Random election day thoughts

The guy in front of me at the polling place was a young hipster with giant headphones. The election judge asked, "Which party will you be voting for?" The guys said, "Republican." Who knew?

"100 years" McCain was just asked by Matt Lauer about his temper. McCain answered by asking about 20 rhetorical questions. I didn't really follow, but one somehow was about Jack Abramoff. If anyone else saw that I would love to hear an explanation.

Clinton was on Letterman last night and compared her campaign to the New York Giants. Yesterday, I heard someone at work compare Obama's campaign to the Giants. Go figure. What a catch!

It looks like the conservatives are determined to keep fighting with each other even if McCain wraps it up tonight.

There's no crying in politics

I saw the headline once and laughed. I saw it the second time and shook my head. I saw it a third time and thought, "I guess I have to address this." The Swamp is reporting that Hillary Clinton cried again.

The last time this happened, I wrote about the obnoxious claim that Clinton was faking her tears. That claim came from Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. who represents the Obama campaign.

My hunch is that if the tears have any effect on anyone this time, it will be more negative because she will be viewed as a calculated crier. I haven't seen video yet, but I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

I wish we were talking about something else, but it looks like tears are the thing again.

Update: CNN has the video here, and I think that describing this as crying is a pretty big stretch.

Looking for a president in the Muslim world

Greg Sargent highlighted this video of Obama giving a press conference in which he discussed the impact he would have as an ambassador to Muslim countries. In the clip, Obama said, "I think the world would see me as a different kind of president; someone who could see the world through their eyes."

This is an issue that hasn't received as much attention as it should. I think he's exactly right. I think this is a strong argument for why he would make a good president. I think he would be able to talk to the Muslim world in a way that none of the Republicans could, and Clinton probably couldn't either.

The problem, though, is the politics of it. I don't know how Obama sells this point while simultaneously fighting off the smears that he's a Muslim. It's a shame that he has to walk on eggshells about an issue that should make him appealing to American voters. Instead, though, I fear that by bringing up what should be a strength for him, he is also reminding people of why they would be scared of an Obama presidency.

(Sorry for referencing that awful Albert Brooks movie. I couldn't think of anything else.)

Debate

I need to get better on following through on my promises. I said I was going to write about the debate and now it's almost too late. I'm going to give my thoughts anyway. (By the way, this photo is not from the Jan. 31 debate, but I think it represents what I'm about to say, so I'm using it anyway.)

The media is abuzz with disappointment about the civil debate. (Immediately following the event, it was funny to watch CNN's Anderson Cooper and Candy Crowley try to analyze it. He asked what the biggest moment was, and who won. Neither of them could really answer. It was quite amusing, actually.)

It was civil because for the first time in a month, or so, they weren't just playing politics. They talked about the issues and we all were reminded that they agree pretty much on everything. Their differences on health care aren't huge. He gets to hammer her for on Iraq (and rightfully so) but everyone knows that by now.

The difference is not in policy; it's in philosophy. That's what this debate was about. That's what the choice is for voters. People will argue that someone who doesn't mandate health care for everyone doesn't understand what it will take to fix the system. Or they will say that anyone who trusted Bush and voted for Iraq clearly doesn't have the necessary vision to lead us in this dangerous time.

But I think the debate reemphasized that the choice isn't about health care or Iraq. It's about bringing in a new voice, and trying something different, and bringing in a new manager who knows what Washington looks like from Pennsylvania Avenue. That's the real choice, and I love it.

Journalism

I'm still working out my thoughts about the debate and I'll have them later, but this morning I saw an interesting moment on MSNBC. In a discussion with Joe Scarborough, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank joked about the "fratricide" in both parties right now, and how the media is loving it. He ended the conversation by saying, What's best for journalists isn't usually what's best for the country. That's not the exact quote, but it's close and it goes a long way in explaining the problems with today's media, which I have written about before and will again.

Edwards

We all know where Clinton and Obama are tonight. Guess where Edwards is.

Polling

I've been trying to wrap my head around February 5. There are so many numbers, speeches, ads, etc. that it's impossible to keep track of it all. And on top of all that, we had the whole NH thing where no one knows what polls to trust anymore. With that caveat, I want to share a helpful guide that the folks at TPM Election Central put together. Even in this one post, the numbers are overwhelming, but if nothing else, it gives us a good idea of where things stand and what to expect.

The conclusion, as I see it, is that Clinton is looking good, but Obama is catching up. That kind of sums up the whole race, doesn't it? Enjoy all the numbers, and let me know if anyone else can make more sense of this whole thing.

$

Wow. Obama's campaign says it raised $32 million in January. In January! And it did it from 170,000 new donors. I don't know what to say other than wow, but I thought I should at least say that.

Crooked talk

I didn't watch the debate last night, and I haven't followed the McCain-Romney spat too closely, but from what I've been reading this morning, McCain has been involved in some seriously crooked talk regarding Romney's position in 2007 on Iraq.

First, some background. McCain started this whole thing last week when he accused Romney of advocating dreaded "timetables" and "milestones" for U.S. troops. He said this is the same thing that the Democrats want. (That's a dumb point to me since that's also what the majority of the country wants, but so be it.) This being a Republican primary, Romney became furious saying he had never advocated for a timetable for withdrawal, and was offended by the comparison. He demanded an apology.

Romney is correct. The quote McCain has been highlighting shows that Romney wanted "timetables" and "milestones" for the Iraqi government, not for the U.S. military. He wasn't advocating withdrawal, he was advocating management of a government. You can read more about all this here.

This all went down last week. But last night, McCain did it again. From the debate:

McCAIN: Then in April, April was a very interesting year (sic) in 2007. That's when Harry Reid said the war is lost and we've got to get out. And the buzzword was "timetables, timetables."

Governor, the right answer to that question was "no," not what you said, and that was we don't want to have them lay in the weeds until we leave and Maliki and the president should enter into some kind of agreement for, quote, "timetables."

"Timetables" was the buzzword for the...

ROMNEY: Why don't you use the whole quote, Senator?

McCAIN: ... withdrawal. That...

ROMNEY: Why don't you use the whole quote? Why do you insist on...

McCAIN: I'm using the whole quote, where you said "I won't"...

ROMNEY: ... not using the actual quote? That's not what I said.

MCCAIN: The actual quote is, "We don't want them to lay in the weeds until we leave." That is the actual quote and I'm sure...

ROMNEY: What does that mean?

McCAIN: ... fact-checkers --

ROMNEY: What is the meaning?

McCAIN: It means a timetable until we leave.

It's a lie. That's not what Romney meant. Joe Klein has a great take down of this over at Swampland and correctly compares this kind of twisting of words to the whole Clinton-Obama-Reagan nonsense. The difference is that that was exposed. The media should pause its love affair with McCain long enough to tell the public that he is lying. (Photo: New York Times)

An unreasonable man

Christopher Orr at The New Republic pointed out that the home page for Ralph Nader's newly announced 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee (yup, you read that right) says, "Maybe we're wrong." Nuf said.