PAJAMA PEOPLE in the 18th Century: I’ve often said that the rise of the blogosphere represents, in many ways, a return to the late 18th century environment of pamphleteers, numerous small ideological newspapers, and coffeehouse debates. And I have to say that this passage from Larry Kramer’s new book, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, could describe the reaction of some in today’s haut-commentariat to the rise of blogs and other alternative media:

After the adoption of the Constitution, most Federalists had expected to amicably govern a quiescent population content to follow their wise leadership. Instead, they were shocked to find themselves wrestling with an unruly, rambunctious democracy-in-the-making. Between the burgeoning newspapers, raucous parades, partisan holiday celebrations, and disrespectful debating societies, the people out-of-doors seemed literally to be taking leave of their senses. Suddenly, everyone apparently felt entitled to express an opinion — more, felt that “constituted authorities” should be listening to their views. . . . Federalist leaders were caught flat-footed, unsure how to cope with this confusing new world.

Heh.

UPDATE: Reader Richard Samuelson emails: “Why did it just occur to me that President Jefferson received Ambassadors in his robe?”

Technically, those were early-19th Century pajamas. . . . But it was bearing out the Federalists’ worst fears.

SORRY, JOHN:

German officials on Wednesday reaffirmed their policy of not contributing troops to the American-led force in Iraq and rejected speculation, prompted by a published interview with the country’s defense minister, that the policy might change.

Oops. (Via The Mudville Gazette). My prediction, by the way, is that no matter who is elected they’ll wind up sending a token number of troops within a year — about the time when they’re no longer really needed.

IS IT TOO EARLY TO THINK ABOUT THE NEXT ELECTION? Ordinarily, I’d say “Hell, yes!” But when you’re talking Lileks for Senate, I have to say — “where do I sign up?”

But only if he promises to keep doing The Bleat from Washington.

STRATEGYPAGE REPORTS:

Sunni Arabs in Iraq are becoming more agitated about being caught in a war pitting an alliance of Saddam supporters and Islamic radicals, against the majority Shia Arab and Kurds who want peace and prosperity, at any price. The Sunni Arabs are increasingly desperate to do something about their situation. Despite the threats from Saddam’s old enforcers (almost all of them Sunni Arads), and the al Qaeda influenced Islamic radicals; tribal and religious leaders are suggesting that the Saddam hardliners and foreign Islamic radicals leave. Leave Sunni Areas, leave Iraq, leave this life, it doesn’t really matter. The Sunni Arabs see nothing but woe from the Saddam supporters and Islamic radicals. . . . The Sunni Arabs have been cowed by the terror, but not completely immobilized. Deals are being cut, to be finalized when Iraqi troops and police enter Sunni Arab towns under the shadow of American firepower. Will the Sunni Arab leaders remain with the Iraqi majority. Considering the alternative, they probably will.

Sounds promising; I hope it turns out this way. StrategyPage certainly has a pretty good record of accuracy.

Read this, too, which certainly supports the above.

UPDATE: Shannon Love observes:

It may be just an accidental strategy on our part, but allowing this or that group of insurgents to control an area for a period of time seems to have long-term benefits. The locals might imagine that they hate the Coalition and the provisional government, but a few days or weeks of living under the rule of the insurgents seems to provide a stark reality check. The insurgents are thugs and religious extremists, who terrorize and extort the local population and eventually draw down retaliation from the Coalition. The insurgents lose the struggle for hearts and minds through their own brutality. . . .

The actions of the insurgents cause the locals to view the Coalition as the lesser of two evils. We win the battle for hearts and minds by default.

I don’t think it’s an accident.

THANKS TO EVERYBODY who sent email about the Insta-Dad. I called his hospital room to find out when to pick him up, and nobody answered. Then a little while later he called me from home, to which he’d driven on his own. They let him go first thing this morning. Hope I inherited his superior recuperative powers.

INSTAPUNDIT’S AFGHANISTAN PHOTO-CORRESPONDENT, Major John Tammes, sends the picture above, and reports:

This is my class in CJSA 1348, Ethics in Criminal Justice, which met for 3 hours every Monday and Wednesday night over 8 weeks. I taught them as an Adjunct Instructor for Central Texas College, Bagram Education Center. They had two classes interrupted by rocket attacks and alerts, they studied between missions and after 13+ hour shifts, and they did it well. As I turned in their grades today, it struck me that they had achieved something quite admirable.

Indeed. Tammes adds: “P.S. After reading your Guardian story, I feel like a war correspondent. I’m flattered.” Hey, if you’re corresponding from a war, you’re a “war correspondent.” Right?

AUSTRALIA UPDATE: Greg Sheridan in The Australian:

The other critical conclusion to come out of this election is that it was a total vindication of John Howard over Iraq. This is very painful for the commentariat – perhaps the Government should set up special psychiatric triage clinics for commentators unable to cope with their grief over the electorate’s decision on Iraq.

Heh. (Via Tim Blair).

TOM MAGUIRE has lots of interesting post-debate observations. Just keep scrolling.

GROUP-BLOGGING in a hotel ballroom with an audience of 650 people? Compare the photos of the Northern Alliance guys with the one of me, below, and you’ll have to conclude that they know how to live. . . .

THE BELMONT CLUB offers an evolutionary perspective on the debates. And here’s an amusing “what they really said” debate translation.

THE FORESIGHT INSTITUTE emails that Peter Diamandis, founder of the X-Prize, has come on board to help with a nanotechnology prize:

Palo Alto, CA — October 14, 2004 – Foresight Institute has appointed Dr. Peter Diamandis, Chairman of the X PRIZE Foundation, to lead the think tank’s Nanotechnology Prize Steering Committee. The leading think tank and public interest organization focusing on nanotechnology, Foresight Institute established the Feynman Grand Prize in 1996 to motivate scientists and engineers to design and construct a functioning nanoscale robotic arm with specific performance characteristics. The prize was named after Dr. Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, whose original goal for nanotechnology – systems of molecular machines building with atomic precision, is the guiding vision of long-term nanotechnology.

If you’re interested in this stuff — and you should be — you should consider attending Foresight’s 2004 Conference on Advanced Nanotechnology starting on Friday.

VIRGINIA POSTREL has a debate review up. “I was dreading tonight’s debate as yet another 90-minute exchange of talking points, but it actually had some substance–in part because George W. Bush is a whole lot wonkier when he’s talking about domestic issues than foreign policy.”

MICKEY KAUS on the Mary Cheney business:

There must be some Machiavellian strategy behind the Democratic urge to keep bringing this up–most likely it’s a poll-tested attempt to cost Bush and Cheney the votes of demographic groups (like Reagan Dems, or fundamentalists) who are hostile to homosexuality or gay culture or who just don’t want to have to think about it. Or maybe Kerry was just trying to throw Bush off stride. In either case, the fake embrace was even creepier coming from Kerry than it was coming from Edwards.

Indeed.

UPDATE: Lynne Cheney is letting Kerry have it for dissing her daughter:

Lynne Cheney issued her post-debate rebuke to a cheering crowd outside Pittsburgh. “The only thing I can conclude is he is not a good man. I’m speaking as a mom,” she said. “What a cheap and tawdry political trick.”

That seems to be the emerging consensus.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Shockingly, here’s agreement at the BBC: “I thought his mention of Mary Cheney, when asked if homosexuality was a choice, was a cheap swipe, and it defined Kerry’s lack of substance. ”

GOD FORBID, A SUCCESS STORY: My Guardian column for this week is up.

SURFING THE CHANNELS, the talking-heads seem to be giving this one to Bush, and Candy Crowley notes that Kerry felt he had to stress, again, that he could be trusted to defend America. Mary Beth Cahill tries to respond, but she doesn’t sound like she means it — in fact, she sounds like she’s been crying. Laryngitis? Who put her on camera?

UPDATE: How do we know Bush won? I just got the Buzzflash spinmail and it’s going on about claims that Bush was wired. Hey, did you guys watch him at the beginning of the debate? Must’ve been radio interference, then. . . .

But Pundit Guy says that Bob Schieffer was the big loser.

Debate summarized here.

Ann Althouse wrapup: “Bush revealed the deep personal side of himself, while Kerry was always cool and businesslike. Dukakis-like.”

Tradesports shows a Bush win. I’ve had some suspicions that people may be gaming those futures markets, though.

NEXT-MORNING UPDATE: I went to bed early, but a Brit-reader sends this:

Both sides think they lost. Watching BBC with the spin merchants.

Hard sale.

The Republicans look depressed and the Democrats look absolutely desperate.

Both caning it utterly unconvincingly.

Is it too late for a Cheney-Lieberman ticket? Or Lieberman-Cheney, I don’t care.

Meanwhile Stephen Green updates the Tradesports story: “Tradesport betters did indeed think Bush won. But if you follow the trendline after the debate, you’ll find they also think the press claims that Kerry won – with the expected effects on the electorate.”

Yeah, after I went to bed the reactions seem to have done a 180. The press is working damned hard to deliver its 15 percent.

MORTON KONDRACKE is saying that Kerry’s reference to Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter was a “low blow.” Julian Sanchez agrees.

I’m not sure it was a low blow, exactly — but it’s odd given that Kerry has the same position.

UPDATE: GayPatriot wonders why the Democrats are obsessed with Mary Cheney. He agrees with Kondracke and Sanchez.

THE CONCLUSION: Again, not bad for Kerry, but Bush is at the top of his game here at the end. He’s still no Ronald Reagan, but he’s good — much better than at the beginning or in the earlier debates. If he’d been like this in the first debate he’d be up by 10.

Sum up: Not much of a debate, though it improved dramatically in the last half hour or so. As I’ve said before, my judgment is suspect, but I think Bush wins this one hands down — if anyone was still watching at the end. And hey, at least I agree with Julian Sanchez’s rather different crowd.

THE WIFE QUESTION: Both do the best of the evening so far. But Bush hits it out of the park. Kerry hits a double. Bush’s problem — is anybody still watching?

UPDATE: Roger Simon finds Kerry’s answer interesting:

Why did Kerry’s mother feel she had to remind him “Integrity! Integrity! Integrity!” from her hospital bed when he told her he was thinking of running for President. What did she know. My mother would have assumed I would have integrity in the same situation.

Mine, too.

JEEZ, IS IT A KERRY-MCCAIN TICKET? All I can say is, invoking campaign finance reform is a big mistake. It has been a disaster, and it’s responsible for a healthy share of the divisiveness and nastiness in this election.

Kerry goes on about divisiveness, and blames Bush.

Question for Kerry: I wonder if it was a Republican who put up this sign, which I saw downtown the other day?

BUSH AND KERRY ON RELIGION: My Guardian column from last week is looking right on target here.

GUN CONTROL: Bush will irritate his base with his straddle. Kerry makes the argument that the Assault Weapon Ban would have stopped terrorists. Jeez, even the gun-control groups have given up on that dumb argument, as the AWB was purely cosmetic and left functionally identical guns untouched. I score this a loss for both.

UPDATE: The CNN focus group loved Bush’s gun answer. Go figure.

MY COLLEAGUE TOM PLANK emails that I’m wrong about this debate: “Damn. I think this is the best debate of the three, and I think both candidates are doing well. [Which means that Kerry is doing about the same or a little better as the first debate, and Bush is doing much better than the first debate.]”

It’s improved since the very lame first half-hour.

UPDATE: Stephen Green disagrees:

This thing is, mercifully, two-thirds over. Kerry is doing what Bush did in the first debate. He’s smirking “off” camera, he’s droning, he’s dull. Bush, no matter how boring I find the material, at least sounds passionate. Problem is, other than intoxicated political junkies like me, who the hell is still watching?

I’m not intoxicated! Yet.

“THE BEST WAY TO TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF OUR TROOPS IS TO SUCCEED IN IRAQ:” Good answer.

KERRY’S TOUGH TALK ON IMMIGRATION: We’ll do retinal scans — eat your heart out, John Ashcroft! This is aimed at Bush’s base, which is unhappy about illegal immigration and thinks that Bush is a wimp for not doing more. Kerry doesn’t want to win them over, just encourage them to stay home.

IT’S GOING TO BE HARD TO SCORE THIS DEBATE, because both so far have turned in much worse performances than last time.

UPDATE: Nick Gillespie agrees: “I’m getting a sense that both of these guys will emerge from this as losers.”

Hey, Nick — put up Ron Bailey’s article on health insurance. It’s better than what I’m hearing from Bush and Kerry.

Stephen Green adds: “This debate sucks.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Julian Sanchez reports that apparently Bush sucks less: “the 80 percent liberal room I’m watching with seems to agree that Bush is winning.”

MORE: Reader David Broadus agrees, with emphasis:

Bush is hitting it out of the park tonight. He does not look or sound like the same person of the last two debates. I don’t see how you think they are both losers…

Okay, I’ve said before my judgment of these things isn’t to be trusted.

STILL MORE: Jeff Jarvis is liveblogging, too.