This is important.

Some people seem to be a bit boggled by Bush's Dred Scott remark last night. It wasn't about racism or slavery, or just Bush's natural incoherence. Here's what Bush actually [meant]:

If elected to another term, I promise that I will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

It turns out the Dred Scott decision, which upheld slavery, is often compared to Roe v. Wade by anti-choicers. Paperwight explains here how Bush was actually using coded language. Please read it.

If you didn't watch the Friday debate, but you read that Bush "looked better," don't be fooled. He got killed. He was a babbling, incoherent mess. He tried to tell jokes and was met with silence. There were looooooong pauses as he tried to figure out how to fill the time. He lied. He lied again. He responded to Kerry's arguments with generalities, often awkwardly phrased, again and again.

Watch it. Don't just listen to the audio.

This media is pathetic. I'd love to see a poll of those citizens in attendance. I'd bet they would say Kerry won by 2-1 or more.

...Wolcott's take is right-on:

For much of last night's debate George Bush looked like a blister about to pop. Loud, mouthy, swaggering, interested only in hearing himself lay down the law, he behaved like a verbally abusive husband. Not a wifebeater but a browbeater with a bar-fighter's grin. It is astonishing and sobering that this dull roar with a one-track mind that runs on tank treads is fighting for reelection instead of facing impeachment; his lies and failures have fed thousands of graves, and filled thousands more hospital beds with bodies and psyches that will never be whole again. And still our mainstream pundits can not, will not see him for what he is. He cracks a corny joke, and they marvel at his Reaganesque humor. He hollers at Charlie Gibson, and he's hailed as a take-charge guy.

Wolcott rules. Read the whole thing, and the post after that one.

...Ezra is worth reading too:

Bush yelled a lot. He tried to compensate for last week's defensiveness with an abundance of aggression. More than once, I thought he was going to sucker punch Gibson, but he seems to have jammed the brakes at mere emasculation. While it's certainly true that the last night's bully looked better than last week's dunce, it still speaks of a soft and unformed man. That, I think, is the story of the debates. The defining contrast between the two men isn't leadership, gravitas or intelligence, but simple maturity. Whether Bush is seen hunched and scowling or stalking the length of the stage and shouting down the moderator, there's a serious sense that this guy is just not an emotional adult. He veers wildly from one emotional extreme to the other, but remains, regardless of the day's visage and gait, a man consumed by his passions and frustrated by his critics.

I don't know George Bush, my judgments on him are produced by the weird entity transmitted by the cameras. But the one thing I've found helpful in my viewings and evaluations is a simple thought experiment: if these guys had no handlers, no briefing books, no focus groups, but were stuck on a stage and forced to debate the issues, what would the outcome be? When I run that scenario, I'm always left with two distinct images. I'm left with a less concise, more unfocused, and zinger-free Kerry, and I'm left with Bush as a sputtering, angry fool. Intelligent or not, this guy simply lacks an abiding interest in the art of governance. Policy clearly bores him, competing arguments obviously tire him. He's thrown himself into the exciting issues and cast them as heroic confrontations. Bush wants to be a president in the same way John Wayne was a cowboy -- he wants the power, the image, the glory. And while Kerry may want that as well, there's no doubt in my mind that he's a man who delights in the policy meetings, who feels fulfilled when his legislation helps people, and who's decided that the path to history lies in the work, not the look, of governing. And that goes back to the point about maturity: George Bush approaches the presidency as a child approaches law enforcement, and if the last few years and the last two debates have taught us nothing else, that's a dangerous way for our leader to think.

...check out Ryan Lizza's take from TNR, too.

...Cooped Up thinks Bush is a brat:

Until he became president, George Bush never really had to grow up, and so he never did. Someone, usually one of daddy's friends, was always around to bail him out, to save him from his business failures, to give him sweetheart deals, to ease him down the path to power. And now we see the result: when the going gets tough, George Bush turns petulant and angry. This is not what we need in a President.

6:12 PST:

Bush looks even worse at the start.

Wow.

6:20 PST:

And Kerry looks even better. He looks like he smells victory already.

Bush just listed all of the decisions he has made that have made him unpopular without answering the question.

6:23 PST:

Even when Bush can get his lips around a policy question, he sounds terrible (e.g. North Korea).

"Facile"! HA! Sounds nasty-prolix-Kerry-esque!

Clumsy stiffarm by Bush to an attempt by moderator Gibson to ask a question.

6:30 PST:

Nice long shot of Bush's back. No mysterious lump this time.

6:35 PST:

First domestic question. Bush seriously sounds like a complete idiot. I'm excited.

6:37 PST:

Kerry's first stumble comes a half-hour into the debate with a question about the pick of a trial lawyer for VP and effects on healthcare prices.

6:47 PST:

Liveblogging is tiring. Unless something dramatic happens, I simply can't imagine anyone but the most partisan thinking that Bush has won.

The new Time poll has Bush and Kerry tied 45-45. Matt Y. had this to say:

A relatively low-scoring tie like this one is much more favorable to the challenger than is something like a 49-49 tie. The latter is a neck-in-neck race, likely to be determined by GOTV and electoral college quirks, whereas the former is a race where the incumbent desperately needs to change the dynamic in order to forestall an inevitable loss. But of course for all the same reasons that Kerry was not, in fact, doomed before the first debate Bush is not, in fact, currently doomed. There will be more debates, and in today's climate there's still about 1 million news cycles to go before the voting is done.

Will that stubborn ten percent break to Bush? Not bloody likely.

Search engine manipulation! This post did it for me. It was some of my finest writing, so I'll reproduce a portion:

[WARNING: GOOGLE MANIPULATION ZONE]

OK. I don't have pictures of Jenna Bush naked or Jenna Bush nude, or even Jenna Bush semi-nude. For that matter, I don't have pictures of Jenna Bush with no clothes on or Jenna Bush undressed or Jenna Bush in a three-way with Babs 2.0 and the wizened corpse of Strom Thurmond. Let me be entirely clear: you will certainly not find nude pictures of the Bush twins here, or the Bush twins nude, for that matter. "But what about Barbara Bush?" you ask, gently. I have no need to lie. You could scour this site for hours and find no pictures of Barbara Bush nude, or Barbara Bush in a mild state of disheveled undress, or even Barbara Bush giving someone a smoky look. Nothing like that around here. Nada. Zip.

"But, um..."

No. Seriously. Nothing.

"Nothing?"

Yeah. No nude or naked Jenna Bush. Nothing even remotely like that. You want to see Jenna Bush nude, you weirdo? Go somewhere else. Because you will not see nude photos (or, in any other format! like, um, .jpg, or .gif, or .bmp, etc.) of the Bush twins here, with their luscious ta-tas all hangin' out, doin' weird sexy twin-things to each other.

Now the results are finally in -- here are the searches for which Salto gets hits, in order of popularity:

bush twins nude
jenna bush nude
barbara and jenna bush nude
jenna bush naked
barbara and jenna bush nude
"bush twins nude"
"bush twins" nude
"jenna bush naked"
"jenna bush" +twins +sexy +photos
"nude pictures" "barbara bush" "jenna bush"
"pictures of the bush twins"
bush twins nude?
i love.jenna bush.nude
jenna bush and barbara bush nude
jenna bush behavior naked
jenna bush nude 2000
jenna bush+naked
jenna+bush+nude
nude photos of jenna bush

I'm very proud.

Looks like another death coming in the next book.

Yes, that's right. I'm a gigantic nerd.

Don't forget! Starts at 9 EST. Format is town-hall stylee. Bush's mike-in-hand speaking has seemed like a one of his strengths lately. Froomkin has more information on those appearances, though:

So can President Bush win back the momentum in Missouri?

It may depend on what kinds of questions he gets at the debate in St. Louis tonight -- softballs, hardballs or screwballs?

Judy Keen write in USA Today: "He's no Oprah, and his audiences are supporters who don't usually ask tough questions, but President Bush has an aptitude for the town hall format that will be used in tonight's debate with Sen. John Kerry."

USA Today has some handy figures, too. "Number of question-and-answer sessions President Bush has done with audiences this year: 19

"Number that were open to the public: None. . . .

"Number of Q&A sessions where audience members told Bush they pray for him: 7 "

I expect that there may be anti-Bush hijinx at this debate like at the RNC. I'm desperately hoping for streakers, which should tell you something about my love life.

...Noam Scheiber has some thoughts:

One concern I have about tonight's debate is that the townhall format doesn't really lend itself to hitting Bush on Iraq. If the postdebate focus groups I've been watching are any indication, "undecided" voters seem to want the candidates to talk about what they're going to do in Iraq going forward, not the mistakes made so far. This is, of course, preposterous, since our options going forward have been shaped entirely by the administration's long list of failures. You can't discuss one without the other. But the questions are likely to be along those lines nonetheless, which could complicate things for Kerry.

Still, I'm not overly concerned about this problem. For one thing, Bush is clearly going to set the tone by attacking Kerry first. So if anyone's going to alienate the undecideds in the audience, it's going to be him. Second, I don't put too much stock in what people say when asked what they want candidates to talk about. They all know to tell pollsters they want to hear about the future--and they may actually mean it. But I have no doubt they also find attacks on candidates' records pretty compelling.

EDM has the good news:

On the eve of the 2nd presidential debate, Senator John Kerry is ahead or in statistical tie with President Bush in all 16 "battleground states," according to a new poll by Zogby Interactive, conducted 9/30 to 10/5 for the Wall St. Journal.

Kerry LV leads (%): AR 0.2; FL 0.4; IA 6.6; MI 9.7; MN 8.3; NV 1.0; NH 6.6; NM 11.4; OH 0.3; OR 10.1; PA 5.4; WA 9.9; and WI 2.5.

Bush LV leads (%): MO 2.2, TN 0.9 and WV 6.1.

According to the analysis of the Zogby Poll published in the Wall St. Journal, "Mr. Kerry holds leads outside the margin of error in 6 states...None of Mr. Bush's leads are outside the margin."

Newscycles until November 2 and turnout, turnout, turnout. Even Salto's Own Mom, who is not particularly politically active, has volunteered to drive voters to the polls in crucial swing state Wisconsin. Maybe you have relatives living somewhere where they could make a difference?

...Andy Sullivan thinks that a Kerry landslide is the most likely outcome at this point, based on post-debate polling numbers showing undecideds breaking 2-1 for Kerry.

Here.

[via Alterman]

With all of the political hubbub, it's easy to overlook the scary bird flu news that just came out:

A 26-year-old Thai woman who died of acute pneumonia on 20 September was a “probable” case of human-to-human transmission of the H5N1 bird flu virus, the Thai Ministry of Public Health confirmed on Tuesday.

All 40 previously confirmed human cases of the virus since 2003 were apparently caught from sick birds. But the World Health Organization fears the virus could cause a lethal pandemic if it gains the ability to pass easily from person to person.

The Thai ministry's statement stressed that the probable case of human-to-human transmission followed prolonged, close contact between the woman and her sick daughter, who also died from bird flu. The virus did not show an ability to spread easily, as human flu does, which is required for a pandemic.

But research on the virus’s recent evolution shows it has become steadily better at replicating in mammals in the past few years. It may now be learning to spread between them.

Prescient Salto talked about this back in January.

Back then, I linked to this. And here's an excerpt for those with poor memories:

There are fears that the bird flu virus could mutate, attaching itself to a human flu virus which could spread between people.

"The spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza in several areas in Asia is a threat to human health and a disaster for agricultural production," the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the WHO said in a joint statement.

"Although it has not happened yet, the so-called 'bird flu' presents a risk of evolving into an efficient and dangerous human pathogen," the three agencies warned.

"This is a serious global threat to human health," said WHO Director General Lee Jong-wook.

"This time, we face something we can possibly control before it reaches global proportions if we work co-operatively and share needed resources. We must begin this hard, costly work now."

We don't see so much scary-talk now, strangely.

Be wary. Watch the news carefully.

I was telling BigD and friends Saturday night about James Wolcott's marvelous piece on last Thursday's Bush/Kerry debate. It's here, just for reference. Here's a bit:

We've seen President Twitchy before. When Helen Thomas persisted in asking Bush why he was trying to tear down the walls between church and state, and wouldn't be sluffed off with one of his standard nonanswers, Bush, as I wrote in Attack Poodles, went through a battery of irked expressions that ended with him imitating Tony Perkins in the final shot of Psycho, looking as if he had a fly on his nose.

Since then Bush has been wheeled out into forums where no one can dare question or contradict his majesty, where he can lean forward and repeat ad nauseam his patented soundbites. Last night I believe we saw the ugly comeback of the private face of Bush--the irritable expressions he flashes subordinates when he's presented with information he doesn't like or feels someone's taken up too much of his time or is pressed to explain himself to people he shouldn't have to explain himself to because he's the president and fuck you. The notion that Bush is "likeable" has always been laughable. It takes a Washington pundit to be that dumb. He's an angry, spoiled, resentful little big man--I use "little big man" in the Reichian sense of a small personality who puffs himself up to look big through bluster and swagger but remains a scheming coward inside--and next to a genuinely big man like Kerry, shrunk before the camera's eyes.

Atrios is exactly right when he praises the left for owning the cycles of the media lately:

There were a lot of complaints about the people running the Kerry campaign/DNC during the month of August when they appeared to be blindsided by the Swift Boat nonsense. But, I think they should be complimented on how they've been doing things. They've managed to completely own the post-debate spin for both of these debates, highlighting what a nitwit Bush was and highlighting what a liar Dick Cheney was. They've managed to get the information out there, and fast. At least after the first debate (I didn't notice this time), they bought up the banner ads a bunch of major newspapers touting Kerry's performance.

It's rare that our side owns even an entire news cycle. And, of course, given our in the tank media it's never quite perfect. But, we've pretty much owned it since Kerry's debate - the thing which came closest to dislodging us was Drudge's magic pen. Nice try, but no luck.

There must be a real effort to own each and every news cycle from now until November 2nd. There may be times where news from Iraq and elsewhere does the job, unfortunately. When that's not the case, there must be no lessening of effort -- it's too easy to get distracted by memo nonsense, or bullshit about carrying something illegal into the debates, or something. They'll try to find something.

"My opponent says he has a plan for Iraq. Parts of it should sound pretty familiar -- it's already known as the Bush plan."

"In Iraq, Senator Kerry has a strategy of retreat; I have a strategy of victory."

-- President Bush, in the same speech, this morning in Pennsylvania.

[via Political Wire]

The transcript is here.

Some highlights:

Some surprising passivity from Cheney in the face of an Edwards attack:

EDWARDS: That was a complete distortion of my record. I know that won't come as a shock.

The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.

He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

It's amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's.

IFILL: Thirty seconds.

CHENEY: Oh, I think his record speaks for itself. And frankly, it's not very distinguished.

IFILL: In that case, we'll move on to domestic matters. And this question, I believe, goes to Senator -- to Vice President Cheney.

Next, Cheney talks about his membership in a union as an electrical worker. This took place, of course, when he was working on the Death Star in the 70s.

Without mentioning them by name at all, explain to us why you are different from your opponent, starting with you, Mr. Vice President.

CHENEY: Why I am different from John Edwards. Well, in some respects, I think, probably there are more similarities than there are differences in our personal story.

I don't talk about myself very much, but I've heard Senator Edwards, and as I listen to him, I find some similarities.

I come from relatively modest circumstances. My grandfather never even went to high school. I'm the first in my family to graduate from college.

I carried a ticket in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for six years. I've been laid off, been hospitalized without health insurance. So I have some idea of the problems that people encounter.

So the Galactic Empire was using union labor. Unions be powerful with the force!

More soon.

Krasny is spending an hour on it right now (10am-11am PST).

Listen to it live from a link on this page; their archive, which will have the program in an hour or two, is here.

Here.

It was kinda weird when Edwards started talking about Cheney's gay daughter. I was waiting for Cheney to lunge across the table, hands clutching at Edwards' neck.

TAPPED has more:

Just like that, every social conservative watching was reminded that the vice president raised a gay daughter and that he refuses to condemn homosexuality. And just like that, Edwards staked out the reasonable position that committed gay couples should be able to visit each other in the hospital. Cheney, knowing that the best possible outcome would be for this to disappear into the ether of debate moments that nobody discusses, then punts:

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.

IFILL: That's it?

CHENEY: That's it.

It's sort of a shame that the debate rules didn't mandate that all blocks of time be used to their fullest. Another 80 seconds of Cheney highlighting his own untenable position on such a flash point would have been devastating.

I thought Cheney looked classy for a moment, which was vaguely unnerving.

Unlike Monstrachaka in comments, I think it was a draw at best for the Repubs. Edwards was too appealing and he landed some serious punches. The big mo of Big John continues.

...Andy Sullivan thought it was Edwards in a landslide:

Boy was I ever wrong. If last Thursday night's debate was an assisted suicide for president Bush, this debate - just concluded - was a car wreck. And Cheney was road-kill. There were times when it was so overwhelming a debate victory for Edwards that I had to look away. I have to do C-SPAN now, but stay tuned for more post-debate blogging in a little while.

Even when he admitted that he finds Cheney sexier...

...Kevin Drum has this to say:

You know, after taking the time to write all this stuff down, I'm beginning to think Edwards did better than I initially gave him credit for. Basically, he put Cheney on the defensive on Iraq and demonstrated clear superiority on domestic issues. That's not bad.

So score it a modest victory for Edwards, especially since he was the one who had to prove he could hold his own. It probably won't make a big difference in the polls, but even a small difference could be important. The Kerry team is probably pretty happy with how things went tonight, and it definitely puts additional pressure on Bush to perform well on Friday.

...Kos has the instant polls:

CBS:

CBS News tracked the reactions to tonight's vice-presidential debate of a nationwide panel of 169 uncommitted voters - voters who could change their minds before Election Day. Here are the initial results. This scientific poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points:

By 41% to 29%, uncommitted debate watchers say Edwards won the debate tonight.

ABC:

Who won? (among debate viewers)

Cheney 43%
Edwards 35%
Tie 19%

So ABC has Cheney winning. Um, until you look at what follows:

Party ID of debate viewers

Democrats 31%
Republicans 38
Independents 27

Whoops! A seven-point gap in debate viewers' party ID and an eight-point Cheney win. Well.

He looks as if gravity affects him twice as much as anyone else. Dude likes to hunch. Let's be honest.

A good debate for both sides thus far, I think. Edwards sounds good to me. Cheney tends to drone in a monotone that had me daydreaming. No knockouts at this point. It'll be a draw, I'd expect.

I was at the protests to the Republican National Convention in NYC. While I was there, I saw countless signs reflecting variations of the theme "Bush Lied -- Who Died?"

Bush was never this administration's liar-in-chief, however. It was, and has always been, Dick Cheney. Most importantly, Dick is the one who has continued to assert a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. And people have believed him.

Edwards has a lot to cover. He can pick from: the lies, the war bungling, the Halliburton profiteering, the energy coverup, the Plame affair, the obscenity, the cherrypicking of intelligence, etc. I'm reminded of what I thought were the failings of Fahrenheit 9/11 -- that there were simply too many allegations in the movie for it to feel credible, though they all may have been true. I hope Edwards will refuse the lure of throwing everything at Cheney to see what will stick. He needs two or three themes, and he needs to repeat them again and again. And again.

I love watching these debates. I almost fainted with the adrenaline rush that surged through me before last Thursday's mauling.

Did you know:

that there have been acts of vandalism and arson against Kerry offices in Lousisana?

that there have been acts of violence against protesters at Bush events?

that your car isn't safe (if you have a Kerry sticker)?

You might not see these on Drudge. But you would know all of this if you were reading David Neiwert's blog.

His essay on fascism and the Republican Party is definitely worth a read. Part I is here. Have a cup of coffee first.

Here.

Salto back online at home.

That is all.