Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Life At Versailles, Or "At It Again;" the Presidential "Debate" Round 2


It was all "Mitch Wromley" (h/t Letterman and Crowley) could do to refrain from referring to President Obama as "You there, boy."

Jeebus what an arrogant prick. I'm sure that's why other arrogant pricks love him so.

Meanwhile, Obama seemed to have recovered somewhat from whatever it was that threw him off his game in the first "debate" with Willard.

(I heard Tavis Smiley and Cornell West speculating on the radio that it was likely "something personal" that we will "never know." The likeliest scenario is a domestic squabble, but I dunno.)

At any rate, Obama's performance was rated more than adequate by the critics, so that's all that was necessary.

Someone who should know better (but since he's an entertainer, we're prepared to imagine he doesn't) claimed that Crowley was -- somehow -- a dyed in the wool Obama Supporter, what's the word, "Obamabot?" Surely anybody who has seen Crowley's performances in the past would think just the opposite of her, but I will say, she was fine last night, not favoring either of the candidates and pressing on generally substantive issues, trying to get them both to at least address the questions being asked by the heavily washed and perfumed masses who were allowed in.

The fact that neither candidate chose to actually answer the questions they were posed is telling.

No answer on jobs, no answer on gas prices, no answer on much of anything, let alone a straightforward answer on pay equity for women.

"Binders full of women" is nearly the sole take-away.

That tells us all we need to know about the priorities of the Palace and its handmaidens.


  1. Who are you voting for? You don't have to tell of course. I'm just curious.

  2. Interesingly, I will be unable to vote in this election because of the move from California to New Mexico. Deadline to register in NM was last week; I won't be a CA resident on election day, so...

    (Others have said I can use my CA absentee ballot just as if I were a resident but that seems a bit outré.)

    I never advise people not to vote, though the calls for a boycott of this election are getting louder, and I'm sympathetic. If there were a significant movement to boycott the election, it could be a good thing.

    I've said before that I am a "Yellow Dog Democrat" -- meaning I vote for the Democrat in nearly every contested election, or I don't vote for any candidate if the Democrat is for shit (for example, I won't vote for Dianne Feinstein but I won't vote for her R opponent either.) In uncontested or nonpartisan elections I have voted for Greens and Socialist candidates.

    In this year's presidential election, I would vote for Obama as I did in 2008, but I wouldn't expect anything from him other than what we've got. He's a corporatist, imperialist warmonger. So's Romney. So is every "credible" candidate for high office.

    Our federal elections are not choices between significantly different policies. They are personality contests.