Review: Our Kind of Traitor

Our Kind of Traitor by John le Carré
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Very typical Le carre : tough read, layered and dark.

An acquired taste.

View all my reviews

Review: A Wanted Man

A Wanted Man by Lee Child
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

typical reacher. good fun.

View all my reviews

Review: CyberStorm

CyberStorm by Matthew Mather
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

Pretty typical end of the world story based on the idea of cyberattack.

Ending was pretty predictable in addition to being abrupt.

View all my reviews

Review: Reamde

Reamde by Neal Stephenson
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is a very long book. Very long. Basically it's a hacker/terrorist action thriller. Except because its so detailed and well, long, it doesn't exactly "zip" like many action books. What redeems it is that Stephenson is clearly very very talented (this is the first book of his I have read).

That said, giving it three stars because it is so slow to get going and I was not found of the fact that he has so so much Almost needless detail and loves to jump from point if view to point of view and back and forth in time. This break in the flow of the story was mildly annoying. For these reasons I give it 3 stars instead of 4.

Recommend however if you have the time.

View all my reviews

Review: Bad Monkey

Bad Monkey by Carl Hiaasen
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A crazy funny detective story set in the Florida keys.

Really well done.

Highly recommended.

View all my reviews

Review: The Dinner

The Dinner by Herman Koch
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Giving this 3 stars. It was a tough call. The plot mesmerizing and disturbing the book is very well written. But in the end, it was disappointing. There only reason the characters seem to behave in the way they do is some unknown genetic disease.

I'd recommend it with the warning that if you are a parent, it will tug on your worst fears.

View all my reviews

Review: The Closing of the American Mind

The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Decided to read this to see if it was relevant at all. The sad answer is yes, but it flaws are even larger with age.

Most of bloom's arguments are of the "get off my lawn" sort of grumpy old men. Nearly all of part I falls into this category.

Part 2 is more philosophy than anything else and bloom's mastery of it is unquestionable.

Part 3 is mixed: in some ways dated, in some ways more relevant.

Regardless, bloom's contention: that a liberal education does not exist is even more true now than it was back in 1987. Despite his call to arms over 25 years ago, almost nothing has been done. The vast majority of america's universities are simply mechanisms one endures to get a job (or, given the most recent economic conditions, not get a job).

While much of the political conservative world internalized Bloom in the 1980s and 90s, I think one thing they miss is that bloom really takes no stand one way or the other on "right" vs "left" as we currently understand them (but he did have strong - not good - opinions on the 60s and the "radical left" of that era).

In the end, a tough book to read whose arguments are interesting but whose evidence is stale. Sadly, Bloom died in 1992 but it would have been fun to hear what he would have said 25 yrs later.

View all my reviews

Review: A Reader on Reading

A Reader on Reading by Alberto Manguel
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Went back and forth on this book 3 stars or 4? Went with 4 because its so well written. Many of the essays are exquisite many are annoying.

I despise Alice in wonderland so the fact that it is woven throughout nearly every essay grated.

Overall if you are looking for essays on reading and literature as well as some nice insights on authors, I recommend. Personally, I probably wouldn't have read.

View all my reviews

Review: The Presidents Club: Inside the World's Most Exclusive Fraternity

The Presidents Club: Inside the World's Most Exclusive Fraternity by Nancy Gibbs
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

If your a political junky a fun read.

The one knock is that for most political junkies, much of this book is already known. Indeed, given the lengthy notes and bibliography, most of the stories in here have been reported in prior books and articles. What this book does quite nicely is put them in a coherent context.

There is little to no original history and the sections on the more recent presidents (George w bush, Barack Obama) are quiet thin.

Nevertheless, recommend.

View all my reviews

Review: How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading

How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading by Mortimer J. Adler
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This book deserves a detailed review but, I think the best review I could give it is this:

Oh how I wish I had read this when I was 18!

Highly recommended.

View all my reviews

Review: The Celtic Conspiracy

The Celtic Conspiracy by Thore D. Hansen
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

Good idea bad execution.

I almost stopped reading this about a quarter of the way through. But, in the sprit of fairness I kept going hoping it would get better. It didn't.

Should be a 1 star review but I gave it an extra star because the central idea of the plot could have made a good book. Alas it didn't.

Not recommended.

View all my reviews

Review: The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America by George Packer
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is not a happy book. But does weave a narrative that must be told about how America in 2013 came to be - not through the acts of the famous but through the lives of everyday people.

After reading this, I'm left with the thought that any hope of undoing the "great unwinding" of America will happen by the actions of everyday people.

Recommended with reservation: you will be depressed while reading this.

View all my reviews

Review: Casino Royale

Casino Royale by Ian Fleming
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Classic.

Not like the films, much darker.

Highly recommended

View all my reviews

Review: Ender's Game

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Great scifi is many things at once: a great story, philosophy, commentary on human history, psychology and more. Very few scifi novels reach that pinnacle. Enders game does.

Why not 5 stars? Despite the fact that it is great scifi, with a great story and characters, for me there still is a one flaw: it's difficult to follow the battles and this makes it just a bit too esoteric for 5 stars.

Also, on a fundamental level it's a kids book or at least should be.

Despite that, highly recommended.

View all my reviews

Review: The Alchemist

The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Beautiful little book but alas not my cup of tea.

View all my reviews

Review: Wool Omnibus

Wool Omnibus by Hugh Howey
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Very good but long (it's original format was as an amazon kindle serial) post apocalyptic story.

Recommend

View all my reviews

Review: World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War

World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max Brooks
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

To be honest I thought long and hard about giving this 3 stars instead of 4. The plot is simply a puzzle you have to patch together on your own from the various interview "vignettes" that make up the book. But, as an end of the world Zombie story, it's very good. So, for that and it's attention to every small detail, I give it the extra star.

Recommend.

View all my reviews

Review: The Nature of Things

The Nature of Things by Lucretius
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Read this in preparation for reading "The Swerve" about the discovery of Lucretius' poem. Have to say that it is a difficult read. The translation is not "modern" in any sense. That said, the ingeniousness of Lucretius is evident: very nearly explaining the true scientific nature of the world at a time when humankind ascribed everything to "the gods".

My recommendation is to find a different (better) translation (although I don't know if one exists).

View all my reviews

Review: The Eye of God

The Eye of God by James Rollins
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Fun read. Really well done.

Recommend.

View all my reviews

Review: The Alienist

The Alienist by Caleb Carr
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Although not really a "page turner" of a mystery, this is a really well done book. The plot and story are more of a "whydoneit" than "whodoneit".

I did find it hard to get through the first half if the book - mainly because there's lots of backstory and speculation vice "action". Additionally, there is an incredible amount of science - namely psychology. Nevertheless, even this is interesting given the setting - New York in the 1890's when Teddy Roosevelt was police commissioner.

The action picks up in the last half of the book and I found that despite my initial misgivings, I would like to pick up the adventures of the stories investigators in the sequel.

If you like historical fiction and mystery, you will like this book.

View all my reviews

Review: Odyssey

Odyssey by Homer
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

As with my review of Lombardo's translation of the Iliad, I will not comment on homers masterful and classic story. Many others have done so and I can add little.

But, like his translation of the Iliad, Lombardo's modern and dramatic style make this classic engaging.

Highly recommended.

View all my reviews

Review: Iliad

Iliad by Homer
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The back cover of lombardo's translation of the Iliad boldly states "this is as good as Homer gets in English". I don't doubt it. The language is clearly more modern than other translations I have sampled and its pace is gripping.

Obviously, the are tons if ink spilled in reviewing the Iliad, so I will not even attempt to add to it in describing Homer's story.

But, I will say it is, at essence a war story and Lombardo has captured it in English incredibly well. The average reader may dread the suggestion of reading Homer as it has a reputation as dense ancient poetry. Not so with Lombardo.

Highly recommended.

View all my reviews

Review: Live by Night

Live by Night by Dennis Lehane
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A classic prohibition gangster tale, masterfully told.

As a reader, I enjoy a lot of fun junk food. But occasionally I'll enjoy a nice steak dinner. This book is one of those.

Incredibly plotted, paced and characterized this book about a Boston Irish gangster in the 1920's through the 1930's follows the now classic gangster path but with a few new twists.

No doubt it will be adapted sometime down the road, although it will be tough to do.

Highly recommend.

View all my reviews

Review: The Fear Index

The Fear Index by Robert Harris
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Interesting thriller about a hedge fund math genius and his master money making algorithm.

Well written, quick paced read.

Recommended.

View all my reviews

Review: The Angel of Darkness

The Angel of Darkness by Caleb Carr
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

If you enjoyed the alienist, you will like this book even more. Not only because there is more to like but because many if the weaknesses of the first book are missing in the second.

Now, it is a long slog but it is a pleasant one. While there are a few patches that drag and many of the authors foibles are on display (character after character constantly saying "I'll tell you what I've learned as soon as we get with everyone else and sit down to a fine meal." And then several pages describing the walk to the restaurant before the character tells his tale. ) the choice of voice in this book (as compared to the alienist) seems to smooth over these patches.

As usual, the author has a fine eye for per turn of the century New York but he does not let it get in the way.

All in all worthwhile.

View all my reviews

Review: The Hangman's Daughter

The Hangman's Daughter by Oliver Pötzsch
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Good historic thriller set in the 1600's. very well written. As several reviews have noted the hangman's daughter is not really the focus of the book. Rather, it's the hangman who is kind of the neighborhood executioner, doctor, private eye.

SPOILER (kinda) One knock against it is that since it is a "whodoneit", would have been better to have even suspected the ultimate villain. He kind of pops in at the end and says "oh,yeah, I did it".

All in all very good worth the time.

View all my reviews

Review: The Malice of Fortune

The Malice of Fortune by Michael Ennis
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Very good historical mystery with most of the characters based in real people. Great theme of "science" (represented by di Vinci) vs psychology (represented by Machiavelli).

View all my reviews

Review: Yesterday's Gone: Season One

Yesterday's Gone: Season One by Sean Platt
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

A fun read. Serialized so its long. Which means still not sure what the cause of the catastrophe is. Hopefully in season 2.

View all my reviews

Review: Apocalypse Z: The Beginning of the End

Apocalypse Z: The Beginning of the End by Manel Loureiro
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Very good zombie end of the world story although its a bit light on hope. Danger mayhem and fear for 90% of the story.

View all my reviews

Review: The Map of Time

The Map of Time by Félix J. Palma
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I didn't really like this book about 1/3 of the way through. It's broken into 3 sections and after the first I began to feel cheated. But I plowed on to the second section and things didn't seem to be getting better. Until section two turned into a lovely little story and the threads that tie all three sections are revealed. The final third is a mind blowing and thought provoking bow tie that wraps the whole novel.

Really well done. Helps is your a fan of h.g. Wells but that's not mandatory.

Recommend highly.

View all my reviews

Review: Inferno

Inferno by Dan Brown
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

I'll write a longer review sometime later but I think this summarizes:

In a strange reversal, lets hope the inevitable film is better than the book.

View all my reviews

Review: The Hobbit

The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The book that started it all. And a classic of fantasy.

For those who have never read it, most highly recommended.

If you are familiar with the Lord of the rings, the hobbit merely sets the stage. On many levels it is a happier story: it's villains not as villainous as those in the Lord of the rings: bad rather than evil. A good introduction for a young reader to the world of middle earth.

I've probably now read this three or four times and each time enjoy it more

View all my reviews

Review: Mr. Penumbra's 24-Hour Bookstore

Mr. Penumbra's 24-Hour Bookstore by Robin Sloan
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

a bit geeky, good story with good pacing, well written. although final solution is a bit obvious.

View all my reviews

Review: The Night Circus

The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This is a book that you will either love or not. I am in the latter category. I found its plot slow and thin and considered abandoning it several times. I did finish it, and found the last third of the story pick up significantly.

There has been a lot of praise for this book and I can understand why, its a bit "arty" and presents the reader with a mood and style that is unique. Ms. Morgenstern is clearly a talented writer. However, like I said - its either your cup of tea or not.

View all my reviews

Review: Ready Player One

Ready Player One by Ernest Cline
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Thee ultimate geek read. Really well done.

look its not Shakespeare but its a great quick fun read.

View all my reviews

Review: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter by Seth Grahame-Smith
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Fun read.

View all my reviews

Review: Survivors

Survivors by James Wesley, Rawles
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

Read the author's first book, patriots. Typical christanist/survivalist fare. Despite that, was interesting read. This is the sequel/prequel and its just not as good. Fills in some gaps from the first book but just not as well written.

View all my reviews

Review: The Spy Who Jumped Off the Screen

The Spy Who Jumped Off the Screen by Thomas Caplan
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Really good thriller. Recommend.

View all my reviews

Review: A Feast for Crows

A Feast for Crows by George R.R. Martin
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Better than than the last book, not as much history and flashbacks but still long. The quicker pacing made the length bearable plus there was plenty of action. However, I'm now 4 books into this story and the author keeps killing off or leading into dead ends all the sympathetic characters. I'm wondering if I even want to continue with this series. Perhaps, it would just be best to watch the HBO treatment of the story. Can't say that I am a fan of the author's decision to make book 4 and book 5 separate books of the same story time frame. After book 3 nearly 1/2 the characters disappear in book 4 until book 5 when there story will be told. Since I already own book 5, I guess I'll give it a shot.....

View all my reviews

Review: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy by John le Carré
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Slow to get moving, tough to follow the jargon and gives proof to fact that the British and the Americans are 2 people's separated by a common language. That said, it is what everyone says it is : a masterful spy story.

View all my reviews

Review: 11/22/63

11/22/63 by Stephen King
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Really good. Recommend.

View all my reviews

Review: A Storm of Swords

A Storm of Swords by George R.R. Martin
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Wow. Incredibly long. Quite a slog. More than once I considered giving up but like on occasion, there are sections that fly and sing and move the great narrative forward. Unfortunately, it seems that after two great books in the traditon of Tolkein, Martin decided that he had forgotten in the first two portions of the series to spew forth for long passages on history and song and ancillary storylines. Guess he decided to make up for it here. This book could have been half the length.

View all my reviews

Review: Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

First off, regardless of how much you know about Jobs or Apple this is a really thorough bio. However, since I have followed apple and jobs since 1983, many of the stories in this book are well known to those who followed him and Apple. Also, most of the best bits have been put out in the media over the last several weeks. I was also struck by the fact that, as an apple watcher, how many of the "rumored" stories were either true or mostly true.

The real insight here is the fact that Jobs provided 40 interviews to Isaacson so you get to hear his take on his life. That said, I would have liked to see a bit more independent analysis from Isaacson. Its clear he likes Jobs but he never really takes a critical eye to Jobs' place in history. Isaacson is rightly critical of Jobs' personality flaws, but as to his technical and business decisions (many of which I think were right) - not so much. Perhaps that has to come when some more perspective has been gained by time and by someone more grounded in technology. That said, definitely worth the read.

View all my reviews

Review: A Game of Thrones / A Clash of Kings

A Game of Thrones / A Clash of Kings by George R.R. Martin
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Kind of a long slog, not as good as the first book of the series. Martin feels the need to alternate each chapter between characters making it tough to maintain continuity of the story, especially given the number of characters he parades in and out of each scene. Also, he uses the second book to impart the backstory he missed in the first.

Where the first book seems written for the screen, this one is going to be tough for the HBO crew to translate for the series.

View all my reviews

Review: A Game of Thrones

A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

2 thoughts: really well written story, equal to Tolkein, without all the unpronounceable poems. Thought #2: the hbo series was damn near 100% faithful to the book.

View all my reviews

Back to blogging?

It's been a while since I have updated this blog. The reason I had left it alone for so long is that I began to use Twitter. Twitter, combined with google reader's "share with note" feature is a great way to "micro blog". Add in facebook and you suddenly have a pretty full featured communication/social/content creation tool.

The problem? As you would expect - limitations. 140 characters is not always the best way to express ideas/thoughts/commentary.

So, back to blogging. At least on occasion.

So, even though the last post to this blog was back in 2008, you can still find out what's been happening since then via my shared feed on google reader or my tweets.

Only good news for NJ tonight:

AP just called the race in NJ, but there is good news.

Cory Booker can now run for Gov. in 2013.

wiki entry

Renegade

So I am about 3/4 through the new Richard Wolff book on the Obama campaign, Renegade and I came across this....

Remember when There were posts all over the blogsphere was flipping out right after the Palin pick?

Remember that this was posted:



Well...looks like somebody read Obama's mind:

"His friend Marty Nesbitt shared with him an e-mailed photo, which summed up their collective response to weak-kneed Democrats. It was a picture of the candidate delivering his convention speech, with the caption "Everyone Chill the Fuck Out. I Got This."
Obama chuckled. "Exactly," he said. "That's exactly how I feel"."

Thinking that maybe the freakout I'm seeing on healthcare might require the same response.

Barack Obama, Couch Potato?

The New York Times has an article out tonight that examines President-Elect Obama's whereabouts since he was elected. I noticed this:

After two years of daily speeches and rallies, he has retreated into an almost hermitlike seclusion, largely hidden from public view and spotted only when he drops his two daughters off for school or goes for a workout at the gymnasium in a friend’s apartment building.

Now, the press (and perhaps the world) seems to be waiting with bated breath for Obama's next move, next statement or next appointment. But, after the last several days it looks like Obama has decided to spend the next several weeks working from Chicago. He resigned his Senate seat today (effective Sunday) so apparently there will not be a valedictory appearance on the floor of the Senate as there was after he had secured the nomination.

The Times article notes that Obama may spend as little time as possible in Washington until Inauguration day. The Obama transition team has noted that appointments will be announced from Chicago and not Washington. So, for all you sooth sayers out there - keep an eye on the passengers arriving at O'Hare (anybody want to know where Hillary Clinton was today?).

Its beginning to look like this transition will be managed the same way the campaign was: no drama. Right now, it looks like Obama wants a 9 to 5, workmanlike existence. Perhaps even a bit of couch potato time (and I would expect a trip back to Hawaii around the holidays for his Grandmother's memorial service) before January 2009.

For a guy who excited all those crowds, sounds really boring. No doubt just the way Obama wants it.

Election 08: Winners & Losers

After 2 years, and too many hours in front of the computer reading the websites and blogs late at night, there are a few winners and losers to call out.

Now, I am sure there are other winners and losers, but these few stand out to someone who has been reading the political blogs from pretty much the time political blogging got its start around the 2000 election.

First, the winners:

1. President-Elect Barack Obama and his amazing New Media Team. Probably changed political campaigns forever. (with a hat tip to Howard Dean and his 2004 team)

2. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga and the entire Daily Kos community. They got behind Obama early, losing a lot of Clinton supporting community members in the process, and become what was primarily the initial driving force on the net for Obama. Kos himself has a lot to crow about but one thing that might be overlooked is his book Crashing the Gate, which provided many markers along the road to victory for the Democratic party this election (sadly, his co-author finds himself in my loser list below).

3. Nate Silver. From an anonymous poster at Daily Kos to the mastermind of political simulations at FiveThirtyEight.com he both conducted a master class in political polling and interpretation and absolutely NAILED the final results of many of the primaries and the general election. With the exception of Indiana (but who is complaining) - check out his final projection map and compare it to the final election results - they are identical and, his popular vote projection is amazing. Come next election I suspect he will be fending off offers to bring his statistical models to network TV (the HDNet gig was cool, but, judging from his appearances on the big news networks, he will be somebody is sure to want him as 2012's Chuck Todd).

4. Andrew Sullivan. A journalist who seems to have become more of a blogger, Sullivan was the first conservative blogger to note that the emperor had no clothes (and, has paid a price for it among the red state bloggers) and get behind Obama in a big way (come to think of it, I can't think of another conservative blogger who supported Obama). His influence was on display after the Palin pick when the entire internet was abuzz with rumors (which were routinely shouted down at Daily Kos) about Govenor Palin's pregnancy and Bristol Palin. Sullivan was the first "big name" to mention it. The next morning Palin announced her 17 year old was pregnant, likely forced on it by a "big name" blogger addressing the issue.

5. The Huffington Post. Established itself as the left's answer to the Drudge Report rather than a community like Daily Kos or MyDD, which is its major accomplishment. Although it did have a hand in the bittergate story, I would like to see it invite more of the unknown netroots community onto its front page posts rather than Hollywood celbs and mainstream journalists.

6. Politico.com. Although I would not classify Politico as part of the netroots, it "made its bones" this election as a place for political reporting.

7. Talking Points Memo. Josh Marshall, already an established journalist, established himself and his TPM operation as a serious internet based publication.

Now, the Losers:

1. By definition, Red State and The Corner are losers, but I put them as the biggest losers for their total loss of reality as it became clear that Obama was going to win and Palin was a disaster pick for the country.

2. Drudge Report from hyping non-stories to making up crazy poll numbers looks like Matt Drudge is not ruling anyones world right now.

3. Although I hate to do it, I have to put Jerome Armstrong, founder of MyDD in my losers column. He backed the wrong horse in the primaries and seemed to be living in an alternate realty as Clinton's hopes vanished (on this note, let me add Taylor Marsh to that category). Even when Obama won, Armstrong seemed to be grudgingly and half heartedly behind the Democratic ticket when he made his ever infrequent appearances on the site he founded.

4. The Clinton and McCain web teams. They were just out everythinged by the Obama New Media team.


So. I am sure there are more...your thoughts?

Rahm as Chief of Staff ???

I am of mixed feelings regarding Emanuel, as is Ezra Klein

Emanuel is a brawler. He's legendarily tough and effective and ruthless. Hes the type of guy who makes enemies, then makes lists of his enemies, then makes lists of his enemies' friends, then makes lists of how they'll pay. If you thought the Obama administration would be all about bringing people together and would simply make sad faces when stubborn congressmen refused to come to the table, this is a clear sign otherwise. If good feelings don't suffice, bareknuckle politics will happily be employed...
Emanuel warns Democrats away from attempting universal health insurance or comprehensive reform, and suggests they content themselves with expanding S-CHIP (he also gives a plug to his brother, Ezekiel Emanuel's, health care plan, but says his "plan is well beyond Washington's current reach."). That's not change we can believe in.

If Obama uses Emanuel right, he will be the pit bull - the bad cop to Obama's good cop. But, the danger is if Obama is overly influenced by Emanuel's desire for practicality over possibility, the changes Obama was elected to enact may be more incremental than revolutionary.

How McCain could still win

So, a new article at Salon i confident because McCain could still win. Here's why...

Salon has a new article up where its author (a republican) argues that unless Obama is above 50% in a state, he will likely not win that state. He contends that undecideds will break for McCain, not Obama:

There's an old rule in politics that an incumbent candidate is always in danger when he dips under 50 percent, even if he is leading his opponent in the polls. It's all about the undecideds. In a race with an incumbent candidate and a challenger, on Election Day the undecideds tend to break for the challenger, at rates as high as 4 to 1. If an incumbent is polling at, say, 47 to 45 percent with 8 percent undecided, there's a good chance he's going to wind up losing 49 to 51. As it's sometimes expressed, if you're an incumbent, what you see is what you get.

The same pattern seems to be true for African-American candidates in much of the country. If you're a black candidate running against a white candidate, what you see is what you get. And it doesn't matter whether you're an incumbent or a challenger. If you're not polling above 50 percent, you should be worried. As of this writing, Barack Obama is not polling consistently above 50 percent in a number of electoral-vote-rich swing states, including Ohio and Florida. He should be worried.

...

As you look at the polling data in the homestretch of this election, pay close attention whenever you see any numbers, be they statewide or national, where Sen. Obama is below 50 percent. So long as there are more than a handful of voters describing themselves as undecided, I will maintain that Sen. McCain is very much in the race. Even if Sen. Obama were to open a larger lead, my basis for analyzing things would remain the same. Are there enough undecided voters in crucial states to bridge whatever gap exists in the head-to-head? If so, don't be shocked if on Election Day, Sen. McCain is your winner.

As of right now, if I take that argument as true and start plugging in the numbers from the RCP state polling averages as of today, I get:

Obama 286 EV
McCain 252 EV

Obama wins: VA, CO, NM, MN, IA, NH, PA
McCain wins just about every other battleground: FL, OH, IN, NC, GA, NV

If McCain flips PA - which, remember has NO early voting, then he wins the election. This could explain why McCain is spending so much time this week in PA and Obama is going there on tuesday.

If McCain can't flip PA, then he can try and flip VA and NH for the win.

Looking at Nate Silver's averages over at 538.com makes it even scarier:

Obama is < 50 % in CO, VA and NH So, using 538's averages, McCain wins 278 EV to 260 EV Cross-Posted at Late Night Pundit

I am not a concern troll. Let me make some points below:

First, read the Salon article. Yes the guy is a republican. Maybe he has an agenda to show some way McCain can win. You can either credit it as worthy or not. That's not really my point. My point is he could be right and then to do an analysis to see what would happen if he is.

The Salon article uses stats from other elections to prove his argument. Some of the elections he uses I have a problem with (the Blackwell one for example). But, I also know 3 things:

First, in most of the battlegrounds where Obama is ahead, he is not over 50% in the averages. Yes, the averages include crap polls from Zogby, but this is more a what if analysis so I am going to accept them. It might be worthwhile to come back and revisit it later this week.

Second, there are still pockets of racism in this country. Thank god they seem to be fewer and further between than they were 10 years ago. Unfortunately, the evidence points to the fact that they exist in many of there battleground states. And I don't see the Salon article as arguing for the Bradley effect. Nate Silver convinced me it does not exist with his analysis. I see this as something different, as does (I think) Nate:

It's also clear that there were some patterns in the way that undecided white voters behaved. Number one, a majority of them -- probably somewhere between 60 and 65 percent -- wound up voting for Clinton. This is perhaps not so remarkable, considering that about 60 percent of white voters in the primaries voted for Clinton period. But, this figure was higher in regions like the Appalachians, and among groups like Catholics, and lower in places where you had a lot of WASPy, educated voters. So whether or not you label this a Bradley Effect, I don't know -- but the behavior of undecided voters has been predictable to a certain extent.

Now, it does not necessarily follow that the patterns exhibited by undecided voters in the primaries will match those in the general election. But based both on my research and on what I've been hearing from people on the ground, it's apparent that the public polling in general is not terrific, and that if we have an instinct about where the polls are more likely to come in high or low, we probably ought to follow it.

The 538.com prediction model was updated to account for this:

Take a state like West Virginia, where the polling has been reasonably close but where there are also high numbers of undecided voters. Those undecideds aren't the type of undecideds who are liable to side with Barack Obama when pushed to a decision, and so the state is not quite as promising for him as it looks on paper. There are also a fairly high number of undecideds in Ohio, a state where we think the undecided vote is liable to break slightly for John McCain. On the other hand, a state like Virginia, where Obama overperformed his polls during the primaries and where some polling has had a relatively generous (and probably false) number of African-American votes going to John McCain, might be just a smidgen stronger for Obama than it appears.

So, unless I am way off base, I think 538.com sees the same effect that that Salon author does (Hopefully 538.com will address this Salon article).

Finally, I believe in the old adage that undecides break for the challenger. Except in this election, there is no incumbant. I could make an argument that McCain is the incumbant, being so tied to Bush. I could also make an argument that Obama is the incumbant since everybody and their brother thinks he's gonna win. But I do know that based on the polls in the battlegrounds, undecideds could tip them one way or another.

Do I think this guy is wrong? I do, but until those last votes are cast on Nov. 4 I am not going to count any chickens.

13 Seconds that may change the world

Well, not really 13 seconds, but 13 seconds of video are all that exist. Here they are:


On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama gave this speech to a Chicago anti-war rally. Here is the text of entire speech.

With just over a week until the election, it is important to note that this speech, assuming nothing goes horribly wrong in the last 8 days, probably will win Barack Obama the Presidency. A speech given by a little known Illinois Democratic State Senator (who was probably going to run for the United States Senate in 2004, although nobody outside of Illinois knew it) taking a position against the Iraq war that was, at the time, not only terribly unpopular in the country as a whole, but even unpopular within his own party.

Now, I know Obama was not the only politician who believed the Iraq war was dumb, I suspect many who voted for the war thought so too, but he was one of the very few to publicly take a stand. And, yes, he would give the universally praised Democratic Convention keynote address in 2004. But, it was this speech, this judgement, this act of courage, that Obama wielded against Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic contenders in Iowa.

A lot has changed since then. Of course, Obama ran a brilliant primary campaign and put forth a message, not only about the war but about all the issues, that seems to have resonated with the voters. And although our attention has shifted, right or wrong, to the economy, with 8 days left I thought it was important to take a moment to remember these 13 seconds.

Did McCain Forfeit the Election with Palin Pick?

There has been a lot of talk about the disaster that is the Presidential Campaign of John McCain, but that's the nature of disasters - they get your attention - which brings me to the subject of this post.

Before the conventions, the conventional wisdom among the professional pundit class was: if John McCain can make the election about Barack Obama, then he had a shot at winning. Assuming that this was a correct assessment, 3 big factors occurred that derailed this strategy for McCain, only one of which McCain had any control over: Sarah Palin, the financial crisis and Barack Obama.

At the end of August, the media narrative was all on Obama, arguably to the detriment of McCain who seemed to be struggling to get a message across. Of course, we now know McCain really had no message besides warmed over 1980's deregulation and tax cuts and "winning" in Iraq, all of which had been (Iraq) or was about to be seriously exposed to even the casual observer as fatally flawed. Nevertheless, the media obsessed over one question: could Obama bring in the Hillary hold outs? Even after a highly successful Democratic Convention, the answer media gave was not yes, but a skeptical maybe.

The focus of the media and the public then turned to McCain (for the first time in months) thanks to the Republican Convention and he made the worse possible decision he could. Lets assume for a moment that Sarah Palin was actually qualified to be Vice President (pardon me while I gag at the thought of actually writing that). Palin was a bad pick for the sheer fact that she took the focus off Obama and put it on McCain, well actually on Palin herself, but the effect was the same. That McCain and his advisors did not anticipate this is simply political malpractice.

I am still aghast at how they thought that choosing an unknown female governor was not going to draw attention from Obama. Palin's "newness" (and being a woman) turned her into the biggest political celebrity in the country (and made Obama look almost boring for a time). How the McCain brain trust could have possibly thought this was a good thing after a summer's worth of "celebrity" attacks on Obama is beyond me. Remember the media narrative was whether Obama was ready to be President and whether the country was ready for him. By picking Palin, McCain completely changed that narrative.

Yes, Palin's meager experience seriously undermined McCain's experience argument. But that is not the point. Nobody knew who she was! Nobody (well maybe Kristol and a few political junkies) - not even some of McCain's own staff, as we learned from the New York Times this week. At the time, it made no sense to me (it still doesn't) for two reasons: first, the professional political pundits and media (McCain's "base") don't like to appear to be surprised (which I suspect they interpret as being "shown up") and second, the voters, no matter how much they gripe about the political process and vetting of the primaries and general election, nevertheless accept it as they way it is done.

If you are running for President or Vice President there are certain hoops you have to jump through - experience as a leading corporate executive or as a state executive or senior legislator (i.e. U.S. Senator or Congressperson), "X" number appearances on Sunday morning shows (and yes, nobody watches them but they are still an informal institution), "X" number of appearances supporting the presumptive nominee, "X" number of news interviews, etc (and there are some short cuts - you can always be a failed aspirant for your party's nomination but even then, you have probably jumped through the hoops during the primaries). But, with Palin there was none of this. Governor Bobby Jindal had jumped through many of these hoops, so did Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina - all three very little known outside political junkies and professional pundits - and all three would have been considered "surprise" picks.

Palin, on the other hand, was in a category so far out of the ballpark it still boggles my mind. It was such a risky move that it required a near perfect political performance - all before she even opened her mouth in public to accept the selection. If they really wanted Palin, she should have been out doing appearances in support of John McCain the entire summer. This would have, at a minimum, given the press and the public the opportunity to get to know her and attempted to satisfy the requisite "hoops" required. If she had done this, it may have helped blunt some of the disasters that came after her selection (well...maybe not - she still is totally unqualified). Instead, she was plucked from obscurity from some Alaskan backwater.

Of course, she and McCain blew it so bad I have begun to seriously consider possibility that McCain wanted to lose the election. The obvious lack of serious vetting, the spur of the moment selection, the teenage pregnancy, the flagrant abuse of power as Governor of Alaska to further a personal vendetta against Palin's ex-brother in law, the refusal to have a news conference, the shockingly awful Catie Couric interview, the lack of any serious thinking or policy positions on national issues, the $150,000 wardrobe, the $28,000 make up artist. Not to mention the horrid and vile manner in which she has campaigned. All told, proof positive of two things: Palin is totally unqualified to be the Governor of the least populous state in the union, let alone Vice President, and John McCain's judgement is seriously flawed.

In any event, lets assume that Palin is not the disaster she has proven to be and in some fantasy world passed the minimum threshold "qualified to be vice president" (i.e. the Dan Quayle Threshold - stupid but not scary stupid). The next big factor McCain ran up against was the financial crisis.

In hindsight, it is obvious that McCain blew the response to the financial crisis. Yes, his economic philosophy is warmed over Reganism, which is now proven to be disastrous in large doses. Yes, McCain did not help himself with the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" speech. Yes, he has a hero complex and, like superman wanted to swoop into Washington to save the day.

But, the campaign suspension and the White House conference with House Republicans might have worked. McCain could have done one of two things at that White House meeting - either opened his mouth and actually engaged Obama and the House Republicans to try and get something done or, kept his mouth shut, walked out of the White House into a herd of TV cameras and denounced the bailout as a flawed giveaway to wall street and that he was with the House Republicans and would work to defeat it to get something better.

Would either of these actually helped solve the financial crisis? Thats not the point. Politically, one or the other action could have shown McCain to be either someone willing to work to help get things done or, the maverick who bucks the President from his own party on principle. Either of these would have drawn a line in the sand that Obama would have to answer. McCain's suspension gambit could have worked. But, he essentially did nothing and ended up looking erratic and, in the end, causing more harm than good as the financial bailout was stalled by his actions (and the Republican House) for several days.

As an aside, and I suspect the Obama campaign would never want to tout this as a political accomplishment, but their whole strategy with respect to McCain and the financial crisis was masterful. With some help from McCain's inaction and unwillingness to either take a stand or work to pass the bailout, they were able to essentially lay the blame for the loss of billions of dollars when the stock market tanked on McCain's erratic behavior. Of course, they never really came out and put it in those terms, but that was clearly the message they were pushing.

Finally, that brings us to the one factor McCain had no control over: Barack Obama and really the point of this (apologetically long) post. Because, despite the totally unqualified Vice Presidential pick and her litany of disasters, despite the erratic nature of John McCain's decision making, the conventional wisdom from mid summer is still true: this election is still about Barack Obama and he has come through with flying colors. If John McCain had picked a qualified VP, if his campaign suspension had actually accomplished something - he still could not have overcome "the strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand" of Barack Obama and his juggernaut of a campaign.

After Obama's string of primary wins, when it became apparent to most rational people (sorry for the dig) that he would be the nominee, I argued to those who would listen that this election, because of the disaster of the last eight years and the demographic advantage democrats now have, would be very similar to the Reagan - Carter election in 1980. For those not around, Reagan had a similar hurdle to overcome - he had to convince the voters he was not a total lunatic and would be a responsible choice for President. In 1980, Reagan didn't do this until the (only) Presidential debate in late October. But after that debate, what was up to that point a close election, became a rout.

Like Reagan in 1980, Obama passed the threshold after the debates and with 10 days to go, it is looking like it might be an Electoral College rout. Today Obama has an 8 point average national lead in the polls, he's competive in every battleground left on the map (all of which are states that voted for Bush in 2004) and some red states that nobody would have thought as battlegrounds and, check out these numbers from this week's New York Times/CBS poll:

Do you think Barack Obama has the right kind of temperament and personality to be a good president, or not?
Yes: 75%
No: 19%

Now, this poll had Obama beating McCain, 52% to 39%, which means a significant percentage of people who said they were going to vote for McCain believe Barack Obama has the right temperament and personality to be a good President (By the way, McCain's numbers on the temperament were 50 % Yes, 45% No).

What this all means is that this election has been about Barack Obama. While the voters were unsure of his temperament, it was a close election. Many of the professional pundits (and some democrats) spent the summer worrying about why, if this was such good year for Democrats, Obama was not up by 10 in the polls. Well, since the first couple of debates, Obama has essentially been up by 10 and its remained that way for the past few weeks. It is looking more and more like the election of 1980.

Now, there are still 10 days to go. Something could happen to change everything. People could get complacent and not vote (note to all you McCain supports: I'd be quite happy if you stayed home on November 4) or external events could make people re-think their comfort with Obama. But, I think the conventional wisdom (and the McCain campaign) is coming around to the fact that Obama will be the next President.

So, my answer to the question posed in the title of this post is No, John McCain did not forfeit the election with his pick of Sarah Palin. Barack Obama is going to win because of who he is. What is left to do is to make it happen on November 4.

McCain Behind the Scenes

Today's essential reading. This article already has the pundits buzzing. The NYT Magazine will publish the whole story this Sunday.

Shock AP poll: Tied

Well, today's shock poll comes from the AP and shows that the race is essentially tied among "likely voters":

Obama 44
McCain 33
margin of error +/- 3.5

I have to assume this is an outlier as all the other polls have Obama up at least 6 (NBC has it at 10, and even Fox news has Obama up 9).

I took a peak at the crosstabs and there has to be something wrong with AP's likely voter screen. The AP shows Obama with a 10 point lead (Obama 46, McCain 37) before they apply their likely voter model. I am sure Nate Silver will figure all this out over at fivethirtyeight.com.

Palin's $150,000 Wardrobe

The news that seems to be getting all the attention today is the McCain campaign buying it's VP candidate $150,000 worth of clothing.

Personally, even though this spending by the McCain campaign might be illegal, I still think it's a stupid story. One point though: Under the Obama tax plan, Palin's $150K wardrobe would get a tax break. LOL.

The bigger story today is that the state of the race is still pretty stable. Obama is still leading in the polls by 5 or 6 (and may have gained a point or two over the last couple of days), early voting is still going great for Obama, and McCain is still flailing away trying to get any positive traction (and I don't think that al-Qaeda endorsement of McCain for president counts).

With 13 days left until election day, and not counting chickens, things are looking good.

A Must Read For Polling Junkies

I try not to obsess over polls. Unfortunately, I tend to forget that. Luckily, Nate Silver's wonderful fivethirtyeight.com is around to satisfy my poll cravings.

Nate has an absolute must read on tracking polls today. He breaks down each tracking poll, noting the time released, the poll's track record, strengths and weaknesses.

If your reading my blog, I am sure your are reading his. If not, you should be.

McCain: Realistic or Delusional?

So, they finally have given up on Iowa and also Colorado?

What's that leave? Pennsylvania!

Good God. Just go back to Arizona and campaign there the next 14 days Senator McCain. javascript:void(0)

Republican Election Spending

A quick thought. Last week, at the height of the Obama lead in the polls, there was some talk here and there among pundits that the Republicans should divert money from McCain to some of the closer US Senate races - a la Bob Dole in 1996.

Now, there have been cases reported of Republicans redistributing resources (e.g. Michigan, some cut back on McCain joint ads with the RNC) but, from what I have seen so far, there has not yet been a wholesale flight of money from McCain to Republican Senators in tight races.

If it is going to happen, my guess is that it will happen this week. It will be very instructive to see what the RNC ad buys are for this coming weekend and next week. If you see a lot of cash to try and prop up Republican Senators, then you can probably assume that the big shots in the Republican party have wriiten off John McCain.

Also, look to see where McCain spends his time next week. If he does a lot of appearences in states where the Republican Senator is in trouble, the race for the White House us probably over (of course, given how bad McCain/Palin is doing in the polls, they could be told to stay away from those states too).

Finally, what kind of cool aid is the McCain campaign drinking? On a conference call today, Rick Davis from the McCain campaign said that McCain's polling shows a tight race in Iowa. Unless something had drastically changed on the ground, Iowa has not been in play for weeks. Obama has been up big for weeks in all the polls in Iowa. Yet, for some reason McCain continues to think that he has a shot there. In fact, as I recall, McCain made a visit to Iowa recently and the pundits were all asking why. Has the McCain campaign left the reality based community or do they know something that nobody else does? This is puzzling and worrying at the same time, on a variety of levels.

Vote Early, part 2

An excellent resource:

Vote Early

With 15 days to go, the national polls seem to have tightened a bit. What was an average Obama lead of 7 or 8 points is now down to 5 or 6. But, the polls of the battleground states are still looking good for Obama. Of course, battleground polls have been lagging behind the national numbers all fall. Something to keep an eye on.

So the first big story on early voting trends came out today. Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, Nevada and Ohio early voters are predominantly democrats. Republicans hold an edge on early voters in Florida and it looks to be about even in Indiana.

McCain needs all these states so the democratic advantage in Ohio and North Carolina is hopeful for Obama. Florida is a concern, especially since I am afraid the Obama campaign may be falling into the "Florida trap" by spending a lot of time and effort there in what may be a lost cause. Maybe it's the ghost of 2000 but I just don't trust the polls out of Florida showing that Obama is ahead.

Finally Fall

Fall officially started several weeks ago but, here in New Jersey it has been unseasonably warm. Until today. There's a chill in the air and, despite my spending a lot of money to remove two large trees a couple of years ago, leaves all over my yard, seemly overnight.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama

I don't think endorsements mean too much, but this one could push some rational republicans over the fence.

Been busy

Well I have been busy for the past several weeks. Since my last post, a lot has happened in the Presidential race. I won't rehash it all, but with 16 days to go, it looks like Barak Obama will be the 44th President of the United States.

Of course, 16 days is an lifetime in politics. Remember that just over 16 days ago, this race was tied, so anything can happen between now and November 4.

I've been asked to help out the Obama campaign in PA for the last 3 days of the election so that should be interesting. In the meantime, I hope to have this blog updated more frequently. One of the things that I find is I have a hard time trying to find the time to sit down and write posts. But, I may have found a solution. I have never been a big fan of email posts, but I think I might have stumbled upon a great little app for my iPhone that will let me post more frequently. Well see.

An Audacious Head Fake?

So, as everyone knows John McCain has decided to engage is gutter politics and will probably throw the Kitchen Sink at Obama the next 3 weeks.

Obama's obviously got a 3 tier response - first, talk about the economy; second, run positive biography Ads; and third, hit right back (e.g. Keating Five). But, come the end of Tuesday's debate Obama could have a fourth tack: take John McCain aside and say "lay off or I am coming after Arizona".

What! Arizona? McCain's home state? Am I crazy? Maybe not....

I try not to look at Karl Rove's election analysis but this caught my eye yesterday:

http://www.rove.com/images/0000/0088...

So I was looking for the remaining red states where it might behoove the Obama campaign to out some token money into and maybe have a rally. I was looking for red states where McCain's lead was < 10 pts. Here's the list:

Arkansas (McCain +9)
Georgia (McCain +8)
and...drumroll please:
Arizona where Rove puts McCain at +8

Now, if you have been following the election at all, you probably have heard that Georgia is an Obama "wish state" - they have put up a bit of an effort there to try and see if increase voter registration and youth and african american turn out could put the state in play. The last I heard (any please comment below if you know different), that doesn't look like it will pan out. But, Arizona is McCain's home state and he's only up 8? Obama is up 17 in Illinois. McCain should be way ahead of that. So I did more digging:

Pollster's got Arizona at 51.4% McCain to 38.9% Obama. But look at the polls that make up that aggregate:

Rassumussen on 9/29: McCain 59, Obama 38
ASU on 9/28: McCain McCain 45, Obama 38, Undecided 15
ARG on 9/14: McCain 56, Obama 39

OK. Not looking too good but two things jump out: first the polls are kind of getting long in the tooth on October 8, could the massive shift Obama has seen in the last week have played out in Arizona? Second, that ASU undecided number of 15...

So over to Nate Silver and what does he say about Arizona? Well, his model has got McCain winning 94% of the time (he's got Obama winning IL 100% of the time). The 538 projection for Arizona has it at McCain 54.4% and Obama 43.1% with a Margin of Error of +or- 7.7%.

SO...

Now you are saying - OK..McCain's a virtual lock on Arizona - what's your point? Well the points are the following:

First, McCain is not Mr. Popularity or Mr. Congeniality in Arizona. As late as June, the McCain campaign was projecting Arizona as a possible swing state.

Second, Obama probably (and this needs to be confirmed) has zero investment in Arizona.

So the play is this:

Throw a little ad buy in Arizona and, drop in for a rally on the way to Colorado or Nevada and see what the internal polls show.

If there is movement, lay it out for McCain: lay off the gutter attacks or be forced to spend money and campaign in your home state. If there is no movement, reap the publicity of actually campaigning (even for a couple of hours) in McCain's home state.

Now look, the only way McCain looses his home state is a 400 plus electoral vote landslide for Obama (and maybe not even then). But, what an audacious head fake this would be.

Thoughts?

The Other Side of the Palin Pick

I have always considered Jerome Armstrong a "sky is falling", "glass half empty" kind of guy, even more so since Hillary Clinton was beaten in the primaries but, he very well may have a point on Palin.

Basically, he says that the truly horrid VP roll out means nothing because Palin has energized the base and thereby put into play the GOP ground game for the election.

Definitely worth a read.

Palin: the new Eagleton

OK. I'm going on the record here. Sarah Palin will withdraw as McCain's VP.

Why?

Well, she is just getting killed as are republicans trying to defend her. It seems like every hour there is a new revelation about her and none of it is good.

So far I count the following:

1. Troopergate: They have got a confession on tape from an aid and emails. I suspect they will be able to prove abuse of power
2. for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it
3. Member of the Alaska Secessionist Party
4. Directed fundraising for Indicted Sen Stevens' 527
5. Totally unqualified for the job
oh and...
6. Has a 17 yr old who is 5 months pregnant (although I put this at the bottom of the disqualifying items since it should not matter at all)

This VP rollout was just so so badly managed by the McCain campaign. It is clear they did not vet her at all, no matter how much they deny it.

So, I can safely say she will not be on the ballot come November. If I had to hazard a guess, if she has another bad news day tomorrow, by Wednesday afternoon she will withdraw. If she can somehow survive the week, I give it no more than 2 weeks.

DNC 2008: Day 4 The Speech

Damn near perfect.

Watch or read it. My thoughts would only diminish it.

DNC 2008: Day 2

Well, day 2 is over. The red meat was served with a dessert of Unity.

Thoughts:

Sebelius: Ok speech, but I see now why she was not picked as VP. The majority of her speech covered Obama's economic proposals and the delivery was a little flat, but she had a great dig on McCain:

I’m sure you remember a girl from Kansas who said there’s no place like home. Well, in John McCain’s version, there’s no place like home. And a home. And home. And home.

Strickland: Good speech, although, again, not someone who fires up a room but an awesome line:

George W. Bush came into office on third base… and then he stole second. And John McCain cheered him every step of the way.

Casey: Very good speech, again average delivery. I heard Carville on CNN say that the Democrats have some pretty major league talent at the top of their talent pool after Clintons speech (more on that below) but, I must say after Obama and Clinton and (hopefully) Biden, there seems to be a big drop in ability to give a speech. In any event, Casey also had an awesome line:

John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush more than 90% of the time. That’s not a maverick, that’s a sidekick.

Rendell: Delivered a speech that was pretty "meaty" lots of digs, but I still think he underperformed given his reputation.

Before I get to the big 3, some pleasant surprises:

Dennis Kucinich: wow. he was fired up and ready to go. maybe too much, and, on reflection being surprised by Kucinich is probably normal.

David Patterson: what a surprise. Why this guy had to inherit the NY Gov. office is beyond me.

The "Real People": every one of the folks who came out and told their stories was very good, especially Lilly Leadbetter.

Xavier Becerra: very good.

Rahm Emanuel: I know why he's such a behind the scenes guy, and I expected him to come out and just hammer away but he was underwhelming. I have seen talk here and there that he may be a president/vice president some day. He's got a ways to go.

Deval Patrick: Very well done and delivered although I think it could have been more energizing.

Ok, now for the big 3 speeches:

Mark Warner: Pretty good speech. I was a little apprehensive about him, but he did OK and I am not sure this was a "keynote" worthy speech. But that's OK because the last 2 speeches of the night made up for it.

Brian Schweitzer: Just awesome how he took a speech on energy independence and just fired out the delegates is beyond me. What a character! My favorite dig (no pun intended):

We simply can’t drill our way to energy independence, even if you drilled in all of John McCain’s backyards, including the ones he can’t even remember.

After Schweitzer's speech, I would thought Clinton would have an even harder task than the one she faced, but, I have to agree with the CW (and I am not a Hillary fan) that she hit a grand slam. I watched a lot of her speeches during the primary and have to say this was the best speech I have ever seen her give.

She set the tone right off the bat:

No way, no how, no McCain

And the key quote:

I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years. Those are the reasons I ran for president, and those are the reasons I support Barack Obama for president. I want you -- I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that young boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

She went after McCain pretty hard:

it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart.

And she finished great.

Now, I do wish she had addressed the commander in chief BS that she let loose in the primaries as that is what the rethugs went for after her speech. But overall I don't know what else Obama supporters could have asked for.

So where does that leave us?

Well, first, I wish the hell they would get control of the delegates more. Their constant unruliness during the speeches is annoying and is taking away from the non-prime time speakers. Moreover, even the cable news channels are not showing speeches due to the fact, I suspect, that nobody seems to be paying attention. Every now and then the will stop their constant prognosticating and cut to the podium but only after the delegates have gotten ahold of themselves and start responding to the speakers. You can be sure that the rethugs are going to sit still and silent for 4 hours each day next week and, as a result, a lot of their non prime time speakers are going to get cable news time.

Second, the PUMAs are DOA after Clinton's speech. She has rightfully chastised them. If Obama can't get them, they were never going to be gotten and they need to be written off.

Finally, Day 3 and 4 have been teed up (just as I suspect the Obama campaign had hoped) with Michelle Obama's wonderful speech and Clinton's near pitch perfect unity speech. Biden has to come out and just let loose on McCain and Obama has to give the best speech ever (and given his track record, that is a very very high bar indeed).

DNC 2008: Day 1 Thoughts

First off some thoughts on day 1 of the Democratic National Convention:

I watched most of the convention on CSPAN yesterday, so I (thankfully) missed most of the talking heads and heard all of the speakers. The big take away for me is this: Michelle Obama's speech was a home run. The best of the night. Ted Kennedy's tribute and speech was very moving and probably should have been bumped later in order for it to be shown on the networks.

As for the rest, as is typical for democrats, the conventioneers were an unruly bunch for nearly everything except the Kennedy and Obama speeches, which took away from some very good speakers. Pelosi's speech was OK as was McCaskill's, I thought Jim Leach's speech was excellent, sadly he is not a great speaker and the refusal of the delegates to shut up hurt him. Jessie Jackson, Jrs. speech was very well done, he was probably the best after Obama and Kennedy.

The big controversy is whether the first night was wasted by not going after McCain more. I have to agree that the delegates are hungry for and need "red meat" attacks, but last night was probably not the night to do it. We will see what tonight holds.

As for tonight, Clinton is the big speaker and she has a lot on the line (as does Obama). Early word is that Mark Warner, the keynoter, will not be going after McCain so the task will fall on Clinton.

Finally some random thoughts:

* Bill Clinton needs to STFU. It has almost come to the point that Obama may have to dis-invite him from speaking. How fast can Gore get to Denver to take his spot?

* The press seems more concerned with the Hillary Dead-Enders than the delegates seem to be.

* Picking Warner as the keynote may have been a mistake. We will see tonight.

* The Obama girls were awesome and I loved the way the corrected their Dad's misstatement of what city he was in.

* Hillary Clinton needs to put an end to this roll call controversy.

* Why the hell can't the networks show the conventions for more than 1 hour a night? You would think they could take 2 weeks every four years.

* The Cable news shows have too many rethugs on. I hope the dems get equal time next week. (and an idea: Biden and Obama should show up at the RNC next week)

Looks like it is Biden

Well, so much for the text message....

Shortly after midnight on August 23, the news networks, and major newspapers began reporting that Barack Obama asked Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware to be his VP.

Unless this is some brilliant head fake (and the evidence seems to be the following: the secret service showing up at Biden's home, and at least a couple of anonymous democratic officials confirming it as well as statements from the camps of other VP hopefuls that they were told that they had not been picked), it looks like this is the real deal.

As I mentioned the other day, I thought Biden was probably Obama's second pick. I thought he would pick Kathleen Sebelius. I guess not, but I am happy it is Biden. He brings a lot to the table and it is going to be fun watching him tear John McCain up.

Some random thoughts....

* Biden is 65. So clearly he is not going to be President (he would be 74 if Obama/Biden gets 2 terms)
* I hope the story of how the pick was made comes out someday. It has to be a good one.
* Don't be surprised if Biden's son is named/runs for his senate seat (not sure how Delaware would pick Biden's replacement)
* My parents live about 10 minutes from Biden. Hope he doesn't shut down the roads a lot over the next four years (LOL)

Back in the Saddle: 76 Days until E-Day

As usual for me, posts to this blog have been few and far between. What can I say, life happens. But, as of today, there are 76 days until election day. I am going to try and get at least one post a day from here on out. Hopefully these posts will be more than just a recap of the days news however, for today at least, it will have to be just a summary of where I think the election stands.

So, here goes...

Obviously right now the issue consuming the most attention is who will be Obama's VP. The conventional wisdom is that it is going to be Joe Biden. I am not so convinced.

The thinking behind Biden is that he would help shore up Obama's perceived weakness in national security and be a great attack dog. However, I think Obama is not thinking that way. He has made it clear that he is confident in his ability to handle foreign policy and does not view it as a weakness at all and that the primary criteria for his selection is going to be someone who he can work with, agrees with him on his "new politics" philosophy.

If I had to guess who his pick is going to be I would put my money on Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. Picking her fulfills all of the criteria listed above and all the criteria Obama has laid out to the press for his VP.

Now, the Clinton lovers will probably go ballistic over this pick but I view that as an added benefit to picking Sebelius. Obama has made it pretty clear he has bent over backwards to accommodate the Clintons (prime time convention speaking slots, roll call votes, the stupid statement in the party platform about the "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling", changing portions of his health care proposal to reflect the Clinton plan, helping Clinton retire her debt) and, up until now, he has gotten little to show for it (see Bill Clintons statements re: qualification for president, compliments regarding John McCain's environmental record). By picking Sebelius the message to the Clinton dead enders is this: Hey. Here's a qualified women who shares my philosophy. If you really think its Hillary or no one else then you are a bunch of hypocrites and I don't need you. Either get on board the train or not.

Is it a gamble? Yes. Right now the polls show that where Obama is under performing is with democrats (he is getting about 80% of the self-identified democrats in most of the polls I have seen, which is less than Kerry got). If he can bump that up to about 90% of self-identified democrats, he wins the election. Picking a women (even though it is not Hillary) would do two things: attempt to lure some of those dems back into the fold and, given who Sebelius is and her record, make a serious play for the rational wing of the republican party.

So, that's my guess. As to the timing: I would not be surprised if he did not announce until Saturday morning although I think the Obama campaign is open to announcing earlier, depending on the news cycle (for example, how much air time is the new - and most likely flawed - Zogby poll showing McCain with a lead for the first time going to get? If it gets too much, then maybe the VP announcement comes to get it out of the headlines).