He doesn't even stumble in the direciton of objectivity. His analysis of the debate would have been the same had John Kerry tripped walking across the stage at he outset and spent the proceeding 90 minutes unconscious...which is pretty much what happened!

Let's keep in mind that Oliver is on the payroll, the Soros gravy train. Might have a minor effect on his objectivity.
... not unlike our Mitch whose check from Karl Rove is in the mail I'm sure!

Oliver was on that wacky train with 52% of Americans.

And me.

Oh, and by the way: George Bush did say he was "not concerned" with OBL. It was not an ex-ag-ger-a-tion. And when you see that clip the ninth time tomorrow, don't blame the liberal media.

3-0 baby, and 1-0 in the minors.

Not bad for a Brahmin.

Immediate debate aftermath thoughts immediately updated here.

Okay, here:
http://epistoler.blogspot.com/2004/10/immediate-debate-thoughts-updated_14.html

How to tell a partisan who's lost objectivity:
> Thinks his guy won all three debates (even though I agree with Hewitt that Kerry made the blunders in the first debate that have helped frame the last few weeks of the debate it cannot objectively be said that Bush won that one)
> Thinks John Boy won the VP debate (if nothing else for complete and total failure to answer the question, "what makes you qualified to be one Secret-Service-son-of-a-bitch-caused snowboard accident away from the White House?")
Jeff uses a revealing word: Brahmin. In the end people will decide who they like most, who they feel most comfortable with. Who feels warm and fuzzy about a Boston Brahmin who says things like "Jenjis Kahn?"
Come Nov. 3 Dem's will be wondering which part of nominating an ultra-liberal-Massachussetts-Senator-phony-war-hero-turned-betrayer-of-his-fellow-soldiers-turned-Neville-Chamberlain-appeaser seemed like a good idea.
Who was the last liberal to win the White House?
Who was the last New Englander?
Who was the last sitting Senator?
Who was the last appeasement candidate to beat a sitting war president?
He's Chamberlain without the integrity (despite his mom's advice). He's Dukakis without the principles. He's Mondale without the charisma.

Jeff, I'm not even going to bother telling you to STEP AWAY FROM WILLIS/ATRIOS/PANDAGON. Words fail. Bush lost the first one on style points but had Kerry's lunch on actual content. He narrowly won the second. Cheney ate Silkypony's lunch. And even liberal pundits are conceding Bush won last night.

And the takeaways? As chris noted, Kerry gave Bush millions of dollars worth of material.

3-1 overall, and the momentum is definitely with Bush.

Especially in MN. More on that later.

Oliver's head exploding? For a preview, you have to visit Tim Blair's site(http://timblair.spleenville.com) and scroll. The aftermath of the Howard victory there has the liberal pundits indulging in a bout of world-class silliness. I can't wait to see what the American media will come up with if Bush wins.

Sorry, Mitch; the pundocracy has spoken. Kerry won.

Also, 52% of Americans agree with me.

And most independents.

Indeed, per Zogby, in a tied race only 11% of undecideds think the President deserves reelection.

4-donut.

Oh, and the response to this?

Who was the last liberal to win the White House?
Carter

Who was the last New Englander?
Kennedy

Who was the last sitting Senator?
Kennedy

But of course, like the Packers never losing at Lambeau, these things are always true until they aren't.

According to the "pundocracy" - I prefer "pundigarchy", Gore won, too.

The "pundigarchy" thought Bush won the second debate, but the polls showed them wrong.

For that matter - what "pundits" are you talking about? I've seen some semi-rational leftypundits call it a draw or a slight Bush win. I've seen conservative pundits everywhere from Bush squeaker to Bush Blowout. The only "Pundits" I've seen call it a blowout are pinheads like the loathsome Atrios, the moronic Willis, the giggly fratboys at Pandagon, and other such trifles.

Polls of "undecideds" are pretty worthless, I think, by this point in the election; I wonder what the odds are that anyone that hasn't made up their mind by now will actually have the wherewithal to get off their couch and go to the polls at all. And I strongly - VERY strongly - doubt that any poll, to say nothing of Zogby, samples conservatives, especially evangelicals and the NRA vote, adequately. They certainly didn't in 1994 (when Grams eked out an upset over Wynia based largely on huge gun-owner turnout), 2000 (when they stayed home in disproportionately and unusually high numbers, probably costing Bush a clear popular vote victory) and 2002. What makes you think they're any better this time?

But if I were John Kerry, the biggest worry I'd have right now (besides Teresa beating the sh8 out of me for that line last night) is the fact that Jeff Fecke says I'm going gangbusters. Look what you did for Dean and Clark. :-)

Jeff -- Exactly.
Carter as the last liberal. America won't be doing that again for a while. They had enough malaise to last a lifetime during those 4 years (seemed more like a decade). Carter was a post Watergate, post Vietnam anomaly.
Kennedy the last sitting Senator. It's huge disadvantage because Senators equivocate and therefore have screwy voting records that are easily attacked/exposed.
Zogby is generally way off, and post debate polls have proven meaningless time and time again.
The primary thing we learned last night: John Kerry can't even follow his mother's advice!

Chris,

The post-debate polls are worse than worthless - they're usually manipulated. Who responds to them? All the mindless trolls that comment by the hundreds - thousands - on Atrios, Kos, Willis, Err America...

The only poll that matters is less than three weeks away. And while I'm not *over* confident, I'm feeling better about things today than I was two weeks ago, and much better than a month ago.

Pundigarchs. I like that.

Captain Ed was right about the pundits. Anyone who declared Kerry the winner had to have written their story before the debate started.

Kerry was awful. He stumbled and lectured and drove me nuts.

If the 'pundocracy' called Kerry the winner, maybe they need to be cleaned out next.

Well said Mitch. Post debate polls are worse than worthless. So is post-debate commentary the the pundigarchs (great term!).
I'm coming around to Hewitt's method of analysis: who made the mistakes that the other side can capitalize on on the stump and in battleground state ads.

After last night, I honestly believe that the evil Rovian winged monkeys can deliver MN for Bush.

Maybe only by a hundred votes, but a win nonetheless. (And -- if it happens -- I am savoring the Strib opinion pages for the next three months afterward.)

Before I left the Hilton, I volunteered to walk GOP precincts door to door to "flush" voters in the last four hours the polls are open November 2nd.

(I'd otherwise be going crazy reloading Drudge, Fox and Instapundit every 5 minutes anyway...)

Bush-Cheney MN needs more help! Mitch, please post this on the front page of your blog. See if you can get the other NARN guys to also link to the GOTV sign up.

"He's Mondale without the charisma."

Whoa!