Much, mucho quick hits

So much to blog about, so little time:

1) Study shows taking a multivitamin a day reduces the risk of cancer for men. Not a ton, but clearly statistically and substantively significant amount.  Hooray– I’ve been doing this since I’ve been an adult.

2) Eugene Robinson on both candidates ignoring climate change.  Ezra Klein endorsed this as x1000.

Obama does acknowledge that his administration has invested in alternative energy technologies, such as wind and solar, that do not emit carbon dioxide and thus do not contribute to atmospheric warming. But he never really says why, except to say he will not “cede those jobs of the future” to nations such as China and Germany.

Romney, on the other hand, claims to pledge heart and soul to an idea that he, as a successful businessman, must know is ridiculous: “North America[n] energy independence.”

3) Jon Cohn on the (false) idea that Obama has not offered a governing vision.

4) Deserves it’s own post, but like I said, busy, busy. Friend of mine had a nice column in the N&O about the importance of Medicaid to helping her two sons with autism.  Romney’s proposed cuts to Medicaid are scandalous and a largely untold story in this election.

5) Drum says “Give Benghazi a Rest.”  Would really like to see some evidence on whether this really resonates with the electorate or if this is just a right-wing fever swamp obsession.

6) That said, John Dickerson writes about the smartest take on the politics of this whole Libya thing that I’ve read.

7) Really liked EJ Dionne’s take on the 2nd debate:

The most instructive contrast between Debate I and Debate II was the extent to which Romney’s ideas crumbled at the slightest contact with challenge. Romney and Paul Ryan are erecting a Potemkin village designed to survive only until the polls close on Nov. 6. They cannot say directly that they really believe in slashing taxes on the rich and backing away from so much of what government does because they know that neither idea will sell. So they offer soothing language to the middle class, photo ops at homeless programs to convey compassion and a steady stream of attacks on Obama, aimed at shifting all the attention his way.

For his part, Obama looks strong when he calmly and methodically confronts the exceptionally large philosophical and practical differences that now divide the parties. He looks weak when he fuzzes up those differences in the hope of avoiding conflict. The fight is often asymmetric because Obama speaks for balance — between tax increases and spending cuts to reduce the deficit, between a thriving market and an active government — while today’s conservatives have no interest in balance.

About these ads