Thanks lowell, I shall be watching tomorrow..

=)

...set the TiVo for C-Span2.

Todd Smyth is sure he will try to be the anti-Pumpkinhead.  That is, he will focus on things that Russert did not.  Thus Todd thinks the Webb ad with the footage from Reagan WILL come up.  Todd also thinks there will be far more on the issue of torture.

Me?  I think there will be more of a focus on domestic issues, especially given the audience.  I expect the Bush tax cuts to come up.  I would not be surprised to see free trade issues, especially including H1B visas come up -- there are hi-tech firms in Fairfax that import that slave labor:  remember, someone on a H1B is not earning time towards citizenship, and if s/he loses the job, cannot go to work for another company.  You may also hear about transportation, the one issue on which Webb may have an advantage with the audience, given Allen's track record on the subject.  And I would expect there might be some questions on education - on that Allen will claim credit for SOLs, and Jim needs to have some way of differentiating himself while undercutting Allen - NCLB is actually a dumbing down of Virginia's high standards might be the approach, since that is what Mark Warner has said.

But what do I know?  I am just a teacher and occasional blogger.  And I will not be watching, although I am free from around Noon until 12:35 --  far too much else (like copying) I need to do with that time.

The race is essentially tied. A major slip up in a debate this close to the election could be costly in terms of moving poll numbers in one direction or the other.

Webb should be aggressive tomorrow. Every Allen answer has to get a strong, hard, forceful rebuttal from Webb. No dancing around the edges this time for Allen. I want to see some memorable knockout blows from Webb. Create some great headlines that can move his poll numbers further upwards. Give voters solid reasons to unseat George Allen. 

And since tomorrow's debate is going to get far wider media coverage, Webb has to bring his A game to the debate. He needs to be super sharp, presentable and eloquent. A challenger needs a knockout performance, and Webb definitely needs one tomorrow.

 

I think Jim should ask GFA about the CCC.

He should note GFA's bad voting record for women, which has been detailed here.  Practically 0% for every major women's group.

If Allen starts talking about technology it would be nice if Webb could talk about the anti-science agenda of the Bush administration, which has been very discouraging to working scientists in this country.  (1) Stem cell research (2) Plan B (3) Global warming (4) interference with research at science agencies -- there was a statement signed back in 2004 by lots of famous scientists, listing specific concerns 

see

http://www.americanp...{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/RSISS0704.pdf

http://www.americanp...{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/FNS0704.pdf  also has a list of famous scientists , with their prizes clearly listed

Can someone persuade the Va. NBC affiliates to rerun the first debate during a time people will watch it?

...just said that it would be televised live at 1:00 p.m., not 11:30 a.m.

Who's correct?

Monday, September 18, 2006; 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm (11:30 am registration/networking)

http://www.fccc.org/...

So... we have registration at 11:30, and it appears the debate will be from 1:00 - 2:00.  Whew!  Glad I didn't set my recorder for 11:30.

The latest Bush bounce is over. Today, 41% of American adults approve of the way that President Bush is performing his job and 57% disapprove (Rasmussen). That’s exactly where the numbers were before the President’s 9/11 speech.

Darn shame Stephanopolous is doing the debate tomorrow Allen will get a free pass.

Can't wait to see the Macaca ads, Allen now claims he made the word up, BHAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWA.

I think George is a good moderator. I think that Jim Webb did an excellent job with Russert today and I think he will continue to blow on issues....He was not nervous, held his ground, and Tim was on top of both of them on issues. Notice tho that Tim had to go back to 1979 to get to Webb and here Allen was such a recent debacle with macacca..

Lowell wrote:
Please use this as an open thread to discuss the debates, today's front-page story in the Washington Post on Virginia bloggers, or anything else you want to talk about.

Thanks for the "free for all" permisssion, Lowell; I'd as soon not try and find the post where the discussion on today's WashPo article first started, and that's what I'd like to write about.

Initially, I was very pleased to see the article. Actually, I was -- mostly -- pleased with it throughout.

To be sure, my blood pressure shot up when I saw "[...] Allen standing next to a group of white men who allegedlybelonged to to a white supremacist group" Allegedly??? Wasn't the photo first published in their scurvy little newsletter, as a "coup" of sorts? Aren't their news and views stated, clearly, in that publication, to all "members"? "Allegedly", my foot...

But, otherwise...

It was the first time I saw "[...]after Sen. George Allen aimed a derogatory remark at a young Webb volunteer". "Derogatory", plain and simple, without any hedging. All other MSM pieces had "possibly derogatory in some parts of the world" (or words to that effect). That's a *big* difference, at least in the world of lingustics :)

Yes, the title of the article started with "Paid Bloggers [...]" But, contrary to what some people seemed to object to earlier (I'm not paid, and I blog for Webb), it had *never* claimed that everyone who blogged for Webb was a paid lackey. Lowell Feld (net-roots coordinator)and Josh Chernila (grass-roots coordinator) were mentioned, by name, as being paid. As was "Jon Henke, Allen's new blog guru".

Additionally, "[...] four of Virginia's most popular conservative bloggers launched www.allens-a-team.com last week" leaves the question of whether they labor for love or money quite open to speculation and suspicion.

I see no source of outrage here, unless y'all feel cheated because Lowell's pay was specified and Henke's wasn't. Henke'll probably "get his" next IRS cycle, so I'm not fashed :)

Nor did I take any exception to the following parallel:

(Speaking of Allen's):
"The bloggers' posts often are over the top. One entry on the A-Team blog offered the following quote: Who is more modern in their attitude towards women: the Taliban... or Webb? Tough call"
Several paragraphs later, this about Webb's:
"In recent posts, Feld has referred to Republicans as 'rightwing crazies' and has changed the name of Allen's campaign manager, Dick Wadham, to a locker room epithet"

I think the presentation of the two works for us:

Apart from Lowell's misuse/ WP's misquote of the correct term (wingnuts), the *accuracy* of the term itself was proved by the quote taken from the Allen website. On the other side... having grown up in another country and unfamiliar with the locker room culture, I wouldn't have figured out how it was "over the top" just by the WP article. To be absolutely honest, I only understood *Lowell's* un-censored spelling because my son used to refer to some of his highschool contemporaries as "dickwads" (though "dickhead" was even more common)

On the issue of legality: "tough titty, dahlin's; we're within the parameters that y'all have voted for yourselves; it's too bad it hadn't worked out for you as well as you'd hoped; educate you base." Which sentiment (but in fewer words and more elegant language) Lowell managed to convey and the paper reported. No outrage.

That the blogosphere is changing the world of politics and the world of politics is -- in turn -- evolving to accomodate the blogosphere's input... No one can deny it any longer. Not only was Warner hob-nobbing with the Daily Kos this spring, but B. Clinton has called a special gathering of bloggers in Harlem last week, to trash out their role in the Dem spectrum ("specter", if you're a Repub ). Those who don't learn to adjust to the new reality are left behind... Just as we had been, when we couldn't wrap our tiny minds around the fact that this sAdministration *lied with relish*

All in all, a good article, IMO. And, if you're gonna hang dogs on the writer.. why Michael Shear only, and not Tim Craig? *Both* are billed as "Washington Post Staff Writers"

PS "A former federal employee with degrees in psychology and Middle East studies, Feld [...]" Wow! OTOH... WTF hadn't you  convinced Shrubbie that Iraq was "*not* a good thing"? Never mind; competent people don't get employed by this sAdministration...

my comcast preview doesn't reflect any of the channels mentioned?