Getting back to business

Herbert

In other words, nothing has changed. Mr. Bush's victory on Tuesday was not based on his demonstrated competence in office or on a litany of perceived successes. For all the talk about values that we're hearing, the president ran a campaign that appealed above all to voters' fears and prejudices. He didn't say he'd made life better for the average American over the past four years. He didn't say he had transformed the schools, or made college more affordable, or brought jobs to the unemployed or health care to the sick and vulnerable.

He said, essentially, be very afraid. Be frightened of terrorism, and of those dangerous gay marriages, and of those in this pluralistic society who may have thoughts and beliefs and values that differ from your own.

As usual, he turned reality upside down. A quintessential American value is tolerance for ideas other than one's own. Tuesday's election was a dismaying sprint toward intolerance, sparked by a smiling president who is a master at appealing to the baser aspects of our natures.

Which brings me to the Democrats - the ordinary voters, not the politicians - and where they go from here. I have been struck by the extraordinary demoralization, even dark despair, among a lot of voters who desperately wanted John Kerry to defeat Mr. Bush. "We did all we could," one woman told me, "and we still lost."

Here's my advice: You had a couple of days to indulge your depression - now, get over it. The election's been lost but there's still a country to save, and with the current leadership that won't be easy. Crucial matters that have been taken for granted too long - like the Supreme Court and Social Security - are at risk. Caving in to depression and a sense of helplessness should not be an option when the country is speeding toward an abyss.

Krugman

Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will.

It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. (Heads up to readers: I'll be starting a long-planned break next week, to work on a economics textbook. I'll be back in January.) But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.

The hard part isn't believing the words. The hard part is getting past my own sense of personal grief. Mentally I know that we have go on, and to do nothing is unacceptable.

But I wasn't prepared for how completely this would knock me over, I feel like somebody died. Words are so inadequate to express my own sense of personal loss and failure. So I guess I'm trying to say, yes, I will be there to fight. But right now I'm grieving. Because that uphill battle has become the sheerest of cliffs and I can't face it in my current state. I'm also emotionally spent. I don't enjoy the constant sense of embattlement. I don't enjoy this vigil. Kerry not only meant hope. For me it meant that I put out the watch fires for a little while and attend to my own life.

So allow me these moments of wallowing and brooding. I'll get there soon, And I will continue to post. Just don't expect a return to good humor anytime soon.

Yes, the black was a bit melodramatic. I'll be better before too long. And it's wrong to be so glum after reading this.

This is my hope: that the vision and determination that we poured into Kerry's campaign, we will now direct towards everything else there is to do, from the poverty-level families in our own cities to the Sudanese that are being systematically killed and raped in Darfur. I have learned something absolutely brand new about myself in the last couple of months: in the face of crisis, once I make the connection between the situation and my own two hands, I act. I have the time to act, I have the energy to act and I have the resources to #$%-damn act. I had just never realized the connection before. I just hadn't realized that what I do as an individual does affect others and can affect the world. My potential to affect others is being wasted every year that I assume that my responsibility as a human being only goes as far as the ends of my own fingertips.

I am 38 years old and it's time to get on with it: time to get on with a global focus that takes me outside of my own lonely life. With no husband and no dependents, what else to I have to spend my time on? If I could squeeze six days out of my life to help successfully deliver Wisconsin to the Democrats, what else can I do? In my last post, I wrote that I couldn't control the election, but I could control my participation in it. Robert Kennedy and countless other activists are dead, Kerry's campaign and the Democratic plan to re-take the Senate lie in tatters, but I'm still standing. I'm still standing and although I can't control the world, I can control my participation in it. Now all I have to do is decide what to work on next.

Brava Regina! You worked really hard, and have become my personal hero this election.

From Move On

Our journey toward a progressive America has always been bigger than George Bush. The current leg is just beginning -- we're still learning how to build a citizen-based politics together. But it's a journey our nation has been on for a long time. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."

Today, we'll take a breath. Tomorrow, we'll keep moving toward the America we know is possible.

I needed to read this today. When I feel better hopefully I'll be able to use my own words. But right now I have none except those that are angry and full of despair.

I was so sure we would win.

Tentative Good News

It's still early but check out those swing state numbers!

	 AZ  CO  LA  PA  OH  FL  MI  NM  MN  WI  IA  NH

Kerry	 45  48  42  60  52  51  51  50  58  52  49  57

Bush	 55  51  57  40  48  48  47  48  40  43  49  41

Thanks to Kos for the link (and happy 1st birthday to Baby Kos, Ari).

Ezra over at Pandagon has an eloquent post about his reasons for supporting John Kerry

...Righteousness, as a habit, rejects certainty; in fact, the angels have a troubling predisposition to wander around issues, which makes sticking in their camp a matter of ideological flexibility as much as judgment. There's no chasm greater than the one Kerry bridged to go from Vietnam war hero to the war's most prominent opponent, but he was right to serve his country and right to fight for an end to the misguided slaughter. It's a lesson he's refused to unlearn, and one he's spent a lifetime applying. And we need it.

There are times when principle matters more than results, when the admirable aspects of certainty outweigh the practical aspects of flexibility. Certainty can inspire, it can direct, it can empower. But it can't always be right. Terrorism isn't an issue on which we can afford to be wrong. Kerry's willingness to adopt new strategies and positions in response to new evidence is his most crucial trait. The terrorists, Cheney says, will not be impressed by our softer side, though, according to the precanned narratives emitted by his voicebox, it seems George Bush's resolve impresses them greatly. But the objective is not to impress those who wish to kill us, it's to destroy them and their networks. Kerry is willing to adapt his approach to that imperative, Bush is unwilling to do anything that may compromise his puffed-out chest and firmly set jaw.

As a practical matter, that is the primary difference between George W. Bush and John Kerry. It's a choice between extreme certainty and an almost excessive flexibility. These are personality traits and I blame neither man for them, I simply judge which I prefer in my president, and that places me in Kerry's camp. But you know what? I forgive Bush his failings, I forgive him his mistakes, I forgive him his transgressions and his lies and his misjudgments and miscalculations and messes. What I don't forgive -- what I will never forgive -- is that he ran for president in the first place. And the reason, dear reader, that I can never forgive him for that, is because he fought to ascend to an office he didn't understand.

I'm not going to pretend to share Ezra's magnamity when it comes to Bush. I will never forgive him for this war. In fact I hope there is still time to bring him and his abetters to justice.

Nor would I call Kerry's flexibility "excessive". A person who changes his/her opinion when confronted with truths that fly in the face of said opinion is smart. More importantly, he is result oriented.

But for the rest, Ezra hits all the right notes. Kerry has emerged as exactly who we need right now.

No Retreat, No Surrender

I'm reading Norman Mailer's Armies of the Night for a paper I'm writing. At one point he describes the media as "the silent assassins of the Republic." This in 1967. Fast forward thirty-seven years and those silent assassins aren't silent anymore. They have corporate sponsorship and a captive audience.

When I first started this blog, my first priority was to keep insanity at bay and have a little fun in the process. I also wanted to join this community that seemed yet unbowed by the consecutive shocks of the 2000 Election and September 11th. The energy, ballsyness, and humor of these people was the perfect antidote to anything on cable news. After one of Bush's "press conferences" it was nice to read something insightful, cutting, or even downright vulgar about our Resident-in-Thief. It was also exciting to watch it grow, from Mediawhores, to Atrios, to Daily Kos, and further out. The blog community became an excellent way to innoculate myself against the multiple threats of pessimism, apathy, doubt, and above all misinformation.

Through it all, this year's election has always appeared to be the end of a long road. Of course I didn't count on the massive incompetency of this administration. We all know that a victory the day after tomorrow is merely breaking ground on a daunting reconstruction process. But we can only cross that bridge once we get there and we're not there yet. Moreover, we can't afford to let up once we do get there. Because even if Bush goes away, the assassins remain. Fox News isn't going to fold just because their guy loses. If anything they're sharpening their fangs as we speak.

So I guess for me this a reassessment of sorts. This blog's title is going to have to change after Tuesday, and only Tuesday will tell what that change will be. What should my priorities be? The same? More of this? Less of that? I'm taking suggestions.

Meanwhile, we're all crossing our fingers and watching the polls. At the very least, this election won't catch me lying down, (although I can't promise not end up that way, literally, regardless of the outcome on Tuesday). So stay cheerful everybody. This isn't 2000. We know better now.

Zogby predicts Kerry victory!

In case you missed Thursday's Daily Show, pollster John Zogby was Jon's guest and he predicted that John Kerry will win on Tuesday! John, Jon, and John = Jackpot! The Palm Beach Post also quotes Zogby.

However, pollster John Zogby said much can be learned from the gridlock that seems to plague the race.

At this stage, incumbent Bush shouldn't be struggling in key states where 131 electoral votes are at stake, he said. Bush's struggles, he said, are Kerry's gains.

Undecided voters historically break toward the challenger at the end of a campaign, he said.

That's why he said he has no compunction about calling the race for Kerry.

"It's a hunch," said Zogby, who is known for his unconventional methods. "I'm looking at the president's numbers as an incumbent, and they're not good."

A Charge to Keep : My Plans to Invade Iraq

Author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz, the original ghostwriter on "A Charge to Keep: My Journey to the White House" with George W. Bush, gives a candid interview to Russ Baker for the Guerrilla News Network.

-In 2003, Bush’s father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son’s invasion of Iraq.

-Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been “excused.”

-Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot’s garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.

-Bush described his own business ventures as “floundering” before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.

According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush’s beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House – ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. “Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.”

Big-boned gal, Karen Hughes took over ghostwriting duties after Herskowitz was yanked off the project for accurately quoting Bush discussing his "floundering" oil businesses.

Btw, Herskowitz' conversations with George took place in 1999, two full years before he was appointed to the highest office in the land. Thanks to the Smirking Chimp for the link.

I really wish I could make myself stop deconstructing David Brooks. I really wish I hadn't written that sentence. I've realized what it is at long last. It isn't simply my need to get angry twice a week, nor is it to make reading Krugman that much sweeter. No it's far more embarrassing than either of those reasons.

I believe I've convinced myself that there must be something more to him.

This is what happens when a piece of writing achieves such a high level of banal craptitude that the reader is left with no other conclusion than it must an exercise of some sort. I must be missing something. It can't really suck as much as it does for no reason

Take this week.

Now dominating the table, the pundit should indulge in the sort of storytelling beloved by swing-state-travel braggarts. He should speak in counties, about his trips through Cuyahoga, Macomb, Muscatine and Broward. If somebody mentions she has an aunt living in Ridgeville just south of Dayton, he should fondly recall the exceptional Waffle House there.

Donning the false modesty worn by Those Who Talk to Voters, he should describe how he humbly listens to the volk, while making it clear that only someone as brilliant as himself could discern national trends from 13 conversations.

What the fuck??

On the one hand, Brooks appears to be poking fun of himself in all his Bobo self-aggrandisement. Which is pretty sad. A week before the election and you write this? C'mon Dave. On the other, this alleged Brooks doppleganger is--well--much smarter than the original.

While others quiver with pre-election anxiety, their mood rising and collapsing with the merest flicker of the polls, he alone radiates certainty. He alone can read the internals, cross-tabs and trends, can parse Gallup and Zogby and emerge with clear answers. He alone can captivate a gathering, while men hang eagerly on his words and women undress him with their eyes.

If you saw Brooks' debate-parody piece, you know that parody is not something he does well. Self-parody isn't much better. In fact David, for the love of all that is literary, stop writing. Anything.

But there still remains that nagging suspicion that Brooks has an agenda in torturing us. Is he using the pseudo-self of the piece as a round-about way of making the point about election predictions that ends up condemning "him"? Or is it what it appears to be, a critique of making predictions at this late date?

The genius (dear Lord) of the piece is that its very suckiness allows Brooks to have it both ways. He can hide behind the weak parody self, say that stupid line about "too close to call," and still criticize all the analysis.

I know.

At any rate, one thing Brooks has been extremely successful at, is taking up space in my brain and on my blog. One would think I would have something more substantial to write a week before the election. And I do. But you'll forgive me for purging my brain to make room for the real thoughts.

Eminem Rock's the Vote

Democratic Underground has a link to Eminem's anti-Bush video/ad. Go Marshall. Your mother must've done something right.

"Caging List?"

I guess the October Surprise must be a wee bit short on shock and awe if Plan B is being feverishly executed.

Greg Palast, on BBC's Newsnight is reporting on more below-the-belt Republican shenanigans planned for Nov. 2 in Florida.

Two e-mails, prepared for the executive director of the Bush campaign in Florida and the campaign's national research director in Washington DC, contain a 15-page so-called "caging list".

It lists 1,886 names and addresses of voters in predominantly black and traditionally Democrat areas of Jacksonville, Florida.

An elections supervisor in Tallahassee, when shown the list, told Newsnight: "The only possible reason why they would keep such a thing is to challenge voters on election day."

Ion Sancho, a Democrat, noted that Florida law allows political party operatives inside polling stations to stop voters from obtaining a ballot.

They may then only vote "provisionally" after signing an affidavit attesting to their legal voting status.

Mass challenges have never occurred in Florida. Indeed, says Mr Sancho, not one challenge has been made to a voter "in the 16 years I've been supervisor of elections."

"Quite frankly, this process can be used to slow down the voting process and cause chaos on election day; and discourage voters from voting."

Sancho calls it "intimidation." And it may be illegal.

In Washington, well-known civil rights attorney, Ralph Neas, noted that US federal law prohibits targeting challenges to voters, even if there is a basis for the challenge, if race is a factor in targeting the voters.

No doubt the Republican "challengers" are having their white sheets and hoods cleaned and pressed at this very moment to be all ready for their big day. Extra starch for Jeb's and Katherine's.

At some point before the election I will do a really well thought out post on some things that have been swimming around my head lately. For now--man-- James Wolcott I'm so glad you are with the good guys.

Fineman will never obtain a lasting clue about anything. His translucent shell of professional narcissism is impregnable.

This morning I saw him on Chris Matthews' weekly show--the one where Matthews doesn't sound as if he's bouncing off the walls of his own brain--and Fineman was talking about the excitement on the Democratic side. He said that thousands were turning up at rallies all "pumped up."

"Are they pumped up about Kerry?" he asked. "No. His job is to come across as normal and acceptable to--"

At which point I changed channels.

First of all, how does Fineman know the crowds aren't pumped up for Kerry? Did he attend these rallies? Did he ask anyone? No, he's assuming, as most of the media elite do, that no one could possibly be "up" for a Kerry event because the media narrative is that Kerry is a stiff hunk of bark.

As reflected in Adam Nagorney telling Charlie Rose that heck he has more charisma than poor Kerry.

Really, Adam? You think you could hold the interest of 12,000 people, as Kerry did at a recent rally in Reno, Nevada?

You're the kind of putz people walk away from at cocktail parties!

Ouch.

Hee-hee!

La chupacabra almost gets her just desserts You'd think her adam's apple alone would be a large enough target, but no...she escapes uncreamed, unpied, and, as always, unhinged. Tbogg is all over it.

Hmmm... must search the internets for when she will next be in flying pie range...

Must SEE video of Jon Stewart on Crossfire

This is great. Just go watch it. Thanks again to The Poor Man for the link.

More Jon Stewart Fun

The Poor Man has juiciest tidbits from Jon's appearance on Crossfire.

STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.




CARLSON: Jon, Jon, Jon, I'm sorry. I think you're a good comedian. I think your lectures are boring.




STEWART: Yes.




CARLSON: Let me ask you a question on the news.




STEWART: Now, this is theater. It's obvious. How old are you?




CARLSON: Thirty-five.




STEWART: And you wear a bow tie.




CARLSON: Yes, I do. I do.




STEWART: So this is...




CARLSON: I know. I know. I know. You're a...




STEWART: So this is theater.




CARLSON: Now, let me just...




CARLSON: Now, come on.




STEWART: Now, listen, I'm not suggesting that you're not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.




CARLSON: They're difficult.




STEWART: But the thing is that this -- you're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great.




BEGALA: We do, do...




STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.




CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?




STEWART: Absolutely.




CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...




STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.




STEWART: What is wrong with you?




CARLSON: Well, I'm just saying, there's no reason for you -- when you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing.




STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far -- you would not believe what he ate two weeks ago.




STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.




CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.




STEWART: You need to go to one.




The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk...




CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.




STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey.




BEGALA: Go ahead. Go ahead.




STEWART: I watch your show every day. And it kills me.




CARLSON: I can tell you love it.




STEWART: It's so -- oh, it's so painful to watch.




STEWART: You know, because we need what you do. This is such a great opportunity you have here to actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy.




CARLSON: Is this really Jon Stewart? What is this, anyway?




STEWART: Yes, it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore.




STEWART: I just can't.




CARLSON: What's it like to have dinner with you? It must be excruciating. Do you like lecture people like this or do you come over to their house and sit and lecture them; they're not doing the right thing, that they're missing their opportunities, evading their responsibilities?




STEWART: If I think they are.




CARLSON: I wouldn't want to eat with you, man. That's horrible.




STEWART: I know. And you won't. But the thing I want to get to...




...




CARLSON: Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?




STEWART: I'm sorry. I don't.




CARLSON: Oh, OK.




STEWART: What do you think?




BEGALA: Let me change the subject.




STEWART: Where's your moral outrage on this?




CARLSON: I don't have any.




STEWART: I know.




BEGALA: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material?




STEWART: I'm sorry?




BEGALA: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material if he won?




STEWART: Mr. T. I think he'd be the funniest. I don't...




BEGALA: Don't you have a stake in it that way, as not just a citizen, but as a professional comic?




STEWART: Right, which I hold to be much more important than as a citizen.




BEGALA: Well, there you go.




BEGALA: But who would you provide you better material, do you suppose?




STEWART: I don't really know. That's kind of not how we look at it. We look at, the absurdity of the system provides us the most material. And that is best served by sort of the theater of it all, you know, which, by the way, thank you both, because it's been helpful.




CARLSON: But, if Kerry gets elected, is it going to -- you have said you're voting for him. You obviously support him. It's clear. Will it be harder for you to mock his administration if he becomes president?




STEWART: No. Why would it be harder?




CARLSON: Because you support...




STEWART: The only way it would be harder is if his administration is less absurd than this one. So, in that case, if it's less absurd, then, yes, I think it would be harder.




But, I mean, it would be hard to top this group, quite frankly.


(snip)




STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show.




CARLSON: Now, you're getting into it. I like that.




STEWART: Yes.




CARLSON: OK. We'll be right back.

God, I miss cable.

Not that I had any doubt...

But it's always good to get the official word.

Saying "it looks like Kerry," Comedy Central host Jon Stewart said he expects to vote for Sen. John Kerry for president.
"I'd be stunned if something happened to change my mind," said the host of the popular Daily Show.

Stewart spoke with New Yorker media critic Ken Auletta at a breakfast sponsored by the magazine and by the Newhouse School at Syracuse University.

While saying that President Bush is a "decent" man, Stewart lampooned him for saying during a presidential debate that he couldn't name one of his mistakes.

"He can't think of one?" Stewart asked. "I got a list."

The Weirdest Thing I've Seen in New York to Date

On my way to the West Village this is what I saw on the subway platform: blonde, young woman, maybe early twenties, fake tan, bright pink UGG boots, denim miniskirt, lotsa eyeliner...

...and Bush-Cheney '04 button on her shoulder bag.

Ann Coulter acolytes-- they exist.

I don't have a lot to add to the general praise of Kerry. Given everything we know at this point, for Bush to have outdebated Kerry this time, he would have to be-- well somone else. I think the Bush team thought that the foreign policy questions at the beginning would allow Bush to recoup from last week's debate. Too bad about that pesky Duelfer report. The audience asked great questions. I think Bush was a bit taken aback by how well-informed they were. Wonkette has the best of the live-blogging posts.

9:37Shorter Bush: "Stop fucking with me! Stop it! Stop fucking with me!"
9:39 The voice in his ear just told him to speak more quietly.
9:40 BREAKING: Canadians want to kill you with their pretend drugs.

(snip)

10:22 Dred Scott case? Wha? Isn't this teevee? Oh well. At least we know for sure that Bush doesn't support slavery. Whew.
10:28 Q: Name three times you've made a mistake. A: I WAS RIGHT TO GO TO WAR. AND THAT'S A TRICK QUESTION. FUCK YOU.
10:30 Dad Wonkette writes in with his summation: "Kerry waxed Bush's ass." And you wonder how I turned out this way.

Hee hee.

UPDATE: More hee hee from James Wolcott

It's one thing to cut off your opponent, but to cut off Charlie Gibson in mid-question, holler at the audience, and heave your shoulders with laughter at your own weak jests--this doesn't strike me as a good gameplan to convince swing voters of your sanity.

My provisional opinion, contingent upon no unforseen events altering the current dynamics (i.e, a meteor crashing through the ceiling of the auditorium), is that Kerry is grinding Bush into such fine pencil shavings that even Peggy Noonan will not be able to sweep him up and make him whole.

Bullshit Alert!

Bill O'Reilly on Jon Stewart tonight! I can hardly wait.

Bush/Cheney: Four more months

It's very interesting that the Edwards-Cheney debate generated such lopsided online poll results.

* MSNBC has Edwards Up 60% to 40% in this poll with over 1,580,000 respondents so far.
* CNBC Has Edwards up 59% to 41%.
* CBS News has Edwards over Cheney by a margin of 81% to 17%.
* Right wing Fox News has Cheney winning 50% to 47%
* The CNN poll has Edwards destroying Cheney 78% 18% with nearly 200,000 votes tallied.
* The Wall Street Journal has Edwards crushing Dick 88% to 9%.
* Yahoo News shows Edwards dominating Cheney 62% to 32%.

I mean, Edwards was good, but he hardly ran away with the debate. In fact, I wish he hadn't pandered to Israel quite so obviously, or gone on about Cheney's GAY DAUGHTER, (could he have stressed that any more pointedly?) among other things. I was not as utterly relieved and giddy as I was after Kerry handed Bush his ass last Thursday.

But then maybe I'm not giving Edwards enought credit--Kerry wasn't up against Satan.

Cheney is a pathological liar. And his matter-of-fact, no-nonsense delivery had the oddly unnerving effect of making me second guess what I know is the truth. I could feel his evility reaching through the television to bend my will.

But I think the tide has turned and voters who are paying attention are not being fooled anymore. I think the lopsided polls are a result of people who have made up their minds, not only who they are voting for, but to take action and affect public opinion in the way the right wingers have affected it so well for the last 4 years. We are making it happen.

BTW, wasn't Dick Cheney the doctor who delivered Rosemary's baby?