Crisafulli's troubles began Wednesday night--in front of 14.7 million TV viewers.

In the third installment of The Apprentice 2, Crisafulli was shown the boardroom door by Trump after her team, Apex, botched a restaurant opening.

In his usual personable style, Trump told Crisafulli she was hated by everyone on her crew.

"Jennifer, this is really easy," Trump said, per the NBC Website. "You're fired."

But other words would come to haunt Crisafulli more. In the episode, Crisafulli complained that Apex's restaurant reviews were sabotaged by a pair of customers: "It was those two old Jewish fat ladies...jaded old bags."

Apprentice player Stacy Rotne, an attorney, took note, if not offense. "I'm Jewish and I'd like to understand Jen C's motives behind saying this," Rotne said on the show, per NBC.

According to Crisafulli, she didn't mean anything by the remark--especially nothing hurtful.

"I'm a New Yorker," Crisafulli is quoted as telling the Post. "I call an Italian an Italian...a Jew a Jew.

U.S. television networks refused to play by rules restricting camera angles and reaction shots during the presidential debate and that may have given a boost to John Kerry, analysts said on Friday....

"Cutaway" shots showing either Bush or Kerry while they waited their turn to speak were expressly forbidden in a 32-page agreement negotiated by the two campaigns to govern conduct of the event.

But from the start of the 90-minute telecast seen by at least 62.5 million Americans, the networks defied the rules by making ample use of split-screen shots allowing viewers to see the two candidates side by side as one was talking and the other was listening.

Under a rotation system established by the major networks for covering political events, Fox News Channel operated the "pool" cameras that supplied the broadcast feed for all the networks on Thursday.

Fox News executive producer Marty Ryan said the cable network tended to use a split screen when the content debate became especially pointed.

"We weren't looking for somebody taking a drink of water or adjusting their coat," Ryan said. "We looked for occasions when they specifically referred to the other, especially when the criticism in both directions was a little more harsh. That's when you want to see the reaction of the other candidate."

Dear Folk:

I think you (and maybe your readers) will be interested in a personal experience I had last night while watching the debate.

My 19 year-old (former foster) son, who has never been interested in politics, sat down with me and began silently watching about 10 minutes into it.

About half an hour later he turned to me and said, "Dad, am I able to vote?". I told him he would have to register but that yes, he could vote. I asked who he wanted to vote for, and he said "Kerry's the tall dude, right?". I said yes, and he said, "I'd vote for Kerry".

I asked him why, and he replied, "Because, I can tell if they were both captured by terrorists Kerry would keep telling them to go f*** themselves, and Bush would cry like a baby and tell them anything they wanted to know".

Today we registered him to vote.

-- Proud Dad

And yes, this is a true story.

At least 62.5 million Americans tuned in to President Bush's debate with challenger John Kerry on Thursday, surpassing the number who watched Bush's debates four years ago with Al Gore.

The 62.5 million did not approach the record of 80.6 million who watched in 1980, when President Jimmy Carter debated Republican challenger Ronald Reagan, according to figures released on Friday by Nielsen Media Research.

Thursday's TV audience easily eclipsed both televised debates in 1996 between then President Bill Clinton and Robert Dole of just over 36 million each.

It also squeaked past the viewer tally posted for the first of three debates in 1992 between Bush's father, Clinton and independent candidate Ross Perot (62.4 million).

"Many undecided voters liked what they saw from John Kerry and were more than a little concerned about President Bush's performance in the first presidential debate — but they still had questions about what Kerry would do in Iraq." - AP

I'm not going to say a whole lot about this, but one of those candidates looked like a President. I'm going to let you figure out which one.

A humorous side note, the GOP held a "conference call" with Ken Mehlman in which campaign "Team Leaders" call in to be told what to think and get their talking points for the debate. Atrios, bless his heart, posted the number and the password to be accepted to the conference call. I got in without a problem and, after enduring ten minutes of painful smooth jazz, got to hear firsthand how the Bush campaign was going to spin this.

Mehlman said Kerry started with a credibility gap and ended with a credibility canyon, and babbled in and around this point for five minutes or so. Then they announced that they were going to take three questions. The first was from a "young Republican in Washington." She proceeded to say that Kerry was very credible and that she had decided to vote for him. The second caller said she thought Kerry would make a credible Commander in Chief and the third call took Bush to task for not mentioning the al Quida members not captured.

Mehlman apologized to the Bush supporters listening and acknowledge that the call had obviously attracted some Democrats. We had, essentially, hijacked their own spin distribution and thrown it in the GOP's face. A small, yet hilarious victory for the blogosphere.

WSJ reporter Fassihi's e-mail to friends
9/29/2004 2:58:10 PM

From: [Wall Street Journal reporter] Farnaz Fassihi
Subject: From Baghdad

Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is like being under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could make a difference.

Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside, can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.

It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.

Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?' they reply: 'the situation is very bad."

What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the country's roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines and explosive devices aimed to kill American soldiers, there are assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings. The situation, basically, means a raging barbaric guerilla war. In four days, 110 people died and over 300 got injured in Baghdad alone. The numbers are so shocking that the ministry of health -- which was attempting an exercise of public transparency by releasing the numbers -- has now stopped disclosing them.

Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day.

A friend drove thru the Shiite slum of Sadr City yesterday. He said young men were openly placing improvised explosive devices into the ground. They melt a shallow hole into the asphalt, dig the explosive, cover it with dirt and put an old tire or plastic can over it to signal to the locals this is booby-trapped. He said on the main roads of Sadr City, there were a dozen landmines per every ten yards. His car snaked and swirled to avoid driving over them. Behind the walls sits an angry Iraqi ready to detonate them as soon as an American convoy gets near. This is in Shiite land, the population that was supposed to love America for liberating Iraq.

For journalists the significant turning point came with the wave of abduction and kidnappings. Only two weeks ago we felt safe around Baghdad because foreigners were being abducted on the roads and highways between towns. Then came a frantic phone call from a journalist female friend at 11 p.m. telling me two Italian women had been abducted from their homes in broad daylight. Then the two Americans, who got beheaded this week and the Brit, were abducted from their homes in a residential neighborhood. They were supplying the entire block with round the clock electricity from their generator to win friends. The abductors grabbed one of them at 6 a.m. when he came out to switch on the generator; his beheaded body was thrown back near the neighborhoods.

The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating.

I went to an emergency meeting for foreign correspondents with the military and embassy to discuss the kidnappings. We were somberly told our fate would largely depend on where we were in the kidnapping chain once it was determined we were missing. Here is how it goes: criminal gangs grab you and sell you up to Baathists in Fallujah, who will in turn sell you to Al Qaeda. In turn, cash and weapons flow the other way from Al Qaeda to the Baathisst to the criminals. My friend Georges, the French journalist snatched on the road to Najaf, has been missing for a month with no word on release or whether he is still alive.

America's last hope for a quick exit? The Iraqi police and National Guard units we are spending billions of dollars to train. The cops are being murdered by the dozens every day-over 700 to date -- and the insurgents are infiltrating their ranks. The problem is so serious that the U.S. military has allocated $6 million dollars to buy out 30,000 cops they just trained to get rid of them quietly.

As for reconstruction: firstly it's so unsafe for foreigners to operate that almost all projects have come to a halt. After two years, of the $18 billion Congress appropriated for Iraq reconstruction only about $1 billion or so has been spent and a chuck has now been reallocated for improving security, a sign of just how bad things are going here.

Oil dreams? Insurgents disrupt oil flow routinely as a result of sabotage and oil prices have hit record high of $49 a barrel. Who did this war exactly benefit? Was it worth it? Are we safer because Saddam is holed up and Al Qaeda is running around in Iraq?

Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for insecurity. Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.

I heard an educated Iraqi say today that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to run for elections he would get the majority of the vote. This is truly sad.

Then I went to see an Iraqi scholar this week to talk to him about elections here. He has been trying to educate the public on the importance of voting. He said, "President Bush wanted to turn Iraq into a democracy that would be an example for the Middle East. Forget about democracy, forget about being a model for the region, we have to salvage Iraq before all is lost."

One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation. For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.

The Iraqi government is talking about having elections in three months while half of the country remains a 'no go zone'-out of the hands of the government and the Americans and out of reach of journalists. In the other half, the disenchanted population is too terrified to show up at polling stations. The Sunnis have already said they'd boycott elections, leaving the stage open for polarized government of Kurds and Shiites that will not be deemed as legitimate and will most certainly lead to civil war.

I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: "Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?"

-Farnaz

The government's cybersecurity chief has abruptly resigned from the Homeland Security Department amid a concerted campaign by the technology industry and some lawmakers to persuade the Bush administration to give him more authority and money for protection programs.

Amit Yoran, a former software executive from Symantec Corp., made his resignation effective Thursday as director of the National Cyber Security Division, giving a single's day notice of his intention to leave. He kept the job one year.

Yoran has privately confided to industry colleagues his frustrations in recent months over what he considers the department's lack of attention paid to computer security issues, according to lobbyists and others who recounted these conversations on condition they not be identified because the talks were personal.

Lehrer on Defensive Over Biased Questioning

PBS host Jim Lehrer was challenged Friday morning on claims that he went easy on Sen. John Kerry during Thursday night's presidential debate, while tossing verbal hand grenades in President Bush's direction designed to keep him on the defensive.

"I don't know what in the world you're talking about," Lehrer told radio host Don Imus, in his only post-debate interview.

"I would argue that my questions were right down the middle. There were some hardball questions for each candidate. There were some softball questions for each candidate. But for the most part they were just terrific."

The bias complaint, said Lehrer, was more of a commentary on his critics than a valid criticism of his own debate performance.

Still, some observers noted that Lehrer's questions largely focused on negative aspects of Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq - while avoiding Sen. Kerry's waffling on the issue, not to mention the top Democrat's long record of opposing measures to strengthen U.S. intelligence and national security.

At one point Lehrer claimed that over ten thousand U.S. soldiers had been killed in Iraq, before quickly revising that number to 1,052.

At the end of the debate, the PBS anchorman shook Sen. Kerry's hand - with some debate watchers claiming he gave the top Democrat a knowing wink.

In 1999, the president of Lehrer's network had to resign after admitting that 53 PBS affiliates had been sharing their donor lists with the Democratic National Committee for years.

In 1997, then-White House aide George Stephanopoulos revealed that President Clinton's reelection team thought it was a major coup when Lehrer was chosen to host one of the presidential debates, boasting that "our moderator" had been picked.

I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly — much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy — not Joe Political Junkie — I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate.

And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less.

Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything — were a political naοf, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time — I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate....

Friends, I have no doubt that this little reaction column of mine will disappoint many of you. I'm sorry. I have called George W. Bush a Rushmore-level president. I believe history will bear that out; and if it doesn't, history will be wrong. I think that Bush's reelection is crucial not only to this country but to the world at large. I not only think that Bush is the right man for the job; I have a deep fondness — love, really — for the man, though I don't know him.

But tonight (I am writing immediately post-debate) did not show him at his best. Not at all. He will do better — I feel certain — in subsequent debates. I also worry that they count less.

The strategists said the outcome probably will give a minor boost to Mr. Kerry who has been flagging in recent polls, but also will buffet Mr. Bush's reputation for steadfastness that has been credited with swaying undecided voters to his camp.

"I think both have done well," said Republican political consultant Frank Donatelli. "Both were well-prepared and had good command of the facts. Most people's views probably won't be changed by this debate. Partisans will find plenty of reasons for reinforcement for their present biases."....

"We're up against a master of debate," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said before last night's encounter at the University of Miami. "We know that John Kerry has spent his entire life preparing for this moment."

The more immediate question is whether voters will continue to follow a president who insists the war was right, in the face of polls suggesting widespread doubt about whether it was worth the cost. Mr. Bush is banking almost everything on his belief that they will, as long as they believe he is clear and resolute.

It is too soon to know whether Mr. Kerry, trailing in pre-debate polls, accomplished what Mr. Bush did four years ago when he came out of his first debate against Al Gore stronger than when he went in (or what Ronald Reagan did when he leapfrogged ahead of Jimmy Carter). But he is hoping that voters will agree with his own succinct assessment of Mr. Bush last night: "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong."

Afterward, only the Bush supporters seemed concerned that their candidate had lost ground. They should be. Watching Bush last night, I saw a president who sometimes didn't seem in control of his job, a man who couldn't and didn't defend the conduct of the war except to say that it was "hard work," who seemed defensive, tired, and occasionally rattled. He had some strong points; and I agree with him on the basic matter of whether we should have gone to war. But the argument that we might be better changing horses in the middle of a troubled river gained traction last night.

In some ways, this might turn out to be a version of the 1980 Carter-Reagan match, when Reagan was able to convince people, by his persona and presence, that he was up to the job. Yes, Bush is not as bad as Carter and Kerry is, of course, no Reagan. But the dynamic was somewhat similar. In other words, Kerry gets back in the game, reassures some doubters, buoys his supporters, and edges up a little. Oh, and one young man in the audience had just returned from serving his country in Iraq. Yes, he'd seen the war upfront. He knows what were doing over there first-hand. And he's voting for Kerry.