There are two things I like about this guy.  First, he didn't let the hubris of speculators distract him from what was really going on as far back as 2006 (and certainly further back than that).  But second, he was ridiculed by many "respectable" sources and he never backed down.  Those two things... an undiluted commitment to truth and an unwavering courage to hold to truth in spite of relentless opposition by the powers that be... are necessary and sufficient attributes of a person deserving of the title "hero".

Recently Al Gore made news with his assertion that addressing the climate crisis and the economic crisis could easily amount to the same thing. (Not an original idea, mind you... he's just the guy who got media attention for it!) Recent announcements by President-elect Obama indicate that he's thinking along the same lines with his suggestions that repairing the nation's woeful infrastructure and doing more to develop clean energy can create over two million jobs by 2011. One might say that our government is finally realizing we can heal our economy by solarizing it.

By now most of you know that People magazine has selected Hugh Jackman as the sexiest man alive for 2008.

(Pause to give my supporters time to boo.)

I thought we fought a good fight.  We executed a good campaign.  But in the end we just couldn't compete with the Jackman machine.

(More booing.)

There, there, my friends... let's not be bitter.  After all, there is some cause for celebration.  For one thing, the winner this year has never been in an "Ocean's" film.  That's definitely a step up.

(Modest cheering for my clever zinger.)

Democrats: 

Right now it might be tempting for Democrats to think of Obama’s win as a vindication of the party and a public affirmation of where the party has been taking the country for the past two years.  But for the Democrats to take such a view would be a grave error.  Obama’s victory is every bit as much a critique of the Democratic Party as it is of the Republican Party.  It ought to be clear that Obama would never have been given the nomination from the party machine.  Instead he had to take the nomination from them, really, with the help of an unprecedented grass-roots movement.  Why? Because Democrats of the past few decades have not been particularly Progressive.  I don’t even recall them having a Progressive among their potential nominees when Gore was picked in 2000, and in 2004 they all but snubbed their only Progressive, John Edwards, who I still think could have beaten Bush in that election.  But with Obama sweeping the Democrats to victory very much in spite of themselves, it’s clear the party needs to rearrange it’s priorities to be more in line with the message (and, perhaps more importantly, the Progressive method) that Obama has brought to the national stage.  If the Democrats fail to do this, then they will only end up being an albatross around Obama’s neck.  In that case, we may see Obama dedicate much of his presidency to foreign policy issues (as is perfectly constitutionally appropriate, by the way) while the Congressional Democrats bungle things at home (and Obama gets the blame).

In the late nineteenth century a political movement called “Progressivism” began.  From the very beginning it embraced ruthless media coverage of power brokers, anti-trust laws and other regulations, universal suffrage, and labor rights.  But the impetus behind early Progressivism wasn’t a particular set of policy convictions.  Rather, it was the notion that our attitude toward policy should evolve with our society.  What worked yesterday might not work today.  What works today might not work tomorrow.  The only constant for Progressives has been the belief that “what works” must always be defined as “that which allows ordinary Americans to live free”.  Outside of that, though, Progressives believe that what we need in politics is a constant stream of new ideas, not ideologies.

Once again I'll provide a link to the BBC analysis of the debate for your consideration.  I echo it's commendation of Bob Schieffer for asking sharp questions and, for the most part, keeping the candidates on task.  However, I can't summon the same enthusiasm for the "scrappy" tone of the proceedings.

This is mostly because I don't think any of that really helped clarify where the candidates stand on issues of domestic policy.  Perhaps a significant number of people are entertained by political bickering and flaring tempers, but the debates are intended to help voters sort out policy differences between candidates as well as judge their demeanor under pressure.  Mr. Schieffer expressed the hope of most American viewers, I think, when he said he wanted to hear something new from the candidates during the discussion.  Sadly, we were all disappointed on that score.  Looking at the debate from a purely strategic perspective, though, does give us some points worthy of attention.

What can I say? I just think those BBC folks know what they're talking about.  In particular, this quote:  "[McCain] duly headed off around the ring on the offensive more than once, but he tended to telegraph his punches and they mostly felt like they missed their target."  The only problem I have, really, with the BBC's assessment is that they called the debate in favor of Obama only because he's leading in the polls.  In my view, he was the clear winner regardless.

But I feel as though I need to qualify that judgment just a bit, because, frankly, this second debate didn't seem like a debate at all.  I mean, sure, in both of the previous debates the McCain camp in particular seemed to want to turn the proceedings into 90-minute campaign ad.  But those previous debates at least pretended to be debates.  Not so with what we saw last night.  All-in-all, I thought it was a perfectly ineffective debate format.

Once again, I appreciate the BBC analysis of the debate.  I agree particularly with the last thought:  "[Palin] was never going to win the election for them tonight, but she could have lost it and she didn't."  Indeed, she did much better than I expected she'd do.  Where I disagree with the BBC analysis, however, is anywhere it says the debate was a draw.

Often in debates where a candidate who was expected to do poorly actually does very well, the success of that candidate is oversold.  Palin brought skill to the debate that many of us didn't expect, but all that earned her was the right to be taken seriously.  It didn't score her extra points just because she wasn't a total wreck behind the podium.  It merely allowed her to eliminate the point deficit she had coming into the debate.  And if you start both candidates at zero before analyzing the debate, I think Biden was the clear winner.

This BBC article sums up well my own impressions of how the debate went in terms of calculating a winner of the thing from a completely rhetorical standpoint.  However, I disagree with some of the points the article makes about what will "play well in American living rooms".

I think in an environment where voters crave change, McCain railed too much on how many American projects he's already been a part of.  Yes, this did make him look very experienced, and if the debate was a job interview he'd emerge looking like the prime candidate.  But I think a significant number of Americans today are looking for someone who can examine the world with a fresh set of eyes, not someone who's "been there, done that".