 in corrupt payments to Alaska state officials. He has been cooperating with federal authorities and is expected to be the prosecution's star witness.

Stevens' lawyers are expected to attack Allen's credibility on a number of grounds. Among other things, they have subpoenaed his medical records from a 2001 motorcycle accident in an attempt to determine whether the crash, which caused head injuries, affected his memory. They have also asked for records of a 2004 investigation into an accusation -- which Allen denies and for which he was never charged -- that he had sex with an underage girl in the 1990s.

Jurors may also hear from Robert Persons, owner of a Girdwood restaurant and a longtime friend of Stevens and his wife, Catherine. Persons reportedly filed the city permits for the remodeling of Stevens' home and monitored the project's progress when the couple was not around.

It was Persons who was recorded telling Allen that spending his own money made Stevens hysterical.

At a hearing Thursday, prosecutors said jurors should hear that conversation because it was evidence that the men were engaged in a joint enterprise to enrich Stevens. Stevens' lawyers objected, saying the talk pertained to an unrelated racehorse syndicate in which the three were investors.

Sullivan did not immediately rule.

rick.schmitt@latimes.com

In the immortal words of Doonesbury, "It would be a disservice to Mr. [Stevens] and his character to prejudge the man, but everything known to date could lead one to conclude he's guilty! That's guilty! Guilty, guilty, guilty!!" Stay tuned!

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:54:33 GMT

The final debate!
Last night, John McCain and Barack Obama went head-to-head for the last time at the final debate at Hofstra University, in Long Island, New York. Honestly, the debate went a lot better for both sides. During the first half hour – actually a bit more – McCain definitively scored some major points … then he started trying to look confrontational and came off as grumpy. He also allowed Obama the opportunity to say "that's not true, John" and go on to explain himself repeatedly, which gave the impression (probably not accurate, but there nonetheless) that that Obama was correcting him. And by the way, I spotted the fact that McCain either was wrong or lied outright about the origins of the finanical meltdown. Sorry, John, but Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had nothing to do with it. They were a belliweather, to be sure, but that meltdown wasn't the beginning of the whole mess.

I was impressed when Obama stated flat out during the discussion of energy that we were in an energy crisis that went way beyond oil and that we can't "drill our way out of it." I'll be frank, boys and girls; I cheered aloud. I was considerably less impressed at McCain's rebuttal. What I find quite telling is that McCain makes a claim about Obama's insurance policy that isn't true. Obama says it isn't true and says what his policy really is. And what does McCain do? REPEAT the lie. To wit:

McCain: "Hey Joe, you run a small business. Obama wants to fine you."
Obama: "No, I've said that I'm going to have an exemption for small businesses."
McCain: "Hey Joe, Obama wants to fine you."

I mean … WTF, people?

There was one point during the debate where they started talking about negative campaigns. It was an interesting feeling. My rising blood pressure as McCain nattered on, immediately lowered and my exasperated expression switched to a huge grin on my face as Obama basically said, "Okay, you want to know my association with Ayers? Here, let me tell you." Direct and to the point. Perfectly done. IMHO, as of last night, the Ayers issue is DEAD. Ditto ACORN, probably. How many times did Obama say " That's not true?" in response to an accusation from McCain? Too many to count. How many times did McCain say it? Honestly, I can't think of ONE time. McCain is reflecting his desperation by still using accusations that most of know are false.

I'll say it again. I thought McCain did much better at this debate than the last one. He was more together last night, bar none. As the debate went on, though, he lapsed into snide smiles and inaccurate accusations … AGAIN. That is so tiring. McCain did well in the first half hour and degenerated after that. Maybe it's because I'm biased towards him, but I thought Obama came off thoughtful, dignified and someone who will fight to get problems solved. After floundering and looking a little unsure for the first half hour, Obama definitely came back looking calm, collected and well spoken.

As for McCain towards the end … eesh. The man was was nervous and sweaty. Blinking constantly, his voice shaking … he tried to smile and ended up grimacing and looking more angry. Yes, I know the GOP want him to get mad … but they just don't seem to realize how out of control he looks when he goes in that direction. As I recall, the two things that seriously set him off are comments about his height and his hairline. It was a light ribbing from his wife regarding his thinning hair that set off that "c**t" explosion, if I remember correctly. Obama on the other hand – he was calm, cool, unflappable, and very confident. The epitome of "Presidential", IMHO. Was anyone else reminded of the 1960 debate between Kennedy and Nixon?

By the way — I'm sorry, but how many of you think we'll be holding up these signs in four years?:

Verdict: Obama A; McCain C+

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:49:19 GMT

Christopher Buckley endorses Obama!

You know, if the GOP had kept the intellectual scions of what I'll call the Old Guard, I'd find it just a bit harder to vote Democrat every four (or two) years. I vote Democrat not just because I disagree with the GOP about just about everything under the sun. I vote Democrat because it seems like the current batch of neocons revel in ignorance. Those who talk like William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and a dozen other names I can think of if I took the time … they're the ones to emulate, at least from an intellectual perspective.

In my opinion, the ability to argue an issue (from either side) intelligently is far more important to me than "being right." So the Old Guard of the GOP have either died off or defected to the Democratic Party. Instead, we've got scum, freaks, and kooks dominating the party that imply if you're educated, it's best not to show it. I don't know who to blame for that attitude. Ronald Reagan may have been … umm … slow. But he surrounded himself with brilliant men. Ford, too. Just when did the GOP convince themselves that it's best to come off like Jed Clampett (or perhaps Jethro Bodine would be a better example?) to win votes?

I mean, it's one thing to APPEAR like a hick, but be brilliant where it counts – but when you've got articles written by neocons mocking Obama because he pronounces Pakistan CORRECTLY? All that does is make me bang my head against the wall until I'm close to unconsciousness. No color-coding necessary here. Read it all. And like as old, read each word and revel in Chris Buckley's intellectual brilliance.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama

Sorry, Dad, I'm voting for Obama

by Christopher Buckley

The son of William F. Buckley has decided—shock!—to vote for a Democrat.

Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. It's a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They'd cut off my allowance.

Or would they? But let's get that part out of the way. The only reason my vote would be of any interest to anyone is that my last name happens to be Buckley—a name I inherited. So in the event anyone notices or cares, the headline will be: "William F. Buckley's Son Says He Is Pro-Obama." I know, I know: It lacks the throw-weight of "Ron Reagan Jr. to Address Democratic Convention," but it'll have to do.

Dear Pup once said to me, "You know, I've spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks."

I am—drum roll, please, cue trumpets—making this announcement in the cyberpages of The Daily Beast (what joy to be writing for a publication so named!) rather than in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column. For a reason: My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call "the bleeding obvious": namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She's not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin "a cancer on the Republican Party."

As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that's quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen's mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There's Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, "You know, I've spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks." Well, the dear man did his best. At any rate, I don't have the kidney at the moment for 12,000 emails saying how good it is he's no longer alive to see his Judas of a son endorse for the presidency a covert Muslim who pals around with the Weather Underground. So, you're reading it here first.

As to the particulars, assuming anyone gives a fig, here goes:

I have known John McCain personally since 1982. I wrote a well-received speech for him. Earlier this year, I wrote in The New York Times—I'm beginning to sound like Paul Krugman, who cannot begin a column without saying, "As I warned the world in my last column…"—a highly favorable Op-Ed about McCain, taking Rush Limbaugh and the others in the Right Wing Sanhedrin to task for going after McCain for being insufficiently conservative. I don't—still—doubt that McCain's instincts remain fundamentally conservative. But the problem is otherwise.

McCain rose to power on his personality and biography. He was authentic. He spoke truth to power. He told the media they were "jerks" (a sure sign of authenticity, to say nothing of good taste; we are jerks). He was real. He was unconventional. He embraced former anti-war leaders. He brought resolution to the awful missing-POW business. He brought about normalization with Vietnam—his former torturers! Yes, he erred in accepting plane rides and vacations from Charles Keating, but then, having been cleared on technicalities, groveled in apology before the nation. He told me across a lunch table, "The Keating business was much worse than my five and a half years in Hanoi, because I at least walked away from that with my honor." Your heart went out to the guy. I thought at the time, God, this guy should be president someday.

A year ago, when everyone, including the man I'm about to endorse, was caterwauling to get out of Iraq on the next available flight, John McCain, practically alone, said no, no—bad move. Surge. It seemed a suicidal position to take, an act of political bravery of the kind you don't see a whole lot of anymore.

But that was—sigh—then. John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, "We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us." This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget "by the end of my first term." Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?

All this is genuinely saddening, and for the country is perhaps even tragic, for America ought, really, to be governed by men like John McCain—who have spent their entire lives in its service, even willing to give the last full measure of their devotion to it. If he goes out losing ugly, it will be beyond tragic, graffiti on a marble bust.

As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a "first-class temperament," pace Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s famous comment about FDR. As for his intellect, well, he's a Harvard man, though that's sure as heck no guarantee of anything, these days. Vietnam was brought to you by Harvard and (one or two) Yale men. As for our current adventure in Mesopotamia, consider this lustrous alumni roster. Bush 43: Yale. Rumsfeld: Princeton. Paul Bremer: Yale and Harvard. What do they all have in common? Andover! The best and the brightest.

I've read Obama's books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I'm libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O'Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.

But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren't going to get us out of this pit we've dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy "We are the people we have been waiting for" silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I'll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.

Your thoughts?

Friday, October 10, 2008

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:53:25 GMT

Obama vs. McCain, round two
Sorry for the delay in this post, folks. I ran into some serious Internet access issues two days ago, and was unable to access this page yesterday and post my thoughts of Tuesday's debate. But better late than never, right?

I had hoped that 48 hours or so would have given me the chance to moderate my initial response. Vilification isn't healthy, and I used Yom Kippur to reflect on just how upset politics can get a normally reasonable and measured personality (like myself). Unfortunately, even after two days of reading the news, of what the major pundits thought of the debate, I remain convinced that my initial reaction, which I penned in a text file to paste into this blog entry at the right time (which would have been yesterday, had my internet been working) was still accurate. It's amazing, isn't it, that sometimes, your gut response is the correct one … and other times, looking back and reflecting upon it and allowing time to give one's mind and gut to "detach" from the initial event is the best response.

As for the debate, well … honestly, I was floored. Usually, in a presidential second debate, if one candidate stumbles during the first debate and the second, the time spent between the first and second debate is spent focusing on the missteps – body language, areas of the first debate that were shaky (at best) that would probably be touched upon during the second debate, and so on. Dubya fell flat on his face during his first debate against John Kerry four years ago, and dramatically improved so as to nail the second, to a degree that even I admitted Dubya won that debate.

Tuesday night, I saw a John McCain that did far worse than he did during the first debate. He was dismissive of Obama, jumped around questions he didn't like, and STILL refused to make eye contact with his challenger! In contrast, Obama's answers were clear, direct, and to the point. With McCain … I kept flashing back to Tina Fey's rendition of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live and her "We're gonna get in there and get all mavericky!" In just every damn question he answered, he began with some variation of "Well, I have a history of reaching across the aisle … and blah blah blah." Here's an example of what I mean from the debate:

Brokaw: … We're going to continue over in Section F, as it turns out. Sen. Obama, this is a question from you from Teresa Finch. Teresa?

Finch: How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got – got us into this global economic crisis?

Great question, right? Here's how Obama answered:

Obama: Well, look, I understand your frustration and your cynicism, because while you've been carrying out your responsibilities – most of the people here, you've got a family budget. If less money is coming in, you end up making cuts. Maybe you don't go out to dinner as much. Maybe you put off buying a new car.

That's not what happens in Washington. And you're right. There is a lot of blame to go around.

But I think it's important just to remember a little bit of history. When George Bush came into office, we had surpluses. And now we have half-a-trillion-dollar deficit annually.

When George Bush came into office, our debt – national debt was around $5 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion. We've almost doubled it.

And so while it's true that nobody's completely innocent here, we have had over the last eight years the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history. And Sen. McCain voted for four out of five of those George Bush budgets.

So here's what I would do. I'm going to spend some money on the key issues that we've got to work on.

You know, you may have seen your health care premiums go up. We've got to reform health care to help you and your budget.

We are going to have to deal with energy because we can't keep on borrowing from the Chinese and sending money to Saudi Arabia. We are mortgaging our children's future. We've got to have a different energy plan.

We've got to invest in college affordability. So we're going to have to make some investments, but we've also got to make spending cuts. And what I've proposed, you'll hear Sen. McCain say, well, he's proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut.

The key is whether or not we've got priorities that are working for you as opposed to those who have been dictating the policy in Washington lately, and that's mostly lobbyists and special interests. We've got to put an end to that.

Excellent answer. It immediately got me nodding my head and ready for more. Now, here's McCain's opening:

McCain: Well, Theresa, thank you. And I can see why you feel that cynicism and mistrust, because the system in Washington is broken. And I have been a consistent reformer.

I have advocated and taken on the special interests, whether they be the big money people by reaching across the aisle and working with Sen. [Russ] Feingold [D-Wisconsin] on campaign finance reform, whether it being a variety of other issues, working with Sen. Lieberman on trying to address climate change.

I have a clear record of bipartisanship. The situation today cries out for bipartisanship. Sen. Obama has never taken on his leaders of his party on a single issue. And we need to reform. [My note: This opening left me screaming at my TV, "JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!"]

And so let's look at our records as well as our rhetoric. That's really part of your mistrust here. And now I suggest that maybe you go to some of these organizations that are the watchdogs of what we do, like the Citizens Against Government Waste or the National Taxpayers Union or these other organizations that watch us all the time.

I don't expect you to watch every vote. And you know what you'll find? This is the most liberal big-spending record in the United States Senate. I have fought against excessive spending and outrages. I have fought to reduce the earmarks and eliminate them.

Do you know that Sen. Obama has voted for – is proposing $860 billion of new spending now? New spending. Do you know that he voted for every increase in spending that I saw come across the floor of the United States Senate while we were working to eliminate these pork barrel earmarks?

He voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?

I think you have to look at my record and you have to look at his. Then you have to look at our proposals for our economy, not $860 billion in new spending, but for the kinds of reforms that keep people in their jobs, get middle-income Americans working again, and getting our economy moving again.

You're going to be examining our proposals tonight and in the future, and energy independence is a way to do that, is one of them. And drilling offshore and nuclear power are two vital elements of that. And I've been supporting those and I know how to fix this economy, and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and stop sending $700 billion a year overseas.

See what Obama did? He answered the question, simply and clearly. There's a problem, and he knows what is needed to fix it. Now, see what McCain did? He didn't answer the question at all. He just said "I'll be able to fix the question because I have a record of working across the aisle. Oh, and my opponent is part of the problem because he voted for a $2 million dollar projector for a planetarium in Chicago." What-fucking-ever!

I GET IT. He's a bipartisan maverick. Great! How about if he starts telling us what he's GOING to do to solve the economic problem in a bipartisan manner, rather than what he has a history of doing? How about telling us what his plan for combating climate change is? How about answering the question in a way that doesn't involve Blessed Ronald Reagan and his relationship with Tip O'Neill? You know what? My response is so simple and obvious, even Obama has missed it. All Obama has to do is stop trying so hard to show that McCain is not or was not a maverick and start asking him for specifics. "Senator McCain, who, other than Joe Lieberman, will you work with on a children's health care bill (the way Teddy Kennedy and Orrin Hatch worked together)?"

And you know what? I do accept that McCain used to be a maverick … up until about, oh, 2003 or so. I seriously considered voting for him in 2000, as much as I liked Al Gore. But that's because THAT John McCain was against offshore drilling, against torture, against tax cuts during wartime and a guy who called the leaders of the Religious Right "agents of intolerance." How times and people change!

As for Tom Brokaw, well … I honestly wish he had controlled the clock a bit more. I know he kept admonishing Obama and McCain about going over time, that they were pressed for time, it was in the rules … but would it have been so terrible if he cut Obama or McCain off in midsentence and said "Okay, that's time! Senator, your response?" If those two were arguing before the Supreme Court, do you think Justice Roberts or Justice Kennedy would care about shutting one up if they were still talking when the little red light on the podium went on?

My final thought. I really couldn't help but note the irony. During the leadup to the debates, McCain called Obama a coward for not agreeing to his proposal of ten "town hall"-style debates. After Tuesday night, maybe he's thanking his lucky stars he doesn't have to do another one. And for that matter, WHY on EARTH does McCain still refuse to shake hands or make eye contact with Obama?

So who won on Tuesday? "That One" did, hands down!

Friday, October 03, 2008

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:39:02 GMT

The VP Debate!
Firstly, I have to say, Palin did a lot better than I thought she would — it wasn't the train wreck we came to expect from the Katie Couric interviews. That in itself gives her mega-style points. However, I won't praise her for as far as points towards the debate. Sarah Palin is a grown adult who put herself into the world of politics. This is not some small child that we put on stage and are just proud she didn't wet her pants and start crying. She needed to be VP material. Managing not to make a complete fool out of oneself is not up to that standard.

Incidentally, I think that she came off as "reciting" too much. I honestly don't care about the stats and the figures, I just want the candidate to answer the damn question. Spewing soundbites isn't my idea of an answer to a debate question. Speaking of, I kind of got the impression she was trying a bit "too hard" in showing that she knew who the major players were. Did anyone else catch her error regarding the military command structure? Apparently Scott McClellan decided the lecture circuit wasn't exciting enough, so he's now serving as commander of the ground forces in Afghanistan! That was a major opening for Biden to go in for the kill and correct her, saying "Except, Governor, the commander of our forces in Afghanistan at the time was Gen. David McKiernan, not Scott McClellan", but he held back, shaking his head a bit, as if to say "I'll just let factcheck.com deal with this one." Which, I think, was probably the smart thing to do. While cramming her mistake down her throat was probably what we'd like to see … from another standpoint, just letting it be for the moment was, if you'll pardon the expression, chivalrous thing to do.

Now, Biden. I watched the debate via CNN, and they did the line-graph analysis thingy again … and monitored the reactions of undecideds in Ohio, splitting the data into men and women. I'm still unsure how I feel about that extra bit of information, but it was interesting to note that the person who consistently scored very highly among women wasn't Sarah Palin, but Joe Biden. The dials consistently went up when it was Biden's turn to answer on energy independence, foreign policy, and the economy. When it was Palin's turn, especially when she tried to revert to the GOP-trademark of attacking her opponent's patriotism; the dials took a nosedive. Let's go to the exchange (I won't quote the entire question-and-answer section on Iraq, as it's pretty long, just the part I think is important):

BIDEN: Gwen, with all due respect, I didn't hear a plan. Barack Obama offered a clear plan. Shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months. Draw down our combat troops. Ironically the same plan that Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq and George Bush are now negotiating. The only odd man out here, only one left out is John McCain, number one. Number two, with regard to Barack Obama not quote funding the troops, John McCain voted the exact same way. John McCain voted against funding the troops because of an amendment he voted against had a timeline in it to draw down American troops. And John said I'm not going to fund the troops if in fact there's a time line. Barack Obama and I agree fully and completely on one thing. You've got to have a time line to draw down the troops and shift responsibility to the Iraqis.

We're spending $10 billion a month while Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus. Barack says it's time for them to spend their own money and have the 400,000 military we trained for them begin to take their own responsibility and gradually over 16 months, withdrawal. John McCain – this is a fundamental difference between us, we'll end this war. For John McCain, there's no end in sight to end this war, fundamental difference. We will end this war.

IFILL: Governor?

PALIN: Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure. And it's not what our nation needs to be able to count on. You guys opposed the surge. The surge worked. Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works.

I'm very happy to see that the cheap attack doesn't work anymore. I guess even uncommitted voters in Ohio are tired of the same old soundbites and want to see action. Speaking of foreign policy, I thought it was the section on Iran and Pakistan that really nailed it for Biden. The dials hit the roof and stayed way up there until it was Palin's turn. Then they went flat.

Above, I said that Biden held back in correcting Palin regarding the name of the commander of our forces in Afghanistan, but that didn't mean he didn't hold back in other ways. And I'll admit it. I enjoyed every moment when he nailed her to the wall. That said, I thought he could have been a bit more plainspoken when discussing Obama's (and Biden's) votes in the Senate, particularly as regards to the Iraq war and to those tax cuts to oil companies. Most Americans aren't like us – who understand the complexities of a vote in the Senate. I rolled my eyes when Gov. Palin brought up John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it" gaffe. Anyone who read more than the headline or the soundbite understood what Kerry meant: that in committee, it was a good bill. By the time it reached the Senate floor, it resembled more of a Christmas tree than what it was supposed to be, hence, it was a waste of tax dollars. But again, given how that level of intricity goes over the heads of a lot of people (not because they're stupid, but because they just aren't aware of how it really happens), perhaps Biden did the right thing in skating over it &ndash he doesn't have time to give a lecture on the inner workings of the Senate, after all.

As for the rest of it, I thought it was a major improvement over the first McCain-Obama debate. There was eye contact between the two candidates, open facial and body language on the part of both (although I do think Palin smiled a bit too widely, which was slightly unsettling -- although that could be reading a bit too much into it), which (IMHO) made for a much more civil and personable debate than the one last week. That said, I wondered at Palin's expression when it was her turn for a rebuttal (or response to Biden's rebuttal). At times she seemed to be blinking a lot, as though something was wrong with her eyelash. Psychologists say that excessive blinking is a sign of being untruthfulness. I wonder. Speaking of, it was obvious that Palin had notes to which she referred on her podium. It was also obvious that her notes didn't cover some of the subjects being discussed, as she frequently changed the subject when it was her turn to speak. I guess notecards are acceptable as per the rules of the debate – they had to have been agreed to during the debate negotiations – but that doesn't make them "correct." However, I have no problems with a candidate using paper (or even index cards) and pen to take notes on what the other candidate said.

Final grade: Biden: B+/A-; Palin: C+/B-. Did Palin lose? "You betcha!" Did Biden cream her? Put it this way. He definitely won the debate. But it wasn't the train wreck people were expecting.

And by the way: I think McCain is screwed, and I don't think it has much to do with Palin. The latest economic nonsense, more than anything else, is going to prove to be his downfall unless he can really do something – something tangible – to turn it around and address the situation. And withdrawing campaign funds from Michigan to focus on bellwether states like Ohio and North Carolina (translation: "I can't win here") on the very same day of the VP debates doesn't help matters at all.