“That was the biggest point loss in American history, although percentage wide it wasn’t even in the top ten.”

— Megan Kelly, Fox News, September 30, 2008.

The definitive answer, at least for my three year old, is found here.

Plenty of late-breaking thoughts on the first debate around the sphere today, including my own minor submissions. But the one that’s worth your time to read is Pete Wehner’s thought process on the overall challenges the McCain campaign faces - here’s his third point, but you should read it all over at Commentary:

What helps a campaign immeasurably is when the charge it makes seems to fit the person against whom the charge is being made. So, for example, the Bush strategy in 2004 to make John Kerry appear to be a flip-flopper and haughty was aided by the fact that it played to a pre-existing (and largely accurate) view of Kerry.

The difficulty Senator Obama presents is that his demeanor and countenance seem to act as a shield against the charge that he is, in terms of his policies and political philosophy, quite liberal and on the extreme end of the political spectrum. Senator Obama’s voting record certainly shows that to be the case. But the way he carries himself — combined with his post-primary, head-snapping shifts in policy — are designed to make Obama appear as a centrist. I don’t for a moment believe he is; Obama’s political career, taken in its totality, makes him the most liberal presidential candidate since George McGovern. But Obama has shown himself to be a nimble candidate, against whom it is difficult to land clean blows.

In addition, Obama came across in the debate as mostly agreeable, repeatedly saying “I agree with John” on this or that. I think that was an effective tactic; it gave Obama the patina of being bipartisan and a man ever in search of common ground. In fact, Obama has complied, in the words of Joshua Muravchik, “one of the most partisan of all voting records.” But once again, his style and manner send a different signal.

Potentially, the most lethal political charge against Obama is that he is a deeply liberal/ideological figure who has associated with radical individuals in order to advance his political career. The question is whether Obama’s countenance and personal style make those charges seem far-fetched; or whether the McCain campaign can convince voters that Obama’s appeal is at its core fraudulent and his new-found centrism a mirage.

I have some sympathy with the task faced by Team McCain; telling a campaign what needs to be done is much easier than actually carrying it out. That’s why it would be useful for more commentators to actually have had some experience in governing and political campaigns, which tend to be more complicated and difficult than pontificating.

House GOP leaders Boehner, Blunt and Cantor just spoke to reporters about the failure of the bailout bill. Blunt said that at least a dozen Republican members who had been for the bill turned their backs on it after Pelosi delivered a very partisan speech on the floor of the House.

In her speech, Pelosi blamed the nation’s financial problems on “failed Bush economic policies” and “some in the Republican Party” (a barb aimed at congressional Republicans) who created economic “chaos”.

She has also blamed Republicans in her recent remarks, implying that they were late in coming “to the table” and actually characterized their actions during the crisis as “unpatriotic”.

Way to poison the stew, Madam Speaker…

• JP

Totally agree Josh. She has really helped the media create a “conservatives don’t like her” narrative against Palin. It is not helpful.

A lot of us like Mitt, too. But John McCain did not ask him to be his running mate. Please get over it. It’s just a month before the election, for Tom’s* sake!

Meanwhile, your anti-Palin rants have been cut and pasted on virtual garbage dumps Democratic Underground, etc.

Aren’t you just soooo proud?

Regards,

• JP

*(Please Google “Tom Eagleton”)

He is one of John McCain’s economic advisers. And he is probably the smartest economic adviser on either side of the partisan divide.

To wit.

He seems to give it to McCain on points, though he doesn’t come out and say so. But from his telling, McCain’s outstanding moments during the debate far outnumbered Obama’s.

The class warfare worldview of the Democrat nominee for President was on full display Saturday in North Carolina, when the freshman Senator from Illinois said:

But just as important as what we heard from John McCain was what we didn’t hear.

The truth is, through 90 minutes of debating, John McCain had a lot to say about me, but he had nothing to say about you. He didn’t even say the words ‘middle class’ — not once.” [Ed.- For the record, Obama himself said the words "middle class" three times in the debate.]

That’s right — McCain didn’t say “Middle Class” in the debate — nor did he say “Upper” or “Lower” class. He also didn’t say “blacks,” or “homosexuals,” or any of those other nicely splintered groups and classes that Democrats love to cram people into for political purposes.

That people wouldn’t be looked at solely in terms of skin color, gender, sexuality, and/or income level, but as Americans, is as foreign to Obama and his fellow Democrats as ideas like “realistic foreign policy” and “national security” — which is to say, about as foreign as can be.

It’s their title: I’m merely the one repeating it with malice aforethought.

See also The New York Post.