11:30 PM:  The clear winner of tonight’s debate was me — for making the decision to sip whiskey while I was watching it.  Time for bed. 

11:25 PM:  Marc Ambinder points to a CBS poll of undecideds that give Obama the edge by a pretty wide margin — but as Nate Silver points out, “Obama didn’t win by anything like a 2:1 margin.”  CNN just reported a post debate poll that had Obama winning 51% to 38%, but I have no idea how they weighted their sample.   

11:10 PM:  Gee, Joe Biden went on CNN to do post-debate spin.  Sarah Palin?  CNN asked her on, but she mysteriously failed to show. 

10:58 PM:  I think the fallout from the debate rides on the following: 

1. Given McCain’s erratic behavior this past week, did his decent debate performance improve voter perceptions?
2. McCain kept reiterating that Obama’s foreign policy approach was naive.  Did voters agree with that perception?
3. Which clips get repeated on YouTube? 
4. What does Henry Kissinger really think? 

10:49 PM:  Watching the post-debate on CNN… and I’m struck that the GOP operatives are praising McCain for the very things that they derided Al Gore about in 2000.  “He cited a lot of names!”

10:37 PM:  Thank god that’s over… I think both of them did better once the questions shifted towards foreign policy.  On a tactical level, I’d give the edge to McCain for trying to hammer home the contrast between his experience and Obama’s alleged naivete.  On a strategic level, I think Obama did hold his own on the issues –and by demonstrating a coherent connection between strength at home and strength abroad, refuted McCain’s claim. 

10:30 PM:  McCain is clearly doing everything possible to demonstrate that a) he’s been around the block on foreign policy, and b) Obama is naive on foreign policy questions.  I think McCain has had the snappier one-liners in this debate, but I don’t think sheer repetition on this point is really going to fly. 

10:27 PM:  On Russia, McCain gave an answer that sounded like Al Gore in 2000 — “see how many names I can list?”  Obama gave a decent answer that connected Russia to energy security — but McCain had a good comeback on no one from Arizona not opposing solar power. 

10:16 PM:  The Iran question is the first one of the night when I saw a clear-cut winner — Obama cleaned McCain’s clock (right until McCain gave a mock dialogue on taking with Iran, which probably played well). 

10:07 PM:  And at the fifty-seven minute mark, the Official Blog Wife has fallen asleep. 

10:04 PM:  McCain implies that a League of Democracies could impose meaningful sanctions on Iran — which is, I’m sorry, horses$#t.  India won’t sign onto it.  South Africa won’t sign onto it.  Brazil won’t sign onto it.  And, obviously, Russia and China won’t sign onto it.  Which means it’s a toothless claim. 

9:59 PM:  I was actually pretty impressed with both of their first responses on Pakistan… until McCain started yammering on about his biography. 

9:49 PM:  McCain is not really addressing the question on Iraq, going back to talking points.  Obama seems dtermined to go back to 2003 in answering the question.  A draw on this question — which is a question where McCain would be expected to trump McCain.

9:42 PM:  Obama says that, “Al Qaeda is stronger than at any time since 2001″?  Really?  Juan Cole would beg to differ. 

9:39 PM:  And we have our first foreign policy question during the foreign policy debate.

9:38 PM:  McCain repeats the Miss Congeniality line. 

9:36 PM:  I think McCain is going after the veteran vote…

9:26 PM:  Ah, that implant I put into Lehrer’s brain is working….

9:23 PM:  So I’m getting the sense that Obama is not a libertarian…

9:21 PM:  Why is neither candidate discussing how the cost of the bailout package affects their fiscal plans?  Why isn’t Lehrer pressing them?

9:15 PM:  McCain, “the evils of earmarking”!!!!  Look, I don’t like this stuff, but “evil”?

9:13 PM:  I’m already depressed, because the answers so far are almost… Palinesque. 

9:11 PM:  From the wife:  “Lehrer is like a couples therapist — ‘Talk to each other!  Talk to each other!’”

9:08 PM:  Lehrer, “Let’s get back to my question (about the bailout).”  Good for him!  Except that since the plan is kind of changing, it’s a bit meaningless. 

9:06 PM:  Obama’s opening was… eh.  McCain was smart to give a shout out to Kennedy.

9:02 PM:  Hey, the global financial crisis is part of foreign policy!!  

9:01 PM:  In accordance with the wishes of the Official Blog Wife, we’re watching this on PBS… even Jim Lehrer seems a wee bit nervous… and, I might add, the sound synch is a bit off…. switching to CNN… oh sweet Jesus, what the hell is going on here?  Switch madly to ABC… ahhhhh. 

8:55 PM:  Due to the financial crisis, the blog has had to make some adjustments.  In completely unrelated news, have I mentioned that the best way to watch this debate is with a glass of Johnny Walker Blue?

8:53 PM:  Hmmmm…. TNT is showing Con Air, and USA has a House marathon, and the Red Sox game is underway [Resist!!  Resist!!--ed.] 

In a few hours, the hard-working staff here at danieldrezner.com will be here to liveblog tonight’s economic policy foreign policy probably a bit of both debate.  If the press releases are to be believed, each side thinks the other side’s guy is an awesome debater.  

Until then, you have time in the comments to offer drinking game tips to watch the debate.  I think one way to guarantee that you’re completely sloshed by the ten minute mark is to drink any time either of the candidates says the words “I resent….” 

Tagged as: fence-sitting, politics

Posted by Dan     7 Comments »

Let’s sum up the state of the GOP, shall we? 

• The initial Treasury plan for the financial crisis was so absurdly short and vague that it was a no-go from the start;
• The House GOP proposals to deal with the mess are, according to sympathetic conservatives, not realistic.  According to other observers, they’re f#$king ridiculous.  Ed Rollins thinks they’re putting party over country.  As Hugh Hewitt points out, “intransigence in the minority during a crisis is nothing except a suicidal indifference to both the economic emergency and the reality of the possibility of panic.”  
• The former House Speaker is urging the current GOP caucus in the House to stand firm on the ridiculous proposal. 
• The current GOP nominee has careened every which way on the financial mess in the past two weeks.  He then “suspends” his campaign to help solve the problem in DC, urging his Democratic counterpart to postpone the debates.  After doing nothing of substance, he then reverses his position and agrees to debate tonight. 
• The current VP candidate is so incoherent in her press interviews that the most sympathetic explanation for her behavior is that she knows she’s out of her league. 

There’s plenty I could say about Democrats — to quote Kevin Drum, “will you just pass the fucking thing?”  But I’m more concerned about the party I called home for twenty years. 

Has the behavior of any Republican other than Ben Bernanke and Bob Bennett inspired confidence in the GOP’s leadership and governance abilities? 

Tagged as: politics

Posted by Dan     8 Comments »

One of the conundrums about what I do for a living is that it’s good for my profession when we live in interesting times — and by “interesting” I mean, “teetering on the brink of disaster. ”

Today is gonna be an interesting day.

First, there’s going to be the market and political reaction to yesterday’s bipartisan compromise failure to reach agreement on the bailout plan, and the extent to which John McCain is responsible.  There are conflicting accounts about what exactly happened — but I’m curious to see if a consensus emerges during the day about a) a bailout plan; and b) Obama and McCain’s role in a bailout plan. 

My one substantive thought about this:  I don’t like the “tranche” idea of giving Treasury the money in installments.  The one reason I can see for Treasury’s $700 billion number was to signal to the markets that the Mother of All Backstops is available to insure liquidity and solvency in the financial system.  If you segment that out, it weakens and dilutes the signal (see Greg Mankiw for a longer defense of the contours of the Treasury plan).   

My one political thought about this:  Hey, remember when McCain and Obama claimed, again and again, that they could reach across party aisles to get things done?  During this crisis, has either of them taken a step that even remotely backs up this claim?  If I were Obama, I’d give Boehner a call just to leak the fact that I’d tried to reach out — same with McCain and Pelosi. 

Second, there’s the debate tonight.  Nate Silver makes a shrewd point here:   

Perhaps, however, rather than trying to postpone the debate, McCain is instead seeking to increase its importance. Surely the drama of the past 30 hours has made it an even more captivating event, probably leading to increased viewership. Moreover, with the subject matter likely to be expanded to include the economy, and the candidates having had less time to prepare, the entire exercise becomes less predictable, with gaffes more likely to occur, but also the potential for “clutch” performances.

I don’t think McCain intended to do this — that would require long-term thinking and based one what he’s said in the past two weeks I don’t think McCain’s time horizon extends past 12 hours on anything right now.  What matters is that McCain’s actions have undoubtedly upped the ante tonight. 

I’ll definitely be live-blogging the debate — so be sure to show up!

Have an interesting day!

UPDATE:  Slate suggests other McCain gambits that we might see.  My fave — “Sells Alaska to Russia for $700 billion.”

More seriously, I’m wondering if McCain will attempt the Albright Maneuver.  When Madeleine Albright was U.N. Ambassador, she would sometmes atten NSC meetings by satellite.  This had the psychological effect of increasing her leverage at the meetings, because she was a giant talking head on a big screen. 

I would not be surprised if sometime in the next few hours the McCain campaign offers the following to the Commission on Presidential Debates — “I’m not going to Oxford, MS, but I’ll appear via satellite from my Senate office because I’m working so hard on this bailout.”  Wouldn’t that be the ultimate brinksmanship play?

ANOTHER UPDATE:  No Albright Maneuver: 

Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans.  The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon.  Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.

Tagged as: economics, politics

Posted by Dan     8 Comments »

Um…. here’s the latest Palin interview snippet:

[But what about Joe Biden?  He recently f#$%ed up in interview situations as well!!--ed.]  Duly noted and linked.  The difference to me might be one of expectations.  I already knew that Biden is a blowhard and ready at a moment’s notice to say something silly.  But I also know that, in the past, Biden has been willing to own up to his own stupidities.  I also know that, prtisanship aside, Biden actually has an interest in foreign affairs, governing, that sort of stuff.

All I know about Sarah Palin is the following:

• She’s a hockey mom
• She has less than two years of experience as governor
• She has yet to utter a coherent sentence on foreign policy

Am I missing anything?

UPDATE:  OK, I’ve finally found a situation where I feel the need to defend Sarah Palin! 

Chris Orr links to this Thinkprogress video, observing, “Note the frequent glances at what appear to be notes in her lap.”: 

Actually, what I noticed is that Couric glanced down at her notes more frequently than Palin!  

As Palin videos go, this one is less damning than most.

Tagged as: politics

Posted by Dan     41 Comments »

The New York Times reports that, “Lawmakers indicated Thursday that they were close to hashing out an agreement on a proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial system, hours before a meeting at the White House to complete the deal.” 

Here’s my question — given how McCain has played this, doesn’t he have a massive incentive to prevent any consensus out until, oh, say, after Friday’s debate? 

Ah, sure enough, we get to this paragraph: 

Speaking at a gathering in Midtown Manhattan, Senator McCain, in comments that ran counter to those of Congressional Democrats, said on Thursday morning that no consensus had developed among lawmakers to support the bailout plan.

Of course, a consensus puts McCain in a real bind — he can’t claim to be exercising leadership if a consensus is happening without him.  On the other hand, he can’t exactly block consensus, cause that would look kind of political. 

The very interesting question of the day is what the Bush administration and congressional Republicans will do. 

Developing….

UPDATE:  Ah, great minds think alike…. and then there’s me and James Pethokoukis.  He asks a similar question: 

How the bailout turns! If John McCain came out against the Paulson Plan, effectively killing it, would he not a) likely vault back into the lead vs.Barack Obama by opposing a trillion dollar bailout—maverick style!—that voters hate even if they think it somehow necessary, b) lock up working-class, “Sam’s Club” voters in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and c) send the base into Palinesque waves of ecstasy since Newt Gingrich/Rush Limbaugh/ Conservative Blogosphere have been ripping the bailout to shreds?

But wouldn’t McCain also risk a) forever alienating wealthy economic conservatives in Manhattan and Connecticut, b) looking like he is stabbing the White House in the back, and c) sending the markets into a death spiral?

I have to think that last point is the one that matters.  I don’t doubt that the bailout is unpopular, but I’m betting that death spiral capital markets will cause a pretty rapid shift in public opinion. 

UPDATE:  Politico’s Martin Kady II reports on an agreement on “principles.”  This quote stood out: 

Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), the top GOP negotiator in the Senate, said, “We have a plan that will pass the House, pass the Senate and be signed by the president, and bring certainty to the markets.”

Has McCain arrived in DC yet? 

Tagged as: politics

Posted by Dan     5 Comments »

Clearly, I don’t get the political allure of Sarah Palin.  So I’m going to ask her defenders — what positive leadership or political attributes did she display in this interview?   

Clearly, I need the expertise of the Palinphiles, because I’ve come to the conclusion that Campbell Brown is dead wrong. 

Tagged as: politics

Posted by Dan     24 Comments »

Wait, you mean this only works for presidential candidates? 

Comment away on this.  The policy wonk in me is flabbertgasted at the chutzpah involved in this move — seriously, if you take all of his pronouncements about the financial crisis over the past two weeks and consider them together, and it’s hard not to agree with Virginia Postrel. 

The politics junkie in me admires both the creativity and long-shot nature of the gambit as a way to change the media narrative. 

UPDATE:  I agree with John Dickerson’s take in Slate:

It’s not clear what exactly McCain is going to do in Washington. He doesn’t sit on any of the relevant committees and everyone is already deep in negotiations. Still, he’s coming anyway. It doesn’t make much logical sense. The only way to understand it is politically: In a presidential campaign, the surest sign that a candidate is playing politics on an issue is when he claims not to be playing politics on an issue. The only way for McCain to convince everyone that his intentions are 100 percent pure is for him to drop out of the race completely. A campaign doesn’t end—and its distracting affects don’t disappear—just because one candidate says so.

It’s hard to believe that McCain’s actions would pass his own laugh test. In fact, he’s often snickered at his fellow senators who come in at the eleventh hour to lend a hand after McCain has done the hard work. But the McCain campaign is past caring about how journalists (or colleagues) view his moves. He hopes the rest of the country will see this as a leadership moment….

Whether McCain’s crazy gambit is seen as desperate or brilliant, it doesn’t matter. Either way, it’s probably not the last. The beneficial effects of the Palin Hail Mary lasted only a few weeks, and another adrenaline injection was needed. If this one doesn’t work, that’s OK—in due time they can try another razzle-dazzle play. And if it does work, that’s great—in due time they can still try another razzle-dazzle play. It all makes the prospect of a McCain White House very exciting. So exciting, he might want to schedule periodic suspensions of his presidency to get anything done.

Apropos of a comment, I think we can label this the Favre-ization of the McCain campaign. 

Tagged as: politics

Posted by Dan     15 Comments »

The country is in the middle of a very serious financial crisis.  The Grey Lady is probably receiving an onslaught of op-ed submissions to publish in order to make sense of the current situaion.

It is quite curious, then, that the New York Times decided to run with two pieces of dreck. 

James Grant’s op-ed is about a good topic — the role of the dollar as a reserve currency — but it’s way long on assertion and way short on evidence. 

In the best of times, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve pretended as if the dollar were America’s currency alone. Now, in some of the worst of times, Washington is treating its vital overseas dollar constituency as if it weren’t even there.

Which failing financial institution will the administration pluck from the flames of crisis? Which will it let roast? Which market, or investment technique, will the regulators bless? Which — in a capricious change of the rules — will it condemn or outlaw? Just how shall the Treasury secretary spend the $700 billion he’s begging for? Viewed from Wall Street, the administration’s recent actions appear erratic enough. Seen from the perch of a foreign investor, they must look very much like “political risk,” a phrase we Americans usually associate with so-called emerging markets, not with our own very developed one.

To which I say, “huh?”  It’s pretty clear that foreign investors played a significant role in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout.  It’s pretty clear that foreign banks are going to be in on the “toxic debt” bailout.  Despite the exercise of democratic debate dickering, it’s pretty clear that there is going to be a bailout.  And it’s pretty clear that U.S. debt remains the safe haven. 

Grant raises an interesting possibility — but provides zero evidence (beyond yesterday’s decline in the dollar) to back it up. 

Today’s other op-ed is from Barbara Ehrenreich, who thinks Americans are too damn cheery:

Positive thinking is endemic to American culture — from weight loss programs to cancer support groups — and in the last two decades it has put down deep roots in the corporate world as well. Everyone knows that you won’t get a job paying more than $15 an hour unless you’re a “positive person,” and no one becomes a chief executive by issuing warnings of possible disaster….

Americans did not start out as deluded optimists. The original ethos, at least of white Protestant settlers and their descendants, was a grim Calvinism that offered wealth only through hard work and savings, and even then made no promises at all. You might work hard and still fail; you certainly wouldn’t get anywhere by adjusting your attitude or dreamily “visualizing” success.

Calvinists thought “negatively,” as we would say today, carrying a weight of guilt and foreboding that sometimes broke their spirits. It was in response to this harsh attitude that positive thinking arose — among mystics, lay healers and transcendentalists — in the 19th century, with its crowd-pleasing message that God, or the universe, is really on your side, that you can actually have whatever you want, if the wanting is focused enough.

When it comes to how we think, “negative” is not the only alternative to “positive.” As the case histories of depressives show, consistent pessimism can be just as baseless and deluded as its opposite. The alternative to both is realism — seeing the risks, having the courage to bear bad news and being prepared for famine as well as plenty. We ought to give it a try.

I’d buy this “realism rather than negativism” argument more if it wasn’t for the fact that Ehrenreich’s daughter once told me how Ehrenreich thought about the U.S. economy: 

 Soooo…. better op-eds, please, so I don’t have to blog about this crap. 

Tagged as: Mediasphere, economics

Posted by Dan     1 Comment »

Here’s the latest Obama ad for Michigan: 

I have no doubt this will play in Michigan – but the ad has a different effect on your humble blogger: 

1. The ad implies that Obama’s willing to give out loan guarantees to Detroit.  Question to Obama’s economic team — are there any industries you are not going to offer a federal handout?  And no, oil doesn’t count. 
2. My Democrat friends keep insisting that Obama doesn’t mean any of his protectionist rhetoric.  But how many ads about “shipping jobs overseas” does it take for one to wonder about Obama’s foreign economic policy? 
3. This ad actually brings up one of the few actual “straight talk” moments for McCain in this campaign — when he told Michigan auto workers that he wasn’t going to be able to bring their jobs back. 
4. One of the side benefits of the widening number of swing states is that the rust belt starts to matter less.  Which means that maybe in another election cycle or two protectionist pandering like this becomes less necessary [You're dreaming, you know that, right?--ed.  Oh, let me have this fantasy.]

I’m not necessarily going to vote for McCain — but ads like this sure don’t give me warm fuzzies about Obama. 

Tagged as: politics

Posted by Dan     22 Comments »

Your humble blogger is giving a talk today in the Pioneer Valley and will therefore be out of contact for a while. 

Readers are encouraged to post, in comments, their imagined transcript between GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger when they meet at the United Nations later today. 

I just hope it doesn’t go like this:

UPDATE:  Well, I have to say that the commenters came up with much more imaginative stuff than the poor pool reporter. 

Tagged as: U.S. foreign policy, politics

Posted by Dan     11 Comments »