In a historic vote last night, Congress passed H.R. 3590, more commonly known as the “Healthcare Reform Bill.” After rancorous debate that seemed more akin to the dozens game than an exchange of facts and opinions in the hope of agreement, including a parliamentary tongue-lashing delivered to Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) by Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the House moved to vote by electronic device. For approval, the bill needed a total of 216 votes. As the 216th vote came in, the House erupted into cheers of “Yes, we can!” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) celebrated with the Democrats. Meanwhile, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and fellow Republicans fumed. In the end, the votes tallied up to 219-212 with zero Republican support.

The bill, called “the most significant Democratic triumph in 40 years,” is now on its way to President Obama’s desk. He has stated that he will sign it on Tuesday. Certain changes will happen immediately while the full effects of the bill won’t manifest until 2014. Included among the soon-to-occur changes are:

Children with preexisting conditions are eligible for coverage

The coverage gap for prescription drugs will be closed

Being a woman will no longer be considered a preexisting condition

Children currently insured through their parents’ health care plan will be covered up to age 26

While there are unpopular measures included in the bill, such as an individual mandate of coverage subject to fines, supporters of the bill liken protests to those against other health care reforms, like Medicaid and Medicare, which were opposed by the GOP in the 60s. Seeming to harken back to those times, protestors hurled racial and homophobic epithets at representatives known to support the bill. Representative Andre Carson (D-Ind) shared his account with the Associated Press:

Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the civil rights era, some among the crowd chanted “the N-word, the N-word, 15 times.” Both Carson and Lewis are black, and Lewis spokeswoman Brenda Jones also said that it occurred.

“It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis,” said Carson, a large former police officer who said he wasn’t frightened but worried about the 70-year-old Lewis, who is twice his age. “He said it reminded him of another time.”

It is said that history repeats itself. Only time will tell the fate of this legislature; nevertheless, Barack Obama is already being called a “consequential” president.

Source:
US House passes key healthcare reform bill
Giles: Health Care Vote Is the First Step
The Most Significant Democratic Triumph in 40 Years
Boehner: Anti-gay, racial slurs ‘reprehensible’

EDITORIAL:
Hope in the unseen. The bill isn’t perfect, but it can be fixed and is far better than doing nothing, or, as the GOP argues, waiting for the “right time,” since this really should have been done in 1965.

You are already taxed for the poor/uninsured under the current system. So at least HR 3590 is a step forward in getting America covered, if not healthy. As well, the bill was worked on by both GOPs and Dems, zero Republican votes doesn’t mean much beyond strategy for eventual elections. If you want to be useful find out who included the fine with the individual mandate, which is quite similar to what Mitt Romney enacted in Massachusetts only his didn’t attempt cost controls like this bill does, but that’s what’s going to bank roll this (certain businesses are about to get PAID and that fine will really create $$$$ when the GOP is in office again).

You’re not going to get a perfect bill (even if you wrote it) nor are you going to make everyone happy. Even though this one probably doesn’t help you, it helps a lot of people; more than what most recently existed. Granted, this bill is going to hurt a lot of people too, but mostly in the same way doing nothing was going to hurt those people. That’s government.

And to the people complaining about giving hand-outs to the poor because of how hard they work, so what? There are always plenty of people (from all walks of life) working harder than you and STILL worse off. Beyond that, we just gave hand-outs to the wealthiest companies in the nation (started under Bush, finished by Obama). At the very least this might help some kids and some elderly.

The bill really doesn’t go far enough, nor is it what it used to be. (Public option, gone.) Big businesses will always get taken care of by special interests. So that idealism can be ignored. As well, the only bills that ever get passed grease the palms of everyone, remain just vague enough not to hurt anyone politically and hopefully attempt some good. That said, this IS an impressive achievement. Not even for the right reasons.

That said, call your representative or run for office yourself. (If you believe that, I know this prince who needs a little money but will definitely pay you back.)

Furthermore, the fallout of this bill highlights a growing concern of mine, which is how crazy the Right is getting. Be afraid, be very afraid.

The reality is that even though the vote is over, the fight over health care reform is not. Opponents, including the attorney generals of several states, are expected to file lawsuits asking the courts to declare the bill unconstitutional. The anger of conservative activists has been stirred to fever pitch — witness the spitting at Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver or slurs directed at Reps. John Lewis and Barney Frank during Capitol Hill protests Saturday — and it will not go away any time soon. At a time when some people feel like losing an election is living under tyranny, the passage of this health care reform bill has taken on significance far beyond the legislation itself.

Of course, there are some problems with these accusations.
1. The statement on which they’re based Obama’s comment to Joe Wurzelbacher that he think[s] when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody was taken completely out of context. As a CNN fact check confirmed, McCain’s remark was an oversimplification of a five-minute-long conversation. Obama replied in great detail about his tax plan, and the “spread the wealth” remark was one small part of the conversation.

2. They’re just wrong. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, socialism is a political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. More importantly socialism is NOT capitalism. It is self-consciously anti-capitalist. You know capitalism? Free market? Private ownership? Imagine the exact opposite. That’s socialism. In order to get to socialism, capitalism must be completely dismantled. The two cannot co-exist. I hardly think Obama wanting to cut taxes for the middle and lower classes and raise them for the wealthy (in order to improve social services like health care and education for everyone) even remotely resembles the socialist desire to completely demolish the capitalist system.

3. They’re hypocritical. As Fox News’s Chris Wallace said to John McCain in an interview, But, Senator, you voted for the $700 billion bailout that’s being used partially to nationalize American banks. Isn’t that socialism? Well, yes and no. Asking the general public to subsidize banks, to put their own private money into them, is putting the national banks in the hands of the general public. It is a type of collective control that resembles socialist objectives. However, the American people aren’t actually going to own or control the banks. They’re really just loaning out the money. So, it isn’t exactly socialism. But it is certainly a lot closer to it than Obama’s tax plan.

Also, a lot of American public services are already socialized. The police, the fire department, Emergency Medical Services, and public schooling are all socialized services (paid for by the public, and available to all for free). They’re also all great and humane services that any ‘civilized’ country should provide its citizens. So, what exactly is the problem with socialism? Why is it such an insult to be associated with it?

My personal problem with socialism is that it’s an unrealistic ideology. Oh sure, it sounds nice. Of course it would be great for everyone to have equal economic, political, and social power, for everyone to have equal opportunities, to be equally as well off as everyone else. However, for a society like that to exist, all its citizens would have to agree with the ideology and act accordingly to sustain such egalitarianism. And I’m sorry socialists, but it’s just not going to happen. People aren’t good. People aren’t fair. We’re selfish, greedy, ambitious, opportunistic. We are. We just are. Which is why socialism in practice often turns into dictatorship or authoritarian rule (think Cuba, China) most of the time, people just aren’t going to do right unless they’re forced to. And no matter how you slice it, I’m pretty sure the lack of civil freedoms associated with authoritarianism is a far cry from socialism’s ideals. (I’m not saying democracy in practice matches its ideals either, but I do think the disconnect is less wide than socialism’s.)

I don’t think America’s problem with socialism is the same as my personal one though. America’s problem with socialism is twofold. On a superficial level, we’re just a very nationalistic country, so much so that this is not really that far-fetched. We think we’re the best. We think everyone should be like us. We take difference of opinion (and even just difference itself) as a personal offense. It is as Richard Wright said in Black Boy, America “insists upon seeing the world in terms of good and bad, the holy and the evil, the high and the low, the white and the black.” It hugs the easy way of damning those whom it cannot understand, of excluding those who look different, and it salves its conscience with a self-draped cloak of righteousness. Don’t believe me? Go look up the Salem Witch Trials, Sand Creek Massacre, the Immigration Quota acts, Jim Crow, the Red Scare, Stonewall, miscegenation laws, the KKK you know what? Just go look up American history. The point is, the U.S. just doesn’t deal well with what’s different.

On a deeper level though, the problem is the nature of America itself. The country is based on two separate, often conflicting, ideologies democracy and capitalism and we’ve never really decided which one we’re more dedicated to. Sure, we like to say we’re all about freedom, liberty, equality. I mean, it’s right there in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” But if that’s what we really believe that everyone is equal, that everyone is entitled to health, freedom, and the pursuit of money (no really, that’s what they meant by happiness ), that government exists to ensure those rights, and that the government’s power derives from the people then we wouldn’t have a problem with socialism because (call me crazy but), when you put it that way, democracy and socialism, though not the same, sound pretty damn similar. We don’t go around hating constitutional monarchies for not being exactly our brand of democracy, so you wouldn’t think we’d go around hating socialism either.

But the truth is, in practice, America doesn’t care all that much about its pretty, democratic ideals. It cares about making money. Its exemplars are tycoons and entrepreneurs: Horatio Algiers, Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller; Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Donald Trump. What really rankles the U.S. is not injustice, poverty, genocide, or suffering, but obstacles in the way of its money-making grind. So, not only is socialism intolerable because it (shock! horror!) cares more about citizens than wealth, but it also often happens to be taken up by non-White, non-European countries who don’t care about the U.S., don’t particularly like the U.S., and certainly are more interested in taking care of themselves than kissing the U.S.’s ass and lining its pockets (think Venezuela, Hugo Chavez). Those countries, those people, that don’t toe the U.S.’s line, don’t cough up the oil, don’t bolster America’s economy, well, apparently those countries are so bad, so horrible, so evil, so sinful, that even the word used to refer to them has become a curse. Sociali shhh, don’t say it! It’s the S-Word now y’all.

President-Elect Obama

(CNN) — Barack Obama told supporters that “change has come to America” as he claimed victory in a historic presidential election.

“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,” Obama said in Chicago, Illinois, before an estimated crowd of up to 240,000 people.

With Obama’s projected win, he will become the first African-American to win the White House.

Obama had an overwhelming victory over Sen. John McCain, who pledged Tuesday night to help Obama lead.

“Today, I was a candidate for the highest office in the country I love so much, and tonight, I remain her servant,” McCain said.

McCain called Obama to congratulate him, and Obama told the Arizona senator he was eager to sit down and talk about how the two of them can work together.

President Bush also called Obama to offer his congratulations.

Bush told Obama he was about to begin one of the great journeys of his life, and invited him to visit the White House as soon as it could be arranged, according to White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Obama will be working with a heavily Democratic Congress. Democrats picked up Senate seats in New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina and Virginia, among others.

“While the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress,” Obama said.

Flanked by American flags, Obama told the roaring crowd, “This is your victory.”

“To those Americans whose support I have yet to earn — I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too,” he said.

Supporters in Chicago cheering, “Yes, we can” were met with cries of “Yes, we did.”

More than 1,000 people gathered outside of the White House, chanting “Obama, Obama!”

Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former rival for the Democratic nomination, said in a statement that “we are celebrating an historic victory for the American people.”

“This was a long and hard fought campaign but the result was well worth the wait. Together, under the leadership of President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and a Democratic Congress, we will chart a better course to build a new economy and rebuild our leadership in the world.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy said Americans “spoke loud and clear” in electing Obama.

“They understood his vision of a fairer and more just America and embraced it. They heard his call for a new generation of Americans to participate in government and were inspired. They believed that change is possible and voted to be part of America’s future,” the Massachusetts senator said in a statement.

As results came in Tuesday night, Obama picked up early wins in Pennsylvania and Ohio — states considered must-wins for McCain.

Obama also won Virginia, a state that has not voted for a Democratic president since 1964.

Going into the election, national polls showed Obama with an 8-point lead.

Voters expressed excitement and pride in their country after casting their ballots in the historic election. Poll workers reported high turnout across many parts of the country, and some voters waited hours to cast their ballots.

Tuesday marks the end of the longest presidential campaign season in U.S. history — 21 months.

Obama, 47, will now begin his transition to the White House. He will be sworn in at the 44th president on January 20, 2009.

(Source: Obama to be first African-American president)

Editorial:

Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell

Four more years?! Ha ha… Powell don’t play that!!

(BBC News) – US President George W Bush’s first Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has endorsed Democratic election candidate Barack Obama for the White House.

Backing Mr Obama over John McCain, the Republican Party’s choice to succeed Mr Bush in November, he said the Democrat had the “ability to inspire”.

“All Americans… not just African-Americans” would be proud of an Obama win, he argued.

Mr McCain said he was not surprised at his “long-time friend’s” decision.

Barack Obama was on the stump in North Carolina on Sunday

He pointed out that other former secretaries of state had backed his own candidacy, naming them as Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig – all Republicans.

Addressing a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Mr Obama said he was “deeply humbled” by Mr Powell’s support.

“He knows, as we do, that this is a moment where we need to come together as one nation – young and old, rich and poor, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Republican and Democrat,” he added.

His campaign said earlier that the two men had spoken for 10 minutes by telephone.

Editorial:

FINALLY… the Powell… has come back… to the brotherhood!

To me this essentially confirms what I always suspected about Colin Powell. The brother just jumped in the wrong administration. I mean really, in 2000 who knew Bush would become “W”. Colin probably wanted to leave right after 9-11 but due to the radical surge in patriotism couldn’t “cut and run” from … well… what will easily go down as the worst administration ever; nominated for not just two major catastrophes (9-11 and Katrina) but a recession so epic it’s global. Bravo. It’s like they’re actually pursuing the “worst ever” spot.

Anyway, after the WMD mess, who couldn’t see the problem with four more years (except for supposedly 50% of voting Americans)? And only guessing what classified intel he was privy to, who knows how long Powell was planning on jumping ship. I definitely remember him announcing his resignation about a year in advance. Bet he wishes he waited 8 years, now. Maybe he’ll snag a consultative role. Something unseen but still acknowledged. Undercover Military Brother.

Obama v McCain

HEMPSTEAD, New York (CNN) — A majority of debate watchers think Sen. Barack Obama won the third and final presidential debate, according to a national poll conducted right afterward.

Fifty-eight percent of debate watchers questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said Democratic candidate Obama did the best job in the debate, with 31 percent saying Republican Sen. John McCain performed best.

The poll also suggests that debate watchers’ favorable opinion of Obama rose slightly during the debate, from 63 percent at the start to 66 percent at the end. The poll indicates that McCain’s favorables dropped slightly, from 51 percent to 49 percent.

The economy was the dominant issue of the debate, and 59 percent of debate watchers polled said Obama would do a better job handling the economy, 24 points ahead of McCain.

During the debate, McCain attacked Obama’s stance on taxes, accusing Obama of seeking tax increases that would “spread the wealth around.” But by 15 points, 56 percent to 41 percent, debate watchers polled said Obama would do a better job on taxes. By a 2-1 margin, 62 percent to 31 percent, debate watchers said Obama would do a better job on health care.

Sixty-six percent of debate watchers said Obama more clearly expressed his views, with 25 percent saying McCain was more clear about his views.

By 23 points, those polled said Obama was the stronger leader during the debate. By 48 points, they said Obama was more likeable.

McCain won in two categories. Eighty percent of debate watchers polled said McCain spent more time attacking his opponent, with seven percent saying Obama was more on the attack. Fifty-four percent said McCain seemed more like a typical politician during the debate, with 35 percent saying Obama acted more like a typical politician.

“Independents tend to prefer debates that are dominated by substance and light on discussion of personal characteristics,” said Keating Holland, CNN polling director. “The perception that McCain attacked Obama gave red meat to GOP partisans, but it probably didn’t help McCain with independents.”

“There was a notable gender gap as well,” Holland said. “Women thought Obama won the debate by a 62 percent to 28 percent margin. Among men, Obama’s lead was narrower, 54 percent to 35 percent in Obama’s favor.”

During the debate, McCain demanded to know the full extent of Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, a 1960s radical. But the poll suggests that line of attack may not resonate with Americans. Fifty-one percent of debate watchers said Obama’s connection to Ayers didn’t matter at all to them, with 23 percent saying it mattered a great deal.

The audience for the debate poll appeared to be a bit more Democratic — and a bit more Republican — than the U.S. population as a whole. Forty percent of debate watchers in the survey were Democrats and 30 percent Republicans.

CNN’s estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates the sample is about 3 to 4 points more Democratic than the population as a whole, but also about 2 to 3 points more Republican than the population as a whole.

Eighty-eight percent of Democrats questioned in the poll said Obama did the best job, with 68 percent of Republicans saying McCain performed best. Among independents, 57 percent said Obama did the best job, with 31 percent backing McCain as the winner of the debate.

The candidates first debated in Oxford, Mississippi, on September 26. Fifty-one percent of debate watchers polled by CNN and the Opinion Research Corp. said Obama won that debate, with 38 percent saying McCain performed best. The second presidential debate was held in Nashville, Tennessee, on October 7 and 54 percent of debate watchers polled said Obama won, compared with 30 percent who said McCain did the best job.

(Source: Poll: Debate watchers say Obama wins – CNN.com.)

Editorial: Loved this debate.  As I have said, it was the one stacked most against McCain and the one he needed most to dazzle independent and “soft” (aka undecided) voters; especially since he essentially lost the first two debates.  If those last two were swings and misses then mighty McCain hath struck out.

Favorite moment: Obama summing up that McCain’s campaign focusing on distorting facts about the democrat rather than expressing McCain’s policies, says more about his failing campaign than it does about the Illinois senator.

Most important, however, is that Obama supporters not get cocky.  I’m sure there are many suspect things waiting to happen between now and November 4th.  So make sure you can at least say you cast a ballot, regardless of whom for which you are voting.

Obama v McCain in Debate #2

Swing and a miss.

(BBC News) – On paper, the format should have favoured John McCain, who conducts lots of campaign events as town hall meetings, in which he prowls the stage taking questions from anyone who wants to ask one.

In fact, I thought Barack Obama did rather better, measured in manner and clear-minded in content where Mr McCain seemed to spend too much time attempting to score points directly off his rival, with what felt like carefully-rehearsed digs that didn’t seem quite to find the mark.

Mr Obama offered a performance reminiscent of a great boxer who knows he is ahead on points and only has to keep dancing backwards around the ring avoiding trouble to win. He didn’t land many scoring punches, but then he didn’t have to.

Mr McCain, who is now trailing in nearly all the important local and national opinion polls, went into the contest knowing he needed a clear-cut win to change the game.

He duly headed off around the ring on the offensive more than once, but he tended to telegraph his punches and they mostly felt like they missed their target.

At one point he played what is clearly his ace – his relative experience – by saying directly: “There’s no time for on-the-job training, my friend.”

But in such an intimate forum it felt oddly inappropriate to say it so bluntly – better surely to demonstrate the proposition with a superior grasp of the facts?

Husky sincerity

The problem with reaching back into the briefings and bulletin points for ammunition is, of course, that if you don’t deliver pre-prepared material well, it can sound a little odd.

At one point, Mr McCain tried to skewer Mr Obama as a big-spending liberal by claiming he’d once voted for a plan to give $3m of federal money to buy an overhead projector for a planetarium in Chicago. I’m surely not the only viewer who spent the rest of the evening wondering what kind of projector that kind of money buys you.

Mr Obama seemed more relaxed than Mr McCain – partly, no doubt, because he knows the polls show he is heading for victory unless his rival can change the race.

He seemed steady and relaxed and held his natural inclination to the high-flown rhetorical flourish in check.

Mr McCain had gone for a soft note of slightly muted, husky sincerity which briefly made me think of Ronald Reagan’s delivery, but mainly sounded like the tone of a children’s storyteller with a sore throat.

There were some sharp exchanges of course, when Mr Obama was goaded into trading jabs.

The sharpest came after Mr McCain made the familiar charge that Mr Obama was naive to indicate that in some circumstances he would launch an attack into Pakistan to “get” Osama Bin Laden.

He quoted Teddy Roosevelt’s maxim: “Talk softly and carry a big stick.”

Mr Obama looked stung, perhaps for the first time in the evening, and replied: “Senator McCain is the man who sang ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’ and talked about annihilating North Korea.”

Both men’s advisers will feel they did competent jobs getting across competing visions of what America should do about health, tax and the economic bail-out package but neither had any surprises – and neither offered undecided voters anything they hadn’t seen and heard hundreds of times before.

Barack Obama emerged as the clear winner on the night in Nashville – if only because John McCain needed a game-changing victory on the night and he clearly didn’t manage one.

(Source: BBC NEWS | Americas | McCain fails to change the game.)

Editorial:

As noted from the last debate, it irks me when people say a debate was “boring”.  Clearly you don’t understand the subtleties of politics.  Hence, why you are probably cynical about politicians and politics in general.  You probably get disappointed when a politician answers in non-descript vague terms.  For instance, watching the CNN “undecided” voter group, one gentleman said “I’m still not clear what Obama means when he says ‘affordable’ in terms of lowering health care costs.”  All I’m thinking is “Mofo get a dictionary.  He’s not going to give a dollar figure for ‘affordable’ because affordable for you isn’t affordable for me nor would affordable for John McCain be affordable for you.  Policies apply to a lot of people, they can only be so specific.

Beyond that this debate further separated the candidates.  Barack staying composed and even attempting to specify his policies with mathmatical figures and how they apply to the average citizen.  John McCain attempting to play the “naive” game again, but at times seeming lost mentally and physically (notably wandering aimlessly around the stage when not addressed).  Again, where the first debate was meant to play to McCain’s strengths by dealing with foreign policy as the bulk of the discussion, this debate was supposed to draw upon his strength in “town hall” type settings and providing “straight talk”.  He came up short again, leaving the third and final formal debate which is also supposed to focus on domestic policy and the economy (even though the past two couldn’t help but go there); areas noted as Senator Obama’s strengths.

Biden vs Palin

Hey, I told you so…

(CNN) – A national poll of people who watched the vice presidential debate suggests that Democratic Sen. Joe Biden won but also hints that Republican Gov. Sarah Palin exceeded expectations.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey is not a measurement of the views of all Americans, since only people who watched the debate were questioned.

(Source: CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive – Poll: Biden wins debate, Palin exceeds expectations « – Blogs from CNN.com.)

Editorial:

C’mon, just give it to me on this one.  Will someone say I called it?  I’ll give it a day or so to really set in.  But watch, we’re going to see more Palin now.  And yes, Biden was killing it.  Clearly won.  I watched it on CSPAN, then went back and confirmed with the little CNN live opinion ticker.  So, yes I watched it twice.  Palin seemed to truly admire Joe Biden.  I wonder if she was rooting for him in the Democratic nominee race?  I’m also surprised Biden counter that we have to acknowledge where the nation went wrong in order to enact “reform”.  Still, Biden was masterful and Palin didn’t fail.  This debate was far better than the first presidential debate.

A more frivolous side note: Why is it that Gov. Palin can say words like “proliferate” but steadily says “nucular”?  Or “My kids … is near and dear to my heart.” All of those teachers in your family and no one taught you “nuclear”?  Eerily similar to Bush.  More so that she’s one “God forbid” event from his office, ‘dontcha know?’  Thankfully, Biden aced his single use of “Bridge to Nowhere”.  Also, Palin reigned in the “mavericks”, good job.  Maybe a bigger flag pin would distract me.  At least SNL should be funny.

P.S.> Fact Checking with BBC News

Moderator Gwen Ifill

C’mon Johnny.  You have it pretty nice outside of politics right now.

[via: Yahoo News]

Hours ahead of the vice presidential debate, Sen John McCain (R-Ariz.) criticized the selection of PBS’s Gwen Ifill as moderator because she is writing a book called “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.”

“Frankly, I wish they had picked a moderator that isn’t writing a book favorable to Barack Obama — let’s face it,” McCain said on “Fox & Friends.” “But I have to have confidence that Gwen Ifill will handle this as the professional journalist that she is. …

“Life isn’t fair, as I mentioned earlier in the program.”

Ifill is moderator and managing editor of “Washington Week” and senior correspondent of “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.” She is viewed as one of Washington’s fairest journalists.

The propriety of her selection as moderator for tonight’s debate between Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) and Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) was questioned by conservatives after the Drudge Report drew attention to her book, to be published in January.

McCain took a different tack the day before, telling Fox News in another interview: “I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think that she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly respected professional. Does this help that if she has written a book that is favorable to Senator Obama? Probably not, but I have confidence that Gwen Ifill will do a professional job. And I have that confidence.”

(Source: McCain laments selection of Ifill – Yahoo News.)

Editorial: It’s really not that crucial, Johnny.  Ifill isn’t going to throw away her credibility to sway a debate; especially one already so heavily favored to Obama/Biden.  If anything, a “fair” tilt would be to help Palin out.  But the public will do that for you, Johnny.  (As I’ve said before…) As long as Palin completes her sentences and doesn’t get eaten alive, she will be praised.  She will have “held her own” versus the experienced senator.  All the cram sessions will have paid off and your campaign may even let her speak to cameras for the next 30 days.

All things considered, it’s about a draw Matthew Yglesias, Think Progress

US presidential rivals Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama have attacked each other over foreign policy and the economy, in their first debate.

Mr Obama said a $700bn (£380bn) plan to rescue the US economy was the “final verdict” on years of Republican rule.

He said Mr McCain had been “wrong” on Iraq and tried to link him to President Bush. The Republican senator described his rival as too inexperienced to lead.

Neither landed a knockout blow but polls suggested Mr Obama did better.

An immediate telephone poll by CNN and Opinion Research Corp found 51% said Mr Obama had won, to 38% for Mr McCain.

A poll of uncommitted voters by CBS News found that 39% gave Mr Obama victory, 25% thought John McCain had won, and 36% thought it was a draw.

Both campaigns claimed victory, with Mr McCain’s team saying their candidate had shown a “mastery on national security issues” while Mr Obama’s aides said he had passed the commander-in-chief test “with flying colours”.

Tens of millions of Americans were expected to watch the debate on TV, with only about five weeks to go before the 4 November elections.  (Source: BBC NEWS | Americas | US rivals spar in first TV debate)

Editorial:

Yes, the debate was a technical draw.  The thing about that, however, is subjectively the debate will thus be a win for the Obama camp.  Why?  Because this was supposed to be the debate that John McCain won.  It’s his strength.  And there is no doubt he has experience in issues of foreign policy.  The loss is given that Obama held is own and, overall, appeared more Presidential than McCain.

McCain was wise to try and hammer the “naive” point, however he did it to an almost patronizing degree, which came off as him losing his composure.  However, any time he attacked Obama, the Illinois senator corrected him making McCain seem divisive and out to spin the facts.  Unfortunately for McCain, he did not notably correct Obama on any attack against the Arizona senator thus legitimizing the Democrat’s authority on the facts.

McCain was right to focus on “the surge”, but that’s about all he could say in terms of the “War in Iraq”.  As well, Obama was able to one-up McCain pointing out that the decision-makers on the strategy there essentially agree with his plans for future military action in the region (basically that Afghanistan is the real battleground).  McCain was at his best when explaining the fragility of the situation there, but did not follow that by appearing the most prepared to handle the matter.  In fact, Obama nailed him on handling delicate matters citing McCain’s “Bomb Iran” song.  However the junior Senator then gave away that advantage overemphasizing how wrong McCain was in his decision to go to Iraq rather than solidifying points that not only his past but his future judgment regarding the “War on Terror” have been most wise.

In terms of foreign policy overall, McCain was able to parade his experience but Obama matched that with foresight, unveiling that even the Bush administration is starting to enact policies that the Democratic Presidential nominee championed throughout his campaign while McCain leans toward the failed ways of the past.  They also argued different points of the fact that Kissinger did promote talks with Iran without preconditions (Kissinger later said “non-presidential” talks – something the Bush administration is currently pursuing).

In terms of economic policy, the debate kicked off with that, which is inevitable given the situation.  Neither candidate could comment on whether they were going to vote for the bill that was out at that time, however Obama laid out four core principles he thought should be in the bill.  The third debate between them will address the economy more.  Obama will be going into that debate as the stronger candidate given that McCain has previously acknowledged his weakness on economic issues.  And given the fact that the new economic bailout bill is (according to Sen. John Kerry) founded around the principles Obama laid out in the debate and supposedly better for the American taxpayer.

I’ve been reading a lot about people being disappointed with the first debate, but this is how debates always are.  As well, they are MUCH more subtle than people seem to remember every four years.  As they should be, both candidates know better than to shoot off at the mouth and sink their campaign.  In fact, a portion of this election will come down to who can keep the most level head and restore America’s relationships across the world.  Surely we’ve seen what a faux maverick can do in the White House.

No doubt a lot of attention has been on Sarah Palin, potentially the first-ever female vice president, but in recent weeks, the Alaskan Governor has had her share of goof ups that make the GOP look really bad. You have to wonder if they thought, “This will work as long as she doesn’t talk”. Unfortunately for them, the American people (the smart and not-so-smart ones alike) are demanding more from their candidates and the GOP has found it hard to keep Palin from speaking.

In her first interview….ever (ok, lemme stop), the Alaskan governor met w/ Charlie Gibson and clearly wasn’t prepared to answer questions that weren’t really all that hard…to answer. Not to answer correctly, or popularly, but to just answer. When asked what the Bush Doctrine was, Palin ever-so ungracefully tried to get Gibson to tell her what that was. When asked if the Ukraine and Georgia should join the UN and be attacked by Russia should we attack or go to war w/ Russia, Palin responded by saying we shouldn’t “second-guess” the decision to attack….Russia.

The GOP immediately realized they had a problem on their hands and booked Palin on two more “safe” interviews with Sean Hannity and another with Katie Couric. Of course we all know the Hannity interview was GOP friendly but what they didn’t expect was for Couric to stump this woman. Among major gaffes, like Palin being unable to cite any examples of McCain’s actions to push for more oversight in his tenure in the Senate, this happened..seriously:

COURIC: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land– boundary that we have with– Canada. It– it’s funny that a comment like that was– kind of made to– cari– I don’t know, you know? Reporters–

COURIC: Mocked?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our– our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They’re in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia–

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We– we do– it’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is– from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to– to our state.

I have a cat. I played with dogs before, and I’ve watched a space shuttle fly into orbit. According to Palin’s train of thought, not only am I a veterinarian but I’m an astronaut too.

I’m gonna need you to study at least a LITTLE bit for a test. I don’t blame the GOP at all for keeping her mouth shut. Smile and look pretty, because as soon as you open your mouth….FAIL.

To see the whole interview: Click here

Oops. Sorry, that wasn’t it. I must have gotten them confused. Here is the actual interview.