Remember this?

According to the Wall Street Journal, Rahm Emanuel called liberal activists who wanted to run ads against conservative Democrats “f—— retarded” in a closed-door meeting at the White House. On her Facebook page, Palin likened Emanuel’s “slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities” to using the “N-word,” something she deemed “unacceptable” and “heartbreaking.” Emanuel later issued an apology to Special Olympics chairman and CEO Tim Shriver.

However, Palin’s conservative cohort Rush Limbaugh took offense to people, presumably including Palin, protesting Emanuel’s remark. On his radio show, Limbaugh lamented that “our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.” That comment caused Greg Sargent to request a reaction from Palin’s spokeswoman.

Yesterday, when asked for comment on Limbaugh’s use of the “r” word in a recent broadcast, Palin spokeswoman told Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, “Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name-calling at the expense of others is disrespectful.”

BUT!

Today, Stapleton claims the statement was meant generally and she was not specifically referring to Limbaugh.

…I mean, if he’s gonna tirelessly promote her new book after also tirelessly promoting her for Veep during the 2008 elections...it’s not like he’s some kind of nasty, sneaking D-e-m-o-c-r-a-t, after all!

Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday said Sen. Barack Obama has ties to a Columbia University professor who she said is “a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.” Palin said her assertion “is not negative campaigning to call someone out on their record.”

“It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years,” Palin said at an event in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Khalidi is a leading scholar of Middle Eastern studies at Columbia, and he was a contemporary of Obama’s while on the faculty of the University of Chicago. Khalidi has been a harsh critic of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel and has accused the country of “occupying” Palestinian territories. But he has denied acting as a PLO spokesman during a seven-year period in the 1970s and 1980s.

Khalidi said Wednesday, “I am not speaking to the media at this time, and certainly not until this idiot wind passes.”

That’s just awesome. I wish I’d thought of that. How appropos!

The paper reported that a young Palestinian-American woman recited a poem at the farewell party that accused the Israeli government of terrorism for its treatment of Palestinians and was highly critical of U.S. support of Israel.

Being critical of U.S. support of Israel + being connected to anything associated in American pop culture with Muslims = terrorist ties. Which means that since I am friends with a Lebanese dude, I’m probably a “Hamas spokesperson.” And we’d best not go anywhere near what my OTHER friendship with an Iranian dude named, of all things, Hossein says about me. I should probably stop fighting the exposure trend, haul my dynamite-lined burqa out of the closet and just openly wear that bitch with pride.

The McCain campaign accused the Los Angeles paper of “intentionally suppressing” a videotape it obtained from that dinner and demanded that it release the footage. The Times said it won’t release the footage because a reporter promised a source that the video would not be made public.

Asked why the McCain campaign was bringing the matter up six months after the article appeared, an aide replied, “Because we are one week away from potentially electing Barack Obama.”

Heee! You KNOW it’s bad when they’re openly admitting it’s an act of last-minute desperation.

Earlier Wednesday, Palin delivered her second policy address of the campaign season.

Leaving it a little late, aren’t you, Sarey? Or maybe we shouldn’t even open that can of worms right now…

Palin pointed to her experience as governor as evidence she can help the U.S. achieve energy security.

“Whatever the good ol’ boys are running these days, I know it’s not the state of Alaska,” she said in Toledo, Ohio.

Er,Ted Stevens? ….Ted Stevens….Ted Stevens..?

The Alaska governor stressed expanding drilling, using nuclear power and tapping into the “American ingenuity” to solve the energy problem.

Tapping into the “American ingenuity” as a domestic self-sustaining energy source!

Well, it’s a thought, but I think the movie pretty much proved that it isn’t really that good an idea in the long run.

I can’t read any more. Teh stupid, it burns!

Subject: Fwd: Father/Daughter talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many
others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and
among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to
support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a
feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had
participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her
father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he
thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on
the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed
objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she
indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in
school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA,
and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was
taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left
her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even
have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends
because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, ‘How is your friend Audrey doing?’ She
replied, ‘Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes , she
never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus;
college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties and
lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung
over.’ Her wise father asked his daughter, ‘Why don’t you go to the
Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your
friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and
certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.’

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired
back, ‘That’s a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I’ve worked really
hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!
Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked
my tail off!

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, ‘Welcome to the Republican
party.’

If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between
Republican and Democrat I’m all ears.

Subject: Fwd: Father/Daughter talk, remix*

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. From a working poor family, she was the first generation to attend college and though her father could afford to contribute very little to her higher education, he was very proud of her. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth. based her political views on her parents’. She was deeply a little ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican apolitical, a feeling she openly rarely expressed because much more importantly in her eyes, he was a loving and supportive dad. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, family political round-tables as she grew up, she felt that her father had for years harbored a evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. disillusion with the government in general and the current administration in particular.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. asking her father, unusually directly, what his political beliefs were. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. She didn’t get the idea to do so from college; she was an engineering major and the only two non-technical, science or math courses in her program to date had been a pre-Civil War US History class and a literature class focusing specifically on Shakespeare–she was inspired herself by the historic nature of the upcoming election and had been wondering if it was enough to pull her dad out of his usual irritable cynicism towards politics. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, A little surprised but happy to assuage his interest in her doings, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying and holding down two part-time jobs to finance said education, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying and working.

Her father listened and then asked, ‘How is your friend Audrey doing?’ She replied, ‘Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes , she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.’ Her wise father asked his daughter, ‘Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.’ is Audrey able to do this and you aren’t?”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, said slowly, ‘That’s a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! “Well, Audrey’s parents are paying for all her tuition, books, housing and fees, plus giving her an allowance. They’re going to help her get an off-campus apartment next year; she’s only on-campus now because all freshman HAVE to live there. They’re giving her a car, too. Audrey’s parents don’t really care what she does while she’s at college, only that she finishes up with some kind of four-year degree. Audrey has done next to nothing. She played while I worked my tail off! …but why shouldn’t she? She’s not penalized for it and when she graduates with her degree in Communications or Business Management or whatever, she’ll step right into an HR or admin position at one of her dad’s friend’s companies. I can’t do that, though; we don’t know anybody who would just give me a job, and even with both part-time jobs and every scholarship and grant I’ve been able to find, I won’t have enough money to finish my last two years unless I start taking out loans. College tuition keeps going up, every semester, five or more percent! By the time I graduate I’m going to owe my first two years’ salary in loans. And I have to keep my grades up or I’ll lose the scholarships I have and the only recommendation I’m going to have going into this depressed job market is my grades. And my job performance at my two part-time jobs, so I better never miss a day. I’m thinking about taking a third job so I can afford to enroll in the university-sponsored health insurance plan since our family doesn’t have any. I can’t afford to get sick, ever!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, ‘Welcome to the Republican party.’

(*Yes, this is semi-autobiographical.)

BWAHAHAHAHA!

While we’re on the topic of bizarre Republican presidential campaign news items, the cops apparently finally noticed that the “B” cut into this broad’s face was backwards, making it extraordinarily unlikely that anybody other than herself inflicted it, and she has confessed that no, no large black man actually mugged her and then assaulted her because she had a McCain bumper sticker. (via) It’s funny how people adapt their personal mental illnesses to their situation. I actually feel sorry for the McCain campaign, being used by this person who clearly needs professional help and lots of it, pronto. Then again, since the McCain campaign is not too interested in health care reform, maybe they deserve it.

And unsurprisingly, the voting is already all effed up. Sigh…

Random gems:

“Some say Barack Obama’s plans to implement sweeping environmental regulations will raise the cost of gas, groceries, heating and air conditioning. Do you favor or oppose Obama’s environmental plans?”

Favor
Oppose

“Some” say..?

“Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?”

Government doing too much.
Government should do more.

In the immortal words of The Daily Show, “Could you be less specific, please?”

“Some say Barack Obama’s plan to raise taxes and increase trade barriers are similar to those created by President Herbert Hoover in the 1930s, which contributed to worsening America’s economy. Do you think Obama’s plans will worsen the economy as well, or do you think they will help the economy?”

Worsen the economy
Help the economy

And are you also a McCarthy-era communist, and if so, can we just hang you for treason now..?

It just gets better and better…

“Recently, Barack Obama was asked when he thought life begins, in reference to the issue of abortion. Obama responded by saying that decision was above his paygrade. Knowing that the next president may be able to appoint two or three U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who may be called to make rulings on the issue of Abortion; do you support or oppose a president who does not know when life begins?”

Support
Oppose

And of course, the crown jewel…no, I really didn’t make this up.

If you knew you had a step brother who was living in a slum and barely surviving on $300 a year, would you help them financially?

Yes
No

Would I do anything to not end up on the side of people who come up with this amazingly, ridiculously bad shit..? Pretty much!

Here’s the condensed version. This is really all you need to see. Trust me.

So tell me again why taking a principled stand and threatening to withhold your vote (and meaning it) is just a meaningless symbolic gesture, and could never, ever in a million years affect a politician’s stance on anything?

I just received an e-mail from Democrats.com, quite obviously a group as partisan as they come. Here’s part of it:

Friday: Last Chance to Stop Paulson’s Plunder

(1) Call your Representative at 800-473-6711 or 800-828-0498 or 202-224-3121 and say “No Bailout!”
(2) Find or Organize a “No Bailout” protest near you:
http://bailoutmainstreet.com/
(3) Visit your Representative’s local office

The Senate’s 74-25 vote for Paulson’s Plunder came as no surprise, since the Senate is run by and for millionaires. So now it’s back to the House of Representatives, where we shocked those millionaires on Monday by defeating their bailout bill by 228-205.

A terrified army of corporate lobbyists is working around the clock to switch 13 votes, but only 7 have switched so far – Jim Ramstad (R-MN), John Shadegg (R-AZ), Zach Wamp (R-TN), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) and John Lewis (D- GA). Other possible switches include Pat Tiberi (R-OH), Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), John Yarmouth (D-KY), Brian Bilbray (R-CA), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Lee Terry (R-NE), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Tim Murphy (R-PA), Jason Altmire (D-PA), and Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). But others may switch from Yes to No, including Ed Markey (D-MA), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), and Spencer Bachus (R-AL).

…

(1) Call your Representative today!
First check how your Representative voted on Monday (and note switches above): http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

If (s)he voted NO, say “Thank you for helping stop the Bailout on Monday. Don’t betray us now by voting YES on Friday, or I will vote NO against you on Election Day.”

If (s)he voted YES, say “I’m outraged that you supported the Bailout on Monday, and I will remember on Election Day. If you want my vote on Election Day, you must vote NO on Friday.”

Now maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks to me like Democrats.com is claiming that any success they had on Monday, and any success they might have today, is because a nation of energized progressives threatened to withhold their votes from Democrats (AND Republicans) unless they agreed to enact a progressive agenda.

A plan of action I fully endorse, by the way.

___________________________________________________________________
UPDATE: Well, so much for the peasants with their pitchforks. No big surprise, I guess. Despite the best efforts of “Democrats.com”, House Democrats– who were already the bulk of the “yes” votes the first time around– led the way in turning coat as well. And so, the Ruling Elites have won yet another round.

The second time was the charm.

The House easily passed the $700 billion financial rescue package Friday after it was sweetened with $150 billion in tax breaks on a 263-171 vote.

The dozens of switchers from Monday’s failed vote cited a variety of reasons for doing so… Some said they were convinced by a phone call from presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). …

Democrats including Reps. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Elijah Cummings (Md.), John Lewis (Ga.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), John Yarmuth (Ky.) and Betty Sutton (Ohio) were among those switching their votes to yes.

Yes, this bailout was initially engineered by Republicans. But the fact is that Pelosi, Frank, and for the second round of it, Obama, were the public faces of lawmaker support for it. Far more Democrats voted for it than Republicans, both times round. The Democrats own this bailout, through and through.

I wonder if the folks at Democrats.com are going to keep their word and try to mobilize their forces to vote out all the players who voted “Yes”.

Nah, who am I kidding. They haven’t got the guts. I mean, just look at their name. Democrats know that every member of “Democrats.com” is a vote locked in their favor, no matter what they do.

Still, even if Democrats.com can’t stomach the job, the rest of the voting public just might decide to do it for them…

1. Sarah Palin did not say anything that was so stupid it was shriekingly funny, like she has been doing in her last several televised interview bytes.

2. Joe Biden did not put his foot in his mouth like he is so often fond of doing…I think we all remember his reaction to learning that Barack Obama was going to run for the Democratic presidential nomination..?

3. I didn’t get the impression that Gwen Ifill treated either candidate in a biased fashion. However, I do not care for Sarah Palin, so I may simply be unable to see if she did. Anybody else have a different opinion?

4. Sarah Palin quite often failed to even remotely answer the question directed at her by Ifill, who did not attempt, as Lehrer did with both candidates during the presidential debate, to force her to stay on track. Joe Biden did answer all questions, and even when Palin left herself open to some serious pwnage, like when she burbled brightly about how she’s “clearly not a Washington insider, ya know, all this ‘first taking one stance and then another,’” he did not follow through with said pwnage (“Bridge to Nowhere,” anyone?). I would say that both Ifill and Biden were deliberately avoiding putting any real pressure on Palin, Ifill to avoid seeming biased (while requiring candidates to answer the actual question posed is hardly biased, it would guaranteed be construed that way, since she would not have done so with Biden as he did not need to be required) and Biden to avoid seeming sexist.

5. It was fairly brilliant of Biden to throw out that remark about “just because I’m a man” and then to choke up. A woman could never in a million years have gotten away with it. A billion years. But on him, a man who has established a 35-year reputation of not being a girly-boy (yeah, maybe someday we’ll be past all that, meh) it came across as giving him not only a very human side, but a complete puncturing of Palin’s posturing as Superparent. Others, even others who don’t live in the American heartland of Wasilla, Alaska (wtf?) do indeed have life crises involving their children and parenting! …imagine!

6. Biden’s takedown of current Veep Cheney and, by subtle extension, Palin’s hearty endorsement of Cheney’s veep power grabs, was good enough to send chills down my cynical spine.

Anybody else’s impressions are welcome!

Now, as anyone who reads my posts knows, I’m critical of Obama/Biden. More than McCain/Palin, actually– everybody with half a brain already knows how evil the Republicans are; I just want people to assess more rigorously just exactly how much of a lesser evil the Democrats really are– if indeed, they are a lesser evil at all. Anyway, if you’re an Obama fan, I urge you to look at my analysis and tell me where you think I’m being unfair. Maybe I’ll see the light. If I did, I can tell you I’d be much happier in general right now.

Let’s just review some of the things Obama said in the debate. (All emphasis mine, of course.)

We’ve spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001. We took our eye off the ball… So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.

Wait– Iraq’s a clusterfuck… and so the lesson to be learned is that we should never hesitate to use military force??? Maybe we’d have a better chance of using our military wisely next time if we hesitated just a little bit more.

Now here’s Obama praising Bush and McCain’s Glorious Thrusting Surge:

Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families. They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

Actually, this is not even nearly so bad as when Obama went on Fox News recently to declare that the surge had “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams”.

Or,  as Juan Cole put it in his recent assessment, “The level of violence at this moment in Iraq is similar to what prevailed on average during one of the 20th century’s worst ethnic civil wars! It is still higher than the casualty rates in Sri Lanka and Kashmir, two of the worst ongoing conflicts in the world.”

But nice of Obama to internalize Bush/McCain talking points so well. I’m sure he’s run the numbers and it’ll win him more votes, so that’s all that matters, right?

MCCAIN: …And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.

OBAMA: That’s not true.

MCCAIN: They just passed an electoral…

OBAMA: That’s not true.

This was actually pretty funny. That’s right, Obama, get all righteously indignant. You and McCain are going to prove all us naysayers wrong! Golly, we’re gonna WIN in Iraq! Hooray! I can’t wait to see what “winning” even means.

Oh wait, Obama already told us:

We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they [the Iraqis] have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we’re going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad, that we have to look at bringing that war to a close.

Indeed, what an elegant solution. It seems only right to ask the Iraqis to pay for their own reconstruction. In the same way that, if the mafia burns down my house with my family inside, and then sells the remains of the furniture for scrap, it’s only decent to give me some of the profits. Funerals cost money, you know.

But the war can’t just END! Think of all the poor war profiteers who have to feed their poor starving stock portfolios! No, we have to bring the war to Afghanistan and Pakistan next! But wait, maybe I’m wrong about his intentions in Pakistan?

Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here’s what I said. And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out…

This is not an easy situation. You’ve got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops. And we’ve got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.

So… not attacking Pakistan. Just crossing its borders without its permission, trying to kill some folks and maybe hitting some innocent civilians in the process. In a nuclear-armed country that has expressly asked us not to do this, please. And which by doing so, threatens to help destabilize an already teetering government. With a population of 175 million people. And (repeating myself, I know) nuclear weapons.

Or in other words, Obama is just following in Bush’s footsteps yet again. Way to go, Senator Hope and Change!

In the last bit of this edition of “Imperialist Idol”, Obama once more insists on reinforcing the dangerous, and dishonest, framing of Iran as a nuclear threat:

Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East. Now here’s what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions.

Well, at least Obama is following in the footsteps of previous Imperialist Idol Bill Clinton here. You know, who used those same kinds of sanctions against Iraq, which worked so well. (At least, if by “so well”, you mean causing the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children– don’t worry, it was worth it!)

I only actually watched the first 6 of 11 segments on YouTube– after that, I just read the transcripts. But every once in a while, I’d lose my place, then read for a bit and discover that I thought I’d been reading Obama when it was actually McCain, and vice-versa. I’m not kidding. This really happened a couple of times. When I was just reading their words– not knowing who was speaking– I couldn’t tell the difference between them. It’s Coke vs Pepsi. Marlboros vs Camels. Blancs bonnets et bonnets blancs.

Obama always took great pains to say he agreed with McCain on every major point of substance. Then, he would give some minor policy detail on which they differed. But over and over and over, he just reaffirmed the same talking points as McCain, the same frames. Oh well!

When Jim Lehrer asked the candidates, “Much has been said about the lessons of Vietnam. What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?” McCain babbled about how awesomely we began there, how (for causes not even remotely articulated) we had a wee bit of a strategic stumble (managing also not to specify that said stumble stretched from about a month after we got there in 2003 til the end of last year) and finished up by announcing that we have won the Iraq War. (News to me.) Obama, who went second, then gently stepped in to say that, yeah, the actual lesson of the Iraq War that pretty much everybody (except McCain) has learned was, we should never have gone in there in the first place. Har.

Worst part of the whole debate:

Jim Lehrer’s first question: “Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?”

(Candidates each speak for several minutes, demonstrating remarkable ability to discuss their tax and spending platforms without once touching on the financial recovery plan.)

Jim Lehrer’s next question: “All right, let’s go back to my question. How do you all stand on the recovery plan? And talk to each other about it. We’ve got five minutes. We can negotiate a deal right here.”

(Candidates further demonstrate ability to say nothing to the point and also refuse, even when point-blank instructed by Lehrer, to speak to each other.)

Jim Lehrer’s next try: “All right, let’s go to the next lead question, which is essentially following up on this same subject. And you get two minutes to begin with, Senator McCain. And using your word “fundamental,” are there fundamental differences between your approach and Senator Obama’s approach to what you would do as president to lead this country out of the financial crisis?”

(Candidates argue about the differences between their tax and spending platforms. Neither apparently has any idea that we are even having a financial crisis.)

Jim, who has the patience of a saint and is my new hero: “All right. All right, speaking of things that both of you want, another lead question, and it has to do with the rescue — the financial rescue thing that we started — started asking about. And what — and the first answer is to you, Senator Obama. As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it’s going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?”

(Candidates go on as if they never even heard the question.)

Jim Lehrer: “What I’m trying to get at this is this. Excuse me if I may, senator. Trying to get at that you all — one of you is going to be the president of the United States come January. At the — in the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved. And what I’m trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in very specific — small ways but in major ways and the approach to take as to the presidency.”

(Candidates suggest that maybe we’ll stop spending money on something or other, described respectively as “things that aren’t vital” (McCain) and “things we can cut out with a scalpel rather than hatchet” (Obama). I go to the internet and start looking up emigration requirements to Australia.)

Jim Lehrer: “Before we go to another lead question. Let me figure out a way to ask the same question in a slightly different way here. Are you — are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president of the United States beyond the kinds of things that you have already — I mean, is it a major move? Is it going to have a major effect?”

Apparently not.

Can’t wait for the veep debate!