My very simple debate drinking game. If either candidate brings up unprompted, Darfur, Sudan -- drink half the bottle. If it's GWB finish the bottle.

You may also substitute "Iran's nuclear program" for Sudan.

Alternatively, for a little more action, take one drink at every ten minute interval during which neither of the issues above are mentioned.

Have fun.

Two good NYT op-eds to check out. Paul Krugman yesterday echoing what Fields Report has already said

Let's face it: whatever happens in Thursday's debate, cable news will proclaim President Bush the winner. This will reflect the political bias so evident during the party conventions. It will also reflect the undoubted fact that Mr. Bush does a pretty good Clint Eastwood imitation.

And Al Gore proving that we live in strange times when a fake news show displays higher standards than "real" news

The debate tomorrow should not seek to discover which candidate would be more fun to have a beer with. As Jon Stewart of the 'The Daily Show' nicely put in 2000, "I want my president to be the designated driver."

Who is more educated? Viewers of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (stoned slackers to Bill O'Reilly) or O'Reilly watchers. Yep you guessed it.

Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research.

...

Comedy Central also touted a recent study by the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey, which said young viewers of "The Daily Show" were more likely to answer questions about politics correctly than those who don't.

Comedy Central had no statistics on how many people watch "The Daily Show" stoned.

An via the aforementioned Wonkette, from Time.com: Ten Questions for Jon Stewart.

James Carville says (click on the memo to Democrats link at the top of the page) whining Democrats like me who are prophesying the demise of John Kerry need to "suck it up, get it together, and face the fact that we're going to win this thing." I like James Carville a lot and it's heartening to hear him to say that because I suppose he has confidence in some internal polling. And of course the media has done a great job of hyping the polls that should double digit leads for GWB and disregarding those that don't make for breathless stories. But those polls still all show Bush with slight leads. And there is no way John Kerry will win this debate Thursday. Perhaps the better way to say that is there is no way for GWB (Mr. Low Expectation) to lose the debate. Everything that Kerry says will be scrutinized at the expense of everything that Bush doesn't say (or gets wrong, or lies about). I stick by my prediction of a Bush "landslide." Sorry.

The NYT Magazine’s cover story is about political blogging and the campaign trail. I must say, though the article illuminates the personal side a couple of the more popular bloggers, it’s pretty formulaic and boring stuff. The backdrop of the story is bloggers covering the conventions this year. But there’s nothing in the way of whether this was a good or bad thing, what their coverage was like, or the like. There was ample time given to what parties bloggers went to and how cramped there space was though. Anyway it’s worth a read if for anything for the disproportionate coverage (gee, I wonder why?) of Wonkette, who is indeed hilarious.

Here's a nice piece in Slate by Will Saletan using John Kerry's speech today to dissect his position on Iraq. Here's are two key parts (attention lazy pundits--a special shout out to CNN's Candy Crowley this week who in addition to her regular shoddy reporting repeatedly and derisively reports that candidate John Kerry isn't doing any news conferences)

2. Kerry voted for war authority to scare Saddam Hussein into allowing inspections. In Kerry's words, "Congress was right to give the president the authority. … This president—any president—would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. … The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed. … Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work." This account is consistent with all but one of Kerry's previous statements on Iraq. But it doesn't explain how Kerry would have enforced a U.N. Security Council threat to "disarm" Saddam—or what Kerry would have done if Saddam, rather than Bush, had refused to let the inspectors "finish their work." Nor does it explain how Kerry would have determined that the work was, wasn't, or could never be "finished."

3. The United States shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Kerry asks, "Is [Bush] really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no—because a Commander-in-Chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe." Kerry has often said that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq the way Bush did. But this is his clearest statement that he wouldn't have invaded, period. Bush depicts this as a reversal of what Kerry said a month ago. That depiction is false. [emphasis added]

The media and even the blogosphere is full of chatter about the CBS-Bush National Guard document debacle. I can’t get excited about this story. Some of the reporting wonders where CBS goes from here. How did this happen? Huh? I suppose a news organization should have high standards and CBS didn’t go far enough to ensure the authenticity of the documents. But the major news organizations in my opinion are guilty of transgressions just as bad weekly. They do sloppy research. They’re lazy in their reporting and background research. They repeat allegations from sources as fact without verifying them. Television news anchors don’t correct or set the record straight when guests make false statements. The have double standards in their political reporting (and that cuts across the political spectrum). These things happen on a regular basis. So many of the blogs out there spend the majority of their time pointing to these things. So why is this a big story? Call me cynical, but this is business as usual. And speaking of lazy journalists, how many point out that the White House is not refuting any of the allegations in those memos?

Key excerpts from John Kerry's speech today that he should hammer home daily

The president claims it is the centrepiece of his war on terror.

In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists.

Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

Forty-two Americans died in Iraq in June - the month before the handover.

But 54 died in July, 66 in August, and already 54 halfway through September.

And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August - more than in any other month since the invasion.

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever-widening war zone.

In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times - a 400% increase.

Falluja, Ramadi, Samara... even parts of Baghdad are now no-go zones, breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers.

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.

Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees.

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq.

Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth.

The truth that the commander-in-chief owes to our troops and the American people.

Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts.

Only Vice-President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.

The president now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq.

That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history.

His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment, and judgment is what we look for in a president.

An interesting story ran in the LA Times today about the effort to rebuild Iraq's electrical grid.

During last year's war, the U.S. military carefully avoided attacks on Iraq's electrical infrastructure, and the plant [at Baiji] escaped unscathed. After Baghdad fell, U.S. engineers rushed in with aid to fix the damage from years of disrepair and a spasm of postwar looting.

Today, 17 months and $172 million later, the Baiji power plant — a vast "Lawrence of Arabia" meets "Blade Runner" complex 125 miles north of Baghdad — produces less than half the electricity it generated when it was built two decades ago.

Here's the not so surprising punchline

Although electricity was the foundation of the rebuilding campaign, State and Defense department planners vastly underestimated the time, money and effort needed to restore the country's power grid, which had deteriorated far beyond their expectations under 12 years of U.N. sanctions.

A review of the restoration effort shows that it was beset by poor planning, inconsistent leadership, sabotage and deteriorating security.[emphasis added]

The rest of the article goes on to detail the numerous miscalculations that led to the current state of affairs.

On a related note, I wrote a memo to John Kerry a month or so ago on some points to hit GWB with. One of them was a promise to make restoring services like electricity throughout Iraq a major priority. Bring this article to the debates Senator Kerry.

On this anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Nicholas Kristoff reminds us that “that almost as many people are still dying in Darfur every week as died in the World Trade Center attack.” Then he has questions for President Bush

For President Bush Why don't you turn up the heat on Sudan? How about consulting urgently with the leaders of our allies about how to exert more pressure on Sudan? How about inviting victims to the White House and denouncing the genocide from the Rose Garden? How about threatening a no-flight zone in Darfur unless Sudan cooperates?

I can answer that first question by a look at the record and in turn asking this question: Over the past four years, what positive, productive, and bold or creative foreign policy moves has this administration made? The war in Afghanistan doesn’t count; that was a response to an attack. Iraq doesn’t meet all three criteria. Where other foreign policy challenges have presented themselves (Iran, North Korea, Israel-Palestine), the administration has sat on its hands. President Bush and his people like to point to Libya as a success. And they should. But the reality is that deal had more to with the British and the Clinton administration and nothing to do with Libya feeling threatened by the war in Iraq. President Bush would probably also like to point to his efforts at brokering a peace deal in Sudan between Khartoum and the Christian south. But even then, the president’s involvement came only after extreme pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus and conservative Christian groups, not Mr. Bush’s own benevolence.

So Mr. Kristoff, there you have it. Sudan is a tough one. This administration doesn’t do well with tough calls. And after this election don’t expect things to get any better as the President can coast his way into the history books forgetting about those pesky foreign entanglements.

I'm no political strategist, but here is my one line advice for John Kerry (I still stick by my prediction that he's toast; I'll go with Bush 53%, Kerry 46%). Talk shows. Start showing up on them. Oprah (perhaps he's already been there, but despite Fields Report's familial connection to the Oprah magazine, he doesn't watch the show), Larry King, Today. Get your unfiltered message out. The media loves soundbites and parroting talking points without challenging them. Take advantage of this. That's my two cents, but I'd still take Bush and give the points.

U.S. Declares Darfur Crisis Is Genocide. Most of the headlines reporting this story were some version of this one that appeared in the LA Times.

In a new signal of its concern over the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, the Bush administration Thursday declared for the first time that the African country's troops and allied militias had committed genocide.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told senators that a State Department report drawn from interviews with 1,000 Sudanese refugees had concluded there was a "consistent and widespread pattern of atrocities committed against non-Arab villagers" in the Darfur region.

Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Powell said that the Sudanese government and the militias, known as janjaweed, "bear responsibility" for the atrocities and that "genocide may still be occurring."

So there you have it. The U.S. has dropped the 'G' word. Now what? Cynically, I suspect that this administration calculated that crossing the 'G' threshold would be enough. They may be right. "Hey, we said it's genocide, now what are you guys gonna do about it?"

Shouldn't this be the example of leadership that the administration says only they can provide (versus those French-loving Kerry people)? If genocide is occuring, isn't it incumbent on the most powerful nation in the world to do something more than point out that that house is on fire. Weren't we supposed to have learned a lesson from Rwanda? It's funny how shifting rationales for the war in Iraq from strategic threat to humanitarian concerns compels the U.S. to act in a case like Sudan. That is it should compel this administration, but what does consistency have to do with anything? And with a disinterested media being compliant, why worry.

I mentioned that I went to hear Michael Kinsley speak on Tuesday night (listen to the interview here). Kinsley is the new opinion editor at the LA Times. A lot of the talk surrounded the role of the editorial and op-ed pages. In passing he mentioned his time on CNN’s Crossfire – which time made me a big fan of his. One thing that struck me was his saying how he always strived for intellectual honesty in that capacity and as an opinion writer. Maybe I’m remembering those days through rose colored glasses but I think from both the left and right on those days, there was much more of that. More shouting and less dishonesty. Today it seems it’s just the opposite. This is my segue to the latest example that is the idiocy of Tucker Carlson on Wednesday’s Crossfire

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

Two wars, 35 years and 3,800 miles apart take center stage in the presidential campaign today. John Kerry says President Bush's war in Iraq is costing us billions we need at home, while President Bush is fending off charges from a newspaper investigation that finds that he fell well short of meeting his obligation in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: That's right, the Vietnam War, that's not going on right now.

Meanwhile, for the 50th time in as many weeks, the Kerry campaign is taking us on a sentimental journey back to, you guessed it, Vietnam. Isn't it about time Kerry found a position on the war in progress? We'll debate that.

…

So here are your choices this November, two candidates, both of whom supported the war in Iraq, but only one of whom can explain why. So if you're for the war, the choice is obvious. Vote for Bush. At least he believes what he is saying. But if you're sincerely against the war, and many decent people are, it's equally clear that John Kerry does not represent you at all.

BEGALA: You know, I read the same speech that you did.

BEGALA: And Kerry made a very principled critique of what -- what Kerry was saying is, even if you supported this war, which he voted for...

CARLSON: No, he said he supported the war.

BEGALA: Let me finish.

Even if he supported the war, the way that the president prosecuted it was negligent to those soldiers who needed better leadership, a better plan, better command.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Bush failed us.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: You try to outtalk, rather than outargue.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: The point is, yesterday, yesterday, John Kerry said this war was wrong. Today, he said -- he implied that he would have taken us to war as well.

(CROSSTALK) CARLSON: That's what I'm arguing.

BEGALA: He didn't imply anything.

CARLSON: Yes, he did.

BEGALA: He gave a 30-minute speech where he stated his position clearly.

(BELL RINGING)

BEGALA: He doesn't need anybody to take inference from it.

CARLSON: Is he for the war or against it? I just want to know, is he for it or against it?

Later in the show [idiocy alert]

CARLSON: All right, more on Bush's National Guard service next. Just kidding.

Well, it's easy to respect ideologues. They may be wrong, but at least they mean for they say. For this reason, they tend to be pretty honest. It's much harder to respect partisans, because for a partisan, the only sin is deviating from the party line. Partisans are not bothered by lying, at least not when it's committed in the name of their team.

Ronald Reagan was an ideologue. Jimmy Carter, sadly, is a partisan. Consider Carter's recent attack on Senator Zell Miller of Georgia. The former president has written Miller a letter accusing him of being disloyal to the Democratic Party, historically disloyal, he said, in a speech last week in New York. "You betrayed the trust to fellow Democrats," Carter writes, "for talking about the party's weakness on foreign policy."

In other words, whatever you do, Senator Miller, don't tell the truth in public. It might hurt the party.

And that's as close to principle as the current Democratic principle will get these days.

BEGALA: No, that's not what President Carter said.

CARLSON: Year. I have got the letter.

BEGALA: I read the letter.

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Look, here's the problem. You just attacked John Kerry because you said he has different positions. Zell Miller described John Kerry as an authentic American hero who helped build a strong military.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Zell did. I love Zell Miller. I worked for him. For 10 years, I wrote his speeches.

CARLSON: That's not what I said.

BEGALA: And he said that about John Kerry. Now he flip-flops and all of a sudden thinks John Kerry will only defend us with spitballs?

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: John Kerry still has shrapnel in his leg. For these guys to say that he is throwing spitballs is an insult.

(BELL RINGING)

CARLSON: Paul, Paul, attempt to have a conversation, rather than just an election. I'm not attacking anybody for flip-flopping.

Right. This reminds me of Slate’s Timothy Noah’s remark about what separated Ari Fleischer from the amateurs was ability to repeatedly lie to your face when everyone knew he was being dishonest. Tucker is honing his ability to make egregious statements and then on the same show deny that he has done so. But this is the guy who told co-host James Carville co-architect of Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential victory, that he did run a good campaign. So much for intellectual honesty. Sorry Mike.

I saw my favorite political writer, Michael Kinsley, speak tonight here in Los Angeles. The forum was taped for rebroadcast, tomorrow, September 8 at 10am California time. As always he was smart, witty, and engaging. The interview will broadcast on KPCC, 89.3 and you can get the online stream here. More on what he said, particularly on intellectual honesty and pundits, tomorrow.

George W. Bush: Words Speak Louder than Action. Classic Daily Show. Check it out.

As Bob Somerby might say, the mainstream media knows not to ask its Republican guests about Osama Bin Laden. But no one told this to Univision's Jorge Ramos and on Larry King he didn't stick to the script

KING: Jorge, what did you think of Vice President Cheney's speech?

RAMOS: I think it was a strong and forceful speech. And I think it's fair game that he marked the differences between Kerry and Bush. After all, I mean, what's an election about if not about differences?

But I didn't hear a single word about Osama bin Laden, the most dangerous enemy of the United States and the efforts to capture Osama bin Laden. After President Bush said on NBC on Monday that he didn't know if we were going to win the war on terrorism, I was expecting Vice President Cheney to define victory in the war against terrorism.

So, how do you define victory? Is it no more soldiers dying in Iraq? Is it no more terrorist attacks in the United States? Or is capturing Osama bin Laden? How we will define victory in the war against terrorism, I didn't hear that. Hopefully, we'll hear it from President Bush tomorrow.

KING: Are you surprised, Jorge, that bin Laden's name has been infrequently mentioned [during the convention]?

RAMOS: I've been listening to most of the speeches of the convention, and I haven't heard it a single time, Larry. I don't know if I've missed some of the speeches, but it's really interesting because everything has been concentrated on the war against terrorism and on the war in Iraq, but what's going on with Osama bin Laden?

I mean, after all, he is the man who's responsible for 3,000 deaths on 9/11. After all, he's the most dangerous enemy of the United States, and we haven't heard a single word about him. Why not?

Read the rest of the transcript here and also see what David Gergen (my favorite conservative) had to say about Zell Miller's invective.

Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's former campaign manager also says that the Kerry people are asleep at the wheel

The problem is, as the month of August comes to an end, an old familiar Kerry campaign I’ve seen before has emerged.

As Howard Dean’s campaign manager, I saw a front-running Kerry campaign literally fall asleep in the early months of 2003 because they knew they had the nomination won. Then our little ragtag Dean campaign gathered steam while the Kerry campaign spent nine months walking in its sleep. By the end of the long summer of 2003, the Kerry campaign’s slumber was so pronounced that many thought it dead.

...

Someone has to say it: The Kerry campaign is doing it again. The campaign became so sure of victory over Bush, so confident of a win in November that the old slumbering Kerry campaign of summer 2003 is back like clockwork in August of 2004.

...

They are facing the most monied campaign in history, among the most experienced campaign teams ever, and the most deceptive campaign since Richard Nixon’s.

So wake the hell up damn it!

Read it here.

I really find all that convention blogging uninteresting from an information and humor standpoint. But if you missed Zell Miller come unglued tonight on MSNBC and challenge Chris Matthews to a duel, seek out the blogsphere for a transcript and video. If I find both I'll post them.

Update: Zell Miller imploding on Chris Matthews. See it here.

Today’s NYT editorial remarks that President Bush was right the first time – when he said we couldn’t win the war on terror(ism) before he said we could win the war on terror(ism).

While Republican delegates have been meeting in New York City, terrorist bombs have been exploding in the rest of the world. The horrific pictures of victims on an Israeli bus and slain airplane and subway passengers, as well as of a school held hostage in Russia, are a stark reminder to Americans that terrorism is not all about us. It is the tactic of preference for the self-obsessed radical movements of our age.

President Bush was absolutely right when he said it was impossible to win a war against terrorism - it's like announcing we can win a war against violence. Terrorism can only be minimized and controlled, and that can be done only with a worldwide strategy, joined by all of the world's sensible and peaceful nations.

But this is wrong – if you take the Bush administration seriously (hard to do sometimes). That is to say that the so-called war on terror(ism) [are you getting my new linguistic editorial?] has never been about global terrorism. It’s about al-Qaida. The Bush people couldn’t care less about terrorism in Colombia, Chechnya, or Israel because it doesn’t affect the U.S. Whether this is right or not is another issue. The point is that the war on al-Qaida can be won. This administration has forgotten about Osama Bin Laden and the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan (how many times will the word Afghanistan be uttered at the RNC?) as the NYT editorial goes on to rightly highlight. But a war to eliminate al-Qaida can be won.

An effort to wipe out global terrorism would surely fail. But the Bush administration has no intention of waging that battle in the first place. If you don’t believe that then examine the extensive comments from the White House on the wave of terrorism that has swept through Russia over the past week.