|
||||||
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
< BACK TO Fresh Intelligence Who Won Last Night's Presidential Debate?Here are the campaign's professional spinners advocating for their candidates. The focus groups all seemed to think that Obama won it, and the general consensus in the press is that even though McCain did better than expected, it wasn't anywhere near enough to what he had to do if he wanted to change the dynamic of the debate. The general consensus in these parts is can we please not do this again for at least four years? Anyway, here's a round-up of some of the commentariat's reactions to last night's agonizing yakfest: James Fallows, the Atlantic: "From a horse-race perspective, John McCain came in behind and losing ground, in the middle of a financial/economic panic that works against him, and therefore needing a big win. This meant either damaging and flummoxing Obama, or so outshining him in audience rapport, mastery of policy, and empathetic connection through the camera, that the debate could be presented as a turning point. None of that happened. (McCain's best performance was at the end, rejecting a 'Yes/No' question on whether Russia is an 'evil empire.') At this stage in the race, a tie goes to the leader, and this was not even a tie." Mickey Kaus, Slate: "A dull debate in a dead room. Each stole the other's theme: Obama called for service to country, McCain for a "cool hand on the tiller" even as he seemed like a hyperactive hand himself. A tie helps Obama, and this probably wasn't even a tie. " John Marshall, TPM: "This debate struck me as a marginal victory for Obama on points, but because of the state of the race a substantial victory in terms of the overall race." Marc Cooper, L.A. Weekly, The Nation: "Nothing changed Tuesday night. At least, nothing good for McCain. Millions of viewers were starkly reminded of the generational divide that undergirds this election. A physically awkward McCain, sporting his now trademark sort of forced smile, was dwarfed onstage by a fluid, graceful and absolutely poised Barack Obama, nearly thirty years his junior. A SurveyUSA post debate poll scored the match as a crushing 54-29% win for Obama. Not a single windy CNN pundit, including GOP uber-partisans like Bill Bennett or Alex Castellanos were willing to give the thumbs-up for their own guy." Paul Mirengoff, Power Line: "A win on the visuals and at least a draw on substance (if that's a fair assessment) is a win for Obama at this point. So tonight he moves a little closer to the presidency. I continue to believe that voters will subject him to one more round of serious scrutiny when the debates are over. Tonight's performance marginally enhances his chance of surviving that scrutiny, which was already pretty good." James Wolcott, Vanity Fair: "And although Obama is winning, neither he nor McCain seems to have a genuine grasp of how grave our economic situation is, how stark the prospect of a looming possible Depression. You'd never know from this evening that 5000 Dow points have been lopped since the previous debate and that those retired or near retirement have seen their portfolios crushed and have no hopes of recouping those losses in their nonproductive years." Noam Schreiber, New Republic: "McCain faced a tough choice coming into this debate: He could make a dramatic move, which might help close the gap but could also reinforce his unsteadiness. Or he could try to look mature and reassuring, which might ease his perception problem but wouldn't instantly affect the polls. Tonight McCain pulled off an impressive feat: He managed to do nothing particularly dramatic, yet still give the impression that he's old and unsteady. I see very little for him to build on." Bill Whittle, National Review: "This was not a great night for our team. It's up to the 527's now I think. I don't know how else to get the negatives about Obama out there." Andrew Sullivan, Crazytown: "This was, I think, a mauling: a devastating and possibly electorally fatal debate for McCain. Even on Russia, he sounded a little out of it. I've watched a lot of debates and participated in many. I love debate and was trained as a boy in the British system to be a debater. I debated dozens of times at Oxofrd. All I can say is that, simply on terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this has not just been an Obama victory. It has been a wipe-out.It has been about as big a wipe-out as I can remember in a presidential debate. It reminds me of the 1992 Clinton-Perot-Bush debate. I don't really see how the McCain campaign survives this." As I said one comment thread ago, OVER. And Oxford is misspelled in Sullivan's quote, which is unforgivable.
Posted by: sailor on October 8, 2008 10:41 AM RE: TO THE NEXT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEW PRESIDENT: SIR:
Because of MAIN STREET! Because of WALL STREET! Because of the final electoral sprint - ending soon next coming november 2008 - while THE WHOLE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has its eyes on YOU. Everyone expects You to be democratically elected and see that something happen in America. In March 1983, one of humanity's most famous spokesmen, Pope John Paul II, came to our country - 'Haîti' - and loudly proclaimed what each and every one of us had been whispering: 'Something must change here.' Today, more than ever, a lot of people of The United States of America stand up, longing for something and working to make something happen. "Go thou America ahead and show us thy true countenance in a positive light.' It is up to everyone to play his or her part in order to let thee regain thy mark of excellence !" With this letter, I am communicating with You, SIR, and with the whole people of The United States of America. You offer this country what it takes to be a 'Wonderfull Land.' Yes, let us say 'with a great people living and working together.' Go thou, America, go ahead, following in the footsteps of one of thy sons who is now becoming one of thy statesmen. With this in mind, to whom else could I entrust this letter sent to his Holiness Pope John Paul II when he set foot on Haitian soil for the first time, as well as its acknowledgment by the Vatican? That letter to Pope John Paul II is intended to draw attention to the problem posed by anti-Black discrimination and its negative repercussions on the advancement of scientific progress in the West, and more precisely in the realm of Optics. In the Western world, according to Newton's widely accepted theory, white is considered to be the synthesis of all colors. Actually, the opposite is true. White constitutes the analysis or 'visible' decoding of light or color, whereas black is its synthesis or 'invisible' composition. In other words, darkness or blackness and, we might add, "Black Holes'" - a scientific misnomer designating invisible stars or 'Black Suns' - are a source of energy and light. Scientifically, Industrially and Economically speaking, what an asset ! That basic raw material of light energy culminates, in its most radiant form, in the neutralization of all the colors of the spectrum in the form of usually called "white light." Therefore "absolute blackness", the absorption of all the colors, is a divisible component of light. Needless to say, Newton's theory gives only a partial interpretation of the notion of light, by excluding black. Our contribution aims at demonstrating that the black color is not only an integral part of the color process, but its true synthesis. Light is therefore shown to be a divisible whole comprising an intensity or color scale in which black is the invisible or 'absorbed' form of the energy in question. Allow me, SIR, in order to support my statement concerning Black Holes and radiation, to pose a question asked by Hubert Reeves, Doctor of nuclear astrophysics and Scientific Consultant to NASA: "What would have become of the Sun, if it were plunged into a high temperature radiance like the one that existed at the beginning of the Universe? [our translation]" "Instead of emitting light, it would absorb it and, in the end, it would be completely reabsorbed into the cosmic fluid." The cosmic fluid is what, due to an "optical mistake", is called "darkness" or the "blackness of Space". We are talking about the electromagnetic flux, that immeasurable ocean in which the planets and stars are bathed, like the sea which links all the continents together. Darkness is thus "The Sea of Space." "What would have happened if, instead of an ordinary star like the "White Sun", a Black Hole or "Black Sun" were injected into that primordial radiation?" "According to Einsteinian Physics, a Black Hole is a place where gravity is so formidably intense that nothing can escape it, not even visible light. Such a hole should suck in and absorb radiation and increase its own mass: E=MC2, always." "But after Einstein came Bohr, Heisenberg, and Quantum Physic. From then on, nothing was the same as before." "The Einsteinian version of the Black Hole is equivalent to a statement that the matter inside the Black Hole is definitely there to stay, in that volume of space. Let us quote Hubert Reeves: "Such an absolute statement is thus contrary to the "Quantum spirit", affirming that nothing is definitely localized in one place. There is always a probability of escape. If the enclosing wall is too high, a tunnel will be dug; if the prisoners are patient, they will escape. One has only to wait." [our translation] "According to that principle, Black Holes "evaporate". Matter constantly escapes as radiation. Black Holes "shine!" Their surfaces behave like those of any body heated to a certain temperature and that radiation endlessly feeds that marvelous "Cosmic Fluid" which, wrongly and in bad faith, people keep calling "Darkness." Nigra sum "sed" formosa! Yes, but should we not say instead, I am black "and" comely? Darkness, which is both source and vehicle of light, does not have to defend itself for being the beautiful and infinitely discreet raw material of the Universe. Darkness is the "Mother of the Universe." Also, beautiful and discreet art thou, Haiti. Discreet, yes, but never outshone! Just like the Black Virgin who inspires and sheds her love on thee from the hilltop and even beyond Cité Soleil (Sun City). Our purpose was to offer a more constructive approach aiming at correcting the abusive traditional, so-called scientific, theories of Optics. It's like to say that in the exceptional circumstances in which we live today - in the point of view of FINANCE and ENERGY - no exploration in the mid or long term, by the american expertise , of an additional source of energy, at the same time safe and economically profitable, should not be ruled out. That is why, we wrote to that authentic witness to the signs of this age, His Holiness Pope John Paul II, the prophet of the new era. Congratulations to You, Sir, and congratulations to the PEOPLE of The United States Of America - for having made it possible for this day of November to come - to mark the beginning of a "New Era of Hope !" Lucien Bonnet PLease, SEE : Posted by: Lucide on October 8, 2008 12:12 PM Yeah, what he said. Posted by: SarahHeartburn on October 8, 2008 12:52 PM I can give you some George Reeves. Or, how about Steve Reeves? Posted by: KarenUhOh on October 8, 2008 3:03 PM Advertisement |
   
|
|
 |
|
 | ||||
Back
Christie Brinkley Practically Forced Peter Cook To Screw a Teenager