Hillary's Tumultuous Closing Chapter

At the Wall Street Journal, "For Clinton as Top Diplomat, Tumultuous Closing Chapter":

Just weeks ago, Hillary Clinton was poised to glide out of office as secretary of state with job-approval ratings near 70% and a political buzz suggesting she is already the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate to beat.

Then, disaster struck at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Mrs. Clinton calls the "terrible events"—involving the death of a U.S. ambassador—"one of the most challenging" periods of her four-year tenure. At that moment, U.S. foreign policy, largely overshadowed by economic concerns in the presidential election, roared to the forefront.

Mrs. Clinton long has said she would leave the job after one term. Now, however, in a sign of how much the tragedy has shaken her final days, she indicated in an interview that she may be willing to stay a bit longer.

"A lot of people have talked to me about staying," Mrs. Clinton said, declining to be more specific. When asked if current events will force her departure date to slip, she said it was "unlikely," but for the first time left open that possibility for the short term.

With presidential voting just days away, the suggestion she might stay could offer a sense of stability for Barack Obama as he makes his closing arguments. Mrs. Clinton has strong appeal among women voters as well, a possible swing constituency on Election Day.

Traveling with Mrs. Clinton in recent weeks, through New York, Asia and Washington, provides a close view of her role executing foreign policy for Mr. Obama, her onetime nemesis. In the Benghazi crisis, she made a previously undisclosed call to Libyan President Mohammed Magarief seeking immediate help in finding the missing U.S. ambassador, and later held a one-hour private meeting with him at the United Nations to urge him to disarm the militias and turn the tragedy into a "positive moment to propel Libya forward."

At the same time, she has faced rising violence in the Islamic world, a complex U.S. relationship with China and testy exchanges with Israel's prime minister over Iran's nuclear threat. These issues and others have gained prominence in the closing days of the U.S. presidential race. They also stand to shape Mrs. Clinton's legacy as secretary of state and her future political prospects.

As she rode to Andrews Air Force Base last month to meet President Obama for the arrival of the American bodies from Libya, Mrs. Clinton pressed the leader of one country where protests were still erupting outside the U.S. embassy. "Get your people there now," she said to him on the phone. "No excuses." Minutes later, she was out of the car, comforting the victims' families.

With President Obama occupied with re-election, Mrs. Clinton is doing much of the foreign-policy heavy lifting. And in the aftermath of the Libya attack that took the life of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Mrs. Clinton put her own imprint on the debate by accepting blame. "I take responsibility," Mrs. Clinton said in an interview in her office.

Well, sounds like just more Democrat CYA to me. All of these people are all messed up by political calculations. Hillary's been found wanting in the 3:00am moment she said she'd be prepared to meet. It's almost Greek tragedy territory. She's getting old. And now she's willing to stay at State longer to try to patch up the damage of President Clusterf-k in Libya, and perhaps the entire Middle East? Alas, too late for that Madame Secretary. Hit the exits as soon as you get the chance. Distance yourself of the presidential imposter in the Oval Office. Perhaps the public will be as forgiving of you as they have your husband.

'We Are Going to Win'

At the Wall Street Journal, "Romney Tells Iowans ‘We Are Going to Win’."

And here's the fantastic new ad from Team Romney:

Harvey Weinstein's 'SEAL Team Six' Boosts Obama Footage in Shameless 'Gutsy Call' Promotion

Well, it's not like it's a surprise or anything.

At London's Daily Mail, "GOP's outrage after Harvey Weinstein's SEAL Team Six film on bin Laden take down was 're-cut to add MORE Obama footage'."

And see Vanity Fair, "Why Mitt Romney Was Cut from a Harvey Weinstein Movie":

Disappointing news for anyone hoping that Mitt Romney would abandon his political career, pack his worldly belongings into a beat-up VW, and move to Hollywood: a scene featuring the presidential candidate was cut from a forthcoming action film produced by heavyweight Hollywood Harvey Weinstein. The film—which could have been his big breakthrough—was slated to premiere merely two days before the election.

The movie is SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden, a 90-minute drama that will premiere on November 4 on the National Geographic Channel. Directed by John Stockwell (Crazy/Beautiful and Blue Crush), the film will include President Obama at a White House Correspondents’ Dinner and taking a lonesome stroll “thanks to the magic of editing,” as The New York Times puts it. The Romney scene was removed at the behest of the National Geographic Channel, on the grounds that it gave the impression that the former governor had opposed the plan to apprehend Osama bin Laden. According to the channel’s chief executive, Howard T. Owens, “We wouldn’t air this if it were propaganda.”

Shoot, probably better Romney was edited out.

It's airing November 4th? No political favoritism there, no sir. And hey, Weinstein's in the tank. He's been hosting Hollywood fundraisers for the president. I doubt Weinstein will be making a film on the Libya debacle, however. That wouldn't fit the "gutsy call" narrative so well.

The Posionous Fruit of a Pro-Jihad President

At Atlas Shrugs:

On September 11, when the White House was receiving emails pleading for help in the face of an Al Qaeda attack on our consulate in Libya, Ambassador Stevens, and his staff, Obama issued this statement regarding the attack on our embassy in Cairo, happening at the same time:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy.

Reading Obama's statement in light of what we know and what we know he knew takes Obama's treason to a whole other level. Blaming free speech and supporting sharia in light of mayhem, madness and murder of Islamic supremcism is the act of an enemy. It's an act of war from inside the Oval Office. But it is consistent with Obama's pro-jihad leanings...

More at the link.

And don't forget, Pamela's written the book on this.

Why Did Obama Run Left?

From Stanley Kurtz, at National Review:

Let the pre-criminations begin! Clive Crook asks why on earth Obama ceded the center to Mitt Romney by running a class-warfare-based campaign. Crook sees Obama as a centrist mysteriously cowed by his party’s leftist base. I think we can clear this mystery up. Obama ran a leftist class-warfare campaign because…well, he’s a leftist class-warrior.

QED.

But read the whole thing.

Sears Yanks Sexy Burka Halloween Costume

From the you can't make this stuff up department.

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Sears Goes Sharia! Sexy Burka Halloween Costume Pulled From Website."

Shark Shooter

Check out this utterly fascinating profile of nature photographer Michael Muller, at Red Bull's "Red Bulletin."

And check the photos at Muller's home page. Just outstanding work.

Netroots Bloggers Mark 10th Birthday in Decline and Struggling for Survival

An interesting report at The Daily Beast.

The netroots is just different rather than declining. The political web has changed dramatically over the years. Bloggers come and go, but progressive online political activism is here to stay. If Romney wins four years from now Daily Beast could simply recycle this piece with the key actors being the right wing blogs and the tea party leaders that helped propel the GOP to power in Congress in 2010, and who've been driving online discussion and debate throughout the 2012 campaign.

That's said, it's hilarious to read the whiny response from people like Susie Madrak and the idiots at Firedoglake (no link). Screw 'em. If they can't generate enough ad revenue to keep afloat the world will be better off without 'em, the f-ks.

'Romney Well Positioned to Put This Race Away'

According to John Hawkins, at Right Wing News, "A State of the Race Report for 10/24/2012."

And notice that RCP Electoral College distribution. I doubt they're consulting Nate Silver on that.

See: "BATTLE FOR WHITE HOUSE."

Montana's 'Castle Doctrine' Law

At the New York Times, "'Castle' Law at Issue After Fatal Montana Shooting":

Heather Fredenberg, 22, said she and Dan [Fredenberg] were passionate about each other, but also bickered about child care, bills, fixing the car and other stresses amplified by having two infants and not enough time or money. The county attorney’s report said they were “mutually abusive with each other, both verbally and physically.” More than once they considered divorcing.

About three months before the shooting, Ms. Fredenberg started seeing Mr. [Brice] Harper. She has called it a flirtation and an “emotional affair” that was intimate but never sexual. She told her husband about the relationship, and the two men once clashed at Fatt Boys Bar & Grille in Kalispell.

Although Ms. Fredenberg said she and her husband were committed to each other despite everything, Mr. Fredenberg’s father said his son believed the marriage was breaking apart. The day before he died, he told his father, “I’m giving up on it. I just can’t put up with it anymore,” his father said.

On Sept. 22, Mr. Harper called Ms. Fredenberg and asked a favor: He was moving out of town the next day, and could she come over and help him clean the house? She took her 18-month-old twin boys and spent the afternoon at his home, a five-minute drive from hers. She swapped tense text messages with Mr. Fredenberg and talked on the phone around 8:30 p.m. He asked whether she was with Mr. Harper. She said she did not answer. He cursed and hung up.

As she was strapping her sons into their car seats and getting ready to leave, she said, she asked Mr. Harper to circle the block with her to diagnose a clunking sound in her car. As they drove, she saw headlights in her rearview mirror. Her husband had come looking for her, and he was behind them.

Ms. Fredenberg said she dropped Mr. Harper off at his house and told him to go inside and lock the doors. She said he told her that he had a gun and was not afraid of her husband. Mr. Fredenberg, close behind, parked his car and followed Mr. Harper into his garage, its light spilling onto the driveway.

Read it all at the link.

And at Althouse, "The NYT attempts an anecdotal argument against the law that lets you defend yourself in your home."

Rope and Change

Via Legal Insurrection:

BONUS: At the O.C. Register, "From 'Hope and Change' to 'Smirk and Disdain'."

And at Wikipedia, "Rope-a-dope."

Bumps in the Road Timeline

Via Theo Spark:

Patrick Moran, Son of Democrat Rep. Jim Moran, Resigns in Voter Fraud Scandal

The O'Keefe video is here.

And see The Hill, "Rep. Moran's son resigns from father's campaign amid voter fraud scandal" (via Memeorandum).

That's definitely a feather in the hat for O'Keefe. He keeps plugging away after the Mary Landrieu conviction.

Corporate Optimism Fades

Actually, while consumers might be a little more optimistic, this stuff tends to accumulate. When you see earnings on your mutual funds and 401Ks collapsing, that can be pretty harsh. Folks turn bearish and they take it out on their political leaders. I think there's a lot of amorphous economic disenfranchisement out there, and that could be a November surprise on election day.

Either way, check the New York Times, "Companies Aren't as Optimistic as Consumers":

Consumers may finally be feeling more optimistic about the economy, but corporate America is not sharing the sentiment.

A host of market bellwethers reported disappointing results Tuesday and cut their outlook for future growth, sending stocks into a tailspin and highlighting the divide between companies and consumers.

It was Wall Street’s second big drop in the last three trading days, with household names like Xerox, 3M and DuPont leading the way down as the Dow Jones industrial average dropped more than 240 points. The Dow is now down 3.7 percent from its high for the year reached earlier this month.

The concerns among business leaders extend well beyond earnings — a Federal Reserve regional survey released Tuesday showed new signs of weakness in the domestic manufacturing sector, even as global growth slows.

Corporate executives also reiterated the danger posed to the economy if Washington cannot avert sharp tax increases and spending cuts in early January, the fiscal cliff that many economists say heightens the risk of recession. This uncertainty is compounded by the prospect of a new Fed chairman by early 2014.

The pessimism is all the more notable because after years of wariness, consumers are feeling more buoyant. Consumer confidence is at its highest point since before the financial crisis. The housing market is showing signs of life. And retail sales actually sped up in the third quarter, fueling the hopes of retailers for a robust holiday season.

“Normally, you think of consumer confidence as more important,” said Ethan Harris, chief United States economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “But the business sector is a quarter or two ahead this time.”

One reason for the disparity is that businesses are much more focused on conditions abroad than consumers in the United States. With growth in China slowing and parts of Europe in recession, cooling international sales are weighing on corporate earnings. The prospect of slowing global demand for oil generated a sell-off Tuesday, as crude fell 2.2 percent, to $86.67, its lowest level since July.

Indeed, the sectors that rely more on international sales have been among those hit the hardest. Xerox, 3M and United Technologies each lowered their outlook.

While the fiscal cliff looms large in boardrooms, consumers are less concerned about whether Congress will extend Bush-era tax cuts set to expire in January and whether it will come up with a deal to cut the deficit and avert automatic spending cuts.

“Clearly, there is something going on, with consumers going one way and businesses going the other,” said Paul Ashworth, chief United States economist at Capital Economics.

Looking ahead, optimists say the new willingness of consumers to spend will ultimately bolster corporate results, but there is a lingering fear that the struggles of American companies may be pointing the way.

“The heads of the large corporations have their fingers on a lot of information,” said Bernard F. McGinn, president of McGinn Investment Management. “The decisions they make are of a scale many times what the consumer does.”

Marxist Professoriate Gets More Marxist, Survey Finds

I'm not kidding, either. When we had a S.F State urban hip-hop professor give a lecture a couple of years ago at my college, I asked him point blank during the Q & A if he really believed in the revolutionary agenda that he was spouting and teaching to his students. I asked him straight up, "Do you want to see the overthrow of capitalism in the U.S.?" He didn't even blink. Absolutely he said. And then I asked for a show of hands among my faculty colleagues for how many agreed. Every single hand went up. When you're constantly marinated in the hard left-wing curriculum of the social sciences and humanities, after a while you start to identify with the most radical theories and epistemologies. The promise of America's founding is jettisoned for a bastardized and simplistic Howard Zinn outlook on the world. We routinely have far-left speakers at the college and they're welcomed with open arms, drawing huge contingents of student Che wannabe mass-murderers. It's pretty pathetic, but it is what it is.

In any case, check this report at Inside Higher Ed, "Survey finds that professors, already liberal, have moved further to the left":

In the 1998-9 survey, more than 35 percent of faculty members identified themselves as middle of the road, and less than half (47.5 percent) identified as liberal or far left. In the new data, 62.7 percent identify as liberal or far left.

More:

Neil Gross, a professor of sociology at the University of British Columbia, has written extensively on faculty political issues. He is the co-author of the 2007 report that found that while professors may lean left, they do so less than is imagined and less uniformly across institution type than is imagined, and that many are in the political middle.

He said that he couldn't be sure why more professors were identifying as far left, but that "during periods of significant economic downturn, and significant rise of inequality, it's not surprising" that such a shift would take place, especially given that in academe, "radicalism is still a live possibility."

Gross said that the "optics" of the data could lead to criticism of higher education. "From the vantage point of some folks, that will make academe look bad. For others, it will make academe look like a place concerned with the country."

I don't know why folks like this guy Gross try to sugarcoat it. It's bad. It doesn't just "look bad." It's just bad. We are dumbing down students by denying them critical thinking skills. We're turning them into far left-wing robots ready to rubber stamp the latest far left-progressive rage, whether it's supporting stupid shit like "Israeli Apartheid Week" or the reelection of our hopelessly dishonest, Communist-trained President Eye-Candy Clusterf-k.

.

Dems Begin the Post-Obama Blame Game

Well, Romney could still lose, but still.

See Jonathan Tobin at Commentary (via Instapundit):

Some Democrats are apparently not waiting for Barack Obama to lose the presidential election before starting the inevitable recriminations about whose fault it was. Whether writing strictly on his own hook or as a result of conversations with campaign officials, New York Times political writer Matt Bai has fired the first shot in what may turn out to be a very nasty battle over who deserves the lion’s share of the blame for what may turn out to be a November disaster for the Democrats. That the Times would publish a piece on October 24 that takes as its starting point the very real possibility that the president will lose, and that blame for that loss needs to be allocated, is astonishing enough. But that their nominee for scapegoat is the man who is almost certainly the most popular living Democrat is the sort of thing that is not only shocking, but might be regarded as a foretaste of the coming battle to control the party in 2016.

More at the link.

New Pamela Anderson Pics!

At London's Daily Mail, "Busting out! Pamela Anderson struggles to contain her famous curves in a VERY low cut cream dress."

An Incredibly Stupid Cover Up

At the video John Bolton slams the White House as "incredibly stupid, and those Fox News reports are increasingly fevered, man.

And Jake Tapper updates, "White House Responds to Release of Real-Time Emails About Benghazi Attack":

The White House this morning attempted to down-play the significance of emails sent to top national security officials during the attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, one of which suggested a known terrorist group claimed credit for the attack in its immediate aftermath.

As obtained by ABC News’ John Parkinson and posted last night, the emails seem to be ones sent by the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts for the top national security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

One of the emails reported that officials that Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack on Facebook and Twitter, and had threatened to attack the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

In the first couple weeks after the attack, the White House and Obama administration generally blamed the attack on a demonstration an anti-Muslim video that got out of control. On September 14, White House press secretary Jay Carney asserted that “we have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” Only later would the Obama administration say the attack was planned.

White House officials maintained that the emails don’t contradict what the White House believed at that point, based on the intelligence community’s assessment of the attack.

Not a pre-planned attack? That's what they've been saying for weeks. It's an alternative reality for these people, but the public eye-opening is coming. It's going to be hard to watch.

And at Hot Air, "Senate Intel vice chair: We’ve been demanding these e-mails since the Benghazi attack," and Gateway Pundit, "OBAMA FIDDLED AS BENGHAZI BURNED – President Refused to Call in Troops From Italy One Hour Away."

Ohio Tied at 48 Percent in Latest Rasmussen Swing State Poll

See, "Election 2012: Ohio President - Ohio: Obama 48%, Romney 48%."

And from Mark Blumenthal, "Presidential Polls Remain Close Nationwide, Get Slightly Closer In Two Key Battlegrounds."

Plus, the new American Crossroads ad featuring Clint Eastwood will be running in seven battleground states, including Ohio:

Apology Tour

I remember Soledad O'Brien trying to weasel out of the history of Obama's apology tour in September. She was interviewing Rep. Peter King of New York, at the time of Obama's Libya debacle. She had the Cairo speech transcript and kept saying, "He never once used the word apology," blah, blah ... So I looked it up at the time, because the idiots at Think Progress, the anti-Israel Soros-backed hate-site, were issuing the exact same denials. The definitive piece is at the Heritage Foundation, "Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower."

And so now the issue's in the news again. Mitt Romney slammed Obama for his craven world apology tour at the Boca Raton debate. And Jennifer Rubin has a report, "The myth of the myth of apologies":

You can argue that sometimes a nation should apologize for some past conduct. You can argue that this is appropriate, but not on foreign soil. But to insist that Obama hasn’t apologized repeatedly for the United States both here and abroad is simply wrong. Frankly, he has done more of this self-flagellation in more places than any other president. It is a record that should never be broken.

And see Gateway Pundit, "Mitt Romney Camp Releases “Apology Tour”."

IMAGE CREDIT: The Looking Spoon, "Obama Did Not Go On An Apology Tour..."

Emails Show White House Briefed on Benghazi Terrorism in Real Time — Ansar al-Sharia Claimed Responsibility

At ABC News, "Email Alerts Describe 9/11 Benghazi Consulate Assault Unfolding" (via Memeorandum):

A series of email alerts sent as Obama administration officials monitored the attack on the U.S consulate in Benghazi last month are the latest to shine light on the chaotic events that culminated in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The names of the individual recipients of the emails, first reported by CBS News but independently obtained by ABC News Tuesday evening, are redacted. A source who requested anonymity said it appears they are sent by the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts for the top national security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

And that's a compelling interview with Sarah Palin at the clip. I haven't seen her this animated ---- literally angry ---- in quite some time. Here's Greta's report, "BREAKING NEWS: Emails show the Obama administration knew Ansar al Sharia was behind the attack in Benghazi."

And at London's Daily Mail, "White House knew al Qaeda-linked group claimed responsibility for deadly Libya attack just TWO HOURS later, emails reveal."

And check out this devastating piece at Youngstown News out of Ohio, "Lies being told about attack in Benghazi":

It was a little much when President Barack Obama said that he was ”offended” by the suggestion that his administration would try to deceive the public about what happened in Benghazi. What has this man not deceived the public about?

Remember his pledge to cut the deficit in half in his first term in office? This was followed by the first trillion dollar deficit ever, under any President of the United States — followed by trillion dollar deficits in every year of the Obama administration.

Remember his pledge to have a ”transparent” government that would post its legislative proposals on the Internet several days before Congress was to vote on them....

As for what happened in Libya, the Obama administration says that there is an ”investigation” under way. An ”on-going investigation” sounds so much better than ”stonewalling” to get past election day. But you can bet the rent money that this ”investigation” will not be completed before election day. And whatever the investigation says after the election will be irrelevant.

The events unfolding in Benghazi on the tragic night of Sept. 11 were being relayed to the State Department as the attacks were going on, ”in real time,” as they say. So the idea that the Obama administration now has to carry out a time-consuming ”investigation” to find out what those events were, when the information was immediately available at the time, is a little much.

The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known. But, as someone once said, you don’t need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten. And you don’t need to know every detail of the events before, during and after the attacks to know that the story put out by the Obama administration was a fraud.

The administration’s initial story that what happened in Benghazi began as a protest against an anti-Islamic video in America was a very convenient theory. The most obvious alternative explanation would have been devastating to Barack Obama’s much heralded attempts to mollify and pacify Islamic nations in the Middle East.

To have helped overthrow pro-Western governments in Egypt and Libya, only to bring anti-Western Islamic extremists to power would have been revealed as a foreign policy disaster of the first magnitude. To have been celebrating President Obama’s supposedly heroic role in the killing of Osama bin Laden, with the implication that al-Qaida was crippled, would have been revealed as a farce.

Osama bin Laden was by no means the first man to plan a surprise attack on America and later be killed. Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto planned the attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II, and he was later tracked down and shot down in a plane that was carrying him.

Neither the Los Angeles Times nor the New York Times had this breaking at their websites as of 10:15pm Pacific time, as this post was being scheduled for overnight, although Huffington Post and Reuters had the news. I'll have more on this later.

It becomes clearer by the day. The administration's been covering things up all along, and lying remorselessly. Conservatives are hammering the White House. While progressives are enabling the cover up with denials and obfuscation. We'll see how things play out for the remainder of the day. It's not going to be pretty, that's for sure.

Obama Crashing in Ohio; or, For the Love of Mercy, Leave Nate Silver Alone!

While the story's another gut-buster with respect to New York Times wonder boy Nate Silver, there's some serious implications here. But more on that after checking in with Robert Stacy McCain, "Signs and Omens: Obama’s Fading Hope and the Graveyard Whistling Choir":

Nate Silver continues to lead the Democrat Graveyard Whistling Choir, raising Obama to a 70.3% likelihood of victory based on . . . what?

I dunno. I’m not an expert with a New York Times column or anything, much less a Magical Forecasting Model™ that can divine future events with the precise scientific exactitude of 1/10 of one percent.

This morning, Silver told us that Ohio might be a crucial battleground, which might be news to a victim who just escaped from an underground rape-dungeon after nine months of being held hostage and tortured by a sociopathic sex offender. But to everyone else, it’s not news at all.

My apologies for the bizarre word-imagery. Debate-night aftermath, a shortage of sleep and other psychological stress sometimes have this effect on my prose. But don’t worry. After 24 debates in 16 months, I’m used to it by now. And speaking of bizarre word-imagery, Ace of Spades:

“It’s going to be a grim affair, grim and horrible and just sad, but there’ll be lots of alcohol.”

That’s in reaction to unmistakable evidence of doom and gloom in Obama’s increasingly desperate fundraising e-mails. The plural of “anecdote” is data, as they say, and you don’t need a Magical Forecasting Model™ to see the dots in this emerging gestalt pattern, including the Gloria Allred “October surprise” gambit. Never heard a peep about this until after Obama got his ass kicked in the first debate, did ya?

Keep reading.

I love that part about how silver claims Ohio "might be a crucial battleground..." I guess he's not even reading the big horse-race journalism at his own home-station newspaper. As I reported at the beginning of September, "Ohio Is Ultimate Battleground State." Cited there is a New York Times piece suggesting that Mitt Romney was facing a vital, can't-do-without test in the Buckeye State. Amazing how perceptions have turned around. Now it's Obama who's the one with the ultimate test in Ohio. See Michael Knox Beran, at National Review, "Obama Unnerved — by Ohio?":

Talk about the sullen presage of a campaign’s decay. Something was wrong with President Obama last night, to judge by his performance. Was Ohio on his mind? An AP story says that the Obama campaign is now talking about a way to win without taking the state....

That the Obama camp is even talking about losing Ohio is a stunning turn of events.

No wonder, then, that Romney seemed like the man who was winning last night. When he spoke, you thought “energy in the executive.” When Obama spoke, the words that came to mind were “fatigue,” “apathy,” “frustration.” In his closing statement the president was clearly rattled, lamely reciting talking points we’ve heard too often before, not even pretending to care about what he was saying — simply wanting it to be over. It was as though a light had gone out. Was he disconcerted by the smoothness of Romney’s performance? Or is his campaign’s internal polling in Ohio less pretty than his people are letting on?

And check this great piece from Daniel Horowitz, at Red State, "The Current Electoral College State of Play":

Two weeks before Election Day, all signs point to this being a very tight election. Romney clearly seized the momentum with his debate win two weeks ago – one which Obama failed to stop with his stronger performance last week. Most national polls show Romney with a 2-3 point lead; however, the state polls show an even tighter race.

One thing has not changed in terms of the Electoral College; the election will still boil down to Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. However, there is one major development over the past two weeks that has strengthened Romney’s hand in the Electoral College. The national surge in support for Romney has created such strong momentum in Florida, Virginia, and Colorado – both in the top line numbers and internal numbers – that it’s hard to see him losing any of those states.

So who cares? Well, once we allow for the assumption that Romney wins those three states, it is absolutely impossible – not just improbable – for Obama to win the election without Ohio. Even if he were to run the table in the rest of the battleground states (NH, IA, NV, and WI), he would still come up short. Take a look at how that would work.

Perforce, Obama cannot win without Ohio.

Continue reading.

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Nate Silver Calls It: Advantage Obama!"

* "Nate Silver's Flawed Model."

* "Boom! Romney Back Up 52-45 in Gallup's Daily Tracking of Likely Voters."

* "ABC News Touts Nate Silver's Prediction That Obama's Handicapped at 68 Percent Chance to Win!"

* "'It's becoming increasingly obvious that Silver can't be taken seriously...'"

* "Nate Silver Blows Gasket as Gallup Shows Romney Pulling Away in the Presidential Horse Race."

More later...

British Bride-to-Be Snubbed by Stoke Park Hotel as Wrong 'Type of People' is Adult Star on 'Red Light Central TV'

An amazing story.

I saw this the other day and thought it interesting, at Telegraph UK, "Not the right 'type of people': Bride and groom 'humiliated' after wedding email blunder":

A bride-to-be was left “humiliated” after trying to book an exclusive hotel for her £10,000 dream wedding, and instead receiving an email saying she and her fiance were not the right "type of people".

But now here's the update, "Bride-to-be snubbed in 'wrong type of people' hotel row is part-time glamour model":

When a five-star hotel sent Pauline Bailey an email saying that she and her fiancé were “not the type of people we want here”, she pointed to her partner’s pierced eyebrow as a possible explanation for the snub.

It emerged yesterday that Miss Bailey, 27, had not been entirely forthcoming about her own background while insisting that she and Paul Carty, 51, were “a respectable, middle-class, hard-working, well-educated couple”.

Although Miss Bailey does, as she pointed out, have a master’s degree in medical law and plans to study for a PhD, she failed to mention that she also works part-time as a glamour model on a late-night soft-porn television channel.

Calling herself “Rachel T”, she wears skimpy outfits as she takes live premium-rate phone calls from men watching her on Red Light Central TV.

Miss Bailey, from Luton, had described herself as “mortified” to receive the email from the wedding planner at the Stoke Park Hotel in Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire. She said that she and Mr Carty were left feeling like “undesirables” after Michele Connelly accidentally forwarded the message, in which she asked her boss how she could “put off” their wedding.

Yesterday, Miss Bailey confirmed that she had been working as a glamour model for five years.

Not to be outdone, London's Daily Mail has photos, "The bride who's not exactly blushing! Law graduate snubbed by wedding hotels turns out to be star of adult TV."

Well, I guess it pays to follow up on those intriguing news reports!

Nate Silver Calls It: Advantage Obama!

The suspense is over!

Wonder boy Nate Silver delivers the snap analysis, "Obama Unlikely to Get Big Debate Bounce, but a Small One Could Matter."

There is, obviously, some disagreement on the magnitude of Mr. Obama’s advantage — the polls surveyed different types of voters and applied different methods to do so.

But averaging the results from the CBS News, CNN and Google polls, which conducted surveys after all three presidential debates along with the one between the vice-presidential candidates, puts Mr. Obama’s margin at 16 points.

That compares favorably to Mr. Obama’s average 10-point margin after the second debate, and Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s 6-point margin against Representative Paul Ryan, but is smaller than Mr. Romney’s average 29-point win in Denver.

So that improves Obama chances in the Electoral College by a gazillion-ty times!!

PREVIOUSLY: "Nate Silver's Flawed Model."

BONUS: "'Horses and Bayonets'", and "Charles Krauthammer: 'Romney Went Large; Obama Went Very, Very Small — Almost Shockingly Small ...'."

IMAGE CREDIT: Horses and Bayonets Tumblr.

Boca Raton Presidential Debate — FULL VIDEO

Here's William Jacobson's comments, "Best Tweets of the Final Debate — Romney as The President, Obama as desperate challenger":

This was a strange debate. It was as if Romney were the incumbent and Obama was the challenger. I felt that Romney was running out the clock from the start, trying not to make any gaffes, proving he is worldly and reasonable.

Obama was the aggressor, both in words and demeanor. To that extent, Obama scored “points” but not points that ultimately make a difference.

If Obama’s job was to disqualify Romney as a potential President, someone too reckless for the job, Obama completely failed. Which means that for Romney, tonight was Mission Accomplished.

Tonight’s debate will not change the trajectory of the election, and that is good for Romney.

And see Michelle Malkin on Twitter:

Romney: "I'll get people working again. American can come back. This nation is the hope of the earth. Take the torch of freedom."
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) October 23, 2012

That's why Mitt Romney killed this debate. He's optimistic and looking toward the future. He affirms America's greatness, with no apologies. He's hopeful and not stuck on bemoaning the "policies that got us into to this mess in the first place," like a bleedin' crybaby, unable to lead. Romney's championing the policies that will get us out of it. The election can't come to soon. The American people are going to send O on a long golfing retirement.

PREVIOUSLY: "'Horses and Bayonets'", and "Charles Krauthammer: 'Romney Went Large; Obama Went Very, Very Small — Almost Shockingly Small ...'"

Charles Krauthammer: 'Romney Went Large; Obama Went Very, Very Small — Almost Shockingly Small ...'

Sir Charles eviscerates O's performance:

PREVIOUSLY: "'Horses and Bayonets'."

'Horses and Bayonets'

At Twitchy, "Obama compares naval ships to horses and bayonets; Twitter explodes in snark-storm; Marines fact check Obama."

Also at CNN, "TRENDING: ‘Horses and bayonets’ shows Obama's debate strategy" (via Memeorandum).

Plus, "CNN Poll: Nearly half of debate watchers say Obama won showdown."

Great, that's what they said about the second debate at Hofstra --- that Obama won, and Romney kept surging in the polls anyway. The buzz tonight says that the debate won't change the basic trajectory of the race, which is bad news for President Eye Candy. He needed to put Romney away. He sure gave it his all, although he inadvertently revealed that his primary debate strategy was the Joe "Blowhard" Biden model of bluster and bulls*t.

He was really that bad. Folks are zeroing in, for example, on "THE STARE"!! See, "There’s that laser-like focus: Obama ‘death stare’ is the new Biden smirk."

ADDED: At Big Government, "CNN Poll: More Voters Likely to Switch to Romney."

Nate Silver's Flawed Model

From Josh Jordan, at National Review, "The New York Times number cruncher lets his partisanship show":

“Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that.” — Homer Simpson.

In the days before the first debate in Denver, President Obama held more than a four-point lead in the Real Clear Politics average, and Romney had been left for dead by most of the media. Then the debate came, and overnight Romney seemingly rid himself of the weaknesses that had been tacked on to him by over $100 million dollars in negative advertising. Now here we are a few weeks later with a dead heat in nationwide polls.

As worry built up among Democrats that Romney had tied the race nationally and had clear momentum heading into the final stretch, they began attaching their hopes to what BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith called “the bulwark against all-out Dem panic” — Nate Silver.

Silver gained fame by correctly predicting 49 of 50 states in the 2008 election using a statistical model that assigns weight to the various polls based on a number of factors. After the 2008 election, Silver partnered with the New York Times, and he has been quoted by many media outlets as the gold standard for predicting what will happen in November.

Some note that 2008 was a wave election, where the enthusiasm and underlying fundamentals were so favorable to Obama that the outcome was easy to foresee, with the exception of a few of the GOP-turned-Democratic states such as Indiana and North Carolina where Obama won a razor-thin victory. Others argue that Silver’s access to the Obama administration’s internal polling gave him information that most other analysts never saw, which allowed him to make more adjustments to his model and increase his accuracy.

Whatever the explanation, Silver’s strong showing in the 2008 election, coupled with his consistent predictions that Obama will win in November, has given Democrats a reason for optimism. While there is nothing wrong with trying to make sense of the polls, it should be noted that Nate Silver is openly rooting for Obama, and it shows in the way he forecasts the election.

Oh, he's "openly rooting" for Obama alright. He's practically giving the president fellato by predictive ratio. But read it all at the link (via Jonathan Tobin).

You know, Silver's really getting to know the inside of that woodshed, like the back of his hand!

PREVIOUSLY:

* "Boom! Romney Back Up 52-45 in Gallup's Daily Tracking of Likely Voters."

* "ABC News Touts Nate Silver's Prediction That Obama's Handicapped at 68 Percent Chance to Win!"

* "'It's becoming increasingly obvious that Silver can't be taken seriously...'"

* "Nate Silver Blows Gasket as Gallup Shows Romney Pulling Away in the Presidential Horse Race."

I'll have more on this later.

I hesitate to call this series the "Nate Silver suicide watch." I mean, gosh, I'd feel horrible for the wonder boy if something bad happened to him after November 6th.

'Obama was presented as unbeatable, and a lot of people believed it — until, suddenly, he looked kind of beatable after all...'

From Glenn Reynolds' new column, at USA Today, "Will cocooned liberals be surprised by Romney?"

Actually, I doubt Obama's progressive fascists will be surprised. They're already pledging to burn down the White House if Romney wins. And I imagine we'll be seeing more fascist violence, like today's vicious attack on Mitt Romney supporter Sean Kedzie, the son of Wisconsin State Senator Neal Kedzie, a Republican.

The writing's on the wall.

Don't back down to the progressive thugs. Stand up to them. Get in their faces. And hit back twice as hard if you're attacked.

Hot Momma! Natalie Portman Smokin' Film Set Photos From New Terrence Malick Movie

Another round of pre-debate Rule 5, via London's Daily Mail, "Hot momma! Natalie Portman sizzles on the set of her latest film as she cozies up to Michael Fassbender."

And recall that Ms. Portman was my original Rule 5 hottie, "Natalie Portman Gets Results!"

Even Robert Stacy McCain was impressed, "Natalie Portman on a slim pretext."

And speaking of the Other McCain, from yesterday, "Rule 5 Sunday: Pulchritudinous Power Hour."

I'll have some post-debate analysis later...

Son of Wisconsin State Senator Neal Kedzie Attacked by Anti-Romney Fascists!

Obama fascists.

Obama criminals and fascists.

When you can't win on the merits, resort to violence and intimidation. The the progressive fascists of the Obama left for you. The assholes. You have to stand up to these people. Say a prayer with me for Sean Kedzie, the son of Republican State Senator Neal Kedzie of Wisconsin.

Rebel Pundit Reports, at Big Government, "WISCONSIN SENATOR'S SON BEATEN TO PULP BY ANTI-ROMNEY THUGS" (via Memeorandum). And at Gateway Pundit, "OBAMA GOONS Beat Crap Out of Son of Wisconsin Senate Republican."

And see WMTV-NBC 15, Madison, Wisconsin, "Son of State Senator Neal Kedzie Attacked":

State Senator Neal Kedzie says his son was attacked while trying to stop someone from stealing his Romney/Ryan yard sign.

Whitewater Police tell NBC15 News this is an active investigation.

Here is the statement released by Senator Neal Kedzie:

Early on Friday morning, October 19th, my son Sean was awakened by noises outside his residence in Whitewater. As he went to see what the commotion was about, he noticed an individual removing a Romney/Ryan yard sign from his property. He yelled to the person that they were taking something not theirs and to return it immediately.

The individual returned the sign, however, a second person confronted and attacked Sean without warning.

Sean was wrestled to the ground by both persons, held down by a constricting chokehold, and struck repeatedly about the face and head.

He nearly passed out from the chokehold and suffered contusions to his face and eyes.

Fortunately, an alert neighbor heard the commotion, scared the individuals away, and called the police.

More at the link.

Colorado: Romney 50%, Obama 46%

At Rasmussen:

Mitt Romney has now reached the 50% mark for the first time in Colorado and leads President Obama by four in the critical swing state.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Colorado Voters finds Romney with 50% support to Obama’s 46%. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate, and one percent (1%) remains undecided....

Still, Colorado remains a Toss-Up in the Rasmussen Reports Electoral College Projections. But Colorado is the fourth swing state that has moved in Romney’s direction in the past week. Florida, Missouri and North Carolina have now shifted from Toss-Up to Leans Romney.

Yeah, well, the biggest worry is Ohio, but things are looking up there for the Republicans. See the New York Times, "Ohio Race Tightens in New Poll" (via Memeorandum). That's the Times' Quinnipiac, which is oversampling Democrats. Here's Rasmussen from two days ago: "Election 2012: Ohio President - Ohio: Obama 49%, Romney 48%." That's probably more like it, and we've still got election day, and the Romney ground game enthusiasm to factor in.

BONUS: A new ad from the Romney campaign: "The Clear Choice For Colorado."

Boom! Romney Back Up 52-45 in Gallup's Daily Tracking of Likely Voters

It's been a week since the Hoftra debate --- the "how dare you imply that my administration lied" debate --- and President Eye Candy's numbers are going in the wrong direction. Mitt Romney regained a point in the daily tracking, again up 52 to 45 percent in the presidential horse race. Somewhere Nate Silver is cowering in shame.

See: "Election 2012 Likely Voters Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney - Among likely voters."

RELATED: At Politico, "Battleground Tracking Poll: Mitt Romney takes lead" (at Memeorandum):

DELRAY BEACH, Fla. — Mitt Romney has taken a narrow national lead, tightened the gender gap and expanded his edge over President Barack Obama on who would best grow the economy.

A new POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Tracking Poll of 1,000 likely voters — taken from Sunday through Thursday of last week — shows Romney ahead of Obama by two points, 49 to 47 percent. That represents a three-point swing in the GOP nominee’s direction from a week ago but is still within the margin of error. Obama led 49 percent to 48 percent the week before.

Romney has not led in the poll since the beginning of May.

Across the 10 states identified by POLITICO as competitive, Romney leads 50 to 48 percent.

See also Ed Morrissey, "Romney edges into 49/47 lead in Politico/GWU Battleground poll."

More later...

Uh Oh. The New York Times Goes Critical With Front-Page Libya Report on Debate Day

Early in my reporting on the cover up I noted that the news would be getting so bad for the White House that even Obama's staunchest enablers in the press wouldn't long be able to defend him.

The New York Times isn't quite there yet, but it's close.

See, "Explanation for Benghazi Attack Under Scrutiny":

WASHINGTON — Even as Susan E. Rice took to the Sunday talk shows last month to describe the Obama administration’s assessment of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, intelligence analysts suspected that the explanation was outdated.

Ms. Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, has said that the judgments she offered on the five talk shows on Sept. 16 came from talking points prepared by the C.I.A., which reckoned that the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans had resulted from a spontaneous mob that was angry about an anti-Islamic video that had set off protests elsewhere. That assessment, described to Ms. Rice in briefings the day before her television appearances, was based on intercepted communications, informants’ tips and Libyan press reports, officials said.

Later that Sunday, though, American intelligence analysts were already sifting through new field reports that seemed to contradict the initial assessment. It would be several days, however, before the intelligence agencies changed their formal assessment based on those new reports, and informed administration officials about the change. Intelligence officials say such a lag is typical of the ever-changing process of piecing together shards of information into a coherent picture fit for officials’ public statements.

Gov. Mitt Romney and Congressional Republicans have sharply criticized Ms. Rice’s comments and the administration’s shifting public positions on the cause of the attack, criticisms that Mr. Romney will probably reprise in the final presidential debate on Monday night.

On Sunday, Congressional Republicans cited the administration’s response to the attack as symptomatic of larger leadership failings. “This is going to be a case study, studied for years, of a breakdown of national security at every level, failed presidential leadership — senior members of the Obama administration failed miserably,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The gap between the talking points prepared for Ms. Rice and the contemporaneous field reports that seemed to paint a much different picture illustrates how the process of turning raw field reports, which officials say need to be vetted and assessed, into polished intelligence assessments can take days, long enough to make them outdated by the time senior American officials utter them.

Intelligence officials, alarmed that their work has been turned into a political football, defend their approach, noting that senior administration officials receive daily briefings that reflect the consensus of the nation’s array of intelligence agencies, but can also dip into the fast-moving stream of field reports, with the caveat that that information is incomplete and may be flat wrong.

“A demand for an explanation that is quick, definite and unchanging reflects a naïve expectation — or in the present case, irresponsible politicking,” James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, said at an intelligence symposium on Oct. 9.

The Associated Press reported Friday, for instance, that within 24 hours of the attack, the C.I.A.’s station chief in Tripoli, Libya, e-mailed headquarters that witnesses said the assault was mounted by heavily armed militants. But intelligence officials said Sunday that one report was not enough to establish the attack’s nature.

More at that top link.

It's damaging just having this story in the news day after day, with back and forth explanations for why the administration can't keep its story lines straight. After a while the average person wises up to being deceived. The Democrat-Media-Complex can sustain the lies for only so long. And this stuff is on the front page at the nation's paper of record on the day of the final debate on foreign policy. Can you say high stakes? There's even more on A1, "Benghazi and Arab Spring Rear Up in U.S. Campaign." "Rears up" alright. Rears up its ugly head. The administration's foreign policy has completely deconstructed, violently. By now it's all about attempting to maintain perceptions of control. Hey, how's that going for you, Baracky? Here's that Dorothy Rabinowitz piece, ICYMI, "The Unreality of the Past Four Years."

PREVIOUSLY: "Leftists Tout Politically-Driven Intelligence Revisions on Obama's Benghazi Massacre Clusterf-k."

The Obama White House in Crisis Mode

From Dorothy Rabinowitz, at the Wall Street Journal, "The Unreality of the Past Four Years":

In the 1967 film "A Guide for the Married Man," a husband, played by a peerless Walter Matthau, is given lessons in ways to cheat on his wife safely. The most essential rule: "Deny! Deny! Deny!"—no matter what. In an instructive scene, he's shown a wife undone by shock, and screaming, with reason: She has just walked in on her husband making love to a glamorous stranger.

"What are you doing," she wails, "who is that woman?"

"What woman, where?" the husband serenely counters, as he and the tart in question get out of bed and calmly dress.

So the scene proceeds, with the distraught wife pointing to the woman she clearly sees before her, while her husband, unruffled, continues to look blankly at her, asking, "What woman?" Confused by her spouse's unblinking assurance, she gives up. Two minutes later she's asking him what he'd like for dinner.

For much of the past four years, the Obama administration's propensity for asserting views of reality wildly at odds with those evident to most rational citizens has looked increasingly like a page from that film script.

All administrations conceal, falsify and tell lies—this is understood—but there's no missing the distinctive quality of the prevaricating issuing from the White House in these four years.

It's a quality on vivid display now in the administration's mesmerizing narrative of the assault on the U.S. consulate in Libya. Here's a memorable picture, its detail brutally illuminating, of Obama and company in crisis mode over their conflicting stories about who knew what when. The resulting costs to truth-telling and sanity, or even the appearance thereof, are clear. Nor can we forget the strong element of farce—think U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on those five Sunday talk shows, reciting with unflagging fervor that official talking point regarding mob violence and a YouTube video. Farce, but no one is laughing.

I love Rabinowitz. She's a wonderful writer.

Continue reading.

A Migration in Reverse

The most interesting thing about this story is the intense poverty seen in Mexico, where the American kids end up after their illegal immigrant family members get deported.

See, "Caught in the current of reverse migration."

The photos are here, "Teenager’s identity lies on both sides of the border."

Giants Force Game Seven

I watched the entire game after taking most of the day off yesterday from blogging.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Vogelsong Leads Giants Over Cardinals to Force Game 7":

SAN FRANCISCO–Two years ago, Ryan Vogelsong was a Triple-A washout and Barry Zito was a major-league bust. Today, of all people, they are the primary reasons the San Francisco Giants are still alive in the National League Championship Series.

After Zito’s improbable gem spared the Giants elimination in Game 5, Vogelsong continued the pitching revival tour by dominating the St. Louis Cardinals in Game 6 on Sunday night at AT&T Park. He allowed just one run in seven innings in the Giants’ 6-1 win, which tied the best-of-seven series at three games apiece. Game 7 is Monday night in San Francisco.

“I didn’t want to let these guys down,” Vogelsong said. “I didn’t want to let the city down.”

The Giants are a team known for their elite pitching...

Continue reading.

That was one of the most commanding outings I've seen in a long time. The dude was just ringing 'em up, and he pitched a career-high of nine strikeouts. A phenomenal performance.

ABC News Touts Nate Silver's Prediction That Obama's Handicapped at 68 Percent Chance to Win!

My goodness.

The stakes are high, for Nate Silver!

If Obama loses that poor man's world is going to come crashing down, and hard.

And he's so geeky it's hard to watch. If he's fired by the New York Times after the election it's a good bet he won't be landing a job as a television news anchorman. Jeez, did he even wash his hair? Ugh!

PREVIOUSLY: "Nate Silver Blows Gasket as Gallup Shows Romney Pulling Away in the Presidential Horse Race."

Obama Plays Politics With National Security

It's so transparently political it's ridiculous.

At the Wall Street Journal, "The Iran Talks Gambit":

'This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." That's what President Obama was overheard telling then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in March on an open microphone when he thought he was speaking privately. The exchange is worth recalling with the weekend story that the White House has agreed "in principle" to a bilateral meeting with Iran on its nuclear weapons program—after the election.

A White House spokesman immediately denied the New York Times report "that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections." But he added that "we continue to work" with other nations "on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally."

We'll go with the New York Times on this one. Someone senior clearly was bragging about the one-on-one deal, and probably because the source or sources thought it would help Mr. Obama. The timing also is suspicious coming before Monday's foreign-policy debate, and while the White House is on defense about its security failures in Benghazi. The Times's dispatch treated the news as a diplomatic breakthrough that could make Mr. Obama look like a peacemaker and put Mitt Romney on the spot. The safe bet is that something is going on that the President hopes to unveil formally after the election.

As with so much else about Mr. Obama's second-term agenda, the question is why he won't elaborate before November 6. On taxes and spending, Mr. Obama doesn't want to say because he knows more of the same economic policies aren't popular...

Most Swing States Have Lost Jobs Since Obama Took Office

At IBD, "Obama Job Losses Hit 7 of 10 Battleground States":

Seven out of the 10 presidential toss-up states have lost jobs since President Obama took office, and the unemployment rate is higher today in six of those states than in January 2009, according to data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What's more, six of those states listed as toss-ups by Real Clear Politics have seen their labor force shrink since January 2009, which masks the true size of their unemployment problem.

The state data underscore the fact that, despite the recent drop in the national unemployment rate to 7.8%, the nation's jobs picture remains bleak, particularly in states that Obama and Mitt Romney are fighting over.

The BLS report notes that in September, 41 states saw unemployment drop compared with August, and 35 states gained payroll jobs.

But the data also show that, since Obama took office, fully 32 states have seen a net decline in the number of jobs, and the unemployment rate is still higher in 27 states than it was in January 2009.

In addition, 24 states saw their labor force shrink since Obama took office. That can make the unemployment rate appear lower in those states, since people who've left the labor force don't count as unemployed.

And several swing states have seen significant declines in their labor force under Obama, which means their employment picture is far worse than advertised.

Ohio's True Picture

Ohio's official unemployment rate for example, is 7%, down from 8.6% when Obama took office. But that decline was entirely due to 193,362 people dropping out of the labor force under Obama — either they quit looking or moved to another state.

Had that drop not occurred, Ohio's unemployment rate would be a staggering 10%. Michigan has suffered the same fate. Its official unemployment rate is down to 9.3% from 11.3% when Obama took office. But the state's jobless rate would be 13.8% if the state's labor force hadn't shrunk by almost a quarter million since January 2009.

RTWT.

The voters aren't fooled by the unemployment numbers. When you're hurtin' you just vote your pocketbook. Lots of folk'll be doing that, and I doubt they'll be voting for "The One."

Romney Surges to Tie Obama in National Poll

The Wall Street Journal's probably been oversampling Democrats. So I'm surprised that Romney's now tied in this latest survey, at least among likely voters. The interesting thing, though, is that the survey was conducted after the so-called debate victory for the president last Tuesday at Hoftra. While he may have won the debate, he's been losing the post-debate spin.

At WSJ (via Memeorandum):

A late surge in support for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has put him in a dead heat with President Barack Obama with just over two weeks to go before the election, according to a new nationwide Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Sunday.

Among likely voters, the candidates are now tied, 47% to 47%, in a race that appears on track to be one of the closest in U.S. history.

Mr. Romney has pulled abreast of the president for the first time all year in the Journal poll, erasing a three-point lead among likely voters that Mr. Obama had in late September and a five-point lead earlier that month. Mr. Romney's surge followed his strong debate performance in Denver early this month and a contentious second debate with Mr. Obama last week.

With the contest deadlocked and just 5% of voters undecided, the campaigns will now turn heavily to state-by-state efforts to rouse their base and get out the vote.

The poll found Mr. Romney with a wide lead among men, 53% to 43%, while Mr. Obama continues to maintain an advantage among women, 51% to 43%. Mr. Romney's edge among men has grown over the past month, while Mr. Obama's lead among women has slightly diminished.

The poll of 816 likely voters was taken Oct. 17-20, after last week's presidential debate in New York. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.43 percentage points for likely voters.

More at NBC News and Memeorandum.

George McGovern Has Died

McGovern was further to the left than Lyndon Baines Johnson but somehow still remained a Cold War liberal. His party, however, was becoming a New Left organization grounded in radical theories of anti-Americanism and coercivie economic distribution. The full flowering of that ideology burst forth during the Iraq War in 2004, when the Democrats in Congress turned on their own country and stabbed in the back the very men and women they sent to war the previous year. Perhaps McGovern, who flew B-24 bombing raids over Germany in World War II, is the last of a breed, a stalwart of modern American liberalism, of the non-communist variety. I'm sure some might say I'm being too generous, but I'll leave it at that. I saw McGovern speak back at Fresno State around 1990. He seemed like a very decent man. (But folks might check Daniel Flynn, at FrontPage Magazine, "How George McGovern and the Left Polarized America.")

At the New York Times, "George McGovern | 1922-2012: George McGovern, a Democratic Presidential Nominee and Liberal Stalwart, Dies at 90" (at Memeorandum).

PHOTO CREDIT: Wikimedia Commons.

Barack Obama and Republican Rival Mitt Romney Prepare for Crucial Third and Final Presidential Debate

At Independent UK:

President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney both took a break from the campaign trail this weekend to prepare for tomorrow's third and final presidential debate, their last chance to directly confront each other before millions of TV viewers with polls showing the race deadlocked.

The 90-minute debate in Boca Raton, Florida, focusing on foreign policy comes just 15 days before the November 6 election.

Its moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, has listed five subject areas, with more time devoted to the Middle East and terrorism than any other topic.

While the economy has been the dominant theme of the election, foreign policy has attracted renewed media attention in the aftermath of last month's attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including US Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Mr Obama had ranked well with the public on his handling of international issues and in fighting terrorism, especially following the death of Osama bin Laden.

But the administration's response to the Libya attack and questions over levels of security at the consulate have given Mr Romney and his Republican allies an issue with which to raise doubts about Mr Obama's foreign policy leadership.

Mr Romney's team has focused on Libya, following reports that Obama's administration could have known early on that militants, not protesters angry over a film produced in the US that ridiculed Islam, launched the attack that killed the US ambassador there.

More at the link.

It's going to be good.

PREVIOUSLY: "Death and Deceit in Benghazi."

Image Credit: The Looking Spoon, "The Two Choices Romney and Obama Represent."

Cover-Up: The Three Benghazi Timelines

I was calling this scandal a cover-up within days of the initial reports. The deceit is so brazen it's almost shocking. Almost. This is the Obama administration after all, and it's fundamentally steeped in corruption. 

From James Rosen at the Wall Street Journal, "Every White House sooner or later succumbs to the temptation to cover up an embarrassment":

If the Obama White House has engaged in a coverup in the Benghazi case, the ostensible motivation would bear some similarity to that of all the president's men in Watergate. Mr. Obama faces a rendezvous with the voters on Nov. 6, and in a race much tighter than the Nixon-McGovern contest of 1972. In such a circumstance, certain kinds of disclosure are always unwelcome.

As with the Watergate conspirators, who were eager to conceal earlier actions that related to the Vietnam War, the Obama team is determined to portray its pre-9/11 conduct, and particularly its dovish Mideast policies, in the most favorable light. After all, no one wants to have on his hands—even if resulting from sins of omission and not commission—the deaths of four American patriots. Or as Mr. Obama told Jon Stewart on Comedy Central this week, the deaths were "not optimal."

Ms. Lamb, in her congressional testimony, said that from her command center in Washington she was able to track the lethal events of Benghazi in something akin to real time. She was in constant communication with the agent on the consulate grounds who first notified Washington that an assault—"attack, attack," the agent said—was under way. Ms. Lamb also said that the State Department was receiving a steady stream of data on the afternoon of Sept. 11 indicating that terrorism was afoot. Such admissions are what have given rise to charges of a coverup.

"Everyone had the same intelligence," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Fox News last week. But that also appears untrue. How information immediately made known to an assistant secretary of state could somehow be withheld for eight days from the secretary of state herself—and from our U.N. ambassador, from the director of national intelligence, from the analytic corps at the Central Intelligence Agency, from the president's chief spokesman, and from the president himself—now forms the central question in the Benghazi affair.

In Tuesday night's debate with Mitt Romney, President Obama claimed to have "told" the American people that Benghazi was a terror attack the very next day, Sept. 12, when speaking from the Rose Garden. The assertion was untrue, despite moderator Candy Crowley's ruling to the contrary. The president had only spoken generally of terror attacks, and Benghazi would have been understood to fall under that umbrella only if it had been acknowledged as a terror attack.

On Sept. 12, that was not the administration's line. Not until his afternoon appearance on "The View" on Sept. 25—the "two weeks" of delay that Mr. Romney alluded to in the debate—did the president offer Americans an explanation of Benghazi that made no reference to a protest over a video. The YouTube connection had figured prominently in his Benghazi pronouncements as late as Mr. Obama's Sept. 20 appearance on Univision, and even in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on the morning of Sept. 25.

"The business of intelligence has become politicized," says an intelligence source with knowledge of the Benghazi episode, "regardless of which party is in charge." This is an enduring legacy of Vietnam and Watergate. Now, as then, American voters horrified by loss of life in a time of war will cast ballots without having all the facts that might inform their choice.

RTWT.

I reported on that Univision interview. The questions were amazingly penetrating, what we we're largely not getting from the U.S., Obama-kept media.

And see the left's pathetic efforts at disinformation, from yesterday, "Leftists Tout Politically-Driven Intelligence Revisions on Obama's Benghazi Massacre Clusterf-k."

Video: Alessandra Ambrosio $2.5 Million Fantasy

You're welcome.

More at London's Daily Mail, "Taking the plunge! Alessandra Ambrosio unveils $2.5million Victoria's Secret bra in glamorous gold gown."

PREVIOUSLY: "Smokin' Alessandra Ambrosio's in Victoria's Secret's $2.5m Fantasy Bra."

'It's becoming increasingly obvious that Silver can't be taken seriously...'

This is hilarious. Another blogger takes Nate Silver to the woodshed!

At Draw and STRIKE!, "Why You Can't Take FiveThirty-Eight's Nate Silver Seriously."

When I got that Memeorandum thread the other day my blog was inundated with Nate Silver truthers! I was joking on Twitter that Silver's giving Ron Paul a run for his money with the unhinged conspiracists. ROTLMFAO!

Checking the post, here's a knee slapper:

Yes, calling someone names and questioning their mental status is a logical way to critique the statistical, rational thought of a purely mathematical ideology. Since it works so well, I'll try it. DOnald, you are a tool. How do you like that douche bag?

There's more like that at the post. Those progs sure don't like it when you mock their heroes.

Seattle Mom Kicked Off Bus for Dirty Diaper

The baby's diaper, not hers.

And you know, maybe she should have freshened that baby up?!!

But she was pregnant so, voilà! The driver "bullied" her with "discrimination." It's an "undue burden" on a women to change a diaper! The horrors!

Black Marlin Off Cairns, Australia, Jumps Aboard 'Little Audrey'

An utterly amazing clip. I laughed out loud at least twice.

Via Theo Spark:

Won't You Open Up the Door?

From yesterday morning's coffee time, at The Sound L.A.:

11:04 - Breathe by Pink Floyd

11:07 - All You Need Is Love by Beatles

11:10 - Feels Like The First Time by Foreigner

11:14 - Don't Bring Me Down by E.l.o.

11:18 - Breakdown by Tom Petty

11:21 - De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da by Police

11:32 - Stealin' by Uriah Heep

11:37 - What's Your Name by Lynyrd Skynyrd

11:40 - Pride (in The Name Of Love) by U2

11:44 - You're All I've Got Tonight by Cars

And see, "Lou Gramm Foreigner legendary vocalist embraces a second chance at life":

Lou Gramm will forever be recognized as the golden voice of Foreigner. Not for the current imitation band led by its only original member Mick Jones, but recognized for fronting Foreigner, one of the most popular and successful rock ‘n’ roll bands in history.

Unfortunately, the music industry decided long ago that it was acceptable to market an existing trademark without its key players involved as long as someone in the band controlled the rights to the name. Believe it or not people still show up to watch a mock group playing all the bands greatest hits, and it’s really no different than watching a bar band playing a bunch of cover tunes. Co-founder and guitarist Mick Jones fell ill in 2011 missing several gigs while on tour. Jones assigned a replacement guitarist while he recuperated leaving the touring band without a single original member. The band of musicians calling themselves Foreigner is actually making more money per concert than the real band. If the key players are no longer in the band … change the name, then the rest of us won’t feel like we are being musically violated.

A perfect example of a band “doing the right thing” is Jefferson Starship.

With that said, Foreigner the band’s debut album in 1977 sold more than four million copies, and since its inception the group remains a mainstay on classic rock radio stations around the world...

Interesting.

I saw Foreigner in concert in about 1979, the first arena concert I ever attended, at the L.A. Forum. It was great.

Huffington Post's Ryan Clayton 'Escorted' From D.C. Screening of 'Hating Breitbart'

At Instapundit, "Even from beyond, Andrew Breitbart is driving his ideological enemies into apoplexy."

And from Gateway Pundit, "BREAKING: FOX News Contributor & HuffPo Loon Ryan Clayton Frogmarched From “Hating Breitbart” Premier."

He's getting hammered on Twitter as well:

NOW SHOWING: The Haunting of Ryan Clayton - In the parking lot, no one can hear you scream RATED R #RyanClaytonGoesToTheMovies
— D.W.Robinson (@_DWRobinson) October 20, 2012

He's denying he was "frog-marched" out of the theater and is offering $1000 to the first person who provides video proof. I'll bet the dude's going to be $1000 poorer real soon.

Check the loon's Twitter feed.

UPDATE: This story's taking off.

See The Other McCain, "Left Celebrates ‘Hating Breitbart’ Opening by Acting Like the A–holes They Are." Via Memeorandum.