I think that, all Trump accomplished in his campaign was to humiliate himself, his family, and our country, and cause his own business to lose business. And only to end up losing, by a lot.

Incredible success, Donald!

I didn't watch but saw a few excerpts afterward. I have to agree HRC looked better than she often does. Hair was immobile and she was obviously heavily made up for TV.

At this point I can't bring myself to vote for either of these candidates so not sure what I'm going to do. I'm not uninformed or emotionally or cognitively impaired however.

As polished and experienced as HRC is I'm tired of political corruption and professional politicians not to mention lots of other things I don't like about more of the same. And Trump is simply an idiot.

3katz, if it were simply that trump was an idiot, I could see your reluctance, but I don't see it that way. IMHO, he is beyond an idiot to downright dangerous. Especially given how aggressive Russia is becoming and how he refuses to say anything negative about them, he is not the one to rein them in. He is clearly in debt to the russian oligarchs "bigly" and putin is salivating at the thought of having a US president in his pocket. Further, his inability to control himself for more than 20 minutes suggests he should not have his finger anywhere near "the button".

Believe me, I hear you about what a clinton presidency will look like...not from a policy pov, but from knowing how nasty and divisive it will make the country with them investigating everything about her from her hair spray to her shoe size. It will most likely be as nonproductive as bill's second term, but at least she will work hard and be very thoughtful and careful about any decisions she makes. As PJ O'Rourke said, at least she's wrong within normal parameters.

I'm all three of the above so won't be voting either. Doesn't matter in my state anyway.

I don't think I will vote for either of them.

I am saddened, though, that what is being lost in all this (IMHO) is that a woman (regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about her) may be elected President of the United States. I think it is a great achievement and symbol for young girls to look to. Other countries have done this long ago.

While I was in the plane I did a brief visual survey of the seats in front of me. I'd say maybe 50% of the plane was watching. No fights or loud arguments occurred during or after. And the plane landed safely. ;)

If there's one thing all these investigations and email scandals have done for me, it's to make me like HRC a lot better than I did during the Obama campaign. I, like many people, always felt there was a stench of corruption around the Clintons due to decades of hints in the press, and she came off very badly in the charisma and inspiration front compared to Obama.

I also really hated how begrudging Hillary supporters were when Obama won the nom. Like my mom actually said "EVEN a black man is more trusted than a woman" implying when is it our turn and my face was like "let's not even go there Moms like we got the vote like 40 years earlier than First Nations ppl in Canada."

However all of these October surprises were such duds, even reading the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street was really revealing in that -- there just wasn't much there. So I guess looking more into her record and the work of the foundation revealed -- sometimes where there's smoke there actually doesn't seem to be that much fire.

Annie - I lump a lot of things under "idiot" including much of what you describe.

Robo, I feel exactly the same way. I'm embarrassed that I didn't do my due diligence sooner and was not a solid supporter of HRC sooner. But I am now.

They
actually talked about the country and policy last night. Quite the
improvement. Of course all the media can talk about today is
same ole same ole.

I
was happy to catch some sane conversation and behavior on PBS
afterwards. Wish I had seen more. CNN is a disgusting joke.

Tavis
Smiley noted once again, after this 3rd debate, that the media created Trump so
they could condemn him.

From
an interview with conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan after the 2nd debate:

Tavis: ….

It is laughable to me–I do mean I literally sit back and kick my
legs laughing–at how the media now is nearly universally
condemning–the mainstream media–now condemning Mr. Trump.

I told some folk the other day, somebody said to me, “Well, you
know, the media builds you up and they tear you down.” I said,
“Well, that’s right, but not really. Your conjunction is wrong.
The media doesn’t build you up and tear you down. The media
builds you up TO tear you down. They make money coming and going.
They make money both ways. It’s a game.”

So my question is, how complicit has the media been, the mainstream
media, in helping to make Donald Trump and now that complicity has
turned to condemnation? I’m bothered by that.

Sullivan: I’m bothered too, Tavis. Look, when leading
network chief, Leslie Moonves, could say, “Donald Trump’s been
really great for business. He may be awful for the country, but great
for business, great for CBS”, there you have an example of an
elite, a member of elite, utterly trashing his own country, utterly
abdicating any civic responsibility.

No one who cared about the news and cared about our democracy would
have given Donald Trump’s neo-fascist rallies complete 24/7 airing
on major networks, would interrupt actual news events to give us
those spectacles because they knew simply that ratings is the only
criterion they care about.

I mean, at some point, our republic is in deep disrepair because
these people are not acting as citizens before they’re acting as
profit makers. You know, when you go back to Plato’s account of how
tyrants emerge out of democracies, the one thing he said that is also
essential to that is that the elites become more interested in making
money than in the fate and the character of their republic.

Tavis: Yes.

Andrew Sullivan, very astute. Great interview and analysis after the 2nd debate:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/writer-political-commentator-andrew-sullivan/

In a normal campaign, everything the candidate says and does is considered, including clothes. It's all part of the messaging and signaling. Trump has been criticized for his rumpled, ill-fitting suits, his too long ties, and of course the hair. The orange skin and white eye concealer have been a butt of jokes, too.

Hillary is just the opposite, very calculated, for better or worse. Her first debate suit was red, the second blue, the third white. The matched look and row of buttons makes her look taller, it's deliberately not sexy, but it doesn't reference a traditional man's business suit with tie and lapels, which might be too mannish. The restrained jewelry makes her look more serious. All very scripted, of course, but that's what happens when you hire a professional team. In any case, there's not much precedent here-- who should she take after, maybe Merkel or Golda Meir?

Well I almost did not bother to watch 'cause my decision was made long ago but I am so glad I decided what the hey and tuned in after all for now I am no longer without any holloween costume options. Hmm, I do not know which I should be a " nasty woman" or a " bad hombre" ...thanks trump for insulting more than half our population in less than a two hour span...

More funny tweets

Carol - Your #Trumpbookreport link was so good that I thought it deserved a separate post. Thanks for sharing.

Trump Book Report tweets

Regarding HC's clothing choices. I observe what scone911 pointed out regarding the styling and accessorizing. I'm maybe more sensitive to her critics because I have a smaller but similar build. Let's face it, when you're short in stature and not leggy, flattering fashion choices are limited. One too many accesorizing touches and a woman her age can go from Commander In Chief to Golden Girls.

Also, I assume her stylists keep in mind that as the first woman to reach this political milestone photos and videos of her will be part of her legacy, viewed and referenced, for many years to come. DH & I watched a program recently that featured clips from Presidential debates from earlier decades. It's jarring to see candidates dressed in trendy styles like oversized lapels and overly padded shoulders. The more clean and timeless the better, IMO.

Moreover, her look says her. She's always said fashion is low on her list of interests and priorities. Aside from formal occasions, I see no reason for her to be out of her comfort zone for fashion's sake. She appears polished and presentable. We don't expect more than that from her male peers.

Of course she uses professionals to make her look her best; as any of us should when we are representing the free world. Deliberately not sexy? No offense to anyone, but I don't think anyone wants to see a 68yo in public trying to look "sexy" per se, I mean WTF.

I forgot to mention one thing she did that I thought was a big improvement from debate 2; she stopped smiling so much. Last time she smiled through all his horse manure. This time she looked irritated and pissed, which is more genuine.

when you go back to Plato’s account of how
tyrants emerge out of democracies, the one thing he said that is also
essential to that is that the elites become more interested in making
money than in the fate and the character of their republic

This is the dominant feature of our times and why the middle class is dying. Clinton vs. Trump is one millionaire who has some civic mindedness vs. another who doesn't have any. As with many past elections it is a question for the rest of us of which particular nobles we want to be ruled by.

Vox populi as of 1:20 pm PST today

IBD poll: DT up to 41.2% HRC down to 40.2%

BBC News poll: HRC down to 47% DT up to 43%

LA Times poll: DT up to 44.4% HRC flat at 43.8%

CNN/ORC: HRC 47% DT 42%

Drudge Report online poll:

87.1 % - "Trump won the final debate"

12.9% - "Clinton won the final debate"

CNN/ORC post-debate poll:

52% - "Clinton won the final debate"

39% - "Trump won the final debate"

Twitter:

Trump - 12.6M followers

Clinton - 9.89M followers

Facebook:

Trump - 11,598,810 likes

Clinton - 7,292,676 likes

Schizophrenic, right? It's surely going to be an interesting election...

"...I don't think anyone wants to see a 68yo in public trying to look "sexy" per se, I mean WTF."

There are plenty of classy, sexy dames over sixty.

Love that, saw it earlier. Although I wish they would get on with discussions about the business of the country. I think it's pretty clear what he meant but they have latched onto it like sharks. They are so stuck in a rut. It's irresponsible. The media's coverage and influence is a form of rigging, IMO.

Hillarys job is not to look sexy but to look like a leader.

Besides, with DT on the stage she doesn't want to "egg on" any grabbing.....

snookums2, if DT hadn't made this an issue, if HE hadn't latched onto the idea of rigged elections like a shark, we wouldn't be talking about it at all. No one would be saying one word about election concessions or rigging.

Today I saw images of people all over the globe watching our debates. For many high school and college students this is the first Presidential election they are following.

I think the media has a responsibility to make clear how wrong and dangerous it is for Trump to make these unfounded declarations and explain that it's not how our democracy works. I'm glad they're giving it air time. Trump has been talking about it for weeks, instead of giving specifics for his plans. That's why we're in the rut.

HRC is more than appropriately dressed for the debates. If she had shown any skin, you know there would have been a huge backlash. She'll remain in power suits, which is just fine with me, because frankly, I don't care if she's wearing velour track pants with Nasty scrawled across the hind end, as long as we continue to protect human rights with a SCOTUS that is moderate and understands law and we get cabinet appointments such as Elizabeth Warren, I'm happy.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, she will be a single term POTUS. For those disenfranchised and disillusioned about our political system, you need to cast your ballots. You're voting for more than just POTUS, you're voting for a voice, so make a choice and vote. Get involved in down ticket elections. Be a part of bringing the type of candidates we want to see to the forefront.

Bernie Sanders came closer than I thought he would to getting on the ticket-it shows that America is ready for change, not business as usual, so spend time on your ballot and vote!

I'm not for Trump. No way.

But I worry about our election process. electionjustice.net is a group of people trying to ensure honest elections. To me Trump is just being Trump and making everything look like conspiracy. Some stuff has happened and there is legal action right now regarding it.

neetsiepie, Bernie was cheated of his rightful votes. Please go to election justice or see redacted tonight videos on youtube.

Amck, I thought they kept those letter to the successors private.

I thought so, too. I wonder who released it? Of course, George H W Bush was a gracious man and president, and the polar opposite of Donald Trump.

"Bernie was cheated of his rightful votes."

I'm not so sure. I like a lot of Bernie's policy ideas, but I didn't like that he became a Democrat to run against Hillary and expected the support of the Demo machine to treat them equally. The minute he dropped out, he went back to being an Independent and so I don't have a lot of sympathy for him regarding how he was treated by the Dems.

Snookums

Yes, that Tavis interview with Andrew Sullivan was very interesting. I join you in recommending it.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/writer-political-commentator-andrew-sullivan/

Re Bernie I think it's also troublesome that his Independent supporters expected the Democratic nomination process to revolve around their wishes. For example trying to open historically closed primaries. To me the fact that some primaries are open at all is odd and leaves the parties very open to hijacking, what was to prevent registered democrats from voting for Trump as the beatable Republican candidate? I don't really get it. Canadians just vote in a party leader at one closed party convention although I know our parliamentary system is much different – – And we don't have separate nominees for prime minister.

Anyway I think it's safe to say that Hillary won popular vote and delegates, she had a broader coalition of support. I found it distasteful that Bernie kept on bringing up the superdelegates as his Hail Mary when if Hillary was losing the popular vote and delegate count and told everyone knowingly that you just never know with the superdelegates are going to do, Bernie would've had a complete coronary and insisted that the whole process was completely rigged and corrupt.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

"Tavis Smiley noted once again, after this 3rd debate, that the media created Trump so they could condemn him."

Which is utterly ridiculous--Donald Trump avidly sought and INHALED media attention and thrived on it for years, grabbing every opportunity to be mentioned and given media focus. To posit that Trump is somehow a victim is simply ludicrous and unsupported by the facts of the man's history.

To me the fact that some primaries are open at all is odd and leaves the parties very open to hijacking, what was to prevent registered democrats from voting for Trump as the beatable Republican candidate?

But even in closed primary states people often just switch party affiliations prior to the primaries to do exactly that (or to vote for a candidate in the opposing party they like better than anyone in their own), so this seems like kind of a moot point.

Robo, I know Democrats that voted for Trump in the primaries, assuming he would be very beatable. They definitely have regretted it! I've always wondered about true independents in states without open primaries. I appreciate that you already answered that, writersblock.

I've always wondered about true independents in states without open primaries.

Yes, as an independent it really bothers me to be completely shut out till the actual elections, but that's how it is.

I guess I just don't understand why people who aren't part of a party and don't work for a party should get to be a part of that party's nominee selection process?

Something happened here recently, somewhat related, which is that our local pride committee was voting on a resolution brought forward by the Queer Arabs of Halifax about pinkwashing Israeli products and tourism at the parade given the Palestinian situation (typically there is a booth representing Israel at pride promoting itself as a gay friendly ME destination).

Honestly it would have been voted down anyway as our pride is quite corporate/conservative/middle of the road, but anyways, the local Jewish council got wind of it, organized a meeting right before the pride committee meeting and told its members to go to the pride committee meeting and register at the door in order to hijack the vote -- straight people who'd never been involved in pride, helped run the parade or anything else.

It was a real failure of process in my books and quite scandalous here. And of course the more politically central people running the pride committee basically were like "well, they did buy memberships! AKA we'll let Jewish people be the bad guys here so we don't have to take responsibility for voting down this radical proposition."

If only people who "work for a party" got to vote, at any level, that would reduce the number of eligible voters to about 1/1000th the current number of registered voters or even less.

For the nominee, not the main event. Shouldn't a party, however you define party, get to nominate its own person?

I say this as, I guess you would say, an independent in Canada. I've never voted for a party leader nor would I expect to unless I joined the party. I've donated to my preferred party and put signs on the lawn and stuff. I probably vote for the same party 9/10 elections up and down ticket (but we don't elect a prime minister separately, it's the leader of the party with the most seats in parliament or who can put together a convincing coalition). I think Canadians are likely a little less likely to feel strictly affiliated with one party or another.

Yes, but in the US about half the states do allow independents to vote in the primaries, which makes it seem kind of unfair when the others don't. Also, there are situations in my state where the primary is essentially the only election at the state or local level. When there are, for instance, two republican candidates, one at each end of the conservative scale, competing in the primary, and then there is no opposition candidate competing against the winner in the general election.

We are a federalist system that prefers localized government over federal or centralized rule by design. It is fair because it is constitutionally legal that each state has separate primary rules. I equate it to the idea that my family rules do not apply to your child at your home. Move to a state whose rules apply to your ideal if you think it unfair.

I am sorry but our system was designed over a century before Sanders began his decades long political career, he knew the system inside and out and his whining " it is so unfair" was as erroneous and self serving as trumps idiotic cries that the system is suddenly rigged against him. Try to Change the rules before running not mid election.

Also, fair and right are not always compatible. "It's not fair "is a whine I do not like or accept from my very young children let alone from two men who think they are so special and their beliefs are so much better than all others that the long existing rules should be suddenly over turned with out due process.

edited to add, sorry I am cranky and tired of my nine and three year old' it's not fair whines today so the whole " it's not fair ! Bernie was robbed"thing hit home.

Well, for all those of you who think Bernie was a mooch to try to run as a dem, consider what the alternative would have brought. What if he had run as a third party candidate? Would you like where we would be right now?

Living in NY, where they have closed primaries, I have never understood why one would want to register as an independent here rather than pick the party that at least most closely aligns with one's beliefs. That way you can have a say in the primary process. And no one is forcing you to vote for that party"s candidate in the general election.

I don't necessarily think he was a mooch but I think he definitely had his younger non-Democrat followers unneccessarily riled up about the process, like, he was allowed to run and he should have familiarized himself with and respected his hosts' rules or run as an independent or third party candidate. If you want to change the way the Democratic party is run, volunteer, donate, GOTV, work your way up the party ranks, show up for midterms...the usual stuff.

And I think it was SUPER hypocritical for him to suddenly point to the superdelegates as his saviors when we all know had he won the popular vote he would have been frothing at the mouth if the superdelegates didn't swing his way even though part of their function is to offset the popular vote to avoid unelectable candidates like Trump or all the other schmucks the RNC let shamble across their stage.

I do think a strong primary is a strategically good thing although it may not be good for party unity, Trump would be in a much stronger position now if all this sexual assault stuff had come out a year ago (although he was already sliding in the polls before the Billy Bush thing came out).

I am an independent in a closed primary state for the sole reason that I hope to avoid all robo calls from both parties that happen every night for months before all local, state and national elections. Unfortunately my newly citizenized English husband did not know to do the same and affiliated with a party so we are,never the less, inundated by calls anyway.

I don't think HRC, or any other woman, needs to repress part of her humanity in order to be taken seriously, or simply because she is older (that's ageism). Nor does "sexy" necessarily involve showing skin. Jack Kennedy was very sexy covered neck to toes, as is Obama. You can call it by another name if you like, maybe "glamour," "charm," or "charisma," but it's an important part of the rhetorical toolkit. Human beings are not rational robots, processing only cold facts and logic. We respond to image, looks, body language, the play of expression on the face. Rhetorical persuasion is all about emotional appeal. Michelle Obama knows this, Ronald Reagan was brilliant at this.

There's another thing. If HRC is going to smash the glass ceiling, and help in the fight for full equality, then she also should help dissolve the double standards that have constrained women for so long. E.g., act like a rather prim 50's style "lady" at all costs, while being twice as competent and smart as the men, having to work twice as hard, and take less pay too. That's the way it was when I was young, at least.

You can see the traces of this constraint in the over-programmed, cautious way HRC expresses herself. That was modern feminism 1.0. But we are in a new century now, and young women don't accept these constraints-- they see it, rightly, as just another form of oppressive patriarchy. For them, feminism means being accepted for who you are, on your merits, and not as the perfect cardboard cutout token "skirt suit."

HRC may be older, and habits are hard to change. But she can make a real contribution in this area if she can signal a more relaxed, more authentic self, a comfort in one's own skin. That would help with the trust issue, as well. I hope we see this evolution after the inauguration-- whatever some troglodytes might think, she's already a powerful person, and really has nothing more to prove.

Roarah, it has certainly never made a bit of difference here that I have no affiliation. The calls come all the time anyway, and the polls. The polls are worse this year than the robocalls.

We avoid the calls by not picking up the phone unless we recognize the number.

Me too, but they come after eight most days and I am an old fashioned mom who believes 7:30 is bedtime so mine are just about asleep whenever the robo calls come through. Hate it!

"Tavis
Smiley noted once again, after this 3rd debate, that the media
created Trump so they could condemn him."

Runninginplace: Which
is utterly ridiculous--Donald Trump avidly sought and INHALED media
attention and thrived on it for years, grabbing every opportunity to
be mentioned and given media focus. To posit that Trump is somehow a
victim is simply ludicrous and unsupported by the facts of the man's
history.'

Their point, in this situation, is not
that Trump is a victim. Read the whole conversation in context.

Our country (and the election process, imo) is the victim.

Sullivan:'No one who cared about the news and cared about our democracy would have given Donald Trump’s neo-fascist rallies complete 24/7 airing on major networks, would interrupt actual news events to give us those spectacles because they knew simply that ratings is the only criterion they care about.'

Their huge force of influence and enormous bias is something I also find very disturbing, in the past and now as I watch this circus. I find it appalling that the public
doesn't seem to care or take notice. People eat this tabloid level garbage up, insisting on it even, instead of
demanding better.

We
can blame ourselves for looking like fools to the rest of the world and for whatever happens to this country.

The Andrew Sullivan interview is quite
interesting. He is very reasonable, articulate and astute, whether
you agree with him or not.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/writer-political-commentator-andrew-sullivan/

nomorobo really does work. I promise. Your phone will ring once and 90% of the robo calls then go to robo heaven (or hell). Your doctor's, school's and reverse 911 calls still come through.

No more robo calls!

Weird Al musically summarizes the 3rd debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdBF6h7oH5I