Bill's Excited Today...
...and it isn't just because I slept with my hair in curlers last night to prepare for creating "helmet hair" for the most terrifying costume I could think of: a Republican woman (red suit with matching pumps, big pearls, hair that doesn't move being the key ingredients). The late-night curlers prompted Bill to quip "if Republican women sleep in curlers, no wonder they're not worried about birth control..."

But no, that isn't why Bill's excited. Bill's excited because this morning, for the first time in weeks, electoral-vote.com has Kerry ahead in electoral votes and the trend is very much in our favor. Zogby has Bush nationally down to 46% and Kerry at 47%. And there's some interesting comparisons with 2000 if you scroll down below, 4 days out in 2000, Zogby had Gore at 42%, Bush at 46% and Zogby was the only pollster to accurately predict Gore winning the national vote.

Bonus points: here's what one Red Sox fan from Western Massachusetts has to say from the campaign trail in razor thin close New Hampshire:

I went up to Keene NH yesterday afternoon to help out any way I could... ended up at an intersection holding a kerry-edwards sign at a visibility. I understand that keene is more liberal than the rest of the state (they were out of stickers to wear btw so I opted for a "sportsman for kerry" sticker over an "italian americans for Kerry" sticker feeling that the former was slightly less a lie: hey i'm a sox fan) but I was pleased and energized to see that the kerry people outnumbered the bush people 3 or 4-1 and seeing all the young people made me think maybe we are reaching those who do not show up in the polls....Josh marshall of talkingpoints.com says the election will come down to field organizations and the springsteen funded America Votes (or whatever it's called) was also highly visible...keep your hopes up and fingers crossed.....

Zogby Predicts Kerry will Win
According to Bill, Zogby himself appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart yesterday and in response to Jon's question of who will win the election, predicted Kerry will win due to the undecided factor breaking against the incumbent. He then said that he hoped he'd be right because otherwise he'd have to spend 48 hours in a fetal position

He's not alone...

Word on the Street
Positive responses all around to yesterday's blog give me the courage to blog exhaustedly tonight as well. Anne B. reports people calling her cell phone back from Colorado to California to report that they are supporting Kerry.

Less than thrilling phonecalls today to Cincinnati (how the hell do you spell this godforsaken city? "see eye en see eye en en ay tee eye?" Disappointedly they were voter ID. Voter ID less than 5 days before a presidential election in a key city in a key state? Seems wierd to me. (for lay people, this means we weren't calling already identified Kerry supporters to get them out to vote, we were still calling random Democrats and independents figuring out who was for Kerry, a much tougher job)

Out of 10 calls answered by real people, 5 seemed genuinely annoyed and pro Bush--Cincinnati is just too darn close to Kentucky, I've always believed it was a southern city.

This depressed and worried me a little, but here's what's what: the Boss played Kerry out to "No Surrender" to a crowd of 80,000 in Madison today. So baby we were born to run.

Current thoughts
Look. I've been too busy actually working to try to guarantee the outcome of this election to blog about it. And that's a good thing. So stop with the complaints already. You're all out doing it too, I think.

Anyway, phonebanking voters in swing states (Ohio and Colorado) this week here's the thing: We're trying to get low propensity voters who have been identified as Kerry supporters to the polls. Now I've phonebanked for years. And normally when you call these people, you annoy them, you bug them, you nag them and most of them don't respond or vote, but a few do and that's what makes it worth it.

Well, this year It's like this:
Kid who answers: Mom, it's Sara from the Kerry campaign calling, should I just tell her ...
Mom voter: Gimme that phone! Hi. Sara? You can definitely count on my vote for John Kerry. And I'm getting all my friends out to vote too.
Sara: Do you know where your polling place is?
Mom: Oh yeah. You bet I do. I'll see you there.
Sara: I don't think so.
(okay, this last line is a fabrication, although it is unlikely that I'll see them at the polls in Ohio).

The point is these people are pumped. They're not angry that we're calling. They're not annoyed. They want to vote. They plan to vote. And they mean it to count. Something's different and it's making me feel good about next week.

Bill Magavern's California/Sacramento Ballot Measure Recommendations*
*Annoted By Snichols--in other words--in all instances Snichols agrees with Bill except where noted
[Note: out-of-state readers need not care now but be prepared to care 3 years from now when these same ballot measures come your way!]

BALLOT MEASURES, NOVEMBER 2004 by Bill Magavern

CALIFORNIA-WIDE PROPOSITIONS

1A – NO
65 – NO
Both of these stem from local governments’ efforts to stop the state from taking their money. I completely sympathize with their cause. The problem is that their solutions would constitutionalize our current dysfunctional system of local government finance, which is so sales-tax driven that cities and counties chase auto malls and big-box stores, wreaking havoc with land-use planning.

59 – YES
This Sunshine Amendment will put the public’s right to know about government meetings and records into the Constitution, which will help to counter the secrecy efforts of state and local officials. Our public records and open meetings laws are pretty good, but they’re routinely abused by governments.

60A – YES
Saves the state some money and has no downside.

60 – YES
62 -- NO
60 would preserve the status quo, with political parties having the right to choose their own candidates through primaries. 62 would bring to CA the Louisiana system, in which all candidates compete in the same non-partisan primary, with the top 2 facing off in the general election. All the rhetoric about non-partisanship may sound nice, but the result of 62 would be a magnification of the role of money in campaigns. Progressive candidates who now usually win primaries in Democratic areas would have to face business-funded opposition in November. The political reform that we need (along with nonpartisan redistricting) is to provide clean money funding to candidates with grassroots support, and 62 would go in the opposite direction. The small gains to be made by less-conservative Republicans would be far outweighed by the increase in corporate dominance of both major parties. Also, the minor parties oppose 62 because it would make it almost impossible for them to even make it to the November ballot in most of the state.

61 – YES
63 – YES
67—?
71 – NO
These initiatives all involve funding for particular types of health care, so they all represent ballot-box budgeting, but in different ways. The most progressive is 63, because it uses a tax on the very rich to fund necessary mental health services. Some oppose it because they want to tax the wealthy for more general purposes, and in a better legislative world I would agree. The problem is that it takes 2/3 of both houses of the Legislature, plus the Governor, to raise taxes. Given the number of knee-jerk anti-tax zealots on the Republican side, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for a tax increase on the people Dubya calls “my base.”

Stem cell research should proceed, but should the state spend $6 billion (which is what 71 will come to with the interest on the bonds) on this one form of biomedical research, which may or may not eventually lead to some kind of new cures? I’d much rather see medical research dollars doled out based on some kind of competitive grant process on the merits, rather than put on the ballot with a lot of funding from venture capital companies. As the Center for Genetics and Society says, 71 “grants control over a huge allocation of public funds for controversial research to a particular set of interested parties insulated from public accountability.” CA Nurses Assn opposes for similar reasons. Just on grounds of fiscal sanity, I have to oppose such a huge bond measure at a time when the state can not afford it. I realize that 71 appeals to Bush-bashing instincts, but those can be put to much better use by joining get-out-the-vote efforts, by phone or in person, in the swing states.

I’ll vote for 61, because funding capital costs of children’s hospitals is a much more appropriate role for the state and the amount of bond funding is much less.

I’m still undecided on 67. It does dedicate an ongoing revenue source to a genuine need – emergency rooms, trauma centers and health clinics. On the other hand, the revenue source, a sales tax on telephone service, is neither progressive nor directly linked to the cause being funded. Congress of CA Seniors, a credible group I’ve worked with, opposes 67 because “90% of the money goes directly to special interest groups.”
[Snichols, however, is decided on 67. She will support it because there is such a critical need and because they exempt the poor and cap the monthly amount to make it less regressive--She has fought for funding for emergency rooms and trauma centers before and the money aint there. The special interests are hospitals, clinics and emergency room doctors and I think we need them to get paid.]

64 – NO, NO, NO (yup, this is the campaign I’ve been active in). This is an attempt by big corporations to avoid accountability for their wrongdoing. The Unfair Competition Law has been an excellent tool for environmental and consumer groups to use directly against polluters and rip-off artists, because it allows anyone to sue over violations of the law. 64 would drastically limit such private enforcement, which would mean we would have to rely solely on government, which often lacks either the resources or the guts to take on corporate wrongdoers. Yes, some sleazy lawyers have abused the law, but they can be – and have been – disciplined without throwing out what makes this such a great law. Opposed by American Lung, CA Nurses, Consumers Union, AARP, Sierra Club and all the other major environmental groups.
[Snichols agrees and thinks you should click here to watch cute flash animation about the evils of Prop 64 and send it to all your friends because the no campaign is under-funded.]

66 – YES
This is the kind of common-sense reform of 3-strikes that’s been a long time coming. We’re now the only state that levels the draconian penalty of a 3rd strike for non-violent crimes.

68 – NO
70 – NO
These are attempts by greedy gambling interests to expand their profits. Both would allow casinos to run roughshod over workers’ rights and environmental safeguards. Even if these fail, we’ll soon be the biggest gambling state in the country, a dubious distinction. A number of the tribes that operate casinos worked out compacts with the governor that allow them to expand with some baseline protections for workers and the environment; 70 is backed by the tribes who weren’t willing to make such agreements.

69 – NO
I support DNA collection from convicted felons, because it can help solve crimes and establish the innocence of the wrongly convicted. My problem with this initiative is that it also would require DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony, which is an invasion of the privacy of those entitled to a presumption of innocence.

72 – YES
The Legislature passed this health-insurance bill, then business lobbies gathered the signatures to put it to a referendum, so we have to vote yes just to keep it in place. It’s not the ultimate answer to the problems of high costs and lack of insurance facing many working families – what we really need is a single-payer system to replace the profit-making insurance companies. But 72 moves in the right direction by leveling the playing field between employers who provide coverage to their employees and those who are less responsible.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY
MEASURES

A – NO
The business lobby hijacked what was supposed to have been a community process, so this measure is opposed by environmental, pedestrian, cycling and taxpayer advocates. Measure A would continue Sacramento County’s disastrous pattern of subsidizing suburban sprawl into rural areas, while underfunding public transit and access for pedestrians, cyclists and the disabled. Its backers will tell you we have to pass this now to keep transportation projects going, but the truth is that the current funding continues until 2009, so we can reject this flawed proposal and force
presentation of a better one in 2006 or 2008.

K – YES
To support affordable housing.

X – YES
It will take a 2/3 vote just to continue the current library tax, which is all this measure does. Our libraries are already underfunded, and would face major cutbacks if Measure X failed. A community that won’t adequately fund its libraries is impoverishing itself.

Magavern Report
Over breakfast today Bill observes that today's polls show Kerry ahead in the "battleground" states and behind nationally raising the realistic chance that Kerry will win the electoral college and lose the popular vote.

Sara (after a brief confusion in which she clarifies that he means Kerry winning the electoral vote and Bush the popular, and not the other way around): so what? we'd still win.

Bill: I suppose we'll take it anyway we can get it but I'd rather it didn't happen that way.

Sara: Why? because the Republicans will be living hell for 4 years?

Bill: Yes, but come to think of it, they might finally abolish the electoral college, which probably needs to happen.

Sara: Yeah. N-----! get down here! You're going to be late for school!! Your hot cereal is getting cold and gross!

Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Sinclair Retreats on Kerry Film [PARA]By Elizabeth Jensen [PARA] The broadcaster plans a special with portions of 'Stolen Honor' after an outcry and stock losses.

Also - from today's Recorder -

Lerach Lashes Out at Conservative TV Chain

The Recorder
By Justin Scheck
October 20, 2004


William Lerach on Tuesday made his biggest political splash since following up a 1994 White House breakfast with a $45,000 campaign contribution to Bill Clinton. This time, all it took was a letter.

The lead partner of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins rounded up the press corps with three mass e-mails and two conference calls to announce a possible shareholder claim against Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. The suit would link the conservative broadcasting company's plan to run a movie critical of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry with allegations of insider trading.

Lerach told reporters that while no litigation has been filed, he sent a letter Tuesday to the Sinclair board of directors asking them to sue two executives and one director for unloading $18.5 million in stock within the past year with foreknowledge of events that would trigger a stock collapse.

While Sinclair's stock has been in free fall for about a year, the latest in a string of stock-devaluing events, Lerach said, is the decision to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," a documentary featuring veterans resentful of Kerry's opposition to the Vietnam War, on all 62 Sinclair TV stations.

The plan to show the movie resulted in "threatened boycotts from advertisers, and clearly had an adverse impact" on stock values, Lerach said. He said the executives knew months ago that they would air the movie, and that doing so would result in advertisers pulling out.

Sinclair's stock has fallen 15 percent since the news of its plans to air the documentary. The chain announced Tuesday that it did not intend to broadcast the entire film but only to show portions as part of a news show looking into Kerry's activities against the Vietnam War.

Lerach told reporters that it is normal procedure to send a letter to a company's board of directors prior to a shareholder derivative suit, in which stockholders can sue executives on behalf of a company, with any financial awards being returned to company coffers. "Of course, they will not do it. They'll reject the demand," Lerach said.

But other securities lawyers said it's rare for plaintiff attorneys to actually send such a letter before a derivative case, especially when the plaintiff attorney is certain the board will not sue.

"It's pretty unusual that someone would have a conference call to say that they're writing a letter. ... What Lerach could have done -- and what he usually does -- is sue, and argue that notifying the board would be futile," said Jordan Eth, a Morrison & Foerster partner who specializes in securities defense.

Other defense attorneys and a plaintiff attorney speaking on condition of anonymity said the pre-filing fanfare -- along with the fact that the only potential plaintiff Lerach has named is a New York union's pension fund -- raises questions as to whether the move was a political maneuver aimed at pressuring Sinclair.

Lerach has been a reliable donor to Democratic causes. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, he contributed $14,650 to Democratic candidates in 2004 federal elections through July of this year. Other Lerach Coughlin partners have given at least $112,000.

Lerach said on the first conference call that the suit is not tied to the election and that it is driven purely by claims brought by clients. "It is not politically motivated," he said. "We're equal opportunity suers."

Helping Kerry in PA
Know anyone who wants to help Kerry in PA but doesn't know where to go? Here's an option for the Sierra Club turnout:

One of our key sites is Philadelphia, so you’d be close to DC. You can sign up through this website, http://www.sierraclubvotes.org/roadtosomewhere/. The work, as I understand it, is mostly door-to-door or phoning to talk with voters and give them info on the environmental records of Bush and Kerry. As you may know, PA is a crucial state, because Kerry pretty much has to have it and the Bushies are going all out there. Environmental issues could make the difference with some of the swing voters in Phila. suburbs.

Bill Magavern

Rocky Horror Presidential Show
This is pretty funny for those of my generation who saw Rocky Horror more than once (I confess I was one of them, but I never threw toast!). Mock the vote.

Update in general
Feeling strong. Feeling positive. Dead heat. Working hard to make this happen, not just by blogging. Come phonebank Nevada from my house or go to Las Vegas and help my friend Lea-Ann.

This is a wonderful piece, which really addresses the immorality of the Bush administration: Understanding The Christian Roots of My Political Depression By John Shelby Spong (Author, lecturer, teacher, theologian, former Episcopal Bishop, Newark, NJ)

The Republican Convention in New York City forced me to face the fact that my feelings about the Bush Administration have reached a visceral negativity, the intensity of which surprises even me. So I decided to search introspectively to identify its source. Is it simply runaway partisanship?

That is certainly how it sounds to many who make that charge publicly, but that has not been my history. I did not react this way to other Republican presidents like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford or Reagan. My feelings are quite specifically Bush related.

I first became aware of them in 1988 when George H. W. Bush's campaign employed the Willie Horton ad against Michael Dukakis. This dirty trick was successful and the insinuation entered the body politic that to be the governor of a multi-racial state where all were treated fairly meant that you favored freeing black criminals to commit murder. Lee Atwater, mentor of Karl Rove, devised that campaign. The Willie Horton episode said to me that these people believed that no dishonest tactic was to be avoided if it helped your candidate to victory.

The next manifestation of this mentality came in the South Carolina primary in George W. Bush's campaign in 2000, when the patriotism of John McCain was viciously attacked. It appeared that five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam was not sufficient to prove one's loyalty to America.

The third episode came when the operatives of this administration destroyed Georgia's Senator Max Cleland in 2002, by accusing him of being soft on national security, despite the fact that this veteran had lost three of his limbs in the service of his country. Each of these attacks brought defeat to its victims but they also brought defeat to truth and integrity.

In 2004 we have seen the pattern repeated. John Kerry, a veteran who served with honor and distinction in Vietnam was told in countless surrogate ads that his service was not worthy and that his three purple hearts and his Silver Star for heroism were cheaply won. For a candidate who ducked military service by securing a preferential appointment to the Texas National Guard, part of which was served in Alabama, this takes gall indeed.

Then Senator Zell Miller, his face contorted with anger, recited a litany of weapons ystems that he said Senator Kerry had opposed. What he failed to say was that most of these military cuts were recommended by a Secretary of Defense named RichardCheney in the first Bush Administration!

The last time I looked, the Ten Commandments still included an injunction against bearing false witness.Yes, other campaigns bend the truth but these tactics go beyond just bending, they assassinate character and suggest traitorous behavior. When that is combined with the fact that this party does this while proclaiming itself
the party of religion, cultural values and faith-based initiatives is the final straw for me. I experience the religious right as a deeply racist enterprise that seeks to hide its intolerance under the rhetoric of super patriotism and "family values." For those who think that this is too strong a charge or too out of bounds politically, I invite you to look at the record.

It was George H. W. Bush who gave us Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, calling him "the most qualified person in America." Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall, who had been the legal hero to black Americans during the struggle over segregation. Clarence Thomas, the opponent of every governmental program that made his own life possible, is today an embarrassment to blacks in America. To appoint a black man to do the racist work against black people is demonic. Consistent with that pattern, this administration entered an amicus brief against the University of Michigan's Law School because in the quest for a representative student body that Law School used race as one factor in determining admissions. The strange 'Orwellian' rhetoric again was deceiving.

"We want America to be a nation where race is not counted for anything and all are to be judged on merit alone." Those are fair sounding words until one factors in centuries of slavery and segregation, or the quality of public education in urban America which just happens to be predominantly black. Next one cannot help noticing the concerted Republican effort to limit black suffrage in many states like Florida where it has been most overt, and to deny the power of the ballot to all the citizens of Washington, D.C. Does anyone doubt that the people of Washington have no vote for any other reason than that they are overwhelmingly black? Only when I touched these wells of resentment, did I discover how deeply personal my feelings are about the Bushes.

I grew up in the southern, religious world they seek to exploit. I went to a church that combined piety with segregation, quoted the Bible to keep women in secondary positions, and encouraged me to hate both my enemies and other religions, especially Jews. It taught me that homosexual people choose their lifestyle because they are either mentally sick or morally depraved. I hear these same definitions echoed in the pious phrases of those who want to "defend marriage against the gay onslaught." Are the leaders of this party the only educated people who seem not to know that their attitudes about homosexuality are uninformed? People no more choose their sexual orientation than they choose to be left-handed! To play on both ignorance and fear for political gain is a page lifted right out of the racial struggle that shaped my region.

Racism simply hides today under new pseudonyms. I lived in Lynchburg, Virginia, before Jerry Falwell rose to national prominence. He was a race baiting segregationist to his core. Liberty Baptist College began as a segregation academy. Super patriot Falwell condemned Nelson Mandela as a 'communist' and praised the apartheid regime in South Africa as a 'bulwark for Christian civilization.' I have heard Pat Robertson attack the movement to give equality to women by referring to feminists as Lesbians who want to destroy the family, while quoting the Bible to
defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. The homophobic rhetoric that spews so frequently out of the mouths of these "Jesus preaching" right-wingers has been mentioned time and again as factors that encourage hate crimes.

I am aware that the former Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama, famous for his attempt to place a three-ton monument of the Ten Commandments in his Montgomery courthouse to the delight of southern preachers, is on record as saying that "homosexuality is inherently evil."

I lived through the brutality that greeted the civil rights movement in the South during its early days. Congressman John Lewis of Atlanta can tell you what it means to be beaten into unconsciousness on a "freedom ride." I remember the names of Southerners who covered their hate-filled racism with the blanket of religion to enable them to win the governors' mansions in the deep South: John Patterson and George Wallace in Alabama, Ross Barnett in Mississippi, Orville Faubus in Arkansas, Mills Godwin in Virginia and Strom Thurmond in South Carolina. I know the religious dimensions of North Carolina that kept Jesse Helms in the Senate for five terms. Now we have learned that Strom Thurmond, who protected segregation in the Senate when he could not impose it by winning the presidency in 1948, also fathered a daughter by an underage black girl. I know that Congressman Robert Barr of Georgia, who introduced the Defense of Marriage Act in 1988, has been married three times. I know that Pat Robertson's Congressman in Norfolk, Ed Schrock, courted religious votes while condemning homosexual people until he was outed as a gay man and was forced to resign his seat.

I know that the bulk of the voters from the Religious Right today are the George Wallace voters of yesterday, who simply transformed their racial prejudices and called them "family values." That mentality is now present in this administration. It starts with the President,embraces the Attorney General John Ashcroft and spreads out in every direction.

I have known Southern mobs that have acted in violence against black people while couching that violence in the sweetness of Evangelical Christianity. I abhor that kind of religion. I resent more than I can express the fact that my Christ has been employed in the service of this mentality. My Christ, who refused to condemn the woman taken in the act of adultery; my Christ who embraced the lepers, the most feared social outcasts of his day; my Christ who implored us to see the face of God in the faces of "the least of these our brothers and sisters;" my Christ who opposed the prejudice being expressed against the racially impure Samaritans, is today being used politically to dehumanize others by those who play on base instincts.

David Halberstam, in his book on the Civil Rights movement entitled The Children, quotes Lyndon Johnson talking with Bill Moyers right after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had passed by large margins in the Congress of the United States. This positive vote followed the arousing of the public's consciousness by the Abu Ghraib-like use of dogs and fire hoses on black citizens in Alabama. Klan groups, under the direct protection of Southern State Troopers and local police, had also attacked blacks with baseball bats and lead pipes in public places, which had been seen on national television. Moyers expected to find President Johnson jubilant over this legislative victory. Instead he found the President strangely silent. When Moyers enquired as to the reason, Johnson said rather prophetically, "Bill, I've just handed the South to the Republicans for fifty years, certainly for the rest of our life times."

That is surely correct. Bush's polls popped after his convention. It is now his election to lose. The combination of super patriotism with piety, used in the service of fear to elicit votes while suppressing equality works, but it is lethal for America and lethal for Christianity. It may be a winning formula but it has no integrity and it feels dreadful to this particular Christian.

I hope Kerry and his handlers know what they're doing...
Gee. I thought Kerry did very well in parts tonight, and I really enjoyed the debate dinner party we threw and a wonderful gymnastics and cheer show the kids put on afterward, but I'm going to bed feeling a little sad.

Why you so sad, snichols, you ask? I sad because I really thought Kerry weasled and wasn't straight on issues I know he's been good on in the past, I think it's a damn shame that he seems to feel that that's what is demanded of him.

First what he did well: I loved his answers on the Supreme Court, on jobs and taxes and foreign policy. I thought he was smokin' there.

But then some examples of weasle answers:
on Patriot Act (well whatcha gonna do, he voted for it)
on abortion (until the rebuttal)
on health care (cause his wimpy plan sucks)
on tort reform (trying to have it both ways again)
on stem cell research (although I think this issue is way overplayed)
and on the environment, it wasn't so much that he weasled as that he bungled: he shoulda hit that one outa the park. There couldn't be a clearer difference between him and Bush, but the public was left confused.

Why is it that arch conservatives whose views represent only 30% of the country feel they can unabashedly pander to that 30% and state unequivocably that they're anti-abortion, or anti-gay marriage or pro tax cuts for the wealthy and that Kerry can't be made to be comfortable being who he's always been: pro-choice, great on the environment, fiscally conservative and pro civil rights?

I guess my final comment is that it better be worth it. I have trouble believing that the f-ing idiots who are undecided at this point are more likely to vote for a candidate who tries to please everyone than one who appears to believe certain things and stick to them. But maybe Kerry and his handlers know something I don't know. I sure hope so.

All the Way with JFK
Iiiiiiiit's the 2nd Presidential Debate tomorrow, so lower your expectations and you'll have a good time. In fact, pretty much lower them all the time and you'll do fine.

Actually, I don't believe that and I hope you won't. After a long period of staring blankly at the walls considering how much of my stuff I could fit in a container bound for northern Europe, I now believe that we have the anti-Bush mo (men-tum).

Look, astounding record numbers of people have registered to vote all over the country, especially in swing states and so far where we're getting information it's 2/3rds Democrat. So, despite pollsters' claims of trying to "account" for this surge, they aren't and if even 1/3 of these new registrants make it to the polls, it's enough to put us over the top--it's that close!

My friend Sandra Childs, a highschool teacher at a working class high school in Oregon reports record levels of interest in the election, politicization--mostly of the our side variety.

Another friend, June Cummins professor at San Diego State reports her students are 100% registered and eager to vote--after all, my comment, their butts are on the line.

At this point, if this were really high tech, the requisite opening bars to "There's Somethin' happenin' here" would start up...oh yeah, but since it ain't, I'll sign off--All the way with JFK!

Too Tired to Blog
I loved the Edwards-Cheney debate, but I'm kinda too tired to blog about it. I think that Edwards scored significant points against the the creep-veep and never let up yet he came across as really believable and likeable [he drank a lot more water though--did anyone else notice that? Does Cheney come from a dry planet?]. I thought it was a bit much that they never had a question on health care but they had two on gay marriage. I don't think that Cheney did badly though. I think he did a lot better than Bush and a didn't make any major gaffs. Here's what the (other) pundits have to say:

CBS News tracked the reactions to tonight's vice-presidential debate of a nationwide panel of 169 uncommitted voters - voters who could change their minds before Election Day. Here are the initial results. This scientific poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points:· By 41% to 29%, uncommitted debate watchers say Edwards won the debate tonight.


Peter Jennings: “Anybody who thought that Senator Edwards was going to be rolled by the experienced Vice President I think will have a second thought.” [10:40, ABC]


Bob Schieffer: “This was a very testy debate. The vice-president tonight had the unfortunate task of defending a war that does not appear to be going very well these days. On the very day that the former top civilian official in Iraq was making a speech saying that we went about it in the wrong way. That was a tall hill for
the vice-president to climb tonight.” (CBS, 10:40pm)


David Brooks: "Edwards came right out from the git go and said you're not being straight with the American people." (PBS, 10:40pm)

Fred Barnes: "Now the second half, on domestic policy, I though Edwards did very well and he probably won that part." [Fox News, 10/5/04, 10: 40]Bill Krystol: "I think Edwards won the second half on domestic policy." [Fox News, 10/5/04 10:42pm]

Mark Shields: "John Edwards first one-on-one debate, had been billed that way, absolutely no nervousness, came out right from the start. And,and was aggressive. And Dick Cheney, I think, the vice president was really knocked back on his heels." [PBS, 10/5/04, 10:41pm]

George Will: "Mr. Edwards gave just as good as he got." [ABC, 10/5/04, 10:41pm]

Bob Schieffer: “The administration has got to find another way to argue and justify this war. The arguments that Vice-President Cheney was making tonight clearly did not take.” [CBS]

Carlos Watson: "… I think Edwards probably did a better job with persuadable voters." [CNN, 10/5/04]

Kit Seelye: "Edwards was the more engaging debater and personality. He laid out his arguments with the precision and logic that you would expect from a star litigator but also managed to smile and appear less rehearsed." [New York Times Online, 10/5/04]

Candy Crowley: “Probably for John Edwards the best moment was when he turned to Cheney and said, you know Mr. Cheney, I don’t—Mr. Vice President, I don’t think Americans can take another four years of this administration. Sort of a rendition of Ronald Reagan’s famous line of are you better off. That clearly was one that he had been waiting to deliver. Obviously an effective line.” (CNN, 10:51)