(no subject)

Okay. I'll be lucky if I'm back home before 11 tonight. At which time I will write about the debates, deal with emails about getting this tape made, and really start writing at least one of the eight billion things I'm claiming not to be working on, because this is getting ridiculous, and it might clear my head.

Friday night I will start the Regency dress. Because I have to! This weekend will be taken up with work, classes, sewing and getting this tape done.

Somehow it will all get sorted out, even if the next two weeks are going to kick my ass.

While I am not the most organized person in the world, except in short bursts of eerie intensity, I think I'm within my rights to say this is more than a wacky creative type should have to keep tabs on all by herself. I'm doing it. But owie.

quickie debate thoughts

I am dead tired, with a lot to do before I can go to sleep, so here's what summary I can muster of the debates at the moment. I was able to see the first 45 minutes, and then another 5 minute chunk towards the end when they talked about character.

- The Dems must have fought tooth and nail for this debate to be standing, but good job! Bush hunched into a defensive posture immediately, and Kerry's height advantage was powerful throughout.
- I don't remember Kerry's tie. Bush's was crooked and I think blue is a bad choice for debates because the bacground is almost always going to be blue too.
- Kerry started off extremely weak, but eventually surpassed Bush.
- Bush is bad at looking into the camera meaningfully, dealing with the lights in his eyes and avoiding smirking. His people need to train him better. He also seemed clearly exhausted after the first hour.
- Kerry is getting better at this, but he still needs to work on the force of his language -- it's "when I'm president" not "if I'm elected president."
- I'm guessing a lot of people tuned out when it got to all that stuff about Iran and North Korea. I don't know that it's interesting to most people. I know that I find it unbelieveably boring in the non-specificness of debate language.
- Bush needs to be careful of the quality of his voice -- when he goes for folksy it can often seem like a whine.
- Kerry, dude, either pound the podium or don't but don't lightly tap it with your fist over and over.
- Bush, we know being president is a hard job, try not to sound so damn put upon about it, will you?

Generally, I think it was nearly a draw, with Kerry ecking out an overall more positive and dignified impression. Bush seemed hunkered down. Of course, the whole thing is really just about who is more manly (did Kerry really tell us that he would neither waiver nor wilt?), and the question remains whether America thinks that's Kerry's height, assurance and calm, or Bush's maddened defending the cave posture and language.

On the post-debate analysis on TV I'm seeing three opinions:
- It was nearly a draw with Kerry coming out slightly ahead (by far the most prevalent view)
- Kerry wiped the floor with Bush (I am only seeing this from academics)
- Kerry didn't do what he needed to do.

What's most notable about the analysis is that it barely puts Bush in the debate. Other to say he was ruffled. The news is all about what Kerry did or didn't get done. Which is entirely to his benefit. Bush gets a lot more converage in general than Kerry because he's the president and is in the news for other things. This angle of debate analysis, which is neutral/slightly positive, raises Kerry's profile in terms of media minutes, and that's huge. Yes, to a given degree people vote on how often they hear a name.

Tomorrow I'll write about why polls suck, and why they are particularly unreliable this year, not due to methodology, but due to the kookiness of the electorate and the current political climate.

For the moment, have some well thought out political snark from frawst who gets points for invoking The Last Starfighter and sounding reasonable all at the same time: http://www.livejournal.com/users/frawst/294264.html?mode=reply