"Fighting vociferously"? THIS is the leader of the free world?!

I'm sorry, I really try to understand that different people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, and that all their viewpoints may have merit - but after last night's debate, I truly do not see how anyone could NOT be nervous at the idea of George W. Bush as the leader of the free world. I've seen better debaters in middle school. He was visibly arrogant, nervous, slumping over his podium (every parent in America was thinking "Stand up straight!"), sighing, rolling his eyes, generally acting like a child. And the content of his message was no better. WTF does fighting "vociferously" mean to him, anyway? One wonders what word he was actually grasping for. The repetition of the talking points was painful; clearly his handlers drilled him hard on the "mixed messages" and "must be consistent" memes, because he must have repeated those fifteen times. What a pathetic empty suit.

James Carville was right: They lied to get us into Iraq, and they have no plan to get us out. Bush was defensive, and apparently on another planet - to him, everything's fine in Iraq. The insurgency is a sign of success! Allawi is not an international criminal (and it's okay if Bush's campaign staff writes his speeches to Congress)! We're safe from bin Laden because Hussein is in captivity! (huh?!) And I'm sure everyone breathed a great sigh of relief that Bush actually knows it was bin Laden who attacked us on 9/11, not Hussein! (Which kind of begs the question as to why we then backed off pursuing bin Laden when we had him and his followers surrounded to go gallivanting off into Iraq.)

THIS is the person who's supposed to preserve the world from the fear of terrorism? I wouldn't let him behind the wheel of my car. And I agree with E. L. Doctorow - this President does not know, or care, what the death of a soldier means to that soldier's family. Here's a brief excerpt from the East Hampton Star http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm that explains that further:

"I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. "

It'll be a matter of amazement to me if his controllers actually permit a second debate. I think they'll cut and run like a criminal defense attorney forbidding a particularly slimy client from taking the stand in his own defense. It's easier to preserve the image of Bush as a tough and resolute statesman if one neither hears nor sees him.

It wasn't a slam-dunk performance, by any means: there's a lot that Kerry left unsaid that needs saying, and still too much pandering to the undecided. Who in the HELL is still undecided at this point? Is there not a clear enough difference between the candidates' positions on healthcare, on the environment, on corporate giveaways, on civil liberties, on America's international stature? Anyone who does not see a clear differentiation at this point is NOT paying attention.

We went to the IAM hall in Seattle to view the debate. It was a good gathering: the machinists co-hosted with the firefighters. The IAFF President was there, and the IAM President. On a more personal note, I saw a number of people I knew - Geoff Simpson was there, Greg Markley, Kelly Fox (Kelly introduced the IAFF President), Gregg Gallo, Bud Sizemore, several other people from the district and some of the other delegates.

We were going to go doorbelling for Geoff and Pat and Dave Ross on Saturday - there's a big doorbelling effort going on this weekend - but Skip, the local veterans' chair was there last night and talked us into going to the event for Senator Daniel Inouye instead (Senator Inouye being the only remaining Medal of Honor recipient in Congress).

Gregg talked to me about joining the LGBT for Kerry steering committee. I'll probably do it, even though I've also agreed to be the 47th District Coordinator for Women for Kerry. It's going to be a very busy 30 days.

We finally made reservations for the NARAL Liberty Ball. We decided to sit at Greg Rodriguez' table, as Lindsay wasn't sure she had room at hers.