By Al Giordano

Field Hands: I'm going to open this next inquiry up to your counsel and powers of persuasion.

As we noted in the previous thread, we're about to get a much clearer snapshot of the "battleground states" for the Electoral College votes in the US presidential campaign.

And we know that the door slams on new voter registration in most (but not all) states on October 5 or 6.

We also know that in Ohio (and perhaps other states?) there will be a window between September 30 and October 6 when people can register to vote and cast an early ballot on the same day. Those will be D-Days for community organizers, churches, social organizations and such to march, en masse, to City Hall or wherever it is that people can do that, sign up and vote all at once.

The Field thinks those will be historic days... perhaps worth being chronicled authentically for our readers.

This year, I've traveled back to my native United States more often than I have in a long, long time: In January to Nevada to report to you the caucuses. In February and March to Texas to report to you the primary and caucuses. In April we went to Seattle where we marked eight years of this publication. In July we went to conspire with many of you at Netroots Nation. And last week, we went to Denver, to report from the Democratic convention.

It's been a long time since any news story in my homeland has interested me as much as this presidential campaign does (and just as long since I've thought the stakes were that high to pry myself away from my somewhere-in-América low budget paradise).

My first thought - since two of the "Apocalyptic 8" states are next door to each other, and that Ohio opportunity seems so especially special and historic - is maybe to fly into Detroit in late September and spend a week on the ground in Michigan and Ohio reporting on the voter registration efforts and their degrees of success. Indiana, which might be in play by then, is also nearby.

To get the job done, we'll need local Field Hands - ideally, a regional posse - to guide us and participate in the coverage. We'll need folks that are active and keyed in to local organizing efforts to give us the skinny on where to show up and report history being made. ("Fellows" and "deputies" and "camp" graduates and staffers - yes, you, too, Hildebrand, are allowed to weigh in on this! - who can't post online - or anybody else that wants to weigh in privately - you can send me an email at narconews@gmail.com)

Still, there are other states, too, where voter registration efforts are going to be fast and furious and verrrrry interesting in those final deadline days. Would it be more useful to go to New Mexico? Virginia? Florida? New Hampshire? Somewhere else? (Just, please, make sure, please, that it's not a place like Vancouver where they don't even let you smoke in your hotel room.)

This could be my last voyage to the mainland in 2008 (or, wistfully, if the nation rejects the golden opportunity it has now been handed, the last visit for a very long time, if ever).

Of course, if there's a Field Hands local or a fledgling one in those areas, and you think your efforts and those going on around you are worth our coverage, then organize, together, the case for us doing this work there.

Make that case here, in the comments section. Tell us why the story in your state or area - or where you can't be but want your eyes and ears on the ground reporting to you - is the eleventh hour new voter registration story most worth reporting. If you have facts about deadline dates and other interesting info, please add them. Many search engines make light work!

That week - September 30 to October 6, and the new voter numbers coming out of it - will probably tell the story, a month in advance, of the 2008 United States presidential election, much more so than any pollster will be able to forecast.

By Al Giordano

Very soon - within a week or two - we find out if this is really the Electoral College map we're working from in 2008:

On its surface, the pre-convention Electoral College map looks a bit like the Bush-Kerry map of 2004 with the very important exceptions of Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa leaning blue. And what a difference those three states would make: that between victory and defeat.

Now, here's the same map with 19 battleground states in play:

That there are, this late in the game, ten toss-up states and another nine leaners is testimony to the success of Howard Dean's "Fifty State Strategy." Some of them are only in play today because the groundwork has been laid and the new voter registration has been organized for two years now. And note that thirteen of the 19 battleground states went with Bush in '04, compared to only six that went for Kerry: that's a nightmare for the Republican Party to have to defend 13 from "its" territory.

But - with readers asking where they should deploy their efforts - which will emerge as the most prioritized "swing states" in play? Based on the (mostly pre-convention) map, here's what I suspect but am waiting for the new wave of post-convention state-by-state polling, new voter registration numbers, and whispers from Obama Fellows and staffers to their best online confidante, to confirm...

Among "Leaning Obama" states I think Iowa and Minnesota are likely very safe "blue," with Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Oregon almost there, and in that order.

Among "Leaning McCain" states, the Obama field organization and newly registered voters have them each somewhat in play - Georgia, Missouri, Montana, and North Dakota - but each is so far more likely to end up in the "red" column on election day. I'm not saying that Obama supporters should give up on those states - indeed, to capture any one of them would make McCain's defeat all the more likely - but, rather, I'm just saying nobody should count on them to put Obama over the top.

If the post-conventions map stays essentially as it was pre-conventions, then these base numbers - Obama 238 Electoral Votes, McCain 174 - leave Obama 32 Electoral Votes from the goal line whereas McCain would have to grab 96 of the remaining 126 to win the contest.

Among the "toss up" states:

The western troika of Colorado (9 Electoral Votes), New Mexico (5) and Nevada (5) contains three states where Obama's organization is pushing hard and has better chances than not to change the national map, especially since McCain's choice of Palin won't help him with Hispanic-American voters (to whom the Alaska governor might as well be a "Minuteman" loon). They are, together, more important this year than Ohio (20) or Florida (27). Each is a huge priority and offers a great opportunity for the Democrat. In each of them, it's a ground war over which side registers and turns out more votes.

Michigan (17) is where Obama should win but - in large part because there was no real primary opportunity to organize early there and corresponding spike in Democratic voter registration - it is frankly the 2004 "blue" state that should concern the Obama campaign the most. I won't be surprised if in the coming days Chicago shifts its nomadic volunteer focus from Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin to Michigan, at least until the voter registration deadline in Michigan closes on October 5. The McCain-Palin campaign is prioritizing Michigan for good reason; it's potentially their map-changing move.

My gut instinct is that Indiana (11), Missouri (11), North Carolina (15) and Ohio (20) - with apologies to everyone working so hard in those places - are likely to go with McCain (although Ohio is somewhat more in play). That said, if Obama wins in just one of those places, I can't construct a scenario in which McCain could offset it with anything but Michigan, and even doing that might not be enough for the GOP ticket).

So our 18 battleground states really come (mostly) down to eight, in this order of size:

Florida 27

Ohio 20

Michigan 17

Virginia 13

Colorado 9

Nevada 5

New Mexico 5

New Hampshire 4

There you have it: The Apocalyptic 8.

I would place Virginia (13) on the level of the three western swing states: ground zero in the field organization war.

The two wildest of wild cards are New Hampshire (4) and Florida (27). It is in those places that the "air war" of campaign ads and messaging count substantially more than in the rest of the swing states. They also happen to be states filled with people that were not born in them, making them more culturally erratic. New Hampshire is that way because the state is - as anyone that lives there will testify - just plain freaky (we saw in the Democratic primary how its sentiments shifted almost overnight due to a few publicly shed tears, and its higher-than-normal military veteran family base and pride might prove fertile ground for McCain despite the Democratic Party advances there of 2006.

And, as I've said before, Florida is the one "red" state where McCain's choice of Palin as VP might bite him in the ass, pushing elderly Jewish voters (and some coastal small businesspeople dependent on tourism and worried about the impact of offshore drilling on their livelihoods) back into the arms of the Democratic Party from which they have strayed in recent presidential elections, as well as younger Cuban-Americans who are - in large thanks to Joe Garcia - an especially fun wild card. I don't think the Palin pick helps with them and could, likewise, hurt McCain.

In any case, because neither side can rest easy regarding Florida or New Hampshire, each has to construct a victory map that doesn't include either of them. Many Democratic bloggers doing this sort of math seem to take New Hampshire for granted. I don't. (And because they're wild cards, they nonetheless still deserve very high priority status.)

So, if this map holds in the post-convention bounces and counter-bounces, how does Obama get those extra 32 Electoral Votes he needs? The quickest path is to build a firewall around Michigan (17), and then win the three western swing states (19 combined). That would bring him to 274 (even without New Hampshire).

But there are so many more scenarios and winning combinations available for the Democrat this year than there were four years ago. I think 538's index is extremely helpful for those trying to figure out where they will go to do the heavy lifting over the next 8 weeks:

(The "return on investment" index serves as a decent guide of where individual volunteer efforts can have the most impact.)

Here's another factor: There are states where Obama's primary or caucus organization shone so bright that it got a head start and may not need outside help as much: Colorado and Virginia (and "leaners" Iowa and Minnesota, both of which I suspect will soon be considered "safe blue").

There are two states where Obama never got the chance to build an early organization, but McCain did: Michigan and Florida. Outside help is probably of high value there.

There are states where the Obama-Clinton wars upped Democratic voter registration so high that the Democrats are gaining an edge: Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Mexico, and New Hampshire, and another, Ohio, where it's not yet clear if that will help the Democrats in November or not, mainly because the race-baiting may still be causing residual bleeding in the Appalachian counties.

What would I prioritize among these?

First order of importance: Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada (with out-of-state help focusing on the latter two).

Second order of importance: Building a firewall around Michigan (by registering more voters there before October 5.)

Third order of importance: Wild cards Florida and New Hampshire.

"Hail Mary" pass: Ohio.

Beyond "the apocalyptic eight" - Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, Florida, New Hampshire and Ohio - if you're an Obama supporter in any of these next states, you'll want to remain at your post and fight like hell to register new voters (in most, that must be done by October 5): Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Wisconsin, Missouri Iowa and Minnesota.

There are two Congressional Districts in states that choose Electoral College electors by district that could be in play: Nebraska's 2^nd (Omaha and environs, 1 EV)...

 

And Maine's 2^nd (Bangor, Downeast and northern Maine, 2 EVs)...

If you are there or near those places, you'll also want to remain at your posts.

(The Maine district has been considered "safe blue," but it's one of those idiosyncratic regions, filled with sportsmen and very rural, where McCain's choice of Palin could give Obama a run for his money.) In fact, I would recommend that all Mainers and Nebraskans - or people with relatives or friends in those places - put on a special push in those districts rather than travel to other states.

Correction: See Mainer's update and correction in the comments section about how Maine's Electoral votes are divvied up. He/she agrees that it's necessary to target CD 2, but corrects that it's not two EVs per district, but, rather, 2 EVs to the statewide winner and one EV apiece at stake in each Congressional District vote.

Those two CDs could end up being tie breakers (you'll note on the top map above that if New Hampshire, alone, switches from blue to red, and nothing else on that map changes, the total will be 269-269, with complete chaos ensuing next).

And there is one crazy wild card state where, if you're already there or near there, I think could provide a positive surprise for Obama: Mississippi. I haven't seen the new voter registration numbers (anybody have them?), but the results of the special Congressional election held there last Spring - where the Democrat won despite race-baiting GOP ads linking him to Obama and his ex-reverend - plus the fact that the Obama campaign was super-organized in the March 11 primary and the state's huge African-American population - have the "celestial choirs singing" into my ear: "remain at your posts!"

I want to stress that these are only preliminary thoughts: I won't start offering more elaborate projections and scenarios until the post-convention state-by-state situation becomes clearer in the middle of this month. But if little changes, we've got "The Battleground 19" and, within them, "The Apocalyptic Eight."

The "Fifty State Strategy" was never so naive as to suggest that come November all fifty states would be in play. But it has succeeded in stretching the swing state map from its precarious obsession with two states - Ohio and Florida - by a factor of 950 percent already. (And particularly in the midwestern plains and mountain west, could still lead to some surprises that, while unlikely, are not out of the realm of possibility: Montana and North Dakota already have the McCain campaign pinned on the defensive, and don't yet write off Kansas, South Dakota, or even Idaho, just sayin'.)

It is an attainable goal that by October 5 Obama could take Michigan off the table. But right now it's McCain's best shot at changing the game. Much of the next four weeks has to be about new voter registration in Michigan, and the results of that will determine whether the Apocalyptic 8 can be narrowed down to seven or less.

Update: I should add that the folks that are running the campaign have better access to internal polling and new registration numbers than anyone, and questions about where you should go are obviously better addressed to them and their field staff than to me or anybody outside of it. For example, despite what my impressions are about Indiana, they seem to be pushing very hard there. Obama was there today, in Terre Haute, laying down the gauntlet:

 

Update II: Any Field Hand that can organize a posse of 30 people - as this emailer did - gets to dress me down this way:

 

Al,

 

You are killing me. I just organized a trip of 30 to Indiana today. You have to reconsider. I guarantee--every state that touches Illinois will be blue come election day.

 

 

Heh.

By Al Giordano

A major party presidential campaign has hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal. It can hire the best talent available at every level. When it screws up the simple things, that's an alarm bell to pay attention to the existence of a larger, behind-the-scenes, dysfunction.

Yet even in the case of, say, a town council election of scant resources, a union picket line or a modest demonstration or press conference for a political cause, every political pro, ad agency, PR flak and community organizer knows the importance of what we call "visuals."

You simply do not send your candidate or product out in front of the public and the media without constructing and controlling the panorama that will be in the camera angle. Political campaigns have an entire staff category devoted to that task: the advance team. Both parties have a cadre of professionals for that work at their beckon call. It's the first and easiest thing about organizing an event, and to mess it up is always an act of political malpractice.

In the case of the multi-millionaire presidential campaign of Senator McCain last night, that malpractice rose to a level of incompetence that sabotaged the most important night of his quest for the White House.

Many of us laughed last night when McCain appeared on stage in front of a lime Jell-o green background because we remembered the night of June 3 (one of the biggest Internet traffic nights of the campaign, when Obama clinched the Democratic nomination and McCain gave a doddering counter-speech from Kenner, Louisiana). His handlers had unveiled a new campaign slogan and color scheme, as seen in this photo:

Atrios noted at the time, "It'll make you look like the cottage cheese in a lime jello salad."

And Andrew Sullivan speculated: "I'm guessing McCain won't use that green background much in the future."

So did we all.

I'm convinced, after reconstructing McCain's visuals last night, that he ended up in front of the newly resurrected key lime colors entirely due to an accident caused by gross negligence. For all the hundreds of staffers and consultants receiving a paycheck from McCain and the RNC, apparently not one was dispatched to preview the news pool camera angle that would capture McCain's acceptance speech for all networks. Nobody bothered to do a real-time rehearsal or "walk through" of the visuals together with the camera angles in preparation for the moment when the eyes and ears of the nation would be upon him. This would have been particularly important given that he would appear in front of the gigantic TV screen with "slide show" images that has been the GOP convention stage all week.

So when a photo of what looked like a Southern plantation was astonishingly pasted up behind McCain for the first half of his loooong discourse, all that we in TV land saw was the green of the mansion lawn.

Meanwhile, the delegates and media in the convention hall saw both angles:

The political junkies among them - and they are legion - surely remembered the "Green Scream" from June 3 and must have been dying inside (or cackling, depending on whether they were rooting for the McCain-Palin ticket or not).

Which brings us to the next question: Why a mansion and a lawn as the visual? Let me count the ways that reinforced anti-McCain messages, undercutting anything he might say from the podium: One, it reminded of the many houses that McCain forgets he owns (and would prefer that we forget, too). Two, he appeared to be standing on its lawn (as in "get off my lawn you kids," and I had wondered for a moment if the Alaskan Independence Army had kidnapped the top of the ticket and replaced him with Mike Gravel). Three, the mansion was not easily recognizable by anyone. It reinforced nothing, and distracted all who, instead of paying attention to McCain's words, wondered what the hell was the point of that strange image on stage (or the revenge of the green on the TV screen)?

Josh Marshall dug deeper and concluded that the use of the image - which turned out to be of a middle school named for Walter Reed in North Hollywood, California - may have resulted from a "Google search" error by someone probably instructed to find an image of the troubled and scandal-ridden Walter Reed Naval Hospital in Maryland Washington, where wounded soldiers and veterans arrive from Iraq.

All this collided to put McCain back in front of that puke clover color that erupts volcanically after drinking too much green beer on St. Patrick's Day that three months ago had become, among the political class, a symbol for the incompetence of his campaign team.

Field Hand CarolDuhart, in the comments section, made an incisive observation:

The culture war and the war on diversity has its price. When you bash gay folks, you pretty much guarantee that all of the good theatrical people are "busy" when you need a good backdrop. When you bash unions, no good experienced sound people (plus the Republicans are cheap). When you bash community organizers, all of the folks who can be asked to volunteer their time in exchange for a free trip are unavailable, so no help in things like seating or hospitality.

 

(I do not discount the possibility that this might have been an act of intentional artistic sabotage by somebody from the creative class to whom the audio-visual tasks may have been "contracted out." What a rich irony it would be if this visual gaffe came as a result of the "privatization" and "outsourcing" of tasks that used to be done by campaign staffers. Like I said yesterday, we are everywhere.)

Mickey Kaus is also scratching his head at the content of McCain's poorly-delivered speech (in which audience reaction to his weird backdrop certainly played a role in damping down authentic enthusiasm to boost his morale at his hour of need). Kaus concludes the garbled nature of McCain's speech was the result of being micro-managed by incompetent handlers:

The speech reeked of extra cooks making too many unintegrated additions. What does it say about McCain's management ability if he let the process for this crucial effort get out of control? It's not like he didn't have months to prepare. Or were the months the problem? Palin's Wednesday night text, presumably written in a few days, was much better. Maybe the McCain campaign didn't have time to kill it with improvements.

 

Contrast all that with the Obama team's unparalleled competence in pulling off a much larger (and logistically challenging) acceptance speech in an outdoor stadium rather than a smaller indoor arena. We heard plenty of attacks (and Chicken Little beak squawks) in the days before Obama's August 28 speech. Wing-nut ministers of the religious right were urging their faithful to pray for rain (and mistakenly conjured up a hurricane to wreck the first night of the GOP convention instead). The outrage-du-jour was based on an aerial photo of "greek columns" being erected as part of Obama's stadium convention stage. But once the speech had happened, there was not a whisper of complaint nor an iota of mockery. Everything about that night - the stage, the sound, the TV visuals, the whole package (not to mention the candidate's speech and delivery) - worked impeccably to reinforce the image of a competent and bold leader in control of himself and a nation's destiny.

Fox News anchors and GOP surrogates like to mock the suggestion that because Obama is running a half-billion dollar campaign organization so efficiently that it's an indication of his executive skill. While I agree that it's not a talking point the candidate or campaign should push, I also think that the way the Obama campaign has been and is being managed does show a candidate and a team that is "Ready on Day One."

That's because "Day One" isn't off in some distant future, and won't wait until January 20, 2009. The US government is often referred to as "the permanent campaign." Well, if Rush Limbaugh can cower the US Senate and destroy immigration reform by flooding the Capitol switchboard, as he did in 2007, imagine what a presidential cell phone text message to millions of supporters could do the first time Congress balks on an important reform. This year more than ever, the campaign is the rehearsal for governance.

The ways that candidates and their teams organize on levels large and small do indicate much about how they will govern. There is a competence gap between the Obama and McCain organizations, and it's become very evident in recent weeks from the methods for vetting and choosing a vice president and introducing him and her to the nation to the production quality of the conventions themselves.

The competence gap is growing to become a bona fide campaign issue.

Nothing is ever so much about the future as it is about the present. The conventions have both gaveled to a close, the general election campaign is on, and between now and November 4, every day is Day One.

By Al Giordano

(Photo by Barry Crimmins.)

 

As you know, I don't bother myself much with what media talking heads say. They're almost always "off" and we've been steps ahead of them all year long.

As I've been observing and blogging tonight, I concluded: John McCain delivered a terrible speech tonight, and as I said in the previous thread, it was reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's in 1980 for it's brain-dead platitudes atop a milquetoast delivery, all with the stench of a born loser, that left Independents and swing voters empty handed, wondering what the fuck?

The tracking polls tomorrow and the next day may (or may not) show a McCain bump based on the Palin speech last night. But Chicago (which will have its own private polling numbers) won't sweat it, if that happens, because this speech was a dog that would not hunt, and a few days later the polls will reflect the horror for the GOP. My educated assessment is that young people, Clinton voters, suburban Independents, moderate Republicans, and others that will decide this election, were turned off - no, make that they will be aghast - by McCain's performance tonight.

There are a couple of voices in the media that agree with me:

Michael Gerson (Bush speechwriter):

"The policy in the speech was rather typical for a Republican. Pretty disappointing. It didn't do a lot of outreach to moderates and independents on issues that they care about. It talked, about issues like drilling and school choice which was really speaking to the converted. I think that was a missed opportunity. Many Americans needed to hear from this speech something they have never heard from Republicans before. And in reality, a lot of the policy they've heard from Republicans before."

 

Jeffrey Toobin (CNN analyst):

"I thought it was the worst speech by a nominee that I've heard since Jimmy Carter in 1980. I thought it was disorganized, I thought it was it was theme-less, I thought it was very, very boring...I personally cannot remember a single policy proposal that he made because they had nothing connecting them. I found it shockingly bad."

 

That's where I come down on this:

A. Total. Disaster.

If we had national health care, ambulances would be rushing to the XCel Center right now.

Field Hands, what say you?

By Al Giordano

Okay, here goes. Help me blog this thing!

(And how did John McCain ever get the rights to use this song? That's just an un-American sacrilege! Must be a St. Louis Anheuser Busch thang.)

Update 9:07 p.m.: Another slide show. The two-dimensional nature of these GOP convention videos is so yesterday. Oh wait. It does have a few snippets of actual moving characters. But, like, any of those people ever hear of YouTube?

9:13 p.m.: "Barack Obama never had a daddy who would carpet bomb him." (And is that Fred Thompson's voice reading the "poem" at the end of the video? Okay. There he is. Poking around the stage to find the Braille teleprompter...

9:16 p.m.: This can't be happening. They're using the lime green jello background again! (Where is Katie Halper?)

9:32 p.m.: I've now read the entire speech, shrugged my shoulders, and said, "Al, you should watch it. Maybe the delivery is better than the text?" But it's not. This is a really B-list speech. I don't think it works with swing voters, not the suburban soccer moms nor the Nascar dads. It's really quite feeble. It's like he has something to prove and keeps falling back on his resume. "I fought for Indian tribes." What? I fight for this, I fight for that. Huh? I bet that Mark Halperin grades this speech B-. And it will hurt him to have to do so. But maybe McCain will rally in the brief "talk show" segment? Or is that even going to happen. He's barely halfway through his prepared remarks!

9:36 p.m.: I remember this convention. Both of them. It's 1980 and McCain is Jimmy Carter and Obama's speech was Ronald Reagan. Just sayin'.

9:45 p.m.: This is so happily terrible. "My friends, we'll drill them now, we'll drill them now!" Should be an interesting night in St. Paul as they haul in the big oil equipment and open up a hole in the city. Worst. Acceptance. Speech. Evah!

9:50 p.m. I can imagine Halperin, pen in hand, thinking "if I'm going to be honest this is going to be a C grade... Maybe I should give him a C+!" And Chuck Todd is thinking, "I better not grade this speech!"

9:52 p.m.: I'm just waiting for 9:56 to chant "Four more minutes! Four more minutes!" People really do watch these things thinking, "can I really listen to this guy for four years?" Jeebus. "I have my record and the scars to prove it. Senator Obama does not." And by that you mean, Senator? And? (Halperin is thinking that if he were a real journalist this would be a D grade.)

9:56 p.m.: Four more minutes! Four more minutes!

10:00 p.m.: Remember the term "catharsis" as applied to the Democratic convention? This is a "catharsis of one." Rare, when the losing team starts running out the clock. Never seen that before. Chicago must be ecstatic right about now.

By Al Giordano

The Nielsen ratings are in and an estimated 37 million Americans watched Governor Palin's speech last night, just short of the 38 million that had seen Obama last week, and towering over the 27.6 million that watched George W. Bush four years ago.

EXCELLENT NEWS FOR JOHN McCAIN!!!!!, right? Well, not so fast: that depends on how the people who watched received it. We'll begin to see some tracking poll data tomorrow and will have a clearer sense early next week of whether she's winning over swing voters for her ticket. But the reviews from the Detroit Free Press focus group last night bode an ominous omen for McCain-Palin: Republicans loved it, Democrats didn't, and Independents - the real battlefield in the messaging part of this campaign - really, really didn't like her, or Senator McCain for choosing her.

Another thing that Palin's impressive ratings number does is raises the bar for McCain's speech tonight. If he doesn't exceed that number of viewers, it will be reported as an anti-climax, a case of the tail wagging the dog on the GOP ticket.

And McCain has to share the night with two other big TV moments...

At 8 p.m. ET, Obama's going on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News. The interview will surely be filled with bombastic Bill-O attempting "gotcha" moments (don't look for O'Reilly to be as fawning to Obama as he was to Senator Clinton back in the Operation Chaos days; back then he was rooting for her to derail tonight's guest).

And at 7 p.m. ET is the NFL season opening game between the Super Bowl champion New York Giants (which in addition to New York, New Jersey and Connecticut has a healthy fan base in Northeast Pennsylvania) and their longtime conference rivals the Washington Redskins, whose fans don't only include the city of DC (hello swing-state Virginia!). Normally, an NFL game is over in three hours. Are you ready for some football?

The Giants are ot;http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/odds">a four-and-a-half point favorite. (That spread started at three-and-a-half but you know those New York bettors!). The over-under is 41. Now, here's the fun part: What are the odds of this game going into overtime and stepping on McCain's convention speech? The Field has done the math and sets them at roughly 9-1; there is a 10.1 percent chance that this game goes into overtime.

NFL opening night has been a big ratings attraction in previous years:

Plus, McCain isn't even going to give a real speech. Instead he'll offer some limited words and then "spontaneously" wade into the crowd for a staged "town meeting." I say "staged" because, duh, one has to get a credential from the Republican National Committee to get into the hall. All the questions will be plants.

Finally, today the Stock Market sunk by three percent, down 340 points. Republicans may be sounding inspired, but they're not putting their money where their cheers are.

So, what will prove the more compelling show tonight?

Obama vs. O'Reilly?

Jints vs. Skins?

The ratings war of McCain vs. Palin?

Or McCain vs. McCain?

Hope that Braille teleprompter is ready in time.

And, with apologies to our Washington DC Metro Area Field Hands: Go Giants!

Update 6:31 ET: NY Giants 7, Washington Redskins 0.

6:37 p.m.: Giants 10, Redskins 0 (So far, this don't seem like it's heading to overtime!)

7:00 p.m.: Giants 13, Redskins 0 (Time to switch to the Obama v. O'Reilly game.)

7:19 p.m.: Giants 16, Redskins 0.

7:25 p.m.: Giants 16, Redskins 7.

7:42 p.m.: Part I of the Obama-O'Reilly interview has started, opening with O'Reilly thanking Obama for "being a man of your word" and coming on the show, then complaining that it took nine months to do it. Obama replies, "Well, I've been a little bit busy!" Then questions go on to the war on terror, and Iran. Listen to this: O'Reilly, "On Iraq, I think history will show it was the wrong battlefield." Heh.

7:47 p.m.: Cripes, for all the build up, that was short. Part I of the interview is already over! Part two and three come next week. O'Reilly interrupted about 30 times in less than ten minutes. Obama had him fairly domesticated, though, and looked and sounded sharp and tough on foreign policy issues. No breaking news except that there was no breaking news! The first anti-climax of the night. Back to the Giants game!

7:55 p.m.: O'Reilly (after the interview segment) telling his colleagues on the air: "Lemme tell ya. Obama's a tough guy. I've looked him in the eye. He's no wimp." Ha ha. That whoosh you just heard was a pig flying by your window.

8:03 p.m.: Senator Lindsay Graham at the RNC: "Barack Obama's campaign is built on us losing in Iraq." Then tells a story in which John McCain saved the world, or Iraq, or something.

8:05 p.m.: Graham: "Ladies and gentlemen, thank God for Joe Lieberman!" God: "Don't blame me!"

8:15 p.m.: The Palin "video" (it's really a slideshow, a bunch of still shots with narrative over music) ends: "When Alaska's maverick joined America's maverick, the world shook." What? Did the Alaskan Independence Party already win? It's now another country? The world shook? Shook what? It's head?

8:23 p.m.: Tom Ridge: "Over 230 years ago some leaders met. Some were called mavericks." Wow. I didn't realize that McCain was that old. Calls America "the greatest community ever formed." (But don't you ever try to organize it, commie!)

8:30 p.m.: Video about "little Cindy Lou" and her father buying Anheuser Bush. This is really weird. Cindy Lou Who? Didn't Dr. Seuss already write this story? "At a Navy cocktail party in Hawaii a handsome captain came up and introduce himself... He was 41 but told Cindy he was 37... She was 24, but told him she was 27..." I'm not making this up! WTF, did Katie Halper slip a tape change in there?

8:40 p.m.: I was getting a little freaked out, but now I see. Nancy Reagan has invaded the body of Cindy McCain.

8:51 p.m.: OMG. Cindy McCain adopts more babies than Angelina Jolie, and she is going to adopt the baby of... (Al smacks himself for even thinking of going there.)

8:53 p.m.: She introduces a woman from Rwanda. "You are my hero." (Translation: We had to go all the way to Africa to find a black woman who would show her face at this convention. Now that's courage!)