Thanks for posting.

K and R.

I get a kick out of how this guy formulates his predictions. Is there a newsletter involved? It wouldn't surprise me.

Crazy online marketing. I noticed a freeper post in Freeperland recently. It was featured in The Daily Beast and was actually an advertisement for a book about how a neurosurgeon died, went to heaven, and came back. It was one of those cheap adverts that is supposed to look like an article or essay--until you get to the end and find the book cover and the price of the book.

I kid you not.

On edit: Here it is!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html

Noted Lincoln expert believes Obama won the first presidential debate.

Most pundits, left and right, say Romney won the first presidential debate. But not Gene Griessman, author of Lincoln and Obama, a new book that examines similarities between the 16th and 44th presidents.

Griessman sees a parallel between the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858 and the 2012 debate between Obama and Romney.

Here are Griessman's comments:

The debate formats and issues were different, but there are striking similarities.

For one, a lot of people thought Douglas won those debates. We revere Lincoln today, and want to believe that Lincoln demolished Douglas. But that was not the perception at the time.

Stephen Douglas was a feared and formidable debater--confident and powerful. Even when Douglas misstated facts, or when an opponent landed a blow on him, Douglas didn't show it.

But Douglas made some statements about slavery in those debates that upset many voters, and hurt him badly in his presidential race. And we know who won that race, don't we!

History has repeated itself.

Romney, during the debate, was concise and self-confident. Obama was almost deferential. Incidentally, people said the same thing about the way Lincoln spoke to Douglas.

But Obama said nothing that will cost him votes, and Romney did.

For example, Romney attacked PBS and Big Bird. Romney promised he would end government subsidies of a few hundred million dollars to public television--a fraction of less than one percent of the federal budget--while defending government subsidies of billions to Big Oil.

That will certainly cost him some votes, maybe quite a few votes.

Extremists in the Republican Party don't understand that millions of Americans love--cherish--public television and public radio, so they don't see it as a problem.

But it is a problem for Romney, who already is in a world of trouble with Latinos, blacks, and women. Now PBS is another issue for Romney to deal with.

Already there are bumper stickers saying Save Big Bird.

Here's the bottom line.

Virtually all Americans have already made up their minds. No Obama haters have decided to vote for Obama because of the debate, and no Obama supporters have decided to vote for Romney because Romney had a good night.

Obama may not have gained any votes, but he said nothing that will cost him votes.

So, the only change will be among those who have not yet made up their minds--moderates and independents, many of whom love public television and public radio. Those are votes that Romney needs, and a new issue that he does not need.

Gene Griessman is a sociologist and creator of a one-man play "Lincoln Live." An excerpt from the book and additional similarities are at www.lincolnandobama.com.

if content were considered at all, instead of aggressiveness, President Obama would have been seen as the winner by
the majority of those watching.

I never watched the split screen version, I only saw a few clips.

People are so swayed by superficial things.

Challenger Charisma: While the keys no longer deem Obama as being charismatic, he still has his challenger beat in that department. "Mitt Romney? Are you joking? If you pick up the dictionary for uncharismatic, there is his picture."