Rove says the allegation that the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction "is a pernicious political attack launched by cynical and hypocritical individuals."

I wonder if he said that with a straight face.

Not that there was really anywhere to go but up. International approval of the United States had made huge drops during the Bush administration, no doubt in large part due to his bull-headed, aggressive statements, his antagonistic superior attitude paired with seeming ignorance, and his perceived warmongering. Add that to his religious fervor, declaring the war on terrorism to be a "crusade" and claiming his actions were due to God’s instructions, and you’ve got a recipe for international derision.

Quotes such as…

God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.

…and…

I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right.

…and…

We’re now interested in finding those who may attack America and arrest them before they do. We’ve had over nearly a thousand people have been detained in America and questioned about their motives and their intentions.

…don’t foster confidence or benevolent feelings or pride in rational people.

Obama’s gentler tone and apparent willingness to speak to other countries without a self-aggrandizing air of superiority creates a much better atmosphere for productive conversations and beneficial outcomes. Rather than pronouncing that "We are America and what we say goes," he says, "Let’s talk about it and see what we can come up with together."

It’s refreshing, smart, and despite what the right-wingers say, it’s going to make this country a lot safer.

I read a article today from The Washington Post’s E. J. Dionne Jr. about how Republicans are divided about the McCain/Palin ticket, which he attributes to a number of different causes. That aside, he also made the following statement.

Conservatism has finally crashed on problems for which its doctrines offered no solutions (the economic crisis foremost among them, thus Bush’s apostasy) and on its refusal to acknowledge that the ‘real America’ is more diverse, pragmatic and culturally moderate than the place described in Palin’s speeches or imagined by the right-wing talk show hosts.

I don’t know about conservatism having “finally crashed” but I do agree about its refusal to acknowledge that America is more “diverse, pragmatic and culturally moderate” than what the right-wing seems to believe (even leaving out the absurd conservative caricatures of Limbaugh, Coulter, and the like).

I believe that moving too far from center on either side will have negative consequences. I don’t want Democrats controlling the Presidency and all of Congress any more than I want the Republicans controlling it all. There needs to be a balance… something that will force both sides to meet in the middle because, as we’ve seen before, if there’s nothing forcing them to do it, they won’t do it.

An even better solution would be to eliminate the party system altogether, but that’s not going to happen… and is perhaps a topic for another post.

I thought Biden came across as very down-to-earth and knowledgeable. He’s obviously familiar with the debate topics and showed his knowledge in a relaxed, straight-forward, and confident manner. He seemed “real,” especially for a politician who’s been around Washington as long as he has. However, he also seems extremely well-educated and intelligent.

Unlike what I’m used to hearing in political interviews, he actually answered the questions instead of dodging them and he responded to Palin’s statements about his record and the record of Obama with relevant counter-points. I think he demonstrated beyond a doubt that he understands the issues and has a clear, defined plan about how to deal with them. I don’t happen to agree with all of them, but he’s clear and specific.

To me, Palin came across as flippant. I get that she was trying to connect with “middle America” and, from some things I’ve read, she seems to do very well at that, but it doesn’t work for me. Her folksy colloquialisms, patronizing smiles, and winks seemed out of place and inappropriate in the setting of a Vice-Presidential debate. Maybe those are good things in a small town like Wasilla, but on the national stage (much less the international one), they make her seem like a cookie-baking trailer-park queen.

With regard to the topics, it really seemed that she stuck to her script no matter if it was relevant to the standing question or not, even going so far as to state that she might not answer the questions in the way that the moderator or Joe Biden wanted her to. As the debate went on, that translated into “not at all” in some cases. Her counter-points were also scripted, as they rarely addressed anything specific that Biden said or any explanations he had given. Biden’s voting for the War Powers act and bringing up Bush’s policies for the last eight years both come to mind. Her constant over-use of the word “maverick” also made me want to scream.

The big polls seem to show that the general population thinks Biden “won” the debate. The expectations for Palin’s performance had been set low enough that it could be said that she won, too, but I don’t think that applies to her knowledge and understanding of the topics. It has to do with her stage presence and showmanship. I think if the initial questions had been followed up with questions testing the depth of understanding, she probably would have failed miserably.

It saddens me that McCain picked her as his running mate.

Troopergate probe appears to be unraveling

Though I’m sure both sides partake in this type of nonsense, the Bush administration has perfected it in the last 8 years. It looks like Palin has jumped on that bandwagon as well.