A Wonderful Conversation!

You take the high road,
and I'll take the low road.
We take the pre-road,
and now for the post-road.

And we'll all be in blank
before we can say...

Who, What, When, Where and Why,
by How. (3-20)

OK... enough Rant or Ramble.

The real story is that considering the past debates, ABC's was nothing new, except that it was broadcast on the airwaves, not just on cable.

So... I will conclude that it was a success,
given d'meaning of the medium.

Obama took the high road, and shone as best he could on the road, while Hillary took the old road, and may be shone the road.

Now for footnotes, on what got me on this road, of which I have only read from the search engines not the pieces.
Clinton-Obama Debate: ABC Hit on Focus on Minor Issues -
The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media -
Debate: ABC Decides Top Issues Facing Americans Are Flag Pins and '60s Radicals

HERE IS A BIG HINT: You don't have to read all three. In fact if you just read the headings you have a bigger hint.
Thanks to Thom Hartmann, and Editor and Publisher, and again for me these are (nfry): not fully read yet

[speaking of pre-posts and the media shone up: or is it pre-post-er-o-us? or is it just...]

Gatekeeper on a High Horse?

George F.* Will?rides on.
Gatekeepers are us?
George "Fiat" Will?
______________________________________________________________________
Speaking of the high road, the above may be rather high brow, and the following might be considered in the gutter or the trenches where we need to fight too.
______________________________________________________________________
[Re: the above (first two) links provide contrast and balance as well as rating (G.F.W.-P.G./R.W.F), but the bottom link(see warning as to "expletive deleteds" being unbeeped), and does not reflect my views but do provide more than adequate contrast in their own right. Harriet Christian manufactured? I don't know, but natural reactions? Maybe.]
[Update: And imagine the Gaul, Will had to write from Pearl Harbor not to mention bladder or the sheen]

*WARNING! Fowl language embedded in bottom link, not necessarily connected to the "F" between George and Will. But maybe Fear, Fiat, Foe, fumes?

High Road or Low Road?

and then there is the Bridge to Nowhere.
Family matters! But country first?
Enough! I will have to look back to see if I am off track.
The Family Values Party seems to have vetted family as an issue.
But have they vetted freedom? Freedom of information? Not to mention freedom of speech? The media plays a huge part in this, but which side are they on?
Does freedom have a side? Does information?

Of course these are just threads. That does not make them just.
But it does not mean they don't need to be followed a bit more.
Backgrounds matter. Or do they?

"Maverick" was a TV show and McCain admits being addicted to "24" * unless someone was joshing. "24" is the modern version of "Mission Impossible". A fantasy based too closely on reality. I have not followed Jack Bauer for some time, but just which Maverick is McCain. The gambler or the ladies man?

Both McCain and Palin have the far right lifting their spirits with their own bootstraps. Will the media vet the facts? Or does vet mean, being vetted of facts.

[* Bold added with this link 9-3-08 along with "gambler" link]

Catching Up with US.

OR WATERLOGGED (Cause and Effect/Accountability)

Just why is bureaucracy so at fault when Bush or whoever is in charge (he apparently has to investigate that) added to it by bringing FEMA under Homeland Security?

Homeland Security, and Bush, are more at fault than FEMA, unless blame is only trickle down. (For some it is the people's fault while they serve at the will of the president.)

No wonder New Orleans is flooded. For the sake of millions of bucks passed (NOT), we need billions of buckets to bail out the trickle down.

Maybe there is some sort of "rhetorical" balance in this administration. A linguistic "Tao" of sorts, or that sorts it out. Money is passed up, and "the buck" is passed down. Now I get the schizophrenic partnership between the pillars of the Republican party that are falling upon this country. Religion and the Almighty Dollar do not need to be so close or frictional, but it appears that the dollar to them is meant to rise while the moral burden is for the masses.

Wait. Is this only rhetoric? A metaphor may be more accurate. But rhetoric like money and religion are just words that need to be given meaning by how they are connected to the living and dying. And before I waste more words, I will just say that the bureaucracy is a key in providing the connections to more than just two factors.

The blame does not go to religion, money or bureaucracy which will and must change, but the actors that need to change. The PROCESS must be a two way street of ACCOUNTABILITY between many factors, rather than just the high road and the low road of survival of the "fittest" or we will continue to revolve rather than evolve.

If there is "intelligent design" it may be that I could not make any PROGRESS with a pun about removing the R and replacing the D to improve our evolution. But it also may show the "cause and effect" which is ACCOUNTABILITY that neither party nor people can escape

Now we have come full circle: He trusts the people, not the government, and now everything is on them.

Google Works...

in Mysterious Ways!
Or YouTube [!]

Now... the rest of the Harvey, for Pete sake (and Mary).^^

What transpired this morning was opening my blog from my desktop and reading "Mysterious "(scroll over or click on).  A Ty Cobb reference was embedded in my post.  He was also embedded(earlier) in a family photo as a frame liner or stuffing in the form of a Seattle papers sports section.  His batting average was around .410 at the time.  The photo is of my grandfather on skid row. (I walk past it every day as I come down the stairs for breakfast.) But it was not our dad's Skid Road.  It was a logging camp taken by an historic*** photographer with my granfather proudly centered.    

Literal Flip-flop?**
Not to tangent.*
[sorry for the anachronistic asterisks]

Obama is Ty Cobb in the following context:

The saying "All is fair in love and war" comes to mind. A google search brought up reference to Ty Cobb’s ability to stretch the rules and was used in reference to modern business tactics. Business aside, though that is the world he^ came from, it is interesting that some^ would make more rules (whether for couples or nations) when they in particular have trouble with following those that exist.

(but on the level field of dreams.)

We are the borg, not the cable guy or Picards.


* Is of sorts a tangent, as in a recent encounter with "Proust"
** link 2 "Ways" black and white
*** the one on my wall has not been found online, but found the 3rd link under the historic*** YouTube.
^ Bush league

[In context? Not to pun.]
^^ [Post edited for Pete..."sake (and Mary)"]

FOOTNOTE:  The third link is high-lighted.  The balance is how we get there.  The Mysterious Picards the content of context.

Democracy Upheld! (5-4) (R/x)**

Not to spike the ball. 
Mandate will become a tax!

Well... that was my idea or interpretation of the bill, but that was FOX News' claim.
But my original ball that might have been a spike was "Democrats Upheld" but Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, is a bi-partisan bill, so I cannot claim a victory for Democrats.  It is a victory for congress and the political progress.  It is a victory for Obama and bi-partisanship.  Not that victory is a Burger King*, or having it my way.  I should admit that recently I thought that part of the ruling would be kicking the can down the road, since some of the provisions don't go into effect till 2014. 
Oops, in plain English, I may have been right about the can.
Senator Dan Coates on Jansing&Co. claimed lack of bi-partisanship.  That claim is a victory for politics and bi-partisanship.  The ACA was passed under reconciliation.  It was not a Democratic bill, but a democratic bill.  If the President can be blamed(see choice/bold-underlined) for congress not getting things done, when the Republicans obstruct with filibusters.  Republicans cannot have all the changes they could get and not take credit for them by voting against the bill to claim partisanship by not being able to filibuster. 
If anything this is a vaccine to the insanity of the partisan Issa Committee which doctor for the NRA. 
Pump it up! Obama Cares !  Chris Matthews has a very interesting Stupid Conspiracy.  On the other hand, I thought that the obvious was missing in the court arguments.  I think that means that it was plain that a loss of tax break is not a penalty, or is it the semantics of taxes.

* whose weigh or beef?
** still looking for the bullet ratio aka up 'n over or held/turned [People/$]
[of and for the people, over money]
[The real in'f-fable might be taxes/commerce. The High Five ?  4GETIT?
It is a win for Politics, Bi-Partisanship, Obama, and the Economy!  But according to Raw Money?  "A Choice"... between Government standing between you and big corporations or big corporations standing between you and your health care.(Bold over underlined ? )]
Not to strike a punchline, but bottomline:  Obama is Bush! A Political Capitalist!
Romney is Kerry!  A nuanced flip-flopper.  But only in the light of...(the president speaks)***

(asterisked anachronism888baneORspeaks.)

***  TBA
[Coff E T A B L E ]
[AM H&H game change? Tweet Morning Joe! ET? MR doc RM RL btw: NFIB v. SSHH$ ]
[PC v MF ! (?)]

(photo credit)

[Hi5-4th'tableCongressISjobWON!]
[Congress is open to a peel!]

[I don't have the rest of the story to back this up, but I think that Norman Goldman analyzes NFIB v. SSHHS the way I have.  Not only that but Justice Thomas or the D$ent may have bust the fallacy that health care is commerce.  Not only that but I think that Justice Roberts figured out how it can work or not work depending on congress, as I think that congress could have if they had more cooperation rather than partisanship.  NorMan really cut through it with a caller, regarding small business and Mitt RobbedMe.  How do you know when Mitt is telling a lie?  He is either talking about Obama or economics, if not both at the same time. Just between me and we, it seems that without fully reading the Affordable Care Act or the full decision, the Supreme Court seems to have understood it better than it was argued, but not much more than I thought it was.  The catch is that we are patching together various interpretations that make a decision that still takes some tweaking by congress.  It puts taxes and states at the table.  The catch seems to hinge on the powers of congress and the definition of commerce.  As Chris Matthews was want to call it a Stupid Conspiracy, I may lean toward calling it a Swift Strategy, despite the games some play with acronyms, initialism or caricatures.]
NG
GN
UP v UC
Unprecedent President vis a vis Unprecedented Congress.
Now that is PC! Due(or vu doo) the Math!
(Bush/Obama x Obstructive/Health Care)
[I would like to thank three people for helping me understand GeOhMeTry[!] Randi Rhodes, Lawrence O'Donnel and Michael [links 6-29] Moore... Well...there are host of others but in particular RR and LO, have brilliant insight if not intel.  Randi a quick take on Obama, Lawrence an understanding of the political process, and MM a way with the message and the medium.  MR-RM.
Plausible Deniability/Plausible Incompetence/ Deniable Competence. That is the voodoo some do.
[Upheld -  U p h e l d !]