…can barely conceal his inside-the-Beltway pundit’s drooling glee over the potential new scandals Bush is capable of instigating.

…a Kerry-related link in some time, so here’s a quite-long piece from the NY Times Sunday mag, describing him as someone who disdains big unifield-field theories of foreign policy but instead “carves the globe into a series of discrete problems with specific solutions.” Not as entertaining as the neocons’ simpler, more violent view, but more precise and more potentially effective.

…writing for The Progressive Populist, has some scathing remarks about you-know-what:

“I don’t think it’s accurate to describe America as polarized between Democrats and Republicans, or between liberals and conservatives. It’s polarized between the people who believe George Bush and the people who do not. Thanks to some contested ballots in a state governed by the president’s brother, a once-proud country has been delivered into the hands of liars, thugs, bullies, fanatics and thieves…. What this election will test is the power of money and media to fool us, to obscure the truth and alter the obvious, to hide a great crime against the public trust under a blood-soaked flag.”

…about what he believes is Bush’s one true failing, a rigid belief in “easy certainty.”

…some well-thought responses to the rhetorical question, “Why Would Anyone Vote for George Bush?”

Bush’s affected Texas accent mysteriously disappeared. He scowled less. But he still stumbled his way out of answering the questions and into short pre-scripted speeches about whole other topics, speeches laced with code words appealing to the fundamentalists and the Limbaugh listeners. The figurehead of the neocon revolution was reduced to cheap jibes about Ted Kennedy, non-Fox news media, and big government.

Meanwhile, Kerry just got smoother and slicker. Not quite Clinton smooth, but closer. His answers weren’t always well-delivered (or ones with which I’d agree). But he did answer everything, lucidly.

Meanwhile, some ad-industry vets have compiled a short Quicktime video entitled The Ten Year Difference, comparing Bush’s performance in the first debate to his (far more effective) performance while running for Texas governor a decade before.

A company with possible ties to the Republican National Committee has been accused of soliciting voter registrations in Nevada, Florida, and elsewhere, then trashing all Democratic entries.

…the Des Moines Register has an editorial comparing Bush’s war talk with language George Orwell’s characters might have used.

I have an acquaintance from the South, who claims to be “torn” about this election. What web pages/videos/books could I recommend to her to steer her toward my favorite Sam Malone lookalike and away from the neocon sleazemonger?

The material should be respectful toward my intended reader (no square-bashing insults, no cuss words, no drawn-on Hitler mustaches).

My target-audience-of-one is a true believer in southern “ways.” She drinks and smokes in public, swears in private, and has had nonmarital sex. But she still believes in going to church and wearing fancy clothes and minding the social graces and mailing “sympathy cards” and crying about dead house pets and cooking from scratch.

She’d been a Bush loyalist, in my interpretation, because Bush’s carefully-contrived public image appeals to her sense of how a leader (and a leader’s family) should look and behave; and also because she believes in remaining loyal to one’s father figures, especially in times of crisis.

I, as you may suspect, believe the Bush crew created two-thirds of our crises, and has deliberately promoted a sense of fear and helplessness in order to manipulate the feelings of voters such as my friend. I wish to show her that the candidate who tries the hardest to appeal to one’s own demographic market segment is not necessarily the best candidate for the job of President.

I may slip her my review copy of Sen. Robert Byrd’s book Losing America.

A reader has recommended Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies, the expose of how the post-9/11 war on terror got botched and sidetracked.

Another suggested James Fallows’s Atlantic Monthly essay (available online only to print subscribers) on Bush’s decision to go after Iraq instead of the real threats.

Other loyal readers have recommended online essays by an ex-Marine for Kerry, and by John Eisenhower.

Email your own suggestions as soon as feasible. Thanx in advance.

…has a growing-daily list of scary/thoughtful “Reasons to Dispatch Bush.”

…of the baseball playoffs is over, and the Boston Red Sox and Houston Astros are both still in. This raises the possibility of a World Series matchup of Massachusetts vs. Texas, just days before another such battle.

LIKE A, WELL, YOU KNOW: Most of the pro-Bush arguments I’ve read have left been short on logical reasoning, long on crude insults and appeals to fear and hate.

In his Tuesday column, P-I business writer Bill Virgin at least attempts to make a thinking man’s case for Bush. I commend Virgin for this effort, though I still disagree with his conclusions. Yes, the world’s a more dangerous place now than it was during the Clinton years. But the man Virgin wants us to re-elect is at least two-thirds responsible for making it this dangerous.

And even the normally conscientious Virgin can’t help but make cheap potshots at Bush’s critics, potshots that require the reader to already believe in the Fox News gang’s character-assassination stereotypes.

Bush’s suit bulge reappeared. But it looked less like the rumored earphone antenna wire and more like a Secret Service-mandated flak jacket, which he probably wears when he’s in public anyway. (Of course, there might still be a wire under that. Just might, I must say.)

And it was mighty disconcerting to see and hear Charles Gibson moderating the proceedings. I don’t want to be reminded on Friday night of Monday morning.

As for the candidates’ performances, Bush improved to the point that he could give off a few complete sentences, some of them even coherent. Yet he still fumbled and sputtered frustratingly, such as when he avoided answering a citizen who asked if he could admit to having ever made a mistake.

Kerry, meanwhile, remained unflappable. And he warmed up in the face of civilian questioners, or made a good act of warming up. He was the smooth, in-the-groove Road Runner to Bush’s awkward, desperate Coyote.

I told this last comparison to an acquaintance, who thought it insufficiently harsh. He felt Bush shouldn’t be interpreted as a cartoon character, even a humorously malevolent one, but as an out-and-out villain. I say, if you can’t have fun with your enemies, you’re letting them psych you out. Which is just ilke “letting the terrorists win.”

…something in common with Truman–The Truman Show, that is. Conspiracy bloggers are speculating that he might have had his debate answers cued to him via a tiny earphone.

Just prior to the Veep debate on Tuesday, I viewed the just-released DVD of Fahrenheit 9/11. In addition to the two-hour advocacy movie, the disc contains an hour and a half of additional scenes, mostly longer looks at topics already covered in the feature attraction. (Although you do get a hilarious/poignant bit set at an Arab-American Comedy Festival!)

F 9/11 just might be the first major theatrically-released movie with a “pull-by” date. Director-narrator Michael Moore intended it to be a pre-election persuader. Everything about its domestic release, including the early flap about which company or companies would release it, tied into making it as visible to as many people as possible over the summer and fall of 2004. Now, Moore says he wants a network or (more likely) cable TV airing the night before the election. This might not be feasible—he’d have to find a willing network, and pay off or otherwise appease his home-video licensees.

But yes, F 9/11 will still exist after Nov. 3. Depending on the election’s outcome (if the outcome’s even known the following day), it will become either a historic document or a warning of worse crimes against society yet to come. If the Ashcroft censorship gang has its way, the F 9/11 DVD could even become a contraband rarity, whose mere possession could get you jailed. (I’ve got friends who’d lived in Franco’s Spain and Pinochet’s Chile, two countries our right wing wishes the US were more like. It just might happen.)

During the Edwards-Cheney debate, I saw a smart-yet-folksy Edwards talk like a remake of the early Clinton (except in shorter sentences). Cheney, in the ultra-rare situation of having to handle semi-sharp questions, was his normal unlovably cranky self; but he was at least coherent, and thus outdid his ostensible boss Bush.

Cheney kept to his pre-planned, quasi-fabricated talking points. He started out smoother than Bush at changing the subject to something for which he had a prepared response, but again that’s not saying much. But by the debate’s end, Cheney had clearly had enough of the proceedings, and abrogated his right of rebuttal.

The right-wing media, as expected, spared no effort to interpret Cheney’s surly boredom as dynamic oratory. (Chris Matthews even claimed Cheney had “hit home run after home run.”) A more aware analysis would credit Cheney for reassuring his base, but acknowledge Edwards did the better job of convincing “swing” voters.

After the last debate, I compared Kerry and Bush to the Cartoon Network duo of I.M. Weasel and I.R. Baboon. For those who don’t click on this site’s links, I.M. Weasel is not what you might think of a cartoon weasel as representing. He’s a heroic genius, a bold action star who sets everything to right. He’s even voiced by Next Generation Klingon Michael Dorn. I.R. Baboon, in contrast, behaves as a baboon.

As for this past debate, Edwards reminded me of that other Southern trial lawyer Atticus Finch. Cheney, meanwhile, is like one of those humorless villain types whose only joys come from the violent amassing of power. A Dalek, perhaps.