Planet Abell

I can't help but think that many of my liked-minded friends have completely missed the point of last night's debates. It doesn't matter how much dissembling Romney might have done, or how preposterous the internal logic of his statements may add up to. The moderator's role is a sideshow — moderators are a stupid modern convention that clever politicians know how to play. Debates are not about policy discovery. They are theater. That is all. It's all about heart. The day before, and the day after — that's the time to score the head. On stage it's all about your media training. What makes so many Obama supporters angry is that the distance between head and heart were so wide. But there is nobody to blame for that, and for the appearance — the performance — that conveyed. I saw Felix Salmon today (thanks again for RT'ing, even if, as you explained, it must have been a mistake / the result or boredom or all you have left to do when your own Twitter...

One of the most important modern advances in journalism — courtesy, mind you, of the ethics of blogging -- is the opportunity for writers and publisher to own up to mistakes in the same place, time and fashion where the mistakes were made. Journalists have always had an obligation to correct their errors, of course. Not all have, of course. And the truth can be elusive, even a matter of opinion sometimes. But what isn't up for debate is requirement to tell the same audience you deluded that a) you were wrong and b) here's the truth. Not to pile on, but newspapers haven't always been too good at this. Even when they have grudgingly acknowledged error, they did so in an error section that only the curious few bothered to check, often exposing themselves to the story in question for the first time. Once the paper was out it was out, and gone. Fish wrap. No sane publisher was going to spend valuable paper and ink to re-print old news, just so an error could be acknow...

Two things I don't get about Romney's self-defense of his tax situation: 1) A rate of 14% is "fair" because the funds being taxed — capital gains — have already been taxed on the corporate level. Huh? Capital gains are on realized profits from the sale of real property. If I buy a share of stock for $10, and I sell it for $15, my capital gain is $5. And if I held that share for more than a year, I am taxed at a rate of 15% on that $5, not an whatever rate my earned income is subject to. But, who paid a tax on the any of this before I did? Or, looked at in reverse: Every dollar is taxed by the person or entity which owned it at one time. My employer pays taxes on the money his company earns, then pays me from what's left over. I pay tax on that, and spend some at the supermarket. The supermarket pays tax, and its employees ... and so on. The fact that someone pays tax on that dollar upstream is as irrelevant as the fact that someone will pay tax on that dol...

Voting Machine Originally uploaded by John C Abell Voting today was the easiest experience I've ever had: no lines, no poll watchers, lots of friendly volunteers. (Also, no free coffee or "I voted!" stickers, but you can't have it all.) Our district is sparsely populated; we are told that there are 800 registered voters here in the 11th district of Westchester County, where we have lived for only a few weeks. About 500 is the most any have ever turned out to vote, they tell us; I ask if they expect to break that record today, and I get forceful, pronounced, silent nods. Another reason why it was so easy? The voting machine was a fine beast of a thing, a relic from a simpler time when machines did the work that circuit and main boards are expected to now, with disputable success . Some solutions are better mechanical than electronic, I believe, and this is one of those areas (also, try digging a ditch with a computer). The machine's caretaker was delight...

Dude, you did your best. Nobody can accuse you of throttling back or showing any hesitation about muscling Hillary into the White House. Hell -- if anything, your occasional over-the-top jabs at Barack are all the evidence anyone could need that you have met your poli-marital obligations. Setting yourself up for "that man crazy!" from time to time is a great way to prove this ain't no half-hearted debate society resolution for you. But now it's time to reveal that secret I think I guessed at last January . You're off to a sloppy start: I know there is thunder not to be stolen from the Hillary & Barack show later this week, but don't do this through a spokesman anymore . Also, don't use words like "obviously," which everybody knows is a way of boasting about not concealing a grudging admission. It's been a tough year. It'll probably get worse before it gets better, before you can continue your dream retirement of going wherever you wa...

T he knee jerk reaction is to see this as anti-populist, sleazy, business-as-usual. Only someone who doesn't need $80 million turns down $80 million. And there is the matter of Obama's agreement to accept public funding (and forgo private money), posited by John McCain. McCain, a genuine campaign-finance reformer (for which he is reviled by many fellow Republicans) pushed that pawn at a time when his fortunes were not good and Obama's were unpredictable. So, the old pol is a man of the people, and the change agent is just another politician who does what suits him, like those Republicans who got elected on a term-limits platform but decided, after their two terms, that their work was not yet done. But as Frank Rich keeps telling us, these are not times in which the old prism works. Obama is a shockingly viable candidate -- his viability is shocking -- to a degree that belies even the recent history of this nation. Among the other things he has already done is this: prove th...

J ay Rosen and many other press critics have long decried (terrible word, but very handy in journalism) reporting about elections as a horse race -- the obsession with numbers and what the numbers mean and what other numbers would mean. Part of the criticism is that it is lazy. And it is. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of admitting that, very often, the stories I enjoyed writing most were based on clear facts from a printed page that I could attempt to explain in prose poetry. And there are no clearer facts than those expressed by numbers. Ask any math teacher. The other criticism is that it squeezes out reporting on "things that matter." We talk about how well candidate Jones has done in the latest poll, so we don't report about candidate Jones's position on health care. Health care is hard. Have pity. I've been modestly sympathetic to the view that horse race coverage ill serves the electorate but, as with anyone who has a mild addiction to politics, I do enj...

N obody has a monopoly on the use of convenient wisdom -- political or biblical -- but it sure seems like everybody has forgotten a very important truism: "[fill in time period here] is an eternity in politics." Yes, it would be nice to have a clear Democratic field, so the nominee can focus fire on John McCain who, for all of his prowess and charm, seems to be a target-indicator machine. Yes, the longer the intramural games wear on the wearier the victor will be for the nationals, and the greater chance that more weaknesses will be exposed for the competitor to exploit in big game. But we are being treated to one of the greatest experiences of this nation's democratic process that anyone alive has ever seen. Books (good ones) will be written about campaign 2008. And we, the people, are the winners. The system is working exactly as it was meant to: it is empowering voters in states that hold primaries and caucuses months after Iowa and New Hampshire and forcing candidates...

I wonder if Geraldine Ferraro thinks she was the most qualified Democratic vice-presidential prospect in 1984 even after, as Maureen Dowd puts it, "she helped Walter Mondale lose 49 states." Or maybe she's right and Black is the new black. Maybe the stars have aligned so much so quickly that running for president as a Black man finally is an advantage. But then ... here's how Ferraro doesn't hedge her bets : She told (Dianne) Sawyer (on GMA) she was trying to say it's a good thing that Obama was where he was. Ferraro said she was saying that "the black community came out with ... pride in [Obama's] candidacy. You would think he would say 'thank you' for doing that, instead, I'm charged with being a racist." Hmmmm ... wouldn't that be the same black community that has given every Democratic presidential candidate the same 90% backing it is giving Obama? His getting it in the primaries before the Democratic nominee gets it in the ...

As a fan of Barack Obama I must say I'm not offended by Hillary Clinton's offer to share a ticket with her rival. It struck me as just plain, old good politics -- and a tactical error Obama should exploit by saying exactly the same thing. Here's why: the backlash to Clinton has been because of previous trash talk about Obama. How can she consider a running mate who lacks even her manly bona fides -- and even worse, she says, those of evil Republican John McCain? But, if Obama holds Clinton to her offer to consider teaming up it makes it virtually impossible for her to go negative. The latest tortured explanation as to how Obama might after all be ready to be commander in chief on day one (as he'd need to be as VP, a heartbeat away from the presidency) came from Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson on Morning Joe: there's a lot of time between now and the nominating convention in August. Joe Scarborough later wondered out loud if that meant they'd be sending Obama to...

Joust Originally uploaded by _mpd_ L ots of humility today from pundits and pollsters about how wrong the New Hampshire polls were on the Democratic side -- from Chris Matthews soulfully telling Clinton's communications director "I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again" to John Zogby 's instant analysis that "We seem to have missed the huge turnout of older women that apparently put Clinton over the top." In an interesting little item on the Huffington Post a commenter observes: "No one is talking about how the polls actually nailed Obama's number. Obama didn't lose this election. He stayed steady and Hillary surged ahead." Many narratives will be challenged in the coming days and will be replaced by other convenient narratives. Among the most curious, and none-too-subtle, is that the bulk of spot reporting appears to assert that Clinton's victory was a "surprise." This, even though there is no evidence that Clinton ...

S ome short clips since I’ve been away for so long, hunkered down on a project. With the WGA writer’s strike these ought to be salad days for people who think they’re funny, but, as the writers would concur, making money is job one: So glad Mitt Romney accepts Jesus and that the unchristian Christians from one end of a tiny spectrum may be appeased by the unchristian Christians from the other. Still waiting for the day that an atheist can run for anything or for a single candidate to have the courage to say faith informs no life decisions except whether to sleep in on Sunday. Disgusted by Romney's declaration: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." Actually, freedom only teaches us to tolerate religion so that our private behaviors may be tolerated in turn, as we should other private behaviors we may personally disapprove of, like a gay lifestyle, abortion ... oh. There is nothing to the argument that only religious people possess the values to govern...

Sam Brownback has dropped out of the Republican hunt for the presidency. He rejects evolution , but maybe believes in reincarnation? What could the so-called values voters want if such a true believer can't get any traction and leaves the table with a piddling $94,000 in the bank ? I have no sympathy with holier than thou people who presume their beliefs are more sacred than mine, and who have forgotten, or don't really care about, what freedom means . But with a buffet of candidates who talk the talk, and with some of those actually walking the walk, I'm perplexed about what the "values" wing really wants. Can it be so crass as ... a winner?

W hy would Al Gore want to be president? A darling of the Democratic left, Gore has now garnered the ultimate in bragging rights by winning the Nobel Peace Prize. So naturally the idle speculation about how to convert this into a late-entry presidential bid is in high gear, as if there is only one thing an ambitious, talented person would find worth buying with life's chits in the Big Box Store of America. Clever liberal pundits love joking that since Gore won the presidency in 2000 it's In short order Gore has garnered an Oscar, and Emmy and a Nobel Peace Prize. He's rich. He's young and has good hair. He is beloved by the right people and reviled by the right people. To paraphrase an old Frank Sinatra song, why would he want to go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like "I'm running." about time he starting serving out his term, and a group which seems not to be a stalking horse for the man himself took out one of those discount ( legitimately,...

Times Square Hustle & Bustle, 2005 Y ou can't dismiss fear out of hand, because bad things do happen. I think New York Mayor Bloomberg has it exactly right: he quantifies terror threats to more common disasters and tells people to get over it. It's real, but get real, according to "I'm not a candidate" Mike. I also happen to think that Obama did make a genuine bad mistake in the uTube debate by saying he'd be willing to meet without precondition with a host of America adversaries. He fell into a trap, period. Does that disqualify him? No. But it is a demerit. On Pakistan, Obama wasn't bold, and was foolish. We all expect, no matter what our political stripe, that the president will do anything to protect us (including torturing people). Who has ever been impeached for propping up a dictator -- or taking down an elected Commie? And as Biden has pointed out, the president has the explicit authority to do what Obama threatened. But floating the balloon ha...

"I've never craved the job of president, but I want to do some things that only a president can do." -- Fred Thompson, on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" T op 10 things that only a president can do: 10. Get down with the First Lady 9. Call anything I'm flying "Air Force One" 8. Tell Secret Service detail "no one needs to know about this, right boys?" 7. Get my very own library -- even if I don't have a library card 6. Declare war -- on my agent! 5. Get $5,000 to pose for pictures with strangers instead of paying through the nose for head shots 4. Pardon that turkey every year 3. No waiting when I get the urge to bowl 2. Suppress giggle when I tell movers to put boxes in the corner of the Oval Office And the number one thing that only a president can do: 1. Retrieve newspaper on White House driveway in my bathrobe

T he push of other news has crowded the presidential campaign from the media front burner for a few days. I have to think that the occasional yellow flag is welcomed by front-runners and that even emerging also-rans like John McCain are grateful for the small favors of a distracted crowd, so things like "Bomb bomb bomb. Bomb bomb Iran" get ( mostly ) buried. But soon enough the cameras will get back on the calliope. And with a war in Iraq sucking most of the air out of the smoke-filled room who could have predicted that gun control and abortion might be central campaign issues in '08? The disturbingly efficient rampage by Cho Seung-Hui was committed not with the fringe weapons the gun control battle is always about, but With a war in Iraq sucking most of the air out of the smoke-filled room who could have predicted that gun control and abortion might be central campaign issues in '08? with a pedestrian semi-automatic 9 mm handgun he acquired legally (though the New Y...