Clearly, this is a pre-scheduled e-mail that wasn’t canceled; not even the Obama campaign at its most ravenous for funds would deliberately send e-mails like this to states being hit by a hurricane, like Virginia and North Carolina:

From: Michelle Obama <info@barackobama.com>

Subject: I know we’ve asked a lot of you, but we’re almost there

To: 

Date: Monday, October 29, 2012, 7:44 PM

Friend –There’s still time to meet Barack and get two of the best seats in the house on Election Night. 

If you make a donation today, you’ll be automatically entered to join us in Chicago for his big speech. You’ll be right in the middle of all the action on Election Night, and if Barack wins, you’ll know you played an important part in making that happen and moving our country forward.

We’ll fly you and a guest to Chicago, put you up in a hotel, and make sure you’re right up front when Barack gives his speech.What he’ll say that night depends entirely on what we do right now. I don’t have to tell you, this election is close. Barack needs you. Please chip in $5 or whatever you can today

:https://donate.barackobama.com/Election-Night

I know we ask a lot of you. Thank you for everything — we’re almost there.

Michelle

This isn’t the candidate’s fault or the first lady’s, but somebody in the Obama campaign’s online fundraising team dropped the ball yesterday.

Once the general-election campaign began, most Republicans figured Mitt Romney would get momentum once he really “introduced himself” to the American public, an introduction that was supposed to begin in earnest at the Republican National Convention in Tampa at the end of August.

But Romney didn’t get much of a bump out of his convention, even though most thought his convention speech was well-written and well-delivered. The television audience for the Republican convention just wasn’t there — and there’s a good chance that Hurricane Isaac was a reason. The storm forced the cancellation of the first night of the convention, and its approach and landfall on the Gulf Coast provided a dramatic competing news event, keeping the public’s mind away from politics during those days. Instead, Romney made his real public “debut” to millions of Americans at the first debate, which had more than twice the television audience of the GOP convention, and it has been a much closer race ever since.

Few news events eat up news coverage the way a hurricane does — it is slow-moving enough to eat up newscasts morning, noon, and night, with hourly updates and dramatic video. Even if most Americans don’t live in an affected state, most know someone who lives in one of the coastal states. Chances are, we’ll be seeing saturation coverage (no pun intended) until at least Wednesday, maybe beyond if the storm leaves significant messes in its wake in the Washington–New York–Boston corridor.

The first political impact of Sandy is an interruption of early voting in the affected states. Some states, like Pennsylvania, don’t have much early voting, but Virginia does (technically, it’s in-person filling out of absentee ballots), and 10 of Virginia’s 95 counties have suspended voting for today.

Presumably most of the folks who would have voted early today will vote as soon as the storm clears, or on Election Day, so this shouldn’t drive down turnout very much. But all of the voter-contact operations scheduled for today and tomorrow — the phone banking, the door-knocking, etc. — are now either on hold or greatly minimized. The Romney campaign has effectively stopped campaigning until Wednesday, except for one event in Iowa, and the president will be off the trail (although at this hour, Joe Biden and Bill Clinton are still campaigning).

Then there’s the issue of power outages. There’s not much point in running television ads or geographically targeted web ads in places where people don’t have electricity to turn on their televisions or computers.

In the places that still have power, the campaigns will have to be careful with their tone. For the next few days, negative attacks have a much higher risk of backfiring. This would appear to be a challenge to the Obama campaign, as they’re still running extremely negative attack ads on television. Then again, as we’ve watched Romney’s steady increase in the polls and Obama hit that 47 percent ceiling, the heavily negative approach doesn’t seem to be working. Perhaps Sandy would be doing the campaign a favor, by forcing them to shift to their (presumably positive) closing message a week early.

On television this morning, there was some talk that the storm would help Obama “look presidential.” Of course, “looking presidential” really shouldn’t be much of a problem for an incumbent president.

Perhaps the best “narrative” to come out of the storm for President Obama will be a sense that FEMA and all of the federal agencies are responding quickly and appropriately to the storm, and those few remaining undecided or wavering voters will feel better about him as a manager and leader during a crisis. The best “narrative” for Romney will be that for the final week of the campaign, the negative attacks stop and the race is frozen in place at this strong point for Romney — a lead in most of the national polls, good news in all of the state polling except for PPP, finally a poll showing a lead in Ohio, a big enthusiasm gap in favor of Republicans. Finally, if the power’s gone out, the neighborhood is a mess, trees are down everywhere, the gas stations are out of gasoline, etcetera . . . it’s hard to see that stirring up enthusiasm for the incumbent.

The Romney campaign adjusts to the Sandy political moment:

Governor Romney’s concern is the safety and well-being of those in the path of Hurricane Sandy. For those who have inquired as to our activities and preparations in light on the storm, we cancelled our Virginia and New Hampshire events to ensure we do not put people in danger and do not tie up first-responders. Gov. Romney has also been in touch with Governors Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie about storm preparations, and we will continuously monitor the situation.

In North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia, we will be collecting supplies at our Victory offices to deliver local storm-relief. In Virginia, we are loading storm-relief supplies onto the Romney bus to be delivered.We have also currently suspended fundraising emails to the following states: DC, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York. And, in case you missed it, Gov. Romney tweeted and posted to his Facebook page encouraging people to support the Red Cross. We also have a promo box on the homepage of our website directing visitors to the Red Cross website for donations.

Please also see the below note from Gov. Romney, sent yesterday to states in the path of the storm, saying to “Please Take Care” as Americans prepare for the storm:

Tonight, Ann and I are keeping the people in Hurricane Sandy’s path in our thoughts and prayers.I hope that if you can, you’ll reach out to your neighbors who may need help getting ready for the storm — especially your elderly neighbors. And if you can give of your resources or time, please consider supporting your local Red Cross organization — visit www.redcross.org to get involved.

For safety’s sake, as you and your family prepare for the storm, please be sure to bring any yard signs inside. In high winds they can be dangerous, and cause damage to homes and property.

I’m never prouder of America than when I see how we pull together in a crisis. There’s nothing that we can’t handle when we stand together.

Stay safe and God Bless,

Mitt Romney

Outside of the impacted areas, the campaign continues; Paul Ryan will be campaigning in Florida, where he will attend Victory Events at Main Beach Park in Fernandina Beach, the Florida Tech Clemente Center in Melbourne, and the Sun ‘n Fun Air Museum in Lakeland.

As for Governor Romney, he will visit Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin today. He will attend a Victory Event at Avon Lake High School in Avon Lake, Ohio, before visiting Iowa for a Victory Rally at Seven Cities Sod in Davenport, where he will be joined by wrestling legend Dan Gable. He will then campaign in Wisconsin at a Victory Rally at the Expo Center at State Fair Park in West Allis.

The president’s schedule is changing as well:

Statement by the Press Secretary on Additional Changes to the President’s Travel on Monday

Tomorrow, the President will return to the White House following his event in Orlando, FL, to monitor Hurricane Sandy, which is currently forecast to make landfall along the Eastern seaboard later tomorrow. The event in Youngstown, OH, will move forward with President Clinton and include Vice President Biden.

The President continues to be regularly updated on the storm. Today, he participated in an operations briefing at the National Response Coordination Center at FEMA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. During the briefing, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate updated the President on ongoing deployments of teams and resources by federal partners to support state and local responders in potentially affected areas. The President also received an update on the storm from National Hurricane Director Rick Knabb, and later spoke directly with Governors and Mayors from potentially impacted states to ensure there were no unmet needs. The President continues to receive regular updates on the storm, and continues to direct his team to make sure all available resources are brought to bear to support state and local partners.

UPDATE: The president’s Florida political event this morning is canceled, and Tuesday’s campaign event in Green Bay, Wisconsin, is also canceled.

From the first Morning Jolt of Hurricane Week:

Programming  Notes: As long as Casa Geraghty in Yuppie Acres, Alexandria, Virginia, has electrical power and access to the Internet, the Jolt and Campaign Spot coverage will continue — presuming, of course, everyone else involved on the technical end of the newsletter and site have electrical power, too.  During “El Derecho” — Spanish for, “a brief, intense thunderstorm that gets local Washington residents even more furious with their electrical providers than usual” — we were spared while many in the D.C. went without power for days and days . . .

Sand-y in the Gears of Election 2012

Well, every bold prognosticator of this election cycle now has his excuse: “Everything in my projection/model was correct, but I couldn’t account for the effect of a major hurricane hitting the Northeast a week before Election Day.”

You could see this turning out to be a minor factor; localities will have about a week to clear the roads, get the power back on, etc., and it probably should be largely fixed by November 6.

But then again, you would have expected after the mess of the 2000 recount that Palm Beach County, Florida, would be extra careful to make sure it didn’t have any printing errors in their official ballots. Whoops.

Obviously, early voting is virtually suspended in all of the states experiencing hurricane-force winds, storm surges, etc. Depending on how bad the damage is, you could see some of the most casual, least-motivated voters not bothering to vote a week from Tuesday and focusing on repairing their houses. A few cycles ago, people used to joke that rainy weather was Republican weather; the Republican base was considered much more determined and reliable as voters than the Democrats’ base. And certainly, this year polls have indicated that Republican enthusiasm is off the charts and Democrats’ is down from the 2008 heights. (Apparently Obama’s television ads are sufficiently outrageous to boost Republican enthusiasm to vote against him.) But I think the Democratic base turns out more regularly than it used to and is probably at parity with the Republican one.

So if this lowers turnout a bit in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Hampshire, the first guess would be that it’s bad news for Obama. But right now Romney’s on a (metaphorical) wave.

I’m far from a weather geek, but in my corner of the blogosphere and Twittersphere,  Brendan Loy is touted as one of the most intense and sharp analysts of all things meteorological. (His Twitter feed is here, his web site is here.)

I must say, reading his coverage of Sandy feels a bit like watching Jeff Goldblum playing a scientist in one of those something-goes-terribly-wrong movies, where he suddenly looks at a printout of data and begins excitedly and ominously rattling off a whole bunch of techno-babble – “the barometric nano-neo-pressure is dropping to 950 mega-mips! This means the counter-circular wind-speed is accelerating as the warmer air rises and energizes the accumulated precipitation to unsustainable levels!”

“God God, man, English! What does that mean?!?”

(whispering in shocked horror) “It’s . . . the Storm of the Millennium!”

The storm was a big topic on the Sunday shows, but this is one of those rare circumstances where strategists, consultants, talking heads, and lawmakers really don’t have any clue as to how this will play out.

On Sunday, politicos from both sides said it was still too early to tell how the storm would affect the race, but that access to voting centers would be a concern if effects from the storm persist until Election Day.

“I don’t think anybody really knows,” top Obama adviser David Axelrod said on CNN’s “State of the Union” about the potential political impact of Hurricane Sandy. “Obviously, we want unfettered access to the polls because we believe that the more people come out, the better we’re going to do, and so to the extent that it makes it harder, you know, that’s a source of concern. But I don’t know how all the politics will sort out.”

Virginia’s Republican governor said Sunday his state would take measures to ensure residents are able to vote, despite potential obstacles brought on by the storm.

“We’ll be ready, but we’re planning for contingencies if there’s still a problem,” Bob McDonnell said on “State of the Union.” He said his state would “absolutely” make polling centers such as schools and fire stations a top priority for restoring power should widespread outages occur.

Another Virginian, Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, predicted on Fox News the “storm will throw havoc into the race.”

We saw this in 2000 and for a few elections afterward; localities that either were poor or simply underfunded their elections process had machines breaking down, too few polling places, and so on, and then asked for extended voting hours. Of course, once you have polling places open in some places in a state but closed in other places . . . well, it seems like a formula for shenanigans.

In the meantime, if you’re in a low-lying area in the path of the storm, take a look at the National Weather Service in New Jersey offering some trademarked Garden State tact in this warning:

1. IF YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO EVACUATE A COASTAL LOCATION BY STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, PLEASE DO SO.

2. IF YOU ARE RELUCTANT TO EVACUATE, AND YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO RODE OUT THE `62 STORM ON THE BARRIER ISLANDS, ASK THEM IF THEY COULD DO IT AGAIN.

3. IF YOU ARE RELUCTANT, THINK ABOUT YOUR LOVED ONES, THINK ABOUT THE EMERGENCY RESPONDERS WHO WILL BE UNABLE TO REACH YOU WHEN YOU MAKE THE PANICKED PHONE CALL TO BE RESCUED, THINK ABOUT THE RESCUE/RECOVERY TEAMS WHO WILL RESCUE YOU IF YOU ARE INJURED OR RECOVER YOUR REMAINS IF YOU DO NOT SURVIVE.

Barring some dramatic change in the final ten days or so, Mitt Romney will win the popular vote in the 2012 presidential election.

In the 22 national head-to-head polls with Romney conducted in the month of October, Obama has hit 50 percent once, 49 percent four times, 48 percent three times, 47 percent eight times, 46 percent once, and 45 percent five times. (He hasn’t hit 48 percent in a national poll since October 20.) Mind you, in most of these polls Obama has trailed narrowly, with Romney at 48 to 50 percent, and in a few, he’s led Romney, with the GOP challenger at 45 percent or so. But the polling this month points to a strikingly consistent percentage of support for an incumbent president.

Not only is Obama’s percentage in the RealClearPolitics average 47 percent, he’s at 47 percent in four tracking polls: Rasmussen, ABC News/Washington Post, Gallup, and IBD/TIPP. It is not merely significant that Obama is likely at 47 percent at this moment, it’s that he’s been around 47 percent for most of the month — with debates, new attack-ad barrages on both sides, etc. He’s around 47 percent in polls with many remaining undecideds and few remaining undecideds.

We can debate whether those remaining undecideds, ranging from 3 to 8 percent in most of these polls, will break heavily for the challenger. In 2004, George W. Bush and John Kerry split the remaining undecideds roughly evenly. But the one scenario that political scientists deem virtually impossible is one where undecideds who have declined to support the incumbent all year suddenly break heavily in favor of him. For most of the remaining undecideds, the choice is between voting for the challenger and staying home.

The polling currently suggests President Obama has a hard ceiling of about 47 percent, perhaps 48 percent. Let’s take the 50–47 split found currently in the Rasmussen, Washington Post, and Gallup tracking polls. Presume that most of the remaining undecideds stay home, and that the vote for third-party candidates amounts to about a percentage point. Under that scenario, we would see a 51 percent to 47.9 percent popular-vote win for Romney.

There are two other little-discussed indicators pointing to a Romney popular-vote win — the GOP challenger’s level of support in the uncontested blue states and in the uncontested red states.

There are a bunch of heavily populated states in the Northeast and on the West Coast that remain frustratingly uncompetitive for Republicans. But last cycle, the bottom really fell out for the GOP, due to several factors: the Obama campaign’s serious financial advantages, enormous grassroots enthusiasm among Democrats, the John McCain–Sarah Palin ticket’s lack of appeal to these regions, and of course, the economic meltdown. The bad news for Republicans is that the Romney–Ryan ticket is unlikely to put any of these in play. The good news is that Romney appears likely to dramatically overperform the low bar of McCain’s level from 2008, owing to GOP grassroots enthusiasm even in uncompetitive states.

In New Jersey on Election Day 2008, Obama won 57 percent to 42 percent for McCain. Five polls have been conducted in the Garden State in October, and Obama’s support is at 54 percent, 53 percent, 48 percent, 51 percent and 51 percent. None of the polls have Obama ahead by less than 7 points, but it seems a safe bet that Romney will finish better in this state than McCain did.

In California last cycle, Obama won 61 percent to 37 percent. Three polls conducted in this state in October put Obama’s level of support at 53 percent. Again, no one doubts Obama will win; his smallest lead is 12 points. But again, Obama is very likely to come out of the Golden State with a smaller margin of victory, probably hundreds of thousands of votes fewer than in 2008.

In Connecticut, Obama won in 2012 by 61 percent to 38 percent. In this state, there’s been quite a bit of polling because of the state’s surprisingly competitive Senate race between Linda McMahon and Chris Murphy. Obama’s level of support, measured by percentage, has been 52, 55, 53, 49, 51, 53.

In the red states it’s a different story. In state after state, Romney is polling higher than McCain’s percentage in the final vote, or Obama is polling significantly lower than his percentage in the final tally of 2008, or both.

John McCain won North Dakota in 2008 by a 53 percent to 45 percent margin. In the three polls in this state in October, Romney’s lowest level of support has been 54 percent and Obama’s highest level of support has been 40 percent.

In 2008, John McCain won Arkansas 59 percent to 39 percent. Obama’s highest level in any poll conducted in Arkansas this year is 35 percent and he was at 31 percent in mid-October.

Obama failed to win a single county in Oklahoma in 2008, losing to McCain, 34 percent to 66 percent. Only two polls have been conducted in Oklahoma this year, but both had Obama below 30 percent.

Indiana was Obama’s most unexpected victory in 2008, winning 50 percent to 49 percent. Polling has been sparse much of this year, but the two polls conducted this fall put Romney up by 12 and 13 percentage points.

Add up these factors — a consistent national polling lead for Romney, a seemingly hard ceiling of 47–48 percent for Obama support in these national polls, a narrower margin of victory for Obama in blue states and a wider margin of victory in red states — and you have an electoral map where the red states of 2008 turn crimson and the blue states are at least a bit more purple.

Now, as Al Gore will tell you, a popular-vote win and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. But it’s also relatively rare for a candidate to win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College. And if Obama is running a few percentage points behind his 2008 levels of support in red states and blue states . . . just how much can advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts stem that tide in the purple states?

From the final Morning Jolt of the week:

The Worst Political Ad of the Cycle?

The Right Scoop summarizes a mind-bogglingly bad get-out-the-vote video from the Barack Obama campaign:

Talk about desperation. They’ve finally sunken to a new low trying to get the youth vote by comparing voting for the first time to having sex for the first time. “Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody. You wanna do it with a great guy . . .”

Amanda Carpenter: “This ad, suggesting women should want to sleep with Obama, is disgusting.”

Dana Perino: “Who approved that new Obama campaign message? AND who pushed the video?”

Michelle Ray: “Between Julia and this new freaking ad, @BarackObama portrays women as giddy, helpless, impressionable morons.”

Biased Girl: “Is that what this administration thinks Real women are like?”

Kathryn Lopez: “It’s as if every day the Obama campaign gives me another reason to see how clearly we a new president — for the sake of our politics and our culture.”

Adrian Gray: “That Lena Dunham ad was a very risky move for any campaign. And even more surprising it was approved by the father of two girls.”

Liz Mair: “So voting for Obama is like losing your virginity? A dude cooked that one up, right? Because for us girls, that means you’re saying it’s painful.”

Stacy Washington: “The #MyFirstTime ad is the height of vulgarity. Tell me #Democrat Moms: Is this how you want the president talking to your daughters?”

Andrea Chapman: “You don’t want your first time to be with #Obama because his stimulus package didn’t deliver as promised.”

Kat McKinley: “Does one get the feeling Hugh Hefner is running the Obama campaign?”

Kristina Ribali: “Be careful ladies. . . . You don’t want to be punished with an Obama.”

Kevin Eder: “I’ve now watched it four times. I refuse to believe that it’s a real, actual thing.” He adds, “Dear college kids: trust me on this, having a job when you graduate is WAY more ‘cool’ than voting for Barack Obama. I PROMISE.”

Moe Lane: “I know I’m supposed to be shocked by Obama’s new NSFW ad, but instead I’m embarrassed. It’s like walking in on my parents having sex. I mean, you know that your parents — or your President — is aware of sex. You just don’t need to VISUALIZE it.”

NY Dem49: “Word of advice for Obama, don’t create an ad you wouldn’t be comfortable with your daughter reciting.”

Ace from Ace of Spades:

It’s hideous.

It’s not funny, it’s not cute, and it’s not persuasive, unless you think the important issues in this campaign are Binders Full of Birth Control.

It underlines the essential triviality of Obama and his Government Client & Upper Upper Class White Voter agenda. There is nothing to his campaign except very small social-progressive appeals to people who are simply not affected by the economy, whether they are too poor to notice a bad economy, immunized from the economy by being a government worker, or so rich they have nothing at all to fear from a bad economy.

It continues to be weird that Democrats want so bad to have sex with their cult leader. But I guess that’s a central part of the cult thing.

Tim Carney: “’Voting is like sex,’ Romney’s a ‘bull*****er,’ ‘Romnesia,’ ‘Big Bird’” I thought you had to be older than 15 to be President.”

Cameron Gray: “Shorter Lena Dunham in her Barack Obama campaign ad: ‘Labia, not Libya.’”

John Podhoretz: “BREAKING: ROMNEY TO AIR LENA DUNHAM AD NATIONWIDE 200 TIMES A DAY UNTIL ELECTION DAY”

He later adds, “”I’m Barack Obama and I appro . . . wait, what the hell IS this? Are you CRAZY????””

Jimmie Bise: “Unintended consequence of the new Obama campaign ad? Guys everywhere now hesitant to vote early.”

Josh Trevino: “Give the Obama campaign credit for reaching across demographic, geographic divides, from Red Hook to Fort Greene and even to Park Slope.”

Dave Weigel: “The Lena Dunham endorsement video will sway those few people unconvinced by the New Yorker’s Obama endorsement.”

“If you’ll excuse me, I have to go bleach my eyes,” apologizes Rusty Weiss at the Mental Recession. “Word of advice libs – if voting for Obama is like having sex . . . you’re doing it wrong!“

So what lunatic came up with this idea? Oh, Foreign Policy magazine is here to help out with that one:

I see the Obama campaign has a new YouTube ad featuring Girls star (and fellow Oberlin alum!) Lena Dunham:

“Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy,” she says, referring to casting your first ballot for Obama. (What were you thinking?)

It’s a clever conceit, but feels a bit familiar. Perhaps because the same joke was used in an ad for Vladimir Putin’s presidential campaign earlier this year:

A suggestive ad rallying support for Putin’s presidential campaign shows a young woman seeking a fortune-teller’s advice. “Let’s find out, cutie, who is intended to you by destiny,” the mystic says. The girl replies, “You know. I wish it to be for love — It is my first time.”

And you thought this couldn’t get any creepier!

Oh, wait . . . last week Lena Dunham was in trouble for making rape and murder jokes on Twitter.

(sigh) Yeah.

Jeff Dobbs takes a look at the numbers for early voting in North Carolina, takes some guesses as to how each group of voters – Democrats, Republicans, and “Other” – have voted so far:

Rasmussen’s latest poll in North Carolina asked responders who they intended to vote for – and asked them which party they belonged to. His results show the following:

Republicans Romney: 94% | Obama: 4% | Other: 2%

Democrats Romney: 17% | Obama: 82% | Other: 1%

Other Romney: 59% | Obama: 36% | Other: 5%

Weighting the votes by how each category is likely to vote using Rasmussen’s survey, the state of the race at this point in 2012 looks like this:

Estimated Vote Totals: Romney: 479,899 | 48.4%

Obama: 491,500 | 49.6%

Using this methodology, in 2012 Obama holds a 1.2% lead, or 11,600 votes, over Romney after one week of early voting in North Carolina.

With an 18.9 point lead at this point in 2008, Obama ultimately won 50.2% to 49.8%.

With an estimated 143,509 vote lead in 2008, Obama ultimately won by a 14,177 vote margin.

Obama is now leading by 1.2 points and 11,600 votes.

Remember, “If votes cast on Election Day decided the 2008 election, McCain would have won in Florida, Colorado, North Carolina and Iowa.”

I think the early vote may be significantly larger this year in communities where voters experienced long lines and long waits on Election Day 2008; folks may want to avoid the crowds this time around.

From the Thursday edition of the Morning Jolt:

Surprise: Independents, Likely Voters Loved Monday Night’s Stay-Puft Marshmallow Romney!

After Monday night’s debate, I was among those who thought that Mitt Romney’s performance was simultaneously likely to be effective and not what I wanted to see – too focus-grouped, too safe, often hesitating to really tear into the president’s record and almost dovish. But who am I to argue with a closing sales pitch to those few remaining undecided voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa?

Apparently, Team Romney knew what they were doing:

President Obama scored a modest win in the third presidential debate, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, but it’s Republican Mitt Romney who moved the needle among likely voters — including independents — with his debate performances.

Overall, the contest remains unchanged from Tuesday, with 49 percent of likely voters nationally backing Romney, and 48 percent supporting Obama. But as was the case after the first and second debates, more voters say they have better, not worse, opinions of the former Massachusetts governor when assessing the three debates.

Most say the president’s debate performances did not change their views of him, a continuing challenge for an incumbent stuck with an approval rating in dangerous territory: 50 percent of likely voters approve of how he’s handling the job, 49 percent disapprove.

Looking at handling the economy as a broad issue, Romney’s lead among independents has swelled to 56 to 39 percent in the new poll, an advantage that helps him to a sizable, 12-point lead over Obama when it comes to their voting preferences. Obama won independent and other voters by eight percentage points in 2008.

B. Daniel Blatt notices the math: “A 12-point advantage among independents yields only a one-point overall advantage.  Hmmm. . . . the poll only gave Democrats a four-point advantage (34-30).”

Meanwhile, Bob Krumm looks at the national polls and concludes that most pollsters have wildly high estimations of how many respondents are “likely voters” – from about 70 percent for Rasmussen, to about 80 percent for the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, to about 85 percent for the ABC News/Washington Post poll and Gallup, to an unfathomable 93 percent of the IBD/TIPP poll. Historically, the percentage of registered voters who actually cast ballots is in the high 60s, low 70s; the percentage of the voting age population who casts ballots is usually in the 50s. It hit 62 percent in 2008.

He concludes, “From this small sample it appears that Rasmussen is not the outlier it is often accused of being.  Instead, other polling organizations in the current RCP Average employ a likely voter screen that removes only 7% to 14% of registered voters from the sample pool, when we know that about 30% of likely voters are not going to show up to vote.”

There’s only one word for Trump’s announcement: YUGE. Yuuuuuge.

Ever since the first question of the final debate, Republicans have wondered why Mitt Romney was so subdued in discussing the attack on our consulate in Benghazi and the administration’s shifting story. One theory is that discussion of the Benghazi attack, the ignored warnings, and the lingering erroneous explanation was hurting Obama as is — it’s one of the few stories where the mainstream media has asked hard questions and broadcasted hard-hitting pieces — and that Romney discussing it actually makes the story less damaging to Obama, as some voters may dismiss it as the usual partisan back-and-forth.

That unexpected approach may now look vindicated, with this eye-popping scoop from Reuters this morning.

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

The article reports, “A third email, also marked SBU [Sensitive But Unclassified] and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: ‘Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.’” For perspective, this was right around the time the attackers removed Ambassador Stevens from the consulate. Thus, the White House was being told about an al-Qaeda affiliated group taking credit for the attack before Stevens died.

Here is what Susan Rice said, five days later, on ABC News’ “This Week“:

Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

… and on NBC News’ “Meet the Press”:

But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.  What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding.

… and on CBS News’ “Face the Nation”:

based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy.

and on “Fox News Sunday“:

Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.

But we don’t see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don’t want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it’s important for the American people to know our best current assessment.

By October 9, the assessment was completely different: “Prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi late in the evening on Sept. 11, there was no protest outside the compound, a senior State Department official confirmed today, contradicting initial administration statements suggesting that the attack was an opportunistic reaction to unrest caused by an anti-Islam video.”

With his trademarked humility and circumspection, Donald Trump recently boasted he’s about to announce huge news about President Obama, and one rumor has already been reported: “Douglas Kass, a Florida-based investor who appears on CNBC’s talkshow ‘Squawkbox’ where Trump is often a commentator, tweeted to his 48,000 followers: ’High above the Alps my Gnome has heard that Donald Trump will announce that he has unearthed divorce papers between the Prez and his wife.’ “

The fact that the Obamas went through rough patches in their marriage, and contemplated divorce at one time, is not news. Most accounts of the Obamas’ lives attribute the marital stress to financial difficulties.

David Mendell discussed the Obamas’ surprisingly dicey personal finances in his 2007 biography of the then-senator, Obama: From Promise to Power:

He and Michelle were living a middle- to upper-middle-class, white collar existence, going home to a spacious town house in Hyde Park and employing a caregiver to help with child care. But despite their combined incomes, which topped $250,000 a year, Obama had personal debt. He had maxed out his credit card, partly on campaign expenses, and the couple were both repaying student loans from Harvard.

Those campaign expenses came from Obama’s 2000 Democratic-primary bid to unseat Representative Bobby Rush, a four-term incumbent with 90 percent name recognition and a 70 percent approval rating. Obama lost, garnering 30 percent to Rush’s 61 percent. Michelle reportedly thought the campaign was a bad idea, and a new book, Ed Klein’s The Amateur, claims that the stress of the defeat and resulting debt brought the couple to the brink of divorce.

In his book, Klein cites a friend of Michelle Obama who says, “Michelle actually had divorce papers drawn up.” Could those papers have been sitting in some file cabinet all these years? Could Trump’s people have somehow gotten a copy of them?

Unless there’s some sort of genuinely shocking information in that filing that would be pertinent to evaluating Obama today — Drinking? Drug use? Violent temper or mood swings — it’s hard to imagine these papers it would sway voters much in this year’s election. While it’s unlikely Trump’s latest publicity stunt could backfire sufficiently to jeopardize Romney’s standing in the polls, it’s hard to imagine the Romney campaign brain trust in Boston being thrilled with loose cannon Trump seizing the headlines and making the Obamas look like victims. (Clearly high-profile Clinton marital issues didn’t hurt Democrats in the 1998 midterms or Hillary Clinton’s 2000 bid for Senate.)

Having said that, if unflattering details about Obama are revealed to the public because of divorce papers, two men are likely to spend the day laughing: Obama’s 2004 Democratic primary rival Blair Hull and Obama’s short-lived 2004 general election rival, Jack Ryan. Both men had their divorce papers unsealed by suddenly nosy members of the Chicago media, a press corps that never was quite so dogged in pursuit of politicians’ divorce papers since.

There’s always a gap between what a campaign confidently tells the media and the “please give now, we really desperately need it!” tone in most of their fundraising pitches. But tell me if you think today’s e-mail from “Barack Obama” sounds like they think they’re trailing right now:

[Jim] –

I don’t want to lose this election.

Not because of what losing would mean for me — Michelle and I will be fine no matter what happens.

But because of what it would mean for our country and middle-class families.

This race is very close.I’m not willing to watch the progress you and I worked so hard to achieve be undone.

Time is running out to make an impact — please don’t wait any longer. Donate $5 or more today:…

I believe in you. If you stick with me, and if we fight harder than ever for the next two weeks, I truly believe we can’t lose.

Thank you,

Barack

P.S. — I don’t know what Election Night will hold, but I’d like you to be a part of the event here in Chicago. Any donation you make today automatically enters you for a chance to meet me — airfare and hotel for you and a guest are covered.

(This would be Obama’s Election Night rally in McCormick Place in Chicago. It has a seating capacity of 18,000 with another 2.4 million in exhibit space; 240,000 supporters went to  Grant Park in Chicago on Election Night 2008.)

This morning, David Axelrod told reporters, “This is a race we believe we’re leading” and Jim Messina boasted, “We’re ahead of where we were against McCain.”

Neither statement is true if your measuring stick is the RealClearPolitics average.

Last night, at 11:18 p.m., PolitiFact tweeted, “Obama said Romney called Russia our No. 1 geopolitical foe. True.” And they offered this link.

If that doesn’t match up with what your ears heard President Obama say, it’s because the transcript says otherwise.

FactCheck.org, the other often-cited media fact-checking organization, goes to the actual transcript of what Romney said, looks at what Obama said, and lays out the difference.

No. 1 Threat?

In one of his first zingers of the night, Obama mocked Romney’s foreign policy chops, saying that Romney once called Russia — “not al Qaeda” — the “biggest geopolitical threat facing America.” We score this one for Romney.

Obama: Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al Qaeda’s a threat because a few months ago when you were asked, what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia — not al Qaeda, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.

Romney responded by saying that his words had been twisted.

Romney: First of all, Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe, not –

Obama: Number one –

Romney: Excuse me. It’s a geopolitical foe. And I said in the same paragraph, I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this.

And so, to the transcript of an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier this year:

Romney, March 26, 2012: [T]his is to Russia, this is, without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe. …

Blitzer: But you think Russia is a bigger foe right now than, let’s say, Iran or China or North Korea? Is that – is that what you’re suggesting, Governor?

Romney: Well, I’m saying in terms of a geopolitical opponent, the nation that lines up with the world’s worst actors. Of course, the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran. A nuclear North Korea is already troubling enough.

So, this debate kerfuffle comes down to a distinction between biggest “foe” and biggest “threat.” Obama said Romney called Russia “the biggest geopolitical threat facing America … not al Qaeda.” Romney called Russia “our No. 1 geopolitical foe.” And Romney is correct that he quickly noted in the same interview that “the greatest threat that the world faces is a nuclear Iran.”

Sister Toldjah called out PolitiFact on this. Disappointing to see that organization botch their one mission, which is get the facts right.

The Morning Jolt for today is full of debate reaction, but also a longer look at a topic that got only a brief mention last night – our current policy of using drones and a presidential “kill list” of targeted terrorists:

Kill Lists, Drone Attacks – Debbie Doesn’t Pay Attention to Those Things

Over at Reason, they spotlight Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress and chair of the Democratic National Committee, appearing to have absolutely no idea about President Obama’s “kill list.”

WeAreChange.org, an independent journalism outfit, snagged a quick interview with Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, at last week’s presidential debate.

The National Defense Authorization Act, infinite detention, the prosecution of journalists and similar expressions of executive authority (none of which were actually brought up in the debate) are some of We Are Change’s pet issues. When they attempt to get Wasserman Schultz to talk about the NDAA she won’t bite. She’s obviously in the “spin room” to spin the debate in President Barack Obama’s favor and certainly isn’t going to do something crazy like talk actual policy.

But when Luke Rudkowski brings up Obama’s “kill list” of terrorist targets he’s working to take out — due process be damned — the conversation turns amazingly, awesomely awful real fast. Wasserman Schultz purports to have no idea what this list even is. She may be playing dumb, but her facial expressions in the video lead me to believe that she thinks she’s being punked and that Rudkowski is some sort of Borat knockoff.

“If you missed this in Headlines this weekend, or even if you glanced at it in Headlines but didn’t watch the clip, stop what you’re doing and watch now,” urges Allahpundit. “My assumption always with DWS is that she knows the truth but is happy to lie to any extent her party needs, which is why you and I know her as America’s most lifelike talking-points robot. Not this time, though. Her ignorance is palpably genuine; she reacts the way you’d expect her to react if this guy had asked her where the government got the thermite used to blow up the World Trade Center. Two things here. One: Needless to say, this is no boutique counterterrorism issue. She’s not being asked whether she knows how many people work for JSOC, for instance. She’s being asked about the president maintaining a list of people to be targeted for death by U.S. intelligence, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. A member of Congress, not to mention chairman of the DNC, should probably have an opinion on that, no?

Permit me to offer two of the greatest paragraphs Glenn Greenwald has ever written:

Anyone who observes politics closely has a very low bar of expectations. It’s almost inevitable to become cynical – even jaded – about just how inept and inane top Washington officials are. Still, even processing this through those lowly standards, I just find this staggering. Staggering and repellent. This is an elected official in Congress, the body that the Constitution designed to impose checks on the president’s abuses of power, and she does not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of the party she leads.

One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That’s a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that’s par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.

So do we on the Right have any hesitation about our current policy of drone strikes overseas? Don’t get me wrong, my sense is that every time some jihadist who wants to kill Americans encounters the business end of a Hellfire missile, it’s good news and it’s Miller time for the forces of justice and freedom.

But you figure that picking out which guy on the ground is the bad guy, and who’s within the blast range, is a really tough call. Is the jihadist du jour worth the risk to the civilians around him? What if there are kids around? How much blood does an Islamist terrorist have to have on his hands to make it worth killing some civilians in the process? Is there a formula for this?

So when you see a story like this…

President Barack Obama told CNN last month that a target must meet “very tight and very strict standards,” and John Brennan, the president’s top counter-terrorism adviser, said in April that in “exceedingly rare” cases, civilians have been “accidentally injured, or worse, killed in these strikes.”

In contrast to more conservative U.S. statements, the Stanford/NYU report — titled “Living Under Drones” — offers starker figures published by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization based at City University in London.

“TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 – 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 – 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 – 1,362 individuals,” according to the Stanford/NYU study.

Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of “double-striking” a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.

Some of that is probably predictable lefty anti-war carping, but not all of it. This is a topic that is extraordinarily controversial in the overseas press, but little noticed as a serious issue here in the United States. You might argue that this is evidence that our press is not ideologically biased so much as partisan biased; liberals outside the United States are outraged by this policy (and a few inside, but not many), but the American mainstream media isn’t interested in giving Obama’s decisions much scrutiny – can’t have the voters thinking the Munificent Sun-King Lightworker is killing innocent civilians on his watch.

If I didn’t have to watch this debate for work, I would have watched something else. Foreign policy can be a fascinating topic to discuss, but the instincts of the voters in play – populist, anti-China, quasi-isolationist, disinterested in the details of policy – and the interests of both men – Romney wanting to keep appearing presidential, the president desperately needing some knockout punch, both eager to sneak in points about the economy – made for an excruciating evening of dueling talking points.

I think Romney’s answers were tailor-made to wow a focus group, and I don’t mean that entirely complimentary. They were probably very effective at whatever remaining persuadable voters are still out there, presuming any bothered to watch tonight. We’re a war-weary nation, so the word “peace” came out early and often. I think Romney’s rhetoric is more likely to reflect his hopes than the actual course of events in the next four years; I think the instinctive aggression of the anti-American forces around the world – al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the Iranian regime, whatever remains of the Assad regime, the Haqqani group, Islamist forces from north Africa to the Pacific, the more bellicose corners of Russia and China – mean that the next four years will include conflict, no matter how much America may want the rest of the world to go away and leave us alone.

I suppose the Obama gameplan was to portray Romney as another George W. Bush, and Romney defused that by declaring, “we can’t kill our way out of this problem.” Not the argument you’re used to seeing from a Republican against a Democrat.

Obama’s near-explosion — “bayonets and horses… this isn’t Battleship” will stand out. Boy, was president Obama snippy and sneering  during that answer. Obama couldn’t contain his disdain and contempt for Romney in any of these debates, and it really flared tonight.

Chris Wallace just said that a Marine wrote him, “the Marines still use bayonets.”

Nothing changes. Romney’s got the momentum and is making his pitch to the remaining undecideds, who are deciding between voting for Romney and staying home. Obama and his campaign have decided to make these final weeks about base motivation, and hope that the president’s 47 percent or so will be enough to get him to 270 electoral votes. Maybe it will work, but it’s an extraordinarily high-risk approach for a president who won with gobs of electoral votes to spare four years ago.

The Obama campaign is quite disappointed that I haven’t donated anything this cycle.

[Jim],

This week alone, the other side is expected to spend $57 million on TV advertising against us.

It gets worse: We just learned that Mitt Romney and the Republicans started this month with a $34 million cash advantage.

This election is already extremely close. And because we’ve never seen this level of overall spending in a presidential race — especially right at the very end like this — we don’t know exactly what it could do. It can’t be good.

If we don’t close the gap starting today, none of us should feel confident about how November 6th will play out.

According to our records associated with this exact email address:    

– Total you’ve donated for the 2012 campaign cycle: $0    

– Your most recent donation was: $0    

– Suggested donation today: $5

Please donate $5 or more today to close this gap before it’s too late.

This week should serve as a wake-up call for every Obama supporter.

We don’t have to spend more than them, and we won’t. But we can’t get crushed on the airwaves without fighting back and expect this to be easy or go our way in less than three weeks.

If Barack Obama loses to the other side’s cynical strategy, so does our way of doing grassroots politics.

The President doesn’t have anyone else waiting in the wings — you are it.

Please don’t wait any longer. Donate $5 or more today:

 

Thanks,

Rufus

Rufus Gifford

National Finance Director

Obama for America

——–

If you have given and it’s not reflected above, it may be because you gave offline, with a different email address, very recently, or somewhere other than Obama for America or Obama Victory Fund — thank you again, and our apologies if the above does not match up with your records.

I noted below that Obama’s campaign schedule has him traveling, almost exclusively, to college campuses. He’s got a much busier schedule this coming week — even aside from Wednesday night’s taping with Jay Leno — so we’ll be able to see if the pattern continues:

Obama will campaign in Iowa on Wednesday, then hit Colorado, Nevada, Florida and Virginia, cast his ballot early in his home town of Chicago, then stop in Ohio to end the tour.

“As the President crisscrosses the nation, he will spend time on Air Force One calling undecided voters, rallying National Team Leaders and volunteers and continuously engaging with Americans,” his campaign said in a statement.

Obama usually comes back to Washington after one-day campaign trips, or stays in hotels on longer visits, but on this tour he will overnight on the presidential jet between Las Vegas and Tampa to save time for campaign appearances.

The fact that Obama is sleeping on Air Force One suggests the Obama campaign is ratcheting up its intensity another notch this week.

Friday night I appeared on CNBC’s “Kudlow Report” with Jim Pethokoukis and Sam Seder, pointing out that the Obama message since the first debate sounds like something out of The Wizard of Oz: “Big Bird and binders and Romnesia, oh my! Big Bird and binders and Romnesia, oh my!”

Right now, in the RealClearPolitics average, Obama trails, 47.3 percent to (ahem) 47 percent. Most recent polls show three to seven percent undecided left. Admittedly, these remaining folks may not be receptive to the president’s message; if you’re not on the Obama bandwagon by now, you’re probably not getting on. But the president’s campaign strategy is clearly now all-base-motivation, all-the-time.

Take a look at Obama’s campaign stops since that first debate – almost all of them have been on college campuses:

October 4: University of Madison-Wisconsin

October 5: Cleveland State University, Ohio

October 5: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

October 9: Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

October 11: University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida

October 17: Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

October 17: Cornell College, Mount Vernon, Iowa

October 19: George Mason University (AGAIN), Fairfax, Virginia

Obama did one event at Veterans Memorial Park in Manchester, New Hampshire, and did a rally in California.

Some might wonder if this is because only college campuses have venues large enough to accommodate a crowd coming to see the president, but we all remember the arena rallies and giant crowds in public parks from the 2008 campaign. No, the relentless focus on college campuses is no accident, and it becomes clearer once you throw in his appearance on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and he’ll be appearing with Jay Leno Wednesday night. He’s aiming for the maximum turnout from a demographic that was, until 2008, among the least likely to turn out to vote.

It’s as if the Obama campaign realizes their candidate has maxed out in the high 40s, and they’re hoping they can get every last one of their 47 percent or so to turn out, and hope that Romney can’t get his high-40s total to turn out at the same rate.

The first Morning Jolt of a critical week is now off to the editors, on its way to you this morning. A preview:

Tonight’s Fun Topic: So, Who’s Ready for Direct Negotiations With Iran?

Hey, remember when President Obama agreed to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions?

Liberals swooned, and his campaign had to emphasize that he didn’t mean what everyone saw him say.

I like to point out the expiration dates of Obama’s statements, but maybe he got this one in just before the deadline:

WASHINGTON — The question of whether the United States should seek to engage Iran in one-on-one talks on its nuclear program joined the likely topics for Monday’s final presidential debate as supporters of President Obama and Mitt Romney jousted on Sunday over the issue.

The prospect of such talks was raised in an article published over the weekend by The New York Times that said Iran and the United States had agreed in principle to direct talks after the presidential election.

On Saturday, the White House denied that a final agreement on direct talks had been reached, while saying that it remained open to such contacts. On Sunday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry dismissed the report.

But if the report proved to be true, said a supporter of Mr. Romney, the Republican candidate, Iran’s motives should be seriously questioned.

“I hope we don’t take the bait,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I think this is a ploy by the Iranians” to buy time for their nuclear program and divide the international coalition, he said.

A supporter of Mr. Obama, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said on the same program that the tough international sanctions the president helped marshal against Iran might be bearing fruit exactly as hoped, forcing Iran to blink.

“This month of October, the currency in Iran has declined 40 percent in value,” Mr. Durbin, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said. “There is unrest in the streets of Tehran, and the leaders in Iran are feeling it. That’s exactly what we wanted the sanctions program to do.”

The Times, citing unnamed senior Obama administration officials, reported over the weekend that after secret exchanges, American and Iranian officials had agreed in principle to hold one-on-one negotiations between the nations, which have not had official diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Ah, “secret exchanges” with Iran. So we’ve already been negotiating with them; the Obama administration just didn’t want to share that fact with the American people.

Heck of a setup for Mitt Romney for tonight: “Mister President, just what has your administration offered Iran in these secret negotiations?”

Obama’s options here are to answer, “there are no secret negotiations,” to which Romney will ask if the New York Times is just making this all up; to answer the question honestly (stop laughing) or to acknowledge that contacts have been made, but that he refuses to get into the details because the matter is sensitive.

Actually, Obama will probably try to blur the line between the publicly known multi-lateral negotiations and these newly revealed/disputed secret bilateral negotiations, and sprinkle in some of his 2008-era it-takes-a-strong-man-to-be-willing-to-negotiate happy talk.

You’ll recall in that 2008 debate answer, “the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.” Well, sometimes talking to them isn’t punishment, either, and sometimes it’s just the stalling tactic they want – or worse.

Somehow this reminds me of our bold effort to negotiate with the Taliban. Hey, how did that one turn out?

With the surge of American troops over and the Taliban still a potent threat, American generals and civilian officials acknowledge that they have all but written off what was once one of the cornerstones of their strategy to end the war here: battering the Taliban into a peace deal…

The failure to broker meaningful talks with the Taliban underscores the fragility of the gains claimed during the surge of American troops ordered by President Obama in 2009. The 30,000 extra troops won back territory held by the Taliban, but by nearly all estimates failed to deal a crippling blow.

Critics of the Obama administration say the United States also weakened its own hand by agreeing to the 2014 deadline for its own involvement in combat operations, voluntarily ceding the prize the Taliban has been seeking for over a decade. The Obama administration defends the deadline as crucial to persuading the Afghan government and military to assume full responsibility for the country, and politically necessary for Americans weary of what has already become the country’s longest war.

There was a bipartisan consensus in favor of negotiating with the Taliban, but that consensus didn’t extend to millions of Americans with no foreign-policy experience, who probably could summarize their sensibilities in just a few sentences: “They’re the Taliban, and they’re trying to kill our soldiers. Why do we think we can trust them to keep their word? And if we can’t trust them to keep their word on their end of the agreement, why are we negotiating with them?”

BOOM:

The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.

Boy, I’ll bet this comes up on Monday’s foreign-policy debate.

Here is Obama on September 24, during the Univision debate, still saying, “What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

Why is the president telling the public something that the CIA is saying is not true, twelve days after the attacks?