Mitt Romney's campaigning in Pennsylvania and Ohio on Election Day (or at least that's what the Associated Press says). He's going to Philly and Cleveland.
So, should President Obama follow suit? Both Obama and McCain did it last time when, arguably, Obama didn't need to campaign at all on Election Day.
At the risk of saying something extremely cynical, this has been a good few days for Obama's already strong-ish reelection chances. And every poll I've read from the swing states indicates that Obama's leading in early voting there. So what's up with this?
Currently, Romney holds a seven-point edge among early voters (50% to 43%); because of the small sample, this lead is not statistically significant
because of the small sample, this lead is not statistically significant. At this point four years ago, Obama led John McCain by 19 points (53% to 34%) among early voters.
Wow. That was way too easy. All I had to do was write it.
Of course, I don't really believe this. Though Obama wasn't strong in Denver, I think Obama was stronger last night than he was last week (and I thought he was great last week). He came across as a very strong Commander-in-Chief, and had Romney flailing for much of the night.
It was, in many respects, the flipside of the first debate.
Bank it: Our PPP poll will have the most pessimistic Obama numbers of the week.
I can't quite figure any of this out now. Yes, Obama gave a bad debate performance (no point arguing this), and Romney gave a good one. But the shift in polls over the past two weeks has made little sense. I mean, if you're an independent, Obama may have come across as Milquetoast, but he certainly didn't say or do anything disqualifying or viscerally awful. He was just ... blah.
Granted, I've been seeing less of it over the past couple of days, but in the hours and days following the debate, genuine worry about Obama's performance and the narrowing polls, lead some people to express those anxieties. And lead some (and I stress, SOME) other commenters to label those people some variation of "concern troll."
Man, do I dislike it when any expression of opinion is smugly dismissed by labelling the commenter as being less than genuine. Have for years. And in this case, it doesn't even make sense.
I had no idea the former Governor of Massachusettes could be this decisive or tough, and be willing to take on one of the sacred cows of his own party.
And yet, here he is, willing to lay it all on the line, putting principle before party, saying what needs to be said, regardless of who it hurts.
Here's what he said late today:
"It's not the language I would have used."
Yes, Mitt Romney said this.
Romney says, "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."
Nice job, Mittens. Even if your words are put in the best possible context (for you), you are the gift that keeps on giving by letting dumb insensitive phrases like that leave your mouth in the first place. Recall:
Just watched as much of the Lawrence O'Donnell interview with Herman Cain as I could. Normally, I love watching Republicans appear on MSNBC prime time as much as I like seeing real Democrats appear on Fox News. They're such rare moments, and I relish them. But Lawrence O'Donnell, in what could have been an enlightening interview with this week's GOP frontrunner, really dropped the ball.
Embarrassingly so. Now, granted I didn't watch the entire thing, but in two areas of questioning, he went where he needed not have.
In other, equally breaking news, I'm also not running for President.
Now the question becomes, what happens to Sarah Palin?
The will she or won't she fueled the media's fascination with her since McCain lost in November 2008. Now that she's out, what does she become?
My guess is that she holds on to her core base of conservative supporters, but beyond that, I think her moment has past.
Because this is the tenth anniversary of one of the most tragic, shocking single days in American history. And you should be able to feel whatever you want today, without someone else telling you you're wrong,and that their way of observing is superior to yours.
Those two hours between 8:30am and 10:30 were shattering to anyone who witnessed it, watched it on TV, listened to it on the radio, followed it on the Internet, or followed it third hand. We were all impacted by it. If some people feel the need to move on and not commemorate this day, fine. But don't be surprised or disappointed if many others do feel the need to grieve, pause, and reflect. Ten years is a long time in some respects, but in many other respects, it's a speck of time. The wound, to many, is still raw.
Now TVNewser hears Uygur may be moved out of the 6pm hour, possibly to be replaced by Al Sharpton. When the host changes happened earlier this year, the 6pm hour was simply known as “MSNBC Live,” a telling sign that MSNBC was trying out Uygur.
Sharpton has hosted the 6pm show for the last two weeks. This past week, the hour was second, to Fox News, in A25-54 viewers Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
I'm a big fan of Cenk's work at The Young Turks (including What The Flick), but wasn't in the vicinity of a television much at 6pm when his show was on. He's a talented, articulate guy, and one who can represent the progressive view without engaging in cringe-inducing insults or histrionics.
Well, some lawyers. Which of course, as President, he's permitted to do. And, though he disagreed with the opinion of some, he concurred with the views of others. Possibly this story is making a mountain out of a molehill, but if the New York Times had printed a similar story, except with the word Obama replaced with Bush, what would we have said?
PresidentObama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.
The issue here is whether the wa... conflic... strategic engagement in Libya can be called hostilities. If they did, America's role would have had to have been scaled back in late May.
The headline is a little misleading, because ...