you rock Dawn, really looking forward to this, thanks!

And thanks to Michele and Neal

Neal Pollack? _That_ Neal Pollack, America's Greatest Living Writer, a man who I've seen take the stage backed by a bunch of high school kids using the punk vernacular, and just blew the roof off the club, a fella who sweats torrents of both rock and roll?

No contest, was this debate organized by Don King?

So, where's the debate at?

Did someone maybe chicken out?

No one chickened out, it was in a chat format, it needs to be edited for blogformat and it will go up some time tomorrow (since I have to edit it and all.)

Also, please don't disparage participants - both are equally matched in their ability to discuss the topics.

Not to mention, this is a bipartisan project, let's be nice. Okay? GOOD!

By the way, what I posted which was [edited] was so unbelievably filthy and subversive, you couldn't see it. You have to wait for the pay-for-view with the naked drunk college chicks, at which Mr. Pollack will be signing breasts.

bipartisan project

Oh, man, that's my favourite section at the porno store! I love that bipartisan on bipartisan action.

Edited?

Is that like a time delay? C'mon, post the raw chat log. It'll save you hours of editing and avoid people like me checking the kerning and fonts.

I am really looking forward to the debate being posted. Might I suggest allowing the posting of two formats... one of them unedited. We're all adults here, and the good Duke taught us all how to swear. So, I say sock it to us! Trust me, they wouldn't let just anyone register the name 'I am correct'!

Thanks,
Lono
Parker, CO

Fear not free-speechers: "editing" means correcting typos and formatting for print. That's all. In addition, Michele had some technical difficulties and some of hers got garbled. That's all there is to it.

where's the debate?! i'm dying to read it.

It will be up as soon as I have time to put it up. Until then, shut yer pieholes.

Maybe for future examples it'd be better to not say "The debate is tonight!!!!" for something no one can see until it's been edited. Since outsiders can't actually witness the debate, as the big headline suggests, all that's going to result until the debate transcript shows up is a bunch of people whining "Where is it?!"

Here is the situation, we were half way through the debate and Michele's basement started flooding (she lives in NY and Jeanne hit) and she, Neal nor myself wished to see her get shocked or have her computer fried. We were forced to cut it short and since that time Michele has been extremely busy with life commitments and Neal is leaving for a book tour on Friday.

I am doing my best to piece things together, but everyone is busy. I am sorry it's not up yet, but shit happens.

Also, I'd appreciate - well actually not just appreciate but expect anyone who participates in comments to keep their comments on topic and refrain from personal attacks.

Unless of course, they want me to become very agitated and act like a total bitch. Which I am very close to doing.

Thanks.

So I guess this means we can't behave like we do at most political debates and yell: "Show Us Your Tits!"

Or is that at Mardi Gras in NOLA?

The debate is up - many were the impediments, but they were not to be denied!!

Thanks Michele, Neal, Dawn!

Question for Michele: how in any way is the relationship between the USA and its neighbours in any way different from the Soviet Union and Finland in the 70s?

As somebody outside the USA, I only see our government as trying to calm a violent more-heavily armed than anybody in the world psychopath to keep them from going on a thrill-kill spree. And generally being ignored, even like their bestest friend Spike.

How do you intend to fix this?

Or if you don't, why shouldn't your country be given the Old Yeller solution?

I forgot to ask a question of Neal:

Will you show us your tits?

And how will they solve the increasing decline in living standards?

I don't doubt Michele's story at all, but she was getting her ass kicked.

I will concede that Neal was much more verbose and said about 3 sentences to every one of Michele's, but go Neal Pollack. It was obviously very hard for Michele, a blogger, to debate a real writer. But I was surprised at how good a debater Pollack was, given that you all described him as a satirist.

Even you right-wingers have to admit that, as the debate went, the winner of this debate was the anti-war position. The pro-war arguments were all vague generalities without evidence or facts -- Michele could only offer philosophical statements about democracy and vague statements about terror.

I call it a TKO, long before the basement flooding.

That is all.

I think debates like this are a good idea and very entertaining. Good job, Dawn.

P.S. -- Bash them fruits.

That is all.

Thanks for doing this Dawn, it seems like a great idea and hopefully your next attempt won't be marred by a hurricane.

I tend to agree with Bob though, M. tended to fall back on generalities (Saddam bad. Freedom good.) though this could have been at least in part due to being distracted. Still, I'm not convinced these folks were matched very well -- I enjoy both their work but they have very different styles. Ms. Catalano writes with her heart while Pollack writes with a detached cynicism honed by years of practice. Pollack is also a performer and accustomed to public speaking, something I assume Catalano is not.

I understand how the contrast may have been appealing, but these two aren't even from the same planet.

I think the onus was on Neal from the beginning. Let's face it, Kerry and crew haven't done a very good job convincing anyone that they can defend this country or even that they have clear agenda to do so - and I am a Kerry supporter.

Whoever made the strongest points (and that depends on your perspective)this was a great opening to some real discussion that needs to be had prior to the actual election.

Dawn, I disagree and see it just the other way. Considering this administrations performance in Iraq to date if I was a Bush supporter I'd be feeling pretty defensive. Because Bush is in power the onus is him/them/they to defend what by all appearances is a failed plan. I'm a Kerry supporter who happens to dislike the man intensely, however the Dems could run a kumquat against Bush with identical results -- this is a referendum on the current administrations performance and the burden is on them to convince me why they should get another four years.

The rote recitation of talking points: "We're bringing democracy to Iran," and "Things are better," aren't enough for me. How are they better? Replacing institutional torture with a more media friendly series of 'aberrations' doesn't cut it. Since when do we judge ourselves by the standards of a tyrant? Sure, we're better than Saddam, that's a given, but are we as good as we should be and can someone else do a better job?

Pollack was kicking ass? I don't think so, except when he throws out fever swamp talking points like "The fact of the matter is that we went to war in Iraq because we needed a permanent military stronghold in the Middle East so we didn't have to be totally dependent on Saudi oil." Mike Moore must be his debate coach. Didja hear that Terry McAuliffe was implicated in the Nigeria violence, driving up the price of oil pre-election? You did now. If Saddam didn't have WMD then what did he use in Halabja? Didn't we have to assume that his verified stockpile was not destroyed when he refused to account for it? Has everyone forgotten the idiotic shell game he was running? Syria is now making acceptable noises imo only because they are uncomfortable with the deal they made previously with the (captured) devil.

Thanks for the work, Dawn.

It was almost interesting -- sorta like watching a debate between a thoughtful intellectual and a Bush commercial.

re: Basement flooding --- Maybe God really is on our side!

Neal = smart and grounded in reality

Michele = parrot of Bush buzzwords, vague generalities, and deluded B.S.

Oh, and did I mention that we've lost Iraq?

You know what I think? NO, well fucking shut up and listen because I am going to tell you.

It doesn't matter a good goddamn who won, what person made good points or if we all get blown up tomorrow. The liberals here and everywhere are a bunch of fucking shitheads, and that includes me (YES, THAT'S RIGHT I AM "DISGUSTING" "CONTEMPABLE" LIBERAL - THERE I SAID IT). We have DONE NOT A THING to win this election. Fucking Atrios that jerkoff won't even participate in a debate even though he has the traffic and audience to make a difference.

IN FACT I CAN'T GET ONE FUCKING LIBERAL TO AGREE TO A DEBATE, so don't sit there and take pot shots at those who did while you are skulking in the background saying stupid shit.

You have something positive to add and you want to share it with the world.

HERE IS MY EMAIL: DMDO1016@AOL.COM

I have list of conservatives just waiting to make their point.

I agree with Neal that the fatal flaw in Michele's reasoning is that she has, to put it in my own words, bought the cover story. Its components are the false claim that Iraq had WMD, that the war is not about oil and that it is about making Americans safe.

I suspect that the latter is the most important to understanding why the Right has embraced the invasion and occupation of Iraq. America, at least since the Cold War, has been a country in search of enemies. When it finds or appoints one, be he Saddam Hussein or Manuel Noriega, there is a temporary feeling of safety. But, inevitably, that illusion fades, and the search for the next enemy is on. However, I think the stakes are different this time around. The millions of Muslims being thoroughly alienated throughout the world will produce a small population of terrorists. They will feel justified in striking back. There is even an increasing danger that they will be justified in striking back. That prospect will worsen if Bush is returned to office. He will see reelection as permission to impose American will on Muslims (and any dissidents here in the U.S.?) in any way he chooses to.

re: Atrios, from this week's NYTimes Magazine male political bloggers are either too over-caffeineated or distracted by horny drunk blonde housewives with all that lap-top action.

(my apologies Dawn, if you happen to be a horny drunk blond housewife, we don't want to promulgate a stereotype like that with USAian female political bloggers)

Dawn, you kiss your babies with that mouth?

"...It doesn't matter a good goddamn who won, what person made good points or if we all get blown up tomorrow..."

I beg to differ: It matters if one believes the B.S. and thinks Iraq did anything to discourage us all gettin' "blown up" -- or if one accepts the reality that Iraq was a huge blunder that

a) wasted US military, monetary, intelligence, and diplomatic resources that could have been better used elsewhere

b) took America's 'eye off the ball'

c) wrecked our credibility internationally

d) made Bush the 'boy who cried wolf' if and/or when we actually do need a preemptive war to protect us in the future

e) did plenty to boost Al Kayda recruiting worldwide...

f) ---and most importantly, encourages a few 'undecided' to vote that moron from West Texas out of the Oval Office.

What happened between comments 13 and 25?

Take-over by aliens?

If Bush wins this election, oil price will soar to over $70 per barrel! Why?
If Bush wins this election, price of oil will soar to over $70 per barrel. Expensive oil will keep eating up our jobs, wrecking the entire manufacturing sector in the process.

By PROFESSOR3, Director of US Market Institute,

Guest commentator for London BBC(British Broadcasting Company) covering US economy and financial market

If Kerry wins, price of oil will tumble to below $30 simply because Kerry promissed to re-enter the Kyoto Protocol and pay attention to SAVING SIDE of the oil problem.
The two of them differ in their attitudes toward energy. Energy saving tactics will produce immediate effects, while increasing oil production won't do anything to save us in the near future. To increase oil production Bush did a number of sleight-of-hands to stimulate oil consumption and prices, producting mammoth profits for oil companies.
Specifically, Bush did the following:

1. Nullifying the Kyoto Protocol, conveniently setting the stage for pumping up oil prices. And if that wasn't enough, Bush also convinced Russia to back out. Oh wait, isn't Bush a President of US, the largest oil importer in the world? Or he still is a governor of Texas, the second largest oil producing state in America?

2. Implementing a "Weak Dollar" policy. In May 2003 issue, Business Week surveyed 130 industries in America, finding energy sector to be the biggest winners under a weak dollar. Surprise or not?

3. Going to war in the Middle East to meddle with oil prices. Most significant consequence of Iraq War was a rising oil price, not the opposite. Iraqi oil production falls short of the pre-war 2 million barrels/day. If Bush is re-elected, skyrocketing oil prices will garner support among americans for a 2nd war in the Middle East (with Iran) or in African oil producing regions . $70-100/barrel is within easy reach.

4. Disrupting international efforts to cap oil prices. August 2002, at UN's Environmental Summit in South Africa, the EU proposed increasing usage of alternative energy. The plan was unanimously supported by (almost) all oil consuming nations. The US and OPEC vetoed. Republican presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan acted quite differently in '73 and '82, respectively.
5. Using the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) to drive oil prices upwards. With each increase the Bush administration reiterates its conviction to hold the SPR, a declaration that functionally only raises oil prices. The US SPR level did not diminish during the Iraq War. In fact it rose 130 million barrels (from 540 to 670 mil). Who's the mysterious power behind surging oil prices? Not some hedge fund but the Bush administration. The SPR completely loses its original price-balancing purpose, becoming a price-hiking instrument.

6. Stalling energy-saving measures to stimulate oil consumption. The Hybrid Car, a crucial innovation in the automobile industry, saves more than 45% energy than normal cars. In respond to Clinton's 1993 IRS Act's Form 595 "Clean-Fuel Car" tax deduction, the technology was mature for mass production by 2000. Half of U.S. oil consumption is used for transportation (12 million barrels/day). Even saving 1/4 of that energy will amount to 3 million barrels/day. But in 2002 Bush changed the direction of U.S. energy research, drying up federal funds for developing the Hybrid, instead forking over 1.7 billion USD for developing the Hydrogen Car, a technology that will not mature for production for another decade. This is an important reason we're seeing escalating oil prices, but disappointingly, the media still has not properly investigated and exposed the scheme.
Effects of high oil prices for Big Oil?

Earnings reports during the Iraq War tell a good story. The 4th quarter of '02 and 1st quarter of '03, profits for large U.S. oil companies, rose 700%! Remember the economy was still in recession at the time.
America?

Americans consume about 24 million barrels of oil/day, summing to 8.8 billion barrels/year. Oil prices are $20 above normal prices ($45 vs $25/barrel) and American consumers spend an extra $170 billion per year, an amount pocketed by oil companies. Tax cuts went in the right pocket of taxpayers and out the left to Big Oil, and still didn't satisfy their appetite. Tax cuts came from the treasury and are sustained by the budget deficit. But oil companies are private. Part of their unethical profit went into Bush's pocket as political contributions.

Many foreigners see America as a single entity, which is just a misconception of the American political system. "United" States do not exist. The American philosophy is "Every man for himself and God for everybody." The American political system is "Winner takes all."
Bush's policies are ABC (Anything But Clinton), while the opposing camp rallies behind ABB(Anybody But Bush). This is the reality of American politics.
If reelected, Bush will maintain high oil prices for profit and expensive oil will keep eating jobs. Last year's 4th quarter GDP growth reached an astonishing 7.4%, surpassing any in both of Clinton's terms (5.5% the highest). But unemployment loomed. Because of high energy costs firms had to layoff to cut costs. This is the fundamental cause for the mysterious jobless recovery under Bush. In addition, energy and raw material producers are upstream firms. When they extract very high profits, they eat up the profit share originally belonging to downstream firms. Consequently, manufacturing, travel, airline, transportation industries are all in recession. In manufacturing, the automobile and airplane industries will completely collapse under competition from Japan and Europe.

Professor 3,

Where is this article from? Can you provide a link and the name and background of the author and where it was published?

Thanks.

BAB, it looks like he's the author