Scanner : debates

Scanner Highs and Lows: Is It Really Ever About Anything But Boobs?

Emily Farris — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:25:00 GMT

What you don't know yet is that our mom flashed our friends at our book party...

Highs:

We wrote a book!

And if it doesn't sell well, we may have found a way to get through the economic crisis.

We looked at boobs, natch.

And then we put our Barack where our boobs are.

Is it actually possible we'll stop drinking and emailing?

Instead of punching you in the face next time you say "that's so gay," we now have a short video to show you.

When most people get $6 million book deals, we hate them; we're happy about this one.

You still have time to win some free shit.

We actually agreed with one of those "sexiest women alive" lists.

Crazy cat ladies, you're not alone!

Lows:

We decided we like Madonna again. For a little while, at least.

Sarah Palin told us that she and Jesus and mosquitoes will save the world together, while wearing sparkles.

And we thought we needed to hide those elementary school pictures.

We also thought our mom was crazy for flashing our friends at our book party; boy, were we wrong.

Scanner Brian missed it because he left to watch the debates.

This kid made us sad for the world.

Fuck.

[Image]

Debate #3: It's Better To Fade Away Than To Burn Out

Brian Fairbanks — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:22:00 GMT

Maybe it would be better if Cranky McCrankypants just disappeared for a while, and reemerged a few days (or even a week or two) from now to swoop in with some brilliant attack ad that's effective and actually warranted, unlike everything else he's been for months.

Seriously, think about it: it worked for him after his staff began bailing on him in the primary runup; then he did some soul searching, stripped everything away that wasn't working, and bit by bit, built himself back into a winner and took the New Hampshire primary like a force of nature.

Because this "transcript," our memory of tonight's debate, shows you why his recent strategy/tactics aren't working for him...

TRANSLATED TRANSCRIPT:

McCain: Thank you, my friends. My friends, my friends always say to me, "When the conversation gets rough, my friends, and there is no Republican talking point that can get you out of one of those pesky 'questions' asked by fascist scoundrels like Katie Couric and Tom Brokaw, just switch the subject back to 'energy independence,' and talk about how our country should have independence from oversight by nuclear regulatory committees. My friends, this is the only way."

Obama: I need to resp--

Brokaw: You're not allowed to respond.

Obama: But-- but--

Brokaw: Back to you McCain before Obama embarrasses himself by continuing to break the rules of the debate and look like the whiner Sean Hannity knows he is. Senator McCain, can you explain to me why the Keating Five scandal was once called your greatest error, to paraphrase you, and is now referred to you as total batshit crazy talk?

McCain: Well, my friends, the Keating Four were my friends. My friends, I want to talk to you about energy independence...

Obama: Tom, Tom! Can I--

Brokaw: Let's go to another totally boring, irrelevant, and uninspiring, vetted audience member to ask the next question...

And so on, until we all vote Bob Barr... because this kind of debate just bores us to tears...

-2:01am, after Scanner alumnus Bobby Tisdale's debate watch party & subsequent Scanner Emily-book-release-celebration drinks

Related:

This Week In Gayness: Baton Twirlers Busted For "I Kissed A Girl"

Boobs for Barack

Today in WTF: Endorsed By...

Let's Take A Look-See At The Ol' Electoral Map...

The Veep Deba(cle): Why Everybody Loses

Video of the Day: Biden v. Palin in Song and Dance

Nicole Pasulka — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:40:00 GMT

Sure you could listen to the VP candidates talk about what they'll do in the White House, or you can hear them sing it with the help of AutoTune and phat beats.

The Veep Deba(cle): Why Everybody Loses

Brian Fairbanks — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:59:00 GMT

If this had been a job interview, Joe Biden would have been passed over for not saying anything about himself or calling Palin on her fabrications and Palin would have been passed over for hardly answering any of the moderator's direct questions.

Why Biden Lost:

1. He spoke too often and for too long about his Senate history, sending people across the country to their respective bathrooms and fridges.

2. He spoke more about what Barack Obama would do and not enough about his own feelings on the issues.

3. He let Palin have all but a free ride throughout. The Democrats, as usual, were too sensitive to whatever charge is being leveled at them by their opponents and Fox News (in this case, "Democrats are sexist; they're being too hard on Sarah Palin.") Biden missed opportunities to call Palin out for avoiding moderator Gwen Ifill's direct questions by always changing the subject ("but I want to go back to...") Of course, if Biden had treated her as an equal-- gasp!-- and attacked her as he would have attacked a Joe Lieberman or a Mitt Romney, there would have been an uproar and Biden would have come off, at least in the eyes of some people, as "mean."

Why Palin Lost:

1. Instead of answering questions, as we previously mentioned, she ducked them and brought the discussion back to her talking points...

2. ...proving that she hasn't learned anything these past weeks. Those pundits who said she had "improved" are oblivious to the fact that she hadn't changed at all-- the format had been changed. There's a big difference between Couric's "can you name another Supreme Court case besides Roe v. Wade that you disagree with?" and Ifill's sort-of "what do you think?" freestyling that let Palin off the hook. In a real town hall, or with a moderator who had the guts to press her when she avoided questions, the Governor would've been a goner.

3. She pushed the "just folks" style so hard, it came off as phony. CNN's focus group of a undecided Ohio voters gave her negative marks when she brought out the "darn it's" and "God bless 'im's."

But they didn't fight to a standstill. Despite all this, the public did see a clear winner in Biden, by a margin of 51 to 36. But Biden could have mopped the floor with her if he had pulled the lid off on her strategy of fight toward the middle-- or fighting toward competency, if you will. And, of course, if the public thought Palin lost, Palin lost. There's no getting around that.

On CBS, Sharyl Atkinson said:

"By a margin of two to one, 46% of our uncommitted voters thought Biden won, 21% Palin, 33% saw it as a tie. More importantly, perhaps, how many of those uncommitted voters made up their mind as a result of the debate. 18% told us they are now committed to Obama. 10% now committed to McCain and 71% still uncommitted."

This was a perfect chance for the Obama camp to bring in undecided voters-- Palin is a sitting duck, just waiting to be taken down. 71% say it was a blown opportunity...

Photo via Reuters.

Related:

Do Ten Shots Every Time Biden Mentions Indians And 7-11

Master Debating: Don't Look 'Em In The Eye

It's Friday, And There's Just Too Much Good Stuff To Squeeze It All In

While You Were Watching the Debates: We Tried Out Political Punditry

Emily Farris — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:17:00 GMT

Okay, that's not entirely true. We used to be far too involved in politics for our own good. But last night, we couldn't help but visit our old friends at Drinking Liberally where we met a Scanner fan and got interviewed by the local news.

Master Debating: Don't Look 'Em In The Eye

Brian Fairbanks — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:22:00 GMT

A semi-celebrity once chastised us for not looking them in the eye when shaking their hand for the first time. Ever since, we've been really self-conscious about it-- and perhaps pick up on it when others don't look us in the eyes when shaking hands.

This could explain why were so weirded out by McCain's debate performance. Had he been instructed not to ever once look Obama in the eye? Or was it something more, like a sudden deep-seeded hatred?

Republicans explain it by saying-- gotta love this twisted logic-- McCain was actually being respectful... by locking eyes with the public instead. Or maybe Jim Lehrer, who was, after all, asking the questions. Hmm... so, how does that explain the fact that McCain didn't look Obama in the eye during the handshake, when Obama was addressing him, and so on?

Others responded on the blogs by using the Rovian tactic of trying to turn the question back on their opponents. "Actually, it was disrespectful of Senator Obama to call Senator McCain 'John,'" goes the commenters' logic. Interesting observation, but looking back on the debate, we don't remember the first-name-basis sounding condescending or disrespectful or anything negative like that. In fact, it made them both more likable and made John McCain seem more like a regular schmoe, as Bush voters surely want.

So, with all those Republican explanations ruled out, what do you think or the debate and what did you think of the eyeball thing?

(By the way, the early post-debate polling said that Obama won with between 51 to 68 percent, depending on the network, while later numbers indicate a slight uptick for him but, on further reflection, the public thinks that it was pretty much a draw for Round One.)

Related:

CNN Says "Free Sarah Palin!"

McCain Sabotages His Own Attempt To Save The Nation

BREAKING: John McCain Suspends His Campaign

While You Were Sleeping: The Porn Collage

It's Friday, And There's Just Too Much Good Stuff To Squeeze It All In

Brian Fairbanks — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:10:00 GMT

We're busy getting ready for the debate tonight... stocking our liquor cabinets, preparing pancakes, you know, the usual...

We don't have time to tell you all about the other amazing stories going on in the world right now. The stories that involve Sacha Baron Cohen's invasion of an Italian fashion show... Wonkette's most hilarious debate watch party drinking game... Johnny Cash's beyond-the-grave meditation on freedom... and much more...

But we'll give you a varrry nice taste...

Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno crashed the Iceberg show in Milan and walked the runway in that hilarious outfit. He was soon escorted out, but not before footage was captured for his totally ridonkulous new movie film... [Telegraph]

People Magazine released a beautiful and preachy recording of Johnny Cash reciting "I Am the Nation."

Fark has video of the first 1992 VP debate, which is apparently going to be somehow similar to this evening's Presidential battle. Meanwhile, Wonkette's drinking game for tonight is the greatest thing they've ever come up with.

A press report indicates the McCain campaign is in utter "chaos" following McCain's decision to suddenly fly to the site of the debate.

And a candidate for governor of Bangkok has pulled a McCain and suspended her electorial fight after her campaign manager drowned during a publicity stunt. The campaign manager was swimming in a canal with the candidate call attention to the area's unsafe drinking water when he began flailing his arms. TV cameras and onlookers assumed the worker was goofing off and didn't rush to help until after he had long since disappeared. The campaign manager, by the way, has a seven-months-pregnant wife. Damn.

That is all.

Borat Make New Movie Film For You!

Is Jessica Simpson Headed for a Life of Bad Clothes and TV Dinners?

McCain Sabotages His Own Attempt To Save The Nation

Which Candidate Spends More on Make-Up Than We Do On Shoes?

BREAKING: John McCain Suspends His Campaign

McCain Sabotages His Own Attempt To Save The Nation

Brian Fairbanks — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:44:00 GMT

It's time someone called "nuts!" on this McCain campaign suspension, fake attempt to save the economy, and the sabotaging of that fake attempt once it appeared Obama had the upper hand on the issue again...

Here's what we've heard. It's possible, of course, that Politico, Politics1, RCP, and all the other sources are wrong, but let's assume otherwise for the moment:

1) McCain told David Letterman he couldn't do anymore interviews because he was rushing back to DC to work on legislation. This was proven, on air, to be a lie, as McCain ran over to do an interview with Katie Couric instead. Fine, whatever. But why then did McCain wait until the morning to fly to DC? Didn't he know that would be a big red flag for people?

2) McCain said he was going to suspend campaigning. But we've heard from several sources that his ads are still running, his workers are still working, and McCain is still "campaigning" in every sense of the term except for actual stump speeches. See more about what his campaign has been up to since the suspension here.

3) Politico and Politics1 report on how the deal fell apart, thanks to McCain and Bush and their political maneuvering. You have to read this whole thing to appreciate it:

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson['s] $700 billion bailout... fell apart in bitter arguing during the meeting at the White House called by President Bush... [which was held] at the urging of John McCain. [The Dems] jointly deferred to Barack Obama, who set forth the[ir] concerns. One Republican at the meeting told Politico that Obama's leading role -- versus McCain's nearly silent role at the meeting -- was "an ambush" and the Democrats "did a very good job" of surprising Bush and McCain.
Obama immediately raised concerns that House Republicans had spent the day secretly plotting with McCain to sabotage the Bush/Paulson plan. Obama said the Democrats would not be party to advancing any bailout plan if McCain and the Congressional Republicans were not solidly behind the plan. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) -- one of the fiscal hawks who had been crafting the conservative alternative plan -- confirmed that the House Republicans had met with McCain during the day as they worked on the rival plan. ..."This is such a crisis I'm not going to draw some line in the sand. We can't leave without doing something, but we don't think the votes are here for Paulson," said Ryan. As the White House meeting degenerated into bickering, the Democrats walked out to caucus...

Here's the short version of the rest: Paulson apparently (literally!) got down on his hands and knees in front of Pelosi and begged them not to quit the talks. According to Politico, his worst fears about what Bush and McCain would try to do-- that is, play politics with the legislation and try to give most of the gargantuan payoff to those who didn't need it, like CEOs-- were confirmed and the talks stalled. The Democrats and Republicans sectioned themselves off and continued into the evening with the discussions, leaving some to wonder...

4)... is John McCain going to show up for the debate? As we've said before, if he doesn't, he could get trashed like no Republican has been since Bob Dole's bumbling 1996 campaign. Obama would be able to mop the floor with him in a town hall-style discussion and emerge the almost unbeatable frontrunner. John McCain: are you getting any of this?!

More via Politics1.

Related:

BREAKING: John McCain Suspends His Campaign

Gay Community Attacks McCain By Outing His Chief Of Staff

Which Candidate Spends More on Make-Up Than We Do On Shoes?

McCain Was "Tasty" and "Good Kissing" According to His Brazilian Lover

BREAKING: John McCain Suspends His Campaign

Brian Fairbanks — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:16:00 GMT

Without warning, Senator John McCain, the Presidential nominee for the Republican Party, told the media he is suspending his campaign because of the country's major financial crisis...

At this point, it's unclear exactly what this entails. His campaign has yet to clarify whether or not this means he will make no public appearances, take no questions from the media, and run no TV ads. However, as of now, a few things have been made clear:

a) McCain wants to call off Friday's debate. (Why? Is he going to be working into the wee hours on legislation? Even so, the country won't buy it.)

b) This is not the first sign of trouble in the campaign this week. A story yesterday reported that reporters are calling McCain's bus "the No Talk Express" because of a sudden press silence. Palin, as well, has been avoiding reporters, even camera crews, on her various trips around the country and overseas. What is McCain up to?

c) Obama has just been handed either a) his own kryptonite or b) a huge bomb to drop on the McCain campaign. If he plays his cards right, the Democrat could paint McCain as a chicken, especially if he spreads the rumor that McCain's debate prep was so terrible he's actually just covering his own ass. If Obama drops the ball on this, however, McCain could easily paint Obama as more concerned with his silly little campaign than the very fate of our nation.

d) Ben Smith at Politico calls this latest move "a mark, most of all, that he doesn't like the way this campaign is going... [as t]he only thing that's changed in the last 48 hours is the public polling."

Obama is expected to make a statement soon, although all signs point to the possibility of his going after McCain and saying the debate is most definitely on... see MSNBC for more.

UPDATE: Obama says he's "inclined" to carry on with the debate. Also, the pundits are noting that McCain is asking for a "political free zone" until bailout legislation is signed, although, of course, it's in McCain's interest to stall the campaign while the latest momentum is clearly with Obama, especially when you consider the latest polls on which candidate is best ready to handle the economy.

Debate Coaches Show Kids How To Do It By Completely Losing Their Sh*t

Brian Fairbanks — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:34:00 GMT

In a March, a debate tournament in Wichita, Kansas was overrun by immature, obscene, loud, petty, and obnoxious people-- the coaches.

William Shanahan of Fort Hays University and Shanara Reid-Brinkley from University of Pittsburgh got into an extremely heated screaming fight over-- surprise, surprise-- race. But what's most ironic about all this is that Reid-Brinkley seemed to have set Shanahan off on his long and insane rampage by criticizing, of all things, the Fort Hays coach's body language.

This video had been online recently but had disappeared. We just found it in another YouTube posting, uncut and still ugly...

The Associated Press tried to get in touch with these fools for comment, but what's left to be said besides "why didn't someone tell these assholes to get the hell out?" We can't think of a better way to have resolved this than to get two people to carry them out, one taking the arms, the other the legs, and give the students the peace and quiet they needed to finish their competition in civilized peace.

Related:

Facebook Water Fight Goes Awry, Girl Gets Punched In The Face

Great Reviews of Bad Movies: Never Back Down (aka Fight Club 2)

Engagement Party Ends In Cheating, Beating, Arrest, No Makeup Sex

Oxymorons of the Day: Feminist Porno Makers?

Brian Fairbanks — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:20:00 GMT

We don't get off like we used to. An example: it's not like Paris Hilton's sex tape is in any way hot now, although it would've been in 1907, back when porn was stick-drawn in a dirt road and nudity was considered "anything below the clavicles." Just as fifteen years ago, pre-AOL's explosion, amateur porn was still exciting no matter how boring the sex was. Now, we could look at dozens of sex scenes before getting turned on by one of them. We're over-stimulated.

(By the way, we're kidding about getting off to a Paris Hilton image. Even in 1907.)

Is it possible, considering what lengths porn has to go to in order to excite us these days, feminists could squeeze a little of their charm into the adult film?

Digg.com readers are debating this very question right now, mainly ignoring the AlterNet page where the story originated. ("Strange Bedfellows: Can Feminism And Porn Coexist?") The answer, so far, points to a greater problem: men watch porn in part because it's anti-feminist. For a lot of us, it gets us off because it's dirty and women are usually treated like slaves. Sorry, ladies, but that's the harsh truth.

Simple answer? Yes - its called Gay porn... - says "froo"

Seriously, though, feminist porn doesn't have to be like regular hardcore straight porn. It can be... uh... filled with sweet, passionate kisses between intellectually equal adults who seduce each other with witty volleys and get down to business only after the man finally concedes to female superiority. All right, all right, we're kidding about that-- although that description sure as hell sounds just like the opening of any chauvinist porno...

Have you guys ever seen a feminist porno? (And by "guys," we mean has anyone ever seen a feminist porno? What was it like? Did it turn you on?)

You've Lost That Loving Feeling

Brian Fairbanks — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:30:00 GMT

This is the moment that Hillary Clinton believes will turn the tide of the primaries?

This morning, her campaign chair, Terry McAuliffe, sent out an e-mail message with a link to this video, calling it "the moment of the debate."

Seriously, people, this is why she cannot win this election or any other: if you turn the sound off, you can see right through anything she says. Does anyone truly think, both candidates being relatively similar on the issues, that Hillary Clinton is the better candidate against Senator John McCain?

Post-Debate: Clinton Broke, Nasty, Strong, Brilliant, Possibly Winning

Brian Fairbanks — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:00:00 GMT

The early word on Thursday night's debate is that Hillary Clinton very much stayed alive, although for how much longer?

Below: a wrap-up of the volleys fired last night, as well as meditations on where the race goes from here. (Also, did anyone actually watch this "brawl"? Anyone in Texas or Ohio? We'd love to hear what you thought...)

Your talking points for last night's debate in Tejas...

-Boring

-Obama did not seal the deal in any one moment and basically didn't do anything new to close the deal

-Hillary had the evening's finest zinger and, really, it's only one. Following Obama's humorous attempt to deflect questions about his lifting of a line from a Governor Patrick speech, Hillary had the quick rebuttal. She called his campaign, and that response, "Change you can Xerox." Zing! Wait, remind me what Xerox is again... we have these newfangled ink jet printers that run things off for us.

-She must have worked on her closing for days, if not weeks, for its one of her finest moments since her announcement a year ago. “The hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country." John Edwards much? (Speaking of Edwards, she mentioned him a bunch of times. Does this mean she is more or less likely to receive the North Carolina Senator's endorsement?)

-The New York Times summed up the feelings of those looking for KO from either side:

Maybe we were expecting too much — an intergalactic showdown. Instead, it was more of a chess game, with each side moving forward and occasionally knocking off the other’s pieces. Instead of ending in checkmate, they ended with a hands-across-the-water moment.

In summation, we got the impression Hillary survived to fight another day, while nonetheless missing out on causing Barack to make that race-changing slipup about supporting gay child molesters or having done blow out of a stripper's bunghole with Teddy Kennedy. She needed that and, without it, the race is still Barack's to lose. He has cash to burn on ads in the next primary states, while Hillary's TV visibility will have to be of the free-publicity variety: her campaign is already broke again.

And Hendrik Hertzberg on the New Yorker blog made it clear what she's up against. Which is, um, the imfuckinpossible:

If Florida’s votes are counted but not Michigan’s, then Clinton needs to carry Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 59 per cent to 41 per cent, or 17 points, in order to match Obama’s vote totals. And if results from both Florida and Michigan are excluded, she needs to win by 62 per cent to 38 per cent. Margins like these do not seem within the realm of possibility.

We'll leave the last word to ABC News:

If all you're doing as a voter is making a judgment based on this debate, it's easy to come away supporting Clinton. But that's not how the election works -- the fact is Sen. Clinton was looking for ways to recast the debate tonight, and we didn't get that.

Photo of Clinton (top): Getty Images / AFP

Photo of Obama and Clinton: Michael Stravato for the New York Times

On the Subject of Being "Pimped Out"

Emily Farris — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:02:00 GMT

OK, not so much the subject itself, but the semantics of the phrase.

Last Thursday, MNSBC anchor David Shuster said on the air, “Doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” after she was recruited to make calls for her mother's campaign. Now the Clinton camp is throwing a huge fit and may pull out of an MSNBC debate scheduled for later this month.

On one hand, if we ("we" being everyone under the age of 30) didn't use "pimped out" to describe many things (cars, apartments, internships), then maybe it would be a bigger deal. It's not like Shuster was implying that the Clintons were sending Chelsea out to have sex in exchange for votes. In fact, we don't think we would have given it a second thought had we been watching the broadcast.

But on the other hand, as Tina Fey (Ms. Norbury) so famously said in Mean Girls, "You all have got to stop calling each other sluts and whores. It just makes it okay for guys to call you sluts and whores."

We're not in any way saying Chelsea brought this upon herself; it's highly possible she's never uttered that phrase in her life. But we (women, including Scanner Emily who has used "pimped out" to describe something as benign as Rice Krispies Treats) throw it around like it's no big deal. Like many words and phrases, it's lost its meaning. "Whoring" would have been much more offensive, we think.

Scanner verdict: While Shuster shouldn't have said what he did, the Clinton campaign is making way too big a deal out of it (identity politics, anyone?). And maybe that makes us bad feminists.

[Previously on Scanner: MSNBC: Chelsea Clinton Being "Pimped Out"]