Who won? Who lost? (Why does my server get slammed after every debate?)

Let's talk about that, and any outrageous spin or media whoring you happen to come across! Here in comments (if it works this time!)

Any winner? Any loser? If so, who and why?

Catch any outrageous debate spin or media whoring? Jump in here and let the world know about it!

Open Thread with LIVE Play-by-Play as of Tonight's Debate as you (or I) may see it!

Hit the COMMENTS button to come on in and shoot your mouth off!

We'll be here commenting as it all unfolds. Please join us and toss in your two or more cents! I'll open up the thread about 30 minutes prior to show time! Until then, don't get too worked up reading about Bill O'Reilly's Vibrator-Induced Orgasms! You'll want to have a level head to watch tonight's debate!

The GOP is making legal threats against Rock The Vote for their "Draft Your Friends" campaign to help register young voters. AMERICABlog has the scoop and the evidence. Once again, it's the rich fat cats who claim to oppose all those "frivilous lawsuits" who again, are resorting to such tacticts when it suits their purpose.

Is Rock The Vote using scare tactics to sign up young voters? Perhaps. Are those scare tactics worse than the scare tactics Bush/Cheney has been using regularly? Certainly not. Is there good reason to make certain that young voters understand the possibility of a Draft in their future before voting in this election? Definitely.

Following up my previous article on this as promised, I've now finished reading both O'Reilly's pre-emptive complaint against Andrea Mackris, and her sexual harassment complaint against him. (Be forewarned, that sexual harassment complaint is very explicit and detailed!)

Of course, everyone deserves their day in court, but as I pointed out in my previous item on this, that is not a courtesy that either Fox or O'Reilly have gone out of their way to give to other public figures, though they are clearly tougher on folks who are not "Fox Friendly" than they have been on, say, Rush Limbaugh's legal woes.

When I heard O'Reilly's statement this morning on his radio show (mirroring closely his website's "Talking Points" for tonight's show and Fox's Press Release on the matter) describing the matter as "extortion" which required him, therefore, to file a pre-emptive complaint, I figured there had to be a lot more to this particular story.

There is. And this is going to get ugly. You've been warned.

Now I'm not an attorney, but unfortunately, I've had first hand experience about what bad folks do when they've done wrong, realize their actions have put them in legal jeopardy, and they are either unwilling or unable to extricate themselves from the matter via good-faith settlement, negotiation or admitting of wrong doing. They try to make the first strike with a pre-emptive lawsuit and put their accuser on the defensive. From what I can tell from the two now-filed complaints in this matter, that seems to be what O'Reilly (with the powerful Fox legal juggernaut at his disposal and hoping to protect the prized jewel in their crown) is attempting to do.

Based on O'Reilly's own complaint, and the detailed quotations from Markis' complaint, there's good reason to believe that tape recordings exist in this matter! From O'Reilly's complaint...

Of course, O'Reilly would have been able to denounce those quotes as false or made-up if he knew them to be inaccurate. He does not do so in his complaint. Instead, he relies on painting his accuser as an extortionist, claims that "there were no physical or sexual assaults or other unwanted touchings" and then spends the bulk of the complaint attempting to dismiss her claims since, he charges, she did not follow Fox's own Sexual Harassment Policies which require that a manager be notified of any such incidents.

The fact that tapes may exist here, could be fatal to what will likely turn into an attempt to crush the woman's character (see my previous post on this).

That is not a good thing for O'Reilly who, according to the accuser's complaint, is described in rather graphic details as having what amounts to a near-obsession with vibrators, masturbation and phone sex in a large number of conversations over several months and years. Verbatim "monologues", allegedly spoken by O'Reilly over the phone to Mackris are transcribed in the complaint, as well as continual suggestions that she purchase a vibrator and participate in phone-sex sessions with him.

Without audio tapes --- if, in fact they exist --- and what appears to be a few third-party witnesses to some of this, though they are friends of Mackris' and thus could be seen as less than impartial, this thing could well be another classic "He Said/She Said" thing. Were that the case, I'd think O'Reilly and Fox would not have opened themselves up so broadly by filing a pre-emptive complaint against the woman, relying instead on their own advantage of controlling both the airwaves and the media reaction to this story.

At least one other tidbit gives me reason to believe there's more to this than the "extortion" picture O'Reilly and Fox are hoping to paint. Mackris reportedly was working for O'Reilly, on both his Radio and TV shows, at a salary of $93,200 a year in a position that she was quoted as describing to be everything she had trained for during her years in college. By all accounts, she was thrilled to hold the job. So why would she risk all of that when, according to both complaints, she was neither fired or threatened with same by O'Reilly? It would be quite a gamble if she knew there was no truth to her allegations and she was simply seeking a large "extortion" payoff.

Lastly (for now), in addition to the specific quotes from my earlier piece, I'll leave you to ponder this rather detailed (non-sexual, sorry) account of O'Reilly's alleged claims about what would happen if any of this kind of behavior ever got out:

See my previous piece for more on that conversation. And remember, O'Reilly's own complaint admits that the woman may have tape recordings, they don't seem to deny the allegations at all, but rather go out of their way to say that there was no "physical" harrassment, and that Mackris didn't follow Fox's in-house Harassment Policy. So, look out for what's likely to come out of this one.

Contacting the advertisers makes a difference. The advertisers are paying attention. Once again, here is the link to a database of Sinclair advertisers, with information on how you can contact them to let them know your displeasure with their partisan use of your public airwaves.

Since I saw my insurance company, State Farm, listed in the database, I shot off a letter last night to politely let them know I was displeased with them doing business with Sinclair under these circumstances and would consider taking my business elsewhere if they continued to do so. Here's what they wrote back today:

That's good news! Buy State Farm insurance! And keep up the good work! Sinclair's stock prices seem to be plummeting around all of this (see chart at top-right), which is also good news! You may want to check in with your Mutual Funds as well --- here's a list of the major funds invested in Sinclair --- to see if they may be invested in Sinclair (SBGI) and sell 'em off if so! The epicenter for the Sinclair Boycott is at this blog. Keep an eye on it.

Hubris is a funny, yet often predictable, thing. Last February on this blog, I asked:

Well, it looks like I was wrong. His downfall is a Live Girl. Looks like there may be several of them at that. I was close anyway.

Though I know that these charges have not yet had their day in court, that never stopped Fox News from covering similarly unsubstantiated charges against their political enemies like Bill Clinton or CBS or others (Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson etc.) so I see no reason why turnabout isn't fairplay.

To that end, I've been reviewing O'Reilly's pre-emptive complaint filed this morning, and his accusers complaint also filed today. I will be updating you shortly after I've finished reviewing the materials, but for the moment, I'd say things don't look too good for Mr. No Spin. I'll explain why in an follow-up shortly after I've finished my review.

For the moment though, O'Reilly has the upper hand with three hours of national TV and Radio per day on which to make he's case, and he already began to do so at the beginning of his radio show this morning. As well, he has the enormous resources of the Fox News and Newscorp legal team and their friends in the powerful body politic that will undoubtedly use every resource to defend him as long as possible.

To that end, consider this passage from the Plaintiff's complaint which quotes O'Reilly at a dinner meeting:

For those just jumping in, further info on Roger Ailes is here. There is reason to believe the quotes above may have been tape recorded, and thus, available soon. More on that later.

In the meantime, as you see above, O'Reilly, Fox and Friends will have a huge PR and Power advantage in this case. I, however, will be looking out for you. Stay tuned as we help you decipher from the facts from the spin.

DEVELOPING...

Related BRAD BLOG Updates on this story:
10/13/04: "Bad Vibrations for Bill O'Reilly"
10/14/04: "O'Reilly - In Our Unresolved Problem Segment..."
10/19/04: "O'Reilly - In the Personal Story Segment Tonight..."
10/20/04: "O'Reilly's Case Gets Weaker: Mackris files additional charges."

Come on by tomorrow evening to toss in your play-by-play, snarky comments, or revealing insights as the final Presidential Debate unfolds in real time from Tempe!

We'll have an Open Thread as we've done for the previous debates, and hope you'll come by and join us! From the Right? From the Left? We don't care! Just glad to get your on-the-fly thoughts!

Debate starts at 9pm ET (6pm PT for us Left Coasters) and I'll try to open up the thread about a half hour or so before showtime!

Come on by tomorrow evening to toss in your play-by-play, snarky comments, or revealing insights as the final Presidential Debate unfolds in real time from Tempe!

We'll have an Open Thread as we've done for the previous debates, and hope you'll come by and join us! From the Right? From the Left? We don't care! Just glad to get your on-the-fly thoughts!

Debate starts at 9pm ET (6pm PT for us Left Coasters) and I'll try to open up the thread about a half hour or so before showtime!

Matt Drudge, the Internet's top Smear Queen and disseminator of horseshit has been at it again all day. A testament, perhaps, to how much trouble they must feel like Bush is now in.

At the very top of the page, and with no attribution or link to follow up, Drudge has been screaming this all day with the mocking headline "BE HEALED":

I do not have access to Lexis/Nexis, which has a more complete archive of news articles, so I welcome anyone who does to look deeper into this, but so far, the only account I've been able to find on the net quotes Edwards very differently!

In "Central Iowa's Daily Newspaper" the Times/Republican Edwards is quoted saying this instead:

Now that quote is quite a bit different than the one Drudge uses, again, without any attribution whatsoever.

Of course, Rush and the Rightwing Bloggers have had their panties in a bunch all day repeating Drudge's version of the quote to millions of Americans. Haven't watched Hannity & Colmes yet tonight or listened to Hannity's radio program today, but anybody wanna bet our friend Hannity feels free to repeat the bullshit as many times as possible today?

Bush/Cheney '04: If you can't win honestly, just make shit up.

UPDATE: CNN has given credence to Drudge by repeating his version of the quote in a story headlined "Frist knocks Edwards over stem cell comment". Did CNN indepently verify the quote before they asked Frist about it? Or are they continuing their lazy track record of simply accepting whatever Drudge tells them?

UPDATE: As predicted, Hannity played the clip from Edwards' speech on Hannity & Colmes, and though it seems a bit closer to Drudge's quote, it was very tightly edited. Jumping in mid-sentence at both the front and back of Edwards' sentence. Hannity's quote:

Still seeking a more complete, unedited, version of the speech. I've contacted Tom Owens, the reporter who wrote the Times/Republican piece to see if I can get further info. Will let you know what I hear back.

Credit where credit is due. There's a reason why Sean Hannity makes the big bucks.

Thus, the BRAD BLOG is proud to announce and award today our inaugural "Sean Hannity Excellence in Spin" Award!

This distinguished award recognizes not only Excellence in Spin, but all of the qualities that such an ignominious distinction also embodies! Including but not limited to:

· Party Loyalty Before Country.
· Adherence to Talking Points under Extreme Duress.
· Complete Disregard for Truth in Political Discourse.
· Discarding of all Personal Credibility, Morals, Ethics and Standards in favor of The Cause.
· And last but not least, Disingenuousness Above and Beyond the Call of Duty!

...all compressed into the most economical, direct and straight-forward presentation for public consumption.

The namesake and inaugural winner of this distinguished honor, of course, goes to Fox News Channel and ABC Radio Network's Sean Hannity for the following hardball question/statement as "asked" --- in a single breath --- of a Bush Campaign Consultant on last night's Hannity & Colmes: (emphasis added to give recognition to purposeful distortions, talking point bullseyes and out and out lies in a single/statement question!)

Wow! Smartly done, Mr. Hannity! This award is named after you for a reason! Congratulations!

How does he do it? It's easy! With no true core beliefs, a complete absence of personal ethics and no moral core, you too could be our next "Sean Hannity Excellence in Spin" Award Winner! Get to work, Bill O'Reilly! You're losing ground!

(By the way, still looking for a nickname for this Award and open to suggestions! "The Shawnee"? "The Spinny"? "The Dizzy"? "The Frisby"? "The Kooly"? "The Smarmy"? "The Slimy"? Send us your suggestions!)

Don't be afraid.
Just click it.
Then be afraid.

I don't even know what to write about this one.

Read it yourself, and perhaps you can answer the question that AMERICABlog aptly asked about it..."Who are we anymore?"

I have no idea how to answer that question at this point. This isn't my America.

But as an American greater than I (Howard Dean) used to say..."You have the power! You have the power! You have the power!..."

Take it back November 2nd. Your conscience --- and grandchildren --- will thank you.

That was then (last Friday's Debate).

This is now (today's LA Times)...

It's the credibility, Stupid.