Even Camp Kerry isn't immune!

(Amazon now says that Tom's new book is scheduled to street on November 9th, incidentally.)

Update: The New York Times has a fun profile of Tom. You may want to read it from the printer version though: that's some photo the Times chose to accompany every page of the Web version of the article.

Wolfe sums up the what's driven the conflicts of the 20th century pretty nicely in this segment:

Wolfe says he believes in something he calls ''the matrix,'' and his matrix has remained remarkably consistent over the years, as have so many of his ideas. The matrix, in the Wolfean scheme of things, is a grand unifying explanation, a theory of life. ''You have to have a theory,'' he explained last summer, ''and it doesn't really matter what the theory is -- it will force you to make connections.'' (One character in Wolfe's new novel belongs to a group called the Millennial Mutants, who dream of coming up with a new matrix, which is a key to membership in the aristo-meritocracy.) ''For much of Western history, the theory of life is Christianity, but then Marxism comes along and that will work, or Darwinism or Freudianism.''

So far today I've been autodialed with (recorded) messages from Jerry Brown and a woman who's name I can't remember, but she was a Democrat as well. I didn't listen to their messages, because I knew they'd be telling me one or two things: vote for Senator Kerry and/or which California proposition I should vote for.

But I was surprised just now to receive a (pre-recorded, autodailer driven) message from Rudy Giuliani urging me to vote for President Bush.

It was paid for by a California Republican group.

While it's pretty obvious that California is in the bag for the Senator from Cambodia Massachusetts, I am surprised to see that somebody's at least making a token effort to get to Golden State voters for President Bush.

Insert the usual "anything could happen on Tuesday" disclaimer here, but geez, as Captain Ed (still no relation) notes, between Kerry's Dole-like "Wake Up" rant on Friday, and now his stepson's "Bush is a cokehead" rant, and all the destruction to GOP signs and property, and threatening to kick Fox News off the Kerry campaign plane, this doesn't sound like a campaign that's cooly savoring impending victory.

And if it gets it, Israel better watch out:

In a moment that may portend a Kerry Administration attitude towards Israel and certainly reveals the campaign's dismissal of its Jewish support, Heinz told the crowd that Bush considered Israel as the "51st state":

Heinz also reminded writer Sasha Issenberg of Pat Buchanan by saying, "One of the things I've noticed is the Israel lobby - the treatment of Israel as the 51st state, sort of a swing state." Buchanan was blasted as an anti-Semite years ago when he cited Israel's "amen corner" in Congress.

The first quotes reveal nothing except a lack of character on the part of the shallow heir to the ketchup fortune, and by extension that of the entire Kerry campaign. (He officially represented his stepfather's campaign at his Wharton appearance, after all.) The second issue portends more substantive problems with Kerry and his viewpoint on America's strongest Middle East ally. Does the Kerry campaign believe in that alliance, or do they intend on distancing themselves from Israel once in power? How do they think that Israel resembles a "swing state" for anyone?

It sounds like Heinz wanted to send a signal to the anti-Semite conspiracy theorists, and Jewish voters need to ask themselves why Democrats feel the need to pander to that demographic. Ralph Nader couldn't have said it any better, although he's often tried. When candidates and their proxies attempt to scare voters through oblique references to Jewish conspiracies, it never amounts to anything but evil results.

The mayor of the town of Arvada (population: 102,153) has been accused of stealing yard signs supporting a Republican candidate for the Colorado state senate.

What is it with Democrats and vandalism this year? When did the spirit of our two party system become, as Stanley Kurtz wrote earlier this month, parodying Voltaire, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll sneak onto your yard in the middle of the night to steal your sign, you fascist bastard."

Fred Barnes makes several compelling points about why presidental debates are useless for learning anything substantial about a presidental candidate:

Recall what proved to be significant in nationally televised debates since the first ones in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. We learned that Nixon should have shaved to avoid a 5

o'clock shadow. Then, after a hiatus of 16 years with no debates, we marveled at President Ford's comment that Eastern Europe wasn't under the domination of the Soviet Union. We knew what Ford really meant, simply that in their hearts Eastern Europeans were not Soviet pawns and instead yearned for freedom. Yet the media made a huge issue out of Ford's misstatement as if he'd told (and believed) a whopper.

Jump to 1984. President Reagan was a zombie in the first debate with Walter Mondale, raising doubts about his age. But in debate number two, Reagan opened with a one-liner about refusing to exploit Mondale's youth and inexperience. Bingo! The press and the political community instantly declared the race over. Yes, Reagan would have won reelection anyway, but should a one-liner be a major factor in the deciding the outcome? Of course not.

In 1988, Michael Dukakis was the victim of a sound bite played over and over on TV. It showed his unemotional answer to a question about his reaction if his wife were raped and murdered. Again, an issue--the death penalty--was trivialized and a candidate presented unfairly. In 1992, the first president Bush famously checked his watch in a debate. The tape of that was broadcast endlessly and it made Bush look impatient and frivolous. In 2000, Vice President Gore sighed in the first debate with George W. Bush. Okay, that was a truly revealing moment in which we saw the real Gore. But, the point is there have been few such stolen moments in presidential debates.

Now think about a few presidents who served before the advent of televised debates--George Washington, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, William McKinley, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower. I doubt if any of them would have fared well in a debate. Washington was too aloof, Madison too short. Jackson had a hair-trigger temper. Grant was a great writer but not as good a talker. Up against William Jennings Bryan, McKinley would have been overpowered. Johnson talked too slowly and Ike had trouble putting together a sentence with a subject and verb in the right place. All of them would have lost debates and maybe the presidency. Yet most were presidents of great merit.

Another worthwhile test of the value of debates is to consider the 1964, 1968, and 1972 presidential campaigns, the ones with no debates. Were the issues clearly drawn in those campaigns? Yes. Were the differences between the candidates clear? For sure. Did we manage to get insights into the character of the candidates? I think so.

Given President Bush's unspoken war against the leftwing legacy media (and vice-versa), I'm kind of surprised he didn't choose to use this campaign to say "no mas" to the debates.

As Steve Green would say, just click already.

Does CBS have another anti-Bush hit piece in the works for 60 Minutes?

CNN reports, "Palestinian officials close to Arafat told CNN they have reached the conclusion that the era of Arafat as Palestinian leader is over".

There's a question, however, as to when it actually ended.

I'm not sure if this is Michael Moore's legacy or not. Maybe it's Oliver Stone's. But at least since Stone's wild JFK film in the early '90s, the left has become incredibly susceptible to over-the-top conspiracy theories, something we noted back in February. And Walter Cronkite (who wrote in 2003, "I believe that most of us reporters are liberal") entered into Moore/Stone/Pierre Salinger territory himself on Larry King's talk show last night:

KING: Walter Cronkite, the legendary journalist and old friend, a great man in the history of broadcast journalists, and maybe the most revered person ever to go on camera. Let's first play a little bit of this tape, in which bin Laden, released today, directly addresses the American people. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OSAMA BIN LADEN (through translator): Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: OK, Walter. What do you make of this?

CRONKITE: Well, I make it out to be initially the reaction that it's a threat to us, that unless we make peace with him, in a sense, we can expect further attacks. He did not say that precisely, but it sounds like that when he says...

KING: The warning.

CRONKITE: What we just heard. So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.

Think it through: for Cronkite's conspiracy theory to be true, Rove had to contact Al Jazeera, the Arab TV network, to find somebody to get in touch with Bin Laden, to make a tape of him, and get him to quote scenes from Fahrenheit 911. And then run it the Friday before the presidential election.

And Cronkite is willing to expound a theory like that to King, only a few hours after Bin Laden's tape airs for the first time. Where did his logic go?

On Thursday, when we wrote that "Tuesday's going to be a long month", we commented on Al Gore's litigious election legacy. Power Line has more. They also note that Gore's legacy has spread to state races: Tom Daschle is flying in a charted plane full of Democratic lawyers, lobbyists and loyalists from Washington to Sioux Falls today in case it's a close election, and he needs that extra little boost that only a squadron of high-priced litigators provides.

Incidentally, speaking of Gore, Al's in Hawaii this weekend--and looking a bit worse for wear these days.

Update: If Margaret Carlson(!) thinks that Thune will beat Daschle, Tom better be prepared to pay his lawyers a lot of money next month.

For Governor Ed Rendell in Pennsylvania, it's prisoners si!, soldiers no when it comes to the election.

I used to really like Rendell when he was mayor of Philly and I lived across the Delaware. I had no idea he was this sleazy, but I guess it's obvious where the "Fast Eddie" sobriquet comes from.

Robert A. George explains why Senator Kerry isn't connecting with black voters.

(Via Betsy Newmark.)

Neither of them sounded like they were very confident of victory when they uttered these very similar quotes shortly before election day against an incumbent president.

Michael Moore's biggest fan--or a celebrity lookalike--checked in today to give his support to Senator Kerry.

Update: From the wonderful folks who brought you Ra^therGate...

Sometimes, if you're not sure of who to vote for in an election, you need to see something that cuts through the complexities that surround the issues of the day and reduces them to their most basic elements.

This illustrated guide to the election--using only the finest in computer-aided design--is the clearest I've seen in a very long time and well worth studying, if only to see how one man finally decided how he'd be voting.

Rich Lowry writes that Mort Kondrake of Fox News, "Just said a Cleveland Plain-Dealer poll tomorrow will have Bush up in Ohio, 48-45 I think."

That fits in with what Jay Cost wrote on Tuesday.

Update: If President Bush is surging in Ohio, here's one reason why he's pumped-up. And as John H. Hinderaker notes, Governor Schwarzenegger is but one star campaigning for President Bush this weekend:

Today the President is campaigning with Arnold Schwarzenegger in Ohio and New Hampshire. Tommy Franks, the President's father and John McCain were all in Florida today. Rudy Giuliani is in Iowa, and Mitt Romney is chipping in in Michigan, where his father was once governor.

Think about it--that is really an amazing lineup of supporters who are not only top-flight public servants, but are capable of generating real excitement wherever they go. What comparable political figures does John Kerry have stumping for him? Ted Kennedy? Howard Dean? The best he can muster is a few appearances by Bill Clinton, whose heart condition prevents him from doing much on Kerry's behalf. Which, I suspect, is exactly how Clinton wants it...Oh, yes, I forgot. Kerry has Bruce Springsteen with him. Somehow, I don't think it's the same. The voters are serious this year.

Lorie Byrd of PoliPundit writes that Dick Cheney is going to Hawaii on Sunday--a blue state trending surprisingly red this year.

Which makes sense--it was her idea in the first place!

Douglas Kern of Tech Central Station reminds us that "We Are All Floridians Now":

The Republic didn't collapse after Bush vs. Gore and it won't collapse after the 2004 election. But while the Founding Fathers anticipated yeasty elections, they surely did not expect litigious attacks on the very legitimacy of the election process itself. American society has grown fond of resolving hard political problems through lawsuits and judicial fiats. But elections fought through lawsuits are ultimately a means of avoiding a genuinely political confrontation. And sometimes, there's no substitute for an ugly election brawl. Let's make it an honest fight. But let's fight.

Some reforms would help to defuse presidential elections, of course: the reduction of the federal government's scope and power; a revival of federalism; and the appointment of judges who reject judicial activism, to name a few. But none of these things will happen anytime soon. Thus, presidential elections will be ferociously contentious until the red states or the blue states decisively win the argument about what kind of nation America ought to be. Such a victory will engender a political realignment, and thus a (short) period of political goodwill and accomplishment.

But until that day arrives, bring your camcorder to the polls, and be sure to get the thugs and car vandals entirely within the viewfinder. And brew a strong pot of coffee or three for the night of November 2nd, as we sit up all night and watch the madness unfold. We've chosen this weirdness. We ought to enjoy it.

On the other hand, as Hugh Hewitt frequently notes, there is a solution.

Update: Maybe fear that we're all Floridians now is why this is Wired cocktail of the week.

I haven't been following the Bill O'Reilly sexual harassment lawsuit, because frankly, I'm not that big a fan of O'Reilly's show.

But Beldar--who himself is a trial lawyer--has a detailed and very plausible bit of speculation about what the cryptic press release issued by O'Reilly's attorneys really means.

BeldarBlog has some thoughts on the newest videos from the Swift Boat Vets, which you can watch here.

Speaking of the Swift Vets, and the ol' Winter Soldier himself, you can download and watch Stolen Honor, the powerful anti-Kerry documentary here, for free.

Kerry doesn't want you to see it. Wonder why?

Frank Martin has his final prediction for the election. I like it--except Bush will need a blow-out victory in Pennsylvania to beat the Mayor Daley-style Democratic machine that Governor "Fast Eddie" Rendell has built there.

Editor and Publisher writes:

The Tribune Co. announced this morning that circulation at its two largest papers, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, experienced steep declines.

During a conference call to investors, Jack Fuller, president of Tribune's publishing division, who announced his retirement late yesterday, said that at the Times, daily circulation for the six-month period ending September 2004 stood at 902,164 and that Sunday circ was 1,292,274, or roughly "a range of" 6% drop.

The Tribune reported daily circulation of 591,504 and a Sunday circ of 963,926, or a 2.5% and 4% decline, respectively.

It's a vicious cycle--especially where the truth is concerned.

Update: CNN's financial spin-off, CNN/fn is closing up shop, after losing the ratings battle to CNBC. It's interesting to note that CNBC was originally assembled by Roger Ailes, before he built Fox News. I wonder if his legacy of being conservative and pro-business has remained at CNBC and helped to keep it afloat.

Compare and contrast.

Update: Katherine Mangu-Ward of The Weekly Standard has some thoughts on that video:

And so, in the final days of the presidential election, it comes down to this: Mirrored Compact vs. Middle Finger. We report, you decide.

Pollster John Zogby was the first to say that the election was Kerry's to lose, way back in April. Of course, there are reasons why Zogby would be pulling for Kerry: they're both on the left-hand side of the aisle, and they both prefer dictatorial status quo over liberating and reforming the Middle East.

So it's pretty surprising to read this from Bob Novak:

Pollster John Zogby surprised the political world back in April with a long-range prediction that John Kerry would defeat George W. Bush for president. On Monday this week, Zogby told me, he changed his mind. He now thinks the president is more likely to be re-elected because he has reinforced support from his base, including married white women.

That conclusion would be a surprise for frantically nervous Republicans and cautiously upbeat Democrats entering the campaign's final days. In fact, nobody, including Zogby and all the other polltakers, can be sure who will win this election. Yet, it is clear that President Bush's strategists have succeeded in solidifying his base to a degree that makes it much harder to defeat him next Tuesday.

"No one with any [political] knowledge . . . . would believe the assumptions made by Zogby."

George Bush?

No.

Ken Mehlman?

Uh, no.

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity?

No, nope, and no.

That was Dan Pfeiffer, the campaign spokesman for Tom Daschle, lashing out at Zogby, for the latter’s most recent poll, in which Congressman Thune was said to be leading, by 2.5 percentage points, with less than seven percent undecided.

Ladies and gentlemen:

We’ve now officially entered the political parallel universe . . .

Teetotaling Update: The Bush camp seems to agree with Zogby's prognosis.

Absolut-Infused Update: Stephen Green also notes Zogby's change of heart.

A couple of professors at Glenn Reynolds' stomping grounds have an online survey they'd like you to participate in:

The purpose of this survey is to examine the Internet's influence on the U.S. political process. Although we recognize that the Internet is a global medium, we asked that only those individuals who are eligible to vote in the U.S. participate in this survey.

This study is being conducted for academic purposes by researchers at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. The survey has been approved by the UT Institutional Review Board. All responses will be kept confidential and no identifying personal factors will be used in reporting the results of this survey. Your email address is used only to check for duplicate transmission.

To take the survey, begin clicking on the response options. After you are finished, just click "send". Completion of this survey will be taken as your permission to participate in this research. If at any time you wish to withdraw from the survey just hit the "back" button on your browser to return to the previous Web site. There is no penalty for withdrawing.

The survey should take about 20 minutes to complete.

Last week we linked to a Stefan Sharkansky piece on Michael Medved. Yesterday, Stefan uploaded video of his interview with Medved.

It's well worth watching, although you may find that the sound varies in level quite a bit--so keep your volume control in sight.

Tech Central Station looks at Renate Künast, Germany's obesity czar.

Their obesity czar?? (Looking at her photo, I'm having a flashback to the martinet female calisthenics leader on the telescreen at the beginning of 1984.) What's made the left so puritanical these days?

You'll notice that there aren't any MTV "Rock The Vote"-style slogans encouraging you to get out and vote--for anybody. Just vote, dammit!!--on this blog.

There's a reason--but I'll let the great Thomas Sowell explain it:

Frank Martin writes:

So, Saddam is waiting for the gallows, Uday and Qusay are dead, Osama is sleeping under a rock, Castro takes a dive, Kim il Jung wont leave the house, now Arafat is on his way to the big dirt nap.

Who says Bush isn't having a very good year?

...Power Line writes that Senator Kerry could lose in Minnesota.

(He's already behind in some polls there.)

Media bias? You're soaking in it!

(Ad the names in the above link to this list as well.)

While I was away, Billboard Books sent me a copy of The Billboard Illustrated Home Recording Handbook, a thorough introduction to making music on a PC. It's edited by Ronan MacDonald, the editor of England's Computer Music magazine, whom I've written for from time to time.

I'll probably have a full review on Blogcritics in the not-too-distant future, but in the meantime, if you're looking for a good introduction to home music recording--even if you're not already an expert musician--then this looks like it could be a very good place to start.

Ed Capano, National Review's publisher, writes:

There is a God. Remember Vieques and the firestorm associated with it in 2002? Liberals falling all over each other to be arrested protesting the Naval use of the island for bombing and gunfire practice. Well all’s well that ends later. The bombing exercises were transferred to an Air Force bombing range in central Florida followed by exultation and celebration in Puerto Rico for having driven the U.S. Navy out. The following year Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the closing of the Roosevelt Roads Naval Air Station in Puerto Rico which was estimated to have generated nearly $300 million annually for the local economy. The very next day, Gov. Sila Calderon protested the base closings as a critical setback to the island’s stagnant economy, stating that “The people of Puerto Rico don’t now or never did have an interest in closing the Vieques bombing range or the Roosevelt Roads naval base. We are interested in both staying in Puerto Rico.” Much too little much too late.

We've had shots fired into GOP headquarters. We've had break-ins into GOP offices. And now, the press is reporting that someone has tried to run over Florida's Katherine Harris with his car.

(Hey, that's what Woody Allen's character tried to do to Meryl Streep in Manhattan!)

I don't know what's going to happen this Tuesday. But all this violence doesn't sound like a party confident of victory to me.

And speaking of violence, check out this exchange with John Edwards' wife:

C-SPAN cameras captured spouse Elizabeth Edwards making the startling comments to a supporter during a Kerry Campaign Town Hall Meeting in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Supporter: Kerry’s going to take PA.

Liz Edwards: I know that.

Supporter: I’m just worried there’s going to be riots afterwards.

Liz Edwards: Uh.....well...not if we win.

Last week, before decamping to the east coast, we linked to Part I of Glenn Reynolds' look at where blogging stood today, and where it was going.

Part two is now online at Tech Central Station.

Interesting post on the Hillary angle on this election. It mentions the disparity between She Who Would Be President and her husband:

The underground war raging between John Kerry and Hillary Clinton spilled over into Senator Clinton’s marriage this week, as well. Hillary was reportedly dead-set against Bill stumping for Kerry, knowing full well the strength he brings to the Kerry campaign in the waning hours of the 2004 election.

I talked to a lot of volunteers and politically active conservatives in Pennsylvannia yesterday. The consensus pretty much seemed to be that Kerry's definitely going to take the state. However, it seems to me and some of them, that the Clinton appearance was a huge victory for Bush in the sense that Kerry used him in a state his campaign should have put away a long time ago. Because of Clinton's heart troubles, he's definitely a limited resource and they used it all up here.

Why am I voting for Bush?

Because President Clinton told me to!

President William Jefferson Clinton: "If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the one who wants you to think and hope," he said. Well damned if he aint got it right.

James Glassman of Tech Central Station weighs in on what a Polipundit reader dubbed "NYTrogate".

James writes that the story itself is sort of a dud: it reminds people that unlike the happiness and sunshine image that Michael Moore tried to paint Iraq in, it was a very dangerous place, full of very dangerous weapons.

On the other hand, as Lorie Byrd notes, if, God forbid, there is a Madrid-style terrorist attack on the US between now and next Tuesday, it allows Senators Kerry and Edwards to have positioned themselves perfectly to lay the blame on the administration’s incompetence.

If that's true, it's interesting bit of chess playing, thinking a couple of moves ahead. On the other hand, as typical for the left, they treat bad news for America as good news for them.

Meanwhile, Charles Johnson links to an article that say CBS was planning to run with this story this coming weekend, until the New York Times decided to beat them to the bunch--only to get themselves beaten up by NBC, CNN, and of course, the Blogosphere.

And continuing the extremely close interconnection of the New York Times and its subsidiaries with Senator Kerry, Johnson notes that Camp Kerry had ads ready to go, before the ink was dry on this past Sunday's Times.

Just got back from a quick trip to the east coast to visit family and friends. Watch for regular blogging to resume shortly--just as soon as the jetleg wears off.

In the meantime, my newest Electronic House newsletter is online--with a review of Cakewalk's Sonar 4 recording program.

PoliPundit notes that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been waging a quiet war against The New York Times, as part of their larger efforts to end-run the legacy media.

But given that the Times has admitted that they're not objective in their coverage, or quotes like this from their publisher, who can blame them?

Not Pappa Bush, who told Paula Zahn of CNN back in late August that he's "given up" on the Times himself.

Of course, as Michael Medved and James Pinkerton recently noted, a media that feigns objectivity is a relatively new phenomenon, and that its return to partisanship signals a long overdue death to the early 20th century progressive movement in American politics.

Deroy Murdock visually puts the pieces together.

(Via Charles Johnson.)

“There’s a reason that they’re saying Kerry is the No. 1 liberal in the Senate. It’s because he is the No. 1 liberal in the Senate.”

--Michael Moore.

Yesterday, AP noted that President Bush's popularity among black voters has doubled. Jim Geraghty has a round-up of quotes from various members of the DNC and concludes:

Ladies and gentlemen, I think this makes it official. The Democrats are worried about A) turnout in black communities and B) whether Bush will improve his numbers among blacks.

Meanwhile, Steve Green writes:

Add that to other recent polls showing that the Republicans' "gender gap" with female voters has shrunk considerably. In a close race, it probably wouldn't take many defections of women and African Americans to Bush to determine the outcome.

Kerry's "Global Test" line at the first debate was no gaffe. Here's what he said in 1994 about US involvement in Bosnia:

Kerry’s belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, “If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.”

Update: Drudge links to video of Kerry's quote.

I don't know what to make of this, but here are two recent items about New York's (exceedingly liberal) senators and the presidential race.

From Vodkapundit:

President Bush and Sen. Hillary Clinton don't agree on much. But John Kerry's disgraceful attempt to use Mary Cheney's sexuality as a political football had them both criticizing the top Democrat on Monday for the sleazy assault.
"I thought it was over the line," Bush told the Associated Press, in his first in-person comments on the Kerry-Cheney flap.

The former first lady addressed the same topic in a New York radio interview, telling WROW in Albany, "I think [Kerry] was trying to strike actually a sensitive note [but] it might not have worked."

Sen. Clinton said she could "understand why some people might have been bothered" by Kerry's decision to use a presidential debate to announce that Mary Cheney was "a lesbian."

While national Democratic leaders have been busy pummeling President Bush, New York's senior senator, Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat, spent part of a campaign debate on Sunday aligning himself with the president, saying he voted with Mr. Bush "to extend the child income tax credit,'' and that he "voted with the president for authorization to go into Iraq."

With those comments, Mr. Schumer underscored a strategic reality as he seeks re-election: He is not just content to win a second term in the United States Senate, but he is looking to win big. And to do that, he must attract more conservative voters.

The strategy is all the more noteworthy, political strategists and pollsters said, because Mr. Schumer refused during the debate to rule out a run for governor in 2006. Should he make such a run, firming up support among conservative upstate and suburban Democrats can only help that effort if he finds himself in a primary race against New York's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, who is also considering running for governor.

Once again, Teresa Heinz puts her foot in it:

Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up.

As Jim Geraghty writes:

What arrogance. Stunning, unmitigated arrogance!

From the White House:

Inspired by her second grade teacher, she earned a bachelor of science degree in education from Southern Methodist University in 1968. She then taught in public schools in Dallas and Houston. In 1973 she earned a master of library science degree from the University of Texas at Austin and worked as a public school librarian in Austin [until 1977].

Hey, teachers, librarians: Teresa Heinz Kerry says your work isn't a "real job"!

We can't all be ketchup heiresses, you know.

UPDATE: I missed the even more obvious point - Teresa says being a stay-at-home mom isn't a "real job."

Update: Geraghty notes that Teresa has since apologized. That's more than her husband has done to Mary Cheney and her parents.

Another Update: Hugh Hewitt notes, "But the most damning part of her first statement --being a mother isn't a "real job?" No retraction yet on that front."

And Karen Hughes adds:

Well, I think it's very nice that she apologized, but in some ways the apology almost made the comment worse, because she seems to have forgotten that being a mother is a real job. Again, I think her comment threw an inappropriate wedge between women who choose to work at home and women who choose to work outside the home. I think most women--and most men--would be offended by that, because most women want to be able to choose to do what's right for them, whether it's to stay with their families and work at home or to work outside the home pursuing a career.

Earlier today, I mentioned that Joanne Jacobs was one of several high-profile bloggers whom I interviewed back in early 2002 before starting this blog.

Another was The Blogfather himself, Glenn Reynolds. Over at Tech Central Station, he has some thoughts on how the Blogosphere has grown up since then, the first of a two-part series.

One big difference: I rarely have to explain to people what the heck a Weblog is, something I constantly had to do back then when writing or talking about them. I think the Republican and Democratic Conventions helped to reduce the need for that, as TV reporters featured several bloggers on both sides of the aisle to help fill airtime. And of course, Ra^therGate helped enormously as well--something Glenn will probably talk about himself in the conclusion to his article.

But John Edwards' certainly is. The Daily Recycler catches him primping his do, while John Kerry rocks out on bass.

Over on his MSNBC page, Glenn Reynolds has some thoughts on this video (at least before the soundtrack was added), and how the Internet is shaping and changing election-time TV in general.

Update: James Lileks adds:

Getting prepped for the harsh blare of TV lights is a peculiar experience, and you learn to sit still and think of England. So no, the clip isn’t particularly unusual.

Until he whips out – well, you’ll see. It’s like Captain Kirk whipping out his communicator to contact the USS Fabulous. Set phasers on stunning!

Via Betsy Newmark, we learn that GQ has named the twenty best and five worst pro sports uniforms of all time.

Meanwhile, speaking of uniforms, Jerry Rice is swapping Raider black for...well, whatever you call that off shade of blue the Seattle Seahawks wear these days.

Meet Jim Corr. Back in the 1970s, he would be been called "The Man". Probably by John F. Kerry, when Corr arrested the young Winter Soldier during a Vietnam War protest on the Battle Green of Lexington, Mass., on Memorial Day weekend of 1971.

Update: For what it's worth, the folks at FreeRepublic.com have an alleged photo of the bust.

Joanne Jacobs left her "well-paid, high-status, no-heavy-lifting job as a San Jose Mercury News columnist and editorial writer to write a book on a start-up charter school" back in early 2001. Yesterday she announced that she now has a publisher for the book--and thus needs to finish the project!

Joanne was one of several high-profile bloggers gracious enough to let me interview them for an article on weblogs shortly before deciding to start a blog of my own, and I'm sure her new book will be a knockout.

Jimmy Carter tells Chris Matthews that the Revolutionary War was "unnecessary":

Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we’ve fought. I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.

Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial’s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.

Incidentally, think Jimmy might convince his friend Yasser Arafat (a Kerry man, by the way!) to try to use non-violent means?

Nahh--me neither.

Back in December of 2002, Jonah Goldberg wrote a great essay on what he dubbed "hypocrophobia"--short hand for the left's crippling fear of being taken seriously:

Feminists demanded that "something" be done about the Taliban's treatment of women for years. Conservatives scoffed. But when the Bush administration saw fit to liberate the women of Afghanistan — for reasons larger than merely their freedom — feminists drew circles in the floor with their open-toed shoes and grumbled about how they didn't like war. But I guarantee you if Bill Clinton had unleashed the 10th Mountain Division on Kabul to ensure reproductive choice for Afghan women, Gloria Steinem would have done cartwheels.

Coming next year, according to the Internet Movie Database:

Dukes of Hazzard: The Motion Picture.

Complete with Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke, Willie Nelson as Uncle Jesse...

....and Burt Reynolds as Boss Hogg.

Just when you thought it was safe to get into a Dodge Charger, along comes this.

Have you no sense of decency, sirs, at long last? Have you no sense of shame?

Steven Den Beste (back--sorta, kinda--in action!) writes that the trend is your friend--unless you're a senator running for the White House whose initials are JFK.

Update: Power Line has some thoughts on Den Beste's post, as well as the latest Gallup Poll, which shows President Bush ahead by eight points among likely voters, 52% to 44%.

The New York Times endorses Senator Kerry.

Whodathunkit?

(John Leo is probably as shocked as I am at this turn of events.)

Charles Johnson notes that the British are apologizing to the Nazis for bombing Dresden, just as a group of pro-Saddam far leftwingers in the US are apologizing to the Iraqis for the our removal of Saddam Hussein.

For a little perspective, note that the historical perception of the Allies' bombing of Dresden was shaped by pro-Hitler author and Holocaust denier David Irving in his first book in 1963. And while I'm sure the apologists to Iraq are big fans of Michael Moore, I wonder if they've talked with this filmmaker for his take.

Update: Tim Blair has photos of several subspecies of Moonbatus Americanus in action. As Glenn writes, "Put down all liquids before following this link".

Best comment on Tim's site? Andrew X quotes the great P.J. O'Rourke:

"Best of all, there were hardly any beautiful women at the ...(1990)... rally. I saw a journalist friend of mine in the Mall, and he and I purused this line of inquiry as assiduously as our happy private lives allow. Practically every female at the march was a bowser. "We're not being sexist here," my friend insisted. "It's not that looks matter per se. It's just that beautiful women are always on the cutting edge of social trends. Remember how many beautiful women were in the anti-war movement twenty years ago? In the yoga classes fifteen years ago? At the discos ten years ago? On Wall Street five years ago? Where the beautiful women are is where the country is headed," said my friend. "And this," he looked around him, "isn't it."

This is, without a doubt, the most accurate transcription of Wednesday's debate I've seen.

Well, more or less.

(Via PoliPundit.)

Hugh Hewitt writes:

Kerry's abuse of Mary Cheney's privacy receives extensive coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today, and even a front page story in the Los Angeles Times, which tries to help Kerry out by beginning the story: "Long before John F. Kerry said as much in Wednesday night's presidential debate, Mary Cheney had been open about the fact that she is a lesbian." When the most biased paper in America has to defend one the most repulsive candidate actions in modern political history in the first line of a front page story, you know the candidate has committed a colossal blunder.

Incredibly, in all the ink in all of these stories, there is not one mention of Kerry's campaign manager's description of Mary Cheney as "fair game" in the post debate spinning. (The Wall Street Journal's editorial on the subject today did catch and focus Mary Beth Cahill's stunning admission.) When John Edwards lamely tries to claim innocent or even noble motives for the Kerry-Edwards low blows, keep in mind that "fair game" is a hunting term, a clear giveaway that the Kerry-Edwards campaign planned the attack as an attack. As most of the stories admit somewhere along the line, this was a malicious attempt to hurt Bush-Cheney with fundamentalist Christians. It was gay baiting of the worst sort, as James Taranto branded it yesterday, but the real anger in America is over the exploitation of children by Kerry-Edwards. My post here explains that the widespread anger and revulsion isn't about the particulars of using Mary Cheney's sexuality at all. It is the product of the "leave the kids out of it" sentiment that nearly all Americans hold and which until this campaign was respected by both parties and all candidates. Anger at the breach of that rule was compounded by the churlishness of Elizabeth Edwards' "a certain amount of shame" comments, which was a direct attack on the Cheneys' relationship with their daughter.

My latest "Ideas For Every Room" newsletter is online over at Electronic House magazine.

My first look at Cakewalk's flagship PC recording program is online at Blogcritics. Scroll down to near the end of the piece to hear me in action on a tune I recently recorded with the previous version of Sonar.

I just spoke with my mom in New Jersey, and asked her if she and dad watched the debate. She immediately mentioned how shameful she thought it was that, as Lorie Byrd wrote, "John Kerry used Mary Cheney, the daughter of the Vice President, as a lesbian political prop".

My parents aren't political wonks--despite my best efforts, they're not on the Internet; they get their news from the local newspaper and Philadelphia-area TV news. And if that's the takeaway soundbite from last night's debate for them, then it most definitely hurt Senator Kerry.

Update: Glenn describes it as "a major blunder" as well.

Alexander K. McClure of PoliPundit.com has what he calls a "Crazy Suggestion" for the president, that actually makes a whole lot of sense.

This commenter to the post has a pretty nifty suggestion as well.

Jonah Goldberg uses an analogy from Dan Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy's Trading Places to explain John Kerry's condescension towards voters, and then writes:

Contrary to what the people who think George W. Bush is highly concentrated evil might believe, George W. Bush really is the more likable candidate. Just imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine if the Democrats nominated a guy like Bush. Democrats would love Bush's folksy style and his tell-it-like-it-is convictions and humor. And if the Republicans nominated a guy who managed to marry into Big Money (twice)--who talked like a 1920s banker and looked like he was born in blue-pinstripe diapers--Kerry would be the constant butt of class-warfare jokes and the like.

--If only to vote for this man.

He hasn't accepted the nomination yet, but there's still time to convince him.

(Swank campaign logo, by the way. Retro yet stylish!)

Steve Green and his titanium liver are once again drunkblogging the debate.

Follow these links for more folks blogging the debate live: some of whom may even be sober!

Meanwhile, PoliPundit has the first--and I do mean first--take on who won the debate. (Via an extremely sober-looking Glenn Reynolds.)

Rockcritics (not to be confused with Blogcritics of course), has an interview with my friend Jami Bernard, the film critic with the New York Daily News.

It will probably eventually be changed, but check out the headline that's currently on this CBS story:

Italics mine; lack of knowledge that the Soviet Union is no more definitely CBS's.

Nice historical accuracy there, guys!

(Via Little Green Footballs.)

In a nifty essay that ties together a number of threads we've discussed here since our inception regarding the media, James Pinkerton of Tech Central Station says that it's entered "The Post-Progressive Era".

Too much meaty stuff to quote here--read the whole thing.

My latest newsletter for Electronic House magazine is now online.

Reihan Salam of Tech Central Station has an interesting "What If": Where would the Republican Party be if President Gingrich was running for his second term instead of President Bush?

Of course, one result might have been the same: Charles Johnson links to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that says no matter what the outcome of the election in November, the Democrats are planning to move further to the left.

If that's possible.

Update: Ramesh Ponnuru writes "I don't think Salam quite gets what did the Gingrich of 1995-96 in".

To borrow Jonah Goldberg's quip about