Look, my friends, at various points in last night’s town hall debate in Nashville, I felt fairly certain Senator John McCain would rear back and launch himself at Sen. Barack Obama.

I am also fairly certain McCain was not referring to Obama in the roundabout 2,823,892 times he used the phrase “my friends…”

(Note: That is an unofficial count. Consider the error margin: +/- 2,000,000)

Not that the two were especially heated and firing back and forth at any particular point, but the intimate, podium-less setting provided the imaginative type (I know I’m not the only one) a visual for the 1-in-1,000 chance that the town hall debate would turn into a town hall brawl.

(Ah, fisticuffs! Where would democracy be without it?)

McCain’s demeanor was as fiery and pointed as a candidate down in most every national poll should be.

Obama’s demeanor was as calm and poised as a candidate ahead in most every national poll should be.

Despite the McCain campaign implying that for the rest of the campaign it would “turn the page” on the economy and focus on Obama’s ties to various persons of controversy, the questions from the town hall debate were mainly focused on how everyday working Americans would pay their bills and be optimistic despite the current poor state of the economy.

Each candidate spared no time limit – much to the dismay of NBC moderator Tom Brokaw – to explain their key campaign talking points, no matter what the question was.

For every figurative punch, an appropriate and long-winded counterpunch followed. That was, except for when McCain would just toss in the “he’s gonna tax you!” jab as his time ran out and subject moved on.
Neither candidate seemed to blow the audience away. Each had their moments, but it barreled down to being more of the same rhetoric heard at every campaign stop in the country. (Granted, McCain did not mention William Ayers, and Obama did not mention the Keating Five scandal.) Polls and the questioners showed that the number one issue on Americans’ minds is the economy; leave your political finger-pointing and personal jabs at the door, we say.

A rather interesting moment in the debate came early when the candidates were asked to name who they would choose to be Treasury Secretary. Neither candidate gave an outright answer. Instead, McCain answered first by throwing out either a bad joke or jab: “Not you, Tom.”

I laughed at what seemed more like a joke to me. Unfortunately, the moderator did not seem to feel the same way, judging by Brokaw’s demeanor throughout the rest of the debate. At various points throughout the debate, Brokaw took time away by restating rules and time limits in an agitated tone. Of course, Brokaw was determined to keep within the rules each campaign agreed on, as was his job as moderator, but this was assuming that any two chatty politicians (redundant: politicians all seem to be chatty) would ever fully comply.

Another odd moment came when McCain answered a question from a gentleman, possibly in his early 30’s, about Americans paying for mortgages in this economy by telling him, “I’ll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis.” It seemed like a tone parents give to their children when saying, “This is probably way too grown up for you. You’d never understand.” He may not have meant to phrase the words the way he did, but McCain came off as demeaning and very offensive.

And last, but not least, was the demotion McCain gave to Obama. At first, Obama was mocked for being a celebrity of sorts, and called “The One” by the McCain campaign. This time around, McCain brushed off Obama’s relative importance by referring to him simply as “That One,” as he gave a sideways head nod in his opponent’s general vicinity. Maybe McCain was trying to put Obama in the way old veterans do the new kid on the block, but it ended up coming off as a “grumpy old man” moment.

My own simple conclusion of this night came down to this:

The key difference between the town hall format and other campaign debates is that the candidates get a chance to be face-to-face with questions of regular, everyday Americans – you know, Joe Six Pack and whathaveyou – and delicately walk around their questions just as if they were sitting in the moderator’s seat.

After all, hockey moms, Joe Six Packs, construction workers, emergency service workers, town hall debate attendees and moderators, each only get one vote come November 4, 2008. Might as well give every voter fair and balanced treatment.

For all intensive purposes, Governor Sarah Palin hit the ball out of the park in last night’s debate versus her Democratic counterpart, Senator Joe Biden.

She was well-versed in her studied key words of “maverick,” “reform,” and “hockey mom.” She managed to avoid diving too deep into any subject she was not adequately prepped to defend her candidate’s position; instead, she would steer the discussion toward her stronger topics — energy independence, drilling and reform. She took very little chance at making the same mistake of rambling off into space with topics she did not have adequate amount of information on, which was a key flaw exposed in her latest interview series with CBS’s Katie Couric.

But something about her demeaner made me especially curious:

Either Gov. Palin has a twitch in her eye, or she’s trying to flirt for votes!

Maybe she has a bad poker face; or, she may even have a physical ailment I am unaware of. If that is the case, please forgive the curious observation.

But my own two eyes saw what appeared to be a politician flexing every ounce of charm, using every bit of her experience (she’s been a politician since the early 90s and is former beauty pageant winner) and charm to be provocative to “Joe Six Pack” and I (Or am I considered “Joe Six Pack”?).

How many times did Gov. Palin look directly into the camera, smile and wink?

I counted four times where Gov. Palin would take a break from looking at her notecards, look directly into the camera, smile real big and then wink.

At first, I playfully joked with my roommate that she was flirting with me. She may’ve just done it once by habit, because she appears to be a personable, playful, fun person by nature. By the last time she pulled off this “charm moment” it seemed a step beyond just playfulness, and ventured into provacative territory.

Gov. Palin pulled out the “flirt card.”

Undoubtedly, male politicians have used the same tactic for years upon years. They dance for dollars — figuratively, of course — campaign events for votes and donations. Supporters need to know they can trust the person they are investing their vote into. But this time seemed different. This is a candidate who was coming off a bad string of interviews, and even though she and Senator John McCain decried the media as using “gotcha journalism” — a term which means the same as saying, “That was taken out of context!” — the polls continued to lean toward Senator Barack Obama.

Now, regular “aw, shucks” charm is one thing — she used it plenty last night, which is why she did manage to move her positive poll numbers up — but Palin crossed the line by openly flirting with ol’ “Joe Six Pack” sitting at home.

The first Saturday Night Live skit this season comes to mind, where Tina Fay and Amy Poehler give a parody of what a public address with Gov. Palin and Senator Hillary Clinton would be like. At one point, Poehler’s Clinton character yells out in frustration, “No… mine!” … going on to explain that she didn’t want just any woman to reach the white house, she wanted to be the first. After this battle for the “Veepstakes,” Hillary Clinton was probably sitting at home throwing random items at the television screen.

All the time she spent working her way to the top, meticulously going through issue-by-issue to be sure she was well-versed, conversational and specific, only to have a less-qualified politician be plucked from the snowy state mainly because she is a woman — a poor an insulting attempt of the GOP trying to take away women voters who supported Clinton but were having second-thoughts about Obama.

Even if the McPalin ticket is falling behind in the polls (how reliable are those, anyway?), it is insulting — to both Hillary Clinton and “Joe Six Pack” — to have a candidate taking the “flirty” route to swaying voters back to the GOP ticket. Her natural “gee golly, Joe!” charm alone makes her a likeable candidate. No need to muddy up the waters by using the demeaning “flirt card.” It has no place inside the political arena.

Related:

• “Palin The Populist” by Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal)
• “Projecting through the screen” by Rich Lowry (National Review)
• “Hockey Mom on Thin Ice” by E.J. Dionne (RealClearPolitics)
• “Palin Scored Points, But She Did Not Win” by Howard Finneman (Newsweek)

My thirst for well-balanced knowledge is endless. I am fairly certain yours is as well.

This particular request from me to you, fine group of 3-4 readers, is that you share your bookmark of web links, Amazon wishlists, must-read essays, articles and political cartoons with with me.

The 2008 presidential election is the most exciting, frustrating (misdirections galore!) and important of my generation. I am embedded in this White House race more so than I have in any other, and many fellow voters across the nation are in the same boat. My goal in reading and understanding the distinctions between the competiting candidates and their parties, is to know exactly where they stand on the various issues. This particular election seems to have more misdirections about personalities and low-blow smears for one glaring reason — it’s the election of the present. We Americans are in the process of choosing between the candidates before us, and realize that even a slight variation in their positions may change our vote.

So, in that respect, I’d like to know what everyone reads. I’ll list places I visit and try to be as specific as possible. Transparency is vital — I hold that high in my expectations list for my elected officials as well! But do your part — help a yearning mind out! — and give me particular columnists, magazines, newspapers, TV shows and whatever you find helpful in your decision-making moving forward to election day.

Your assistance is appreciated, and will be rewarded — intrinsically! Ok, maybe there’s a Reese’s cup (the tiny one… budget is tight these days!) in there for you.

Don’t leave me and your fellow Americans in the dark — be kind, share your resources.

A Few Of My Recommended Web Links

• Real Clear Politics
• Mark Halperin (TIME Magazine)
• Stuart Rothenberg (Rothenberg Report)
• Eugene Robinson (Washington Post)
• Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal)
• Chuck Todd (MSNBC)
• The New York Times
• National Journal

*This was written just during the Al Gore speech, but my internet went crazy just as Obama took the stage. Coincidence? Hmm…

Just a bit of a round-up before the historic speech tonight from Senator Barack Obama in front of the Invesco Field crowd of 70,000 –

• If Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today, he’d be in tears today. A candidate with half African-American roots is the Democratic nominee for the president of the United States of America. I think it’s safe to say this is one of those “mountaintops” MLK Jr. said we could reach. Any and every American can and should be proud of this accomplishment, whether or not you believe in Obama’s policies.
• If I had to rank the speeches given this week from the prime time appearances, it’d go (top down): Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton (VERY close 2nd), Joe Biden, Bill Clinton (he’s back!), Mark Warner (distant last, although he did shout out the roommate’s hometown of Danville, VA). Michelle stepped on the scene as someone to not forget down the line (Hillary would agree). Hillary reassured her voters of her support of the Democratic ticket and took plenty of good “meat” shots at the McCain policies. Biden told us the story of his life of tragedy and triump (sorry to sound so cliche, but it is just that), jabbed his “good friend” and his policies.
• I think the Clintons BOTH did the right amount of passing the torch along, encouraging the 18 million folks who voted for Hillary to stick to the Obama/Biden/Democrat/Obamican ticket that holds most of the same policy positions. Hillary was gracious from her wonderful, non-bitter speech, to her speeding along the official nomination of Obama during the roll call vote. Bill Clinton forced along the words, “Obama is ready to lead,” as many times possible, proving that he’s at least ready to grin and bear the fact that his wife just barely lost the closest, most historic Democratic primary in history. Glad to see the fired up, happy William J. Clinton, as opposed to the red-faced, “my way or the opposition” one who appeared on the primary campaign trail. Unity reached thanks to these folks.

Back to the big speech. I’ll have a follow-up, but shoot your reactions my way. Either here or email me at tim@timothylukehopkins.com.

No need to follow every second of the Democratic National Convention stuck in front of the television.

Thanks to modern technology, each speech given on the DNCC floor can be accessed on-demand from a high-definition feed using your computer. Both the picture and sound qualities are superb.

The DNCC site streams the action live as well, helping those of you not by the TV, or for those who’d rather watch the speeches instead of the pundits battling amongst themselves.

Take a peek yourself.

Last night, in front of the Democratic National Convention and television audiences, Michelle Obama gave the best speech of the presidential campaign.

Along the way, Michelle did a wonderful job at eloquently telling her own great American dream story, the story of how she and Obama came to meet, and how in-touch she and Barack are with the everyday woes of Americans — all in an attempt to close the book on people saying they do not know who the Obamas really are.

I recommend you watch the speech and judge for yourself. (I went ahead and embedded the video below as well.)

But here is a series that stood out to me in her wonderful, eloquent, remarkable speech.

(I made lines I found particularly moving bold.)

I stand here today at the crosscurrents of that history - knowing that my piece of the American Dream is a blessing hard won by those who came before me. All of them driven by the same conviction that drove my dad to get up an hour early each day to painstakingly dress himself for work. The same conviction that drives the men and women I’ve met all across this country:

People who work the day shift, kiss their kids goodnight, and head out for the night shift - without disappointment, without regret - that goodnight kiss a reminder of everything they’re working for.

The military families who say grace each night with an empty seat at the table. The servicemen and women who love this country so much, they leave those they love most to defend it.

The young people across America serving our communities - teaching children, cleaning up neighborhoods, caring for the least among us each and every day.

People like Hillary Clinton, who put those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, so that our daughters - and sons - can dream a little bigger and aim a little higher.

People like Joe Biden, who’s never forgotten where he came from, and never stopped fighting for folks who work long hours and face long odds and need someone on their side again.

All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do - that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.

That is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack’s journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope.

That is why I love this country.

Enjoy. Discuss if you feel so compelled to do so.

Do not direct your anger at the messengers, who many think are in charge in Iraq because they are given the impossible task of articulating the progress — or lack thereof — of the war in Iraq. Granted, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker are calling many shots in Iraq. But, by-in-large, the overall decision-making comes from the man upstairs — of the White House, anyway — President George W. Bush.

The W. administration has Petraeus and Crocker stepping to the beat handed down from above. The reports given this week were merely rehashes of what the White House public relations department conjured up as to the best “spin words” to translate the “realities” (or fantasies) of war for public consumption.

(Think of this in terms of parents spelling out words as they argue back-and-forth, under the assumption their kid cannot spell and therefore cannot comprehend what they are really talking about.)

Far be it for W. to need to worry even further about Americans falling into a deep state of panic if they found out their beloved soldiers were fighting in a war that apparently cannot be won.

Does anyone know what would constitute an American “win” in Iraq? Unless I am mistaken, the “win” would consist of assisting the Iraqi people in establishing their own democracy with police and soldiers to protect and defend themselves. That would constitute the U.S. as official “liberators” (W.’s favorite word) of the Iraqi people and a victory parade would follow. Come to think of it, weren’t the Iraqi people supposed to be giving out roses and applauding all of the American soldiers’ valiant, hard-fought efforts, as Iraq was liberated from Hussein’s tyrannic rule? (Hear that one before, have you? Still applies.)

In both the long- and short-term viewpoints, the war in Iraq is doing more harm to Americans than W. and his administration will admit. Casualties are rising not only of our own American troops, but also citizens of Iraq. Their family members — those ones declining to hand American troops roses and smile everyday — will inevitably hold a grudge. Some will bury the hatred deep, taking it with them to their grave. Others will wear their hatred on their sleeve, seeking revenge for U.S. occupation.

When W. and the gang tell you the troops will be reduced “soon,” what they mean is that, figuring in the surge, essentially the numbers will be “less increased” than they really want.”

Here’s The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson on the issue:

Here’s something solid: Early last year, before the surge, there were 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. In November, when Americans choose the next president, there are likely to be 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The White House will blow a lot of smoke about how there’s a “pause in the drawdown” or some such nonsense. There’s no troop reduction; there’s been an increase.

No one should be surprised that Petraeus and Crocker asked our elected representatives for more time. That’s what George Bush always wanted, and he wasn’t about to be deterred by anything so inconsequential as the clearly expressed will of the American people. As Dick Cheney said of anti-war opinion polls: “So?”

W. does not care what Americans think. His veep told us straightforward, without any frosting or creme filling.

If W. cared what we thought, he would have resigned when his approval rating dropped to the low 30s. He would be back in Texas, on his ranch, obsessing about baseball, fishing and book deals. Instead, W. is in his ranch in Texas obsessing over baseball, his legacy (funny that he tries hard to spin his double-term into a positive in spite of record deficits and a war with no end in sight), and words with more than 2 syllables (low blow, I am slightly apologetic). Resigned, W. would only be in a seat at his house, flipping channels controlling a large-screen LCD television. In power, W. sits in the biggest, most important house in America, and as he flips “channels” (war in Iraq, American economy, China loan sharks, his potential successors), he unfortunately controls real lives with every button-press.

W. did the Iraqi people a favor by taking out Saddaam Hussein. He was a tyrannical ruler, and has the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqi people on his hands.

W. did the Iraqi people a disservice by not understanding the complexity of the Iraq region, and the chaos and instability that would come from an entire people suddenly being freed from oppression.

Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and American soldiers are standing in the crossfire. And, just for standing on Iraqi soil in general, American soldiers find themselves in Iraqi crosshairs as well.

Green zones — those areas designated as “safe” for its zones where its inhabitants are supposed to be safe — are being attacked, Baghdad is a war zone, “splurge” would be considered both helpful and yet still yield very little for stability in Iraq. What can be concluded from the report this week from the top American general in Iraq is that while there have been gains in the war on terror in Iraq, those results are very instable, fragile and in as soon as a few days could be completely reversed. Bush is in complete “delegation mode” right now, pushing off this Iraq debacle to the upcoming commander-in-chief.

It is long past time for America to back out of the war they surged into with a purpose but no competent plan of exit.

Understandably, not everyone agrees on this war. Lives continue to be lost, and the last thing any of us want is for the soldiers who laid their lives on the line for this global war on terror to be lost in vain.

As Congress received the Petraeus and Crocker briefing this week, W. presented an award, posthumously, to a heroic Navy SEAL for his heroic efforts, saving the lives of his comrades:

Navy SEAL Michael A. Monsoor had fast thinking to do when a live grenade came out of nowhere to bounce off his chest: Take the clear path to safety that he had but his comrades didn’t, try to toss it safely away, or throw himself on top of it.

With barely an instant’s hesitation on that Iraqi rooftop, Monsoor took the last course, sacrificing his life to save the men around him. For that, President Bush on Tuesday awarded him the Medal of Honor.

Most Americans know of a family member or friend fighting in Iraq, or the Middle East. When on American life is lost, we all feel the pain. To steal the Edward R. Murrow quote: “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.” Speaking out against the war in Iraq does not mean Americans are un-American, as the current administration would have you believe.

Speaking of my own dissent against the war in Iraq, I think of Monsoor and those 4,000-plus casualties as I voice my disagreement with W. and his administration’s poorly planned, chaotic, indefinite occupancy in Iraq. The ideal number for casualties of war: ZERO. The sooner we average that per day, the sooner Americans will be better off.

So to those jokesters, ditch those quirky “Crock brought us a bunch o’ crock” and “Petraeus = be-tray” lines; they are aimed at the wrong targets.

Instead, dissent and blame should be placed solely on President George W. Bush and his inadequately brained, overcompensated power-filled administration. Keep the American casualties in mind as you disagree — they fight with weapons, so we can have the right to fight with words.

Follow-up incoming…

One of the most intriguing figures in the now infamous “Spitzer Scandal,” is Governor Eliot Spitzer’s estranged wife, Mrs. Silda Alice Wall Spitzer.

During Gov. Spitzer’s apology, and subsequent resignation, Mrs. Spitzer could be seen in the background with her face pale and exhausted, assuming the same role as many wives of powerful men before her — standing by her man.

But is she doing more than just literally standing by her man?

What is the thought process going through her mind? Was she privy to his freelancing? Or, if not, how outraged is she at finding out about his infidelities by way of a media rainstorm?

One story in the New York Post has a family friend saying that, for now, Mrs. Spitzer will ride out this storm with her husband.

Can Gov. Spitzer pull a Kobe Bryant and rebound (pun intended) with his wife by purchasing some ignorantly large and expensive “bling” for his second-in-command? Would she even accept that, considering how far his “mighty” has fallen?

Even as the Spitzers drop back out of public life (as much as the paparazzi will let them) and attempt to iron out the many lumps in their marriage and family life, the prostitute from the scandal emerged and now has her 15 minutes of fame, a la Monica Lewitsky.

The New Jersey girl named as “Kristen” in the scandal, Ashley Alexandra Dupree, is a 22-year-old bartender/waitress/party girl. Her options now, given her newfound celebrity status, include choosing between Penthouse and Hustler magazine. Her latest cover on the New York Post is rather racy, and her status, looks and intrigue (choose one) earned her nearly 5 million hits on her MySpace page, where she promotes her musical aspirations. Her status and Spitzer’s long list of enemies combined to get her a free public defender who (surprise!) has a bone to pick with the ex-New York governor.

With “Kristen” cashing in on her moment in the sun, the “other woman,” Mrs. Spitzer, has to handle seeing her husband’s sins plastered all over the news. The three young daughters will ask questions and Mrs. Spitzer will be the one to try and explain why they are receiving extra attention, and why their daddy is unemployed now.

If your significant other admitted to a life of hypocrisy and wrongdoing, and jeopardized everything the two of you built together, would you stick around? Would you stand behind them as they denounce their own actions, or would you be far, far away, and less forgiving?

Ironically, we all know exactly what to do these difficult situations — that is, until it reaches our own doorstep.

Once touted as the second-coming of famous gangbuster Elliott Ness, and the “Who’s Now” of ethics-prosecutors, New York state governor Elliott Spitzer was implicated in a phone tap of a prostitution ring.

Here are a few links:

• The Smoking Gun
• Pictures of “The Emporer’s Club” website
• New York Post details