Never Forget

As much as I might want to, I myself will never forget. I will never forget where I was on 9/11. I will never forget how I felt. I will never forget the eyes and the whispers of those around me as we huddled in front of a small TV at work, trying to make sense of what was happening. I will never forget calling to see if friends and family that worked around Wall Street were still alive and getting only busy signals. I will never forget that in searching for these photos Google found one site in memory of 9/11 and dozens of conspiracy sites claiming 9/11 as an inside job--so I will never forget that these idiots are of limited intelligence and of inferior character. But most of all I will never forget that as the twin towers burned and their fall was inevitable that the proud members of the FDNY kept running back inside to try to save just one more person. Courage, bravery, and honor were defined for me by their actions with clarity I never thought possible. I will never forget what you did that day for all of us and God willing neither will history.

Regular blogging to resume Friday.

New Media, Same Bias

One might hope that after the recent polls showing that a majority of Americans recognize that the media is biased and actively working to get Obama elected that we might see a change in their behavior.

It would seem these hope are in vain. From the Corner:

John notes that the Washington Post seems to be downplaying the McCain-Palin rally in its backyard. But the bigger crime may be how the Washington Post article on the rally was written. Let's just do a by numbers comparison:

Number of paragraphs in the Washington Post story: 14

Number of paragraphs about pro-Obama protesters: 8

Number of McCain-Palin supporters present: 23,000

Number of Obama protesters: about 30

You do the math.

What more is there to say, really?

Biden: Hillary May Have Been a Better Choice

I feel compelled to comment on the following clip because...well...I can't really believe he said it. In a campaign appearance Sen. Joe Biden states the perhaps Hilary Clinton would have been a better choice for Obama's VP than he was and that Palin would not be seeing the popularity she is now if Hilary was in the picture. Yes really.



(Embedding this YouTube video is causing me some some issue. Click here if you have trouble viewing the embedded version.) First off, he is more right than he realizes. If Obama had picked Hilary, there is a good chance McCain would have not gone with Palin. So her national impact would indeed have been much lower, since she would have remained Governor of Alaska and not been running for vice president.

Some have speculated that this means Obama will drop Biden and pick Hilary as his running mate. I find that highly doubtful. I almost wrote laughable, but anything is possible in this election cycle. The reasons Obama will not make this change are numerous and strong.

The last person (McGovern) to change his mind on his running mate during the election lost 49 states. If Obama were to make this change, Giuliani's comments during his convention speech--if I were Biden, I'd get this VP thing in writing--would form the basis of the most effective ad ever. The Clinton camp has also given enough of a cold shoulder to Obama that there is every reason to believe she would pass on the opportunity and wait until 2012 to run again.

Some have even suggested a way out--Biden would leave because of health concerns. Please. Even this would be too obvious to the American public.

I think it is safe to predict that Obama and Biden are going to remain together for the duration of the campaign. Biden's comment above will just have to go down in history as one more puzzling statement by the Senator.

Sarah Palin: Game Changing Decision

To people afraid of math, the beginning of this post is going to feel like you are studying for the SATs again. Stay with me. Imagine you are on a game show and there are three doors in front of you. Behind one of the doors is $1,000,000 and behind the others is nothing. You pick door number 1. At this point the cheesy host opens door number 2 and show there is nothing behind it. He then ask if you want to stick to door number 1 or switch to door number 3. Should you switch?

The answer may surprise you. You double your chances of winning if you switch. I'll skip the geeky explanation--check out this explanation for what is known as the Monty Hall problem.

The point of this preamble is simply this: When you gain more information, the game changes. What you thought you knew has to be reevaluated in the face of these changes. In the game show example above, the new information is the host showing you one of the loosing doors after the fact. In the context of the current election, the new information is that Sarah Palin was picked by McCain to be his VP running mate.

All across the web and on the TV and in the newspapers you see people analyzing the election as it was before this decision. Analysts will bring up statistics on how Obama did in the primaries. Editorials will warn of conservatives' uneasy acceptance of John McCain. Comparisons will be made to previous, recent presidential elections. All of these lines of thinking need to be adjusted in the wake of the Palin decision.

This is true whether or not your are conservative, liberal, or in between. This is true whether you are ecstatic that Palin is doing well or horrified that she even has a chance. This post isn't about partisan politics; it's a (hopefully dispassionate) realization that when studying politics there are some events you can't ignore.

This does not mean that Palin guarantees the Republicans will win this fall. It certainly does not mean that they deserve to win. James Pethokoukis at U.S. News & World Report has an article that compares the current presidential campaign to economic markets. He postulates that Obama's meteoric rise in popularity can be likened to a economic bubble such as was seen with internet stocks in the late 1990's. And just as the internet bubble burst, he wonders if Obama's bubble is bursting. Similarly, the popularity of Palin could be another bubble--one that is just as likely to burst as any unsustainable increase in an economic market.

On the subject of economics being a surrogate for political analysis it is interesting to consider prediction markets where people put real money on the line to predict future outcomes. Since people can make a profit by leveraging their expertise or knowledge in an area, prediction markets are often more accurate than more traditional polling.

One of the large prediction markets is available at intrade. As recent as early August, intrade had Obama as a 70-30 favorite to win the presidency. The market is now dead even at 50-50. Here are graphs of the last month for Obama:


and McCain:


The fact that is tied (by definition) offers no prediction at the moment on who is likely to win in November. But look at the change in the last week. The addition of Sarah Palin into the race has changed the game. Whether you consider that good news or bad depends on your hopes and your biases. Palin has changed the game. Analyzes that ignore this fact are doomed to be inaccurate.

Jay Cost on the Post-Convention State of the Campaign

If your not familiar with Jay Cost, he is the author of the Horse Race Blog, over at RealClearPolitics. Cost is known for digging deep into poll numbers. His look at battleground states included county-by-county voting patterns for the last 60 years. His latest article, with the dual title "The Campaign Has Taken a Surprising Turn / Obama On His Heels" is less statistics focused but no less interesting.

He looks at historical breakdown of different groups in the last three presidential elections.


The key point is that white women (a huge percentage of the voting population) increased 17-points from 1996 to 2004. Consequently the end tallies switched from a significant Republican defeat to a notable victory. He comments on how this relates to recent events:

The ABC News poll that set tongues wagging has McCain up 12 among white women - about the same margin as the final result in 2004. I had been inclined to write those results off, as I figured a post-convention poll like that is not indicative of where the race is heading. However, the course correction of the Obama campaign inclines me to believe that there might be something going on here. On September 4th, his campaign said that it was not planning to directly criticize Palin. On September 8th, it released an ad directly criticizing her. You don't do that kind of 180 unless something is up.

Emphasis mine on that last sentence as I think that is the key point. As much as it is fun (if you are so inclined) to look at poll numbers and try to analyze internals, doing so involves a lot of guesswork. Poll results, especially this far from the actual election, have to be taken with a grain of salt. On the other hand any significant political campaign always conducts its own polls. Historically, it is common for campaigns to base strategy decisions on these internal numbers. It doesn't really matter what Gallup or Rassmussen says--if Obama's campaign sees something in their own numbers, it is time to act.

Cost continues:

The Obama campaign's decision to attack is a risky one. Negative campaigns are always tricky, but this one is especially so. To some degree, Palin has been treated unfairly since her debut as McCain's vice-president. What the McCain campaign wants to do is tie all criticisms of Palin to the unfair ones, and ultimately remind people of how Hillary Clinton was treated. Team McCain is especially eager to do this for anything that comes out of Obama's mouth - hence the "lipstick on a pig" spot, which in turn induced a response from Obama.

We can assign winners and losers in this little skirmish; we can decide who has truth on his side and who does not. But that misses the point. Here we have yet another day when the focus is on the GOP's youthful, smiling, attractive, witty, female vice-presidential nominee. And for yet another day our ears are filled with the sounds of the Democratic nominee decrying how unfair the Republicans are - as if only one side hits below the belt.

Again I've highlighted what I find as the key point. The interest in Palin has energized the conservative base and, at least from these poll numbers, also affected independents and white women. The coverage of Palin is bordering on mind-numbing. Unless that is the strategy--to make people sick of hearing about her--I am at a loss as to why Obama would keep making her the center of attention.

Obama has campaigned as an instrument of change. McCain, to be blunt, is an old white guy. Why would you not focus on this contrast? Much time remains and the race is far from decided. But if Obama loses, the decision focus on Palin is going to be the leading questions of analysts and critics.

Obama's Pig Comment Causes Confusion

In trying to survey the reaction to Obama's pig comment one thing is clear: nothing is clear.

People are fairly evenly split as to whether or not he meant to intentionally insult Palin with the comment--and I don't mean split along party lines. Some say that it is a common, well-known expression and that the link to Sarah Palin was unintentional. Other people insist he is too skilled a public speaker to accidentally make this mistake.

Instapundit is running a poll and the results aren't 50-50, but they aren't as one-sided as his polls normally are, either. The poll is also interesting because one of the choices is "A deliberate and sexist smear". I believe it was deliberate but I don't believe it was sexist. In terms of sexism, the symbol of the pig is actually attributed to the perpetrator not that target--as in "what a sexist pig". So I don't think Obama was being sexist. I do think he was using imagery like "pig" and "old fish" and "stink" to describe McCain and Palin.

In response to the comment, the McCain camp has already come out with an ad that hammers Obama for it. I think this is overkill. As many others have suggested the best way to have handled it would have been not to make a big deal about it; it was a wonderful opportunity to take the high road. Make it appear that you are talking about real issues and your opponent is talking about pigs and stinky fish. By directly responding to it you are lowering yourself to that level of (or lack of) sophistication in the debate.

What I find more interesting that many of the people who are convinced that it was deliberate also don't think tha ad was necessary or appropriate. On the other hand, people such as Ann Althouse think it was an unfortunate but honest mistake:

Now, I didn't blog this yesterday, because frankly, I considered it absolutely nothing. "Lipstick on a pig" is an extremely common expression, and it doesn't become taboo because somebody else made a wisecrack about lipstick on another animal or because that somebody else happens to wear lipstick.

yet she thinks the ad is interesting and well-done:

The ad is essentially saying: Here's the evidence. Make up your own mind.

My final comment on the video is this. Whether or not the comment was an insult or an honest gaffe is not the issue. Watch Obama as he delivers the line. He stutters. He hesitates. This is not the smooth and likeable Obama that has drawn so much support during his campaign. Althouse agrees:

His delivery feels off. He stammers before he says "You can put lipstick on a pig," as if he lacks full confidence in what he's about to say. Then he scratches his forehead while he pauses, and the audience laughs. Only then does he go on to say "it's still a pig," after which he puts his hand in his pocket. I can see how that pause cues to the audience that this is where you're supposed to laugh, and they do laugh.

I will repeat the advice to Obama's campaign advisors that I offered several posts ago. Get Obama out of small, town-hall like venues. Get him in front of large crowd and have him give a motivational speech filled with imagery. Don't worry about criticisms about celebrity--run a campaign that plays to your candidate's strength. Sure, polls now show a 50%-46% lead for McCain when before that lead was for Obama. That still means about half the country is on your side. Don't panic. Right now Obama appears shaken and people aren't attracted to indecisive people when looking for leaders.

Did Obama Just Call Palin a Pig?

So the internet is buzzing over this video where Obama either made a huge gaffe or a huge insult. You decide.



Transcript:

"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

"We've had enough of the same old thing."

The phrase "lipstick on a pig" is a known expression. On the other hand, Palin made lipstick famous with her ad-lib during her convention speech: "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick." So was Obama insulting Palin or just being clueless?

Normally I give people the benefit of the doubt in cases like this. Running for president is a tiring task and every slip of the tongue is ripe for criticism. In this case, though, I'm going to have to say he knew what he was saying.

It seems to be the new game plan to counteract the recent poll results showing McCain taking the lead in many areas. Just a few days ago, Obama's wife, referring to the pick of Biden by her husband, said that "he isn't afraid of smart people". Of course the insinuation is that McCain is and therefore picked that dumb redneck Palin. Obama is the super intellectual right? Ivy league education and all of that. My money is he knew what he was saying. Sadly he was probably goaded into doing it by his advisers. Up until now, he hasn't been that directly low brow during his campaign. If his camp is panicking because of the poll results, I can seem them suggesting he (and others) start with the innuendo.

As a final thought, try, if you can, to forget whom you are voting for in the fall. Imagine if Palin had made the following quotes (credit Tom Spaulding):

BTW, If McCain had characterized Obama's secretiveness regarding Ayers and Wright as "Trying to get the fried chicken recipe from Colonel Sanders", or described Obama's Marxist environmental programs as "Like watermelons...Green on the outside, Red on the inside", would that be simply using a "turn of the phrase"...

If your reaction is that nobody would have have considered it inappropriate then I'm afraid you have your blinders on.

Continued Presidential Poll Analysis

DJ Drummond has a (for once) non-wordy post that analyzes the current set of polls that have come in post-conventions for both parties. His motivation for doing the analysis was:

Maybe I'm just a suspicious type, but from what I could tell, a lot of voters had made up their minds before the conventions, and while I think Sarah Palin is going to make a big difference in the election, I did not expect a lot of voters to come over right away; I figure they want to find out more, first. The reason I say this, is that I found it strange to see poll numbers change so quickly. At least part of the answer, I found, was that the results were spun by fooling around with the weighting.

As (I hope) you are aware, polling agencies conduct a poll in their raw data they have percentages for those polled that break down party affiliation. The odds that these percentages match the party affiliation among actual voters on election day is of course infinitesimally small. So the polling agencies are forced to adjust their raw numbers to what they predict the election-day breakdown will be. That is where the science of polling ends and the art begins. It is impossible to know for certain what this weighting should be.

Drummond took an interesting approach. He averaged the breakdown over the last five national elections and used that as the expected. He then adjusted the raw numbers from some recent polls to these expectations. He arrived at the following numbers:

ABC News/Washington Post
August 21: 49-43 Obama original report. Historical weights indicate 49-48 Obama.
September 7: 47-46 Obama original report. Historical weights indicate 50-47 McCain .

CBS News
August 19: 45-42 Obama original report. Historical weights indicate 44-44 tie.
September 7: 46-44 McCain original report. Historical weights indicate 48-43 McCain.

The quick summary is that the current polls may be overestimating Republican percentages and as such be showing too large of a lead for John McCain. Read his whole post for more details. It is interesting to note that even with this adjustment, both polls show a ~4% lead for McCain.

Regardless of the actual adjusted numbers Drummond arrived at, one key take away point is to be very careful of overall national polls without looking at the internals. For example, this latest Gallup result is getting some press:


A 52% to 41% advantage to McCain on the question of "Who is a strong and decisive leader?" seems like a strong point for the Republican campaign. But if Republican responses are being over-weighted then the results are far less meaningful.

One way to see past such "mistakes" in weighting is to look deeper into the internals and see how one particular group--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--is responding. For example, pulling a chart I linked earlier:


Since this particular result is just what independents are saying, the weighting question doesn't enter into the equation. Until you want to determine the affect of this result on a national average, in which case you are back to the art of picking the correct weighting.

Polling results are always more than just two numbers scrolling by on a CNN headline ticker. If you are looking to do more than just feel good (or panic) about your candidate, it is always necessary to dig deeper and see that the internals might be trying to tell you.

There Really Are Two Americas

I was checking out the aggregate national poll averages at RealClearPolitics when two editorials linked below the statistics caught my attention. The titles of the two essays couldn't have been more directly opposed. The titles are "McPalin rattles Team Obama" and "Obama is Still in the Driver's Seat". Fascinating. Here are a few excerpts from the pro-McCain editorial by Jonah Goldberg.

The Real Clear Politics average of national polls since Friday shows McCain ahead by a razor-thin (and statistically meaningless) 2.9 percentage points. The USA Today-Gallup poll has McCain leading by a whopping 10 points among likely voters (and four points among registered voters), though that's almost surely an overstatement.

The McCain-Palin convention bounce also all but closed the ticket's gender gap. According to Rasmussen, Obama had a 14-point lead among women; now it's three. According to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, McCain now has a 12-point lead among white women.

Still, there's a lot of pressure on Sarah Barracuda. Called up from the political minors, she could yet wilt under the hot lights. But that's looking less and less likely.

The first part of essay deals with poll results, with an emphasis on Sarah Palin. That is not surprising. The polls have brought good news to the Republicans as of late so it is to be expected that a conservative author would stress them. Goldberg also writes:

The most unsportsmanlike conduct in the days to come will be the search for Palin gaffes, of which there undoubtedly will be many. The media will call fouls on her that they never call on the other candidates. Over the last week, Obama misspoke and referred to his "Muslim faith" on ABC's "This Week" and told a rally how excited he was to be in "New Pennsylvania." Perhaps that's one of the 57 states he once claimed to campaign in?

And let's not forget Biden, whose gaffes are the unavoidable byproduct of his limitless gasbaggery. Biden could shout on "Meet the Press," "Get these squirrels off of me!" and the collective response would be, "There goes Joe again." But if Palin flubs the name of the deputy agriculture minister of Kyrgyzstan, the media will blow their whistles saying she's unprepared for the job.

So he brings up media bias. This is another hot topic and data suggest a majority of people see it as a major issue during this campaign.

Now, let's turn to the pro-Obama editorial by Douglas Schoen. First, I'll note the title changed from when RealClearPolitics picked up the piece. It is now "For now, Barack Obama's the man in the middle, not John McCain." Here are some selections from this essay.

In an election that is increasingly about who can win over moderates, Obama is still the candidate to beat. And as both candidates make their cases to voters in the coming weeks, Obama's strategy of targeting the middle is likely to prove more effective than the McCain camp's courtship of the conservative base.

These opposing strategies have become apparent recently. Witness the single biggest decision that Obama has made thus far: choosing Joe Biden as his running mate. The pick helped squelch concerns about Obama's perceived lack of experience and foreign policy savvy. More importantly, it signaled to moderates that when it matters, Obama makes sensible, pragmatic choices.

This election, as with almost all elections in the modern era, is indeed about attracting the votes of moderates and independents. So Schoen is correct to highlight that point. He continues:

Obama's appeal to independent voters was only helped by McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. The news was met with great fanfare by McCain's conservative base, but left many independent voters rather disappointed, if not a bit perplexed. It was a pick to excite the base - almost 90% of whom view Palin favorably, according to a recent Washington Post/USA Today poll - in a year where Democrats are much more popular than Republicans.

If McCain was determined to shake up the race with a risky pick, he would have been much better served by Joe Lieberman. A McCain-Lieberman ticket would have nullified any claim Obama had to nonpartisan pragmatism, while also showing off McCain's ability to make bold decisions when the stakes are high.

Choosing Palin, on the other hand, was interpreted by many as a political ploy demonstrating that McCain is more than willing to pander to his base, even if it means putting the security of the nation in jeopardy by anointing a relatively inexperienced politician as his possible successor.

At this point, symmetry would dictate I say something positive about the last excerpt. I find that I cannot.

A Lieberman choice would have been disastrous. The conservative Republican base was already unenthusiastic about McCain because he was "the Maverick" and I don't use that label in a positive sense. He had turned his back to the Republican base on a number of issues and many were unable to forgive him for it. Picking a Democrat as his VP would have been the last straw.

Schoen also says that the Palin pick left independents perplexed and disappointed. Recent polling data from Gallup suggests the opposite:


A 52%-37% advantage among independents for McCain is so large I question the accuracy of the Gallup data. But to suggest it is so wrong that the advantage is actually in the other direction is beyond questionable. It is one thing to hope or believe in how the Palin choice played with independents. But I'm looking for evidence, not hopes and dreams.

I think it is clear that both authors clearly believe what they are saying. As much as I try to consider both viewpoints equally, I can't help but be drawn toward the arguments of Goldberg. To convince me that Obama is a centrist, I need to know who is to his left. Just saying it can't convince me. But then I am biased to begin with so maybe that is an unfair expectation.

Regardless of how I feel of course, in the next two months we will find out who was right--Goldberg or Schoen. I would be fascinated to see their reaction no matter who ends up winning in November.

Latest Palin Attack *rolls dice* She's a Religious Nut!

I stopped reading the news for a few hours and checked back in before calling it a night to see if the media had a new angle on why Sarah Palin was completely unfit to hold an executive position in the U.S. government. I was not disappointed.

CNN front page headline story is Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs. The article has sort of a meandering style to it but the crux of the article is here:

Six years ago, Palin left Assembly of God to join the non-denominational Wasilla Bible Church.

and here:

But how might her religious beliefs impact policy in Washington if the Republican ticket is successful?

Palin's former pastor says he has no doubt her religious beliefs will influence her decision making when it comes to government policy.

Where to begin? So her former pastor, who may just be annoyed with her for leaving his church, has no doubts. I guess that pretty much seals it then. I mean clearly he is able to get inside another person's head and predict their future behavior with 100% accuracy. Never mind the fact that so far in her career she seems to have left her religion out of her policy making. Reporting on that aspect would of course be too objective. Instead we need to find someone with a negative opinion and report it as fact.

Of course, if this is part of the grand plot to destroy Palin, do you really want to go there? Palin quit this church six years ago, when there was no negative public press to push her to do so. Obama only quit his church when Wright's comments grew so offensive that staying would have been political suicide. Is this really an issue you want to bring up again?

It also isn't particularly politically savvy for another reason. People keep pointing and screaming "She's religious!" as if this is some sort of social stain that will destroy her popularity. There's only one problem with that. A majority of the people in this country are religious. I mean, I am not religious but I don't recoil from anyone who doesn't share my worldview. I have friends that go to church and raise their families with a devotion to God. Shocking I know.

This story made the major headlines late. We'll see what the overall reaction to the angle is in the morning. But once again the discussion (if you can call it that) avoids issues like national security and the economy and instead focuses on "he said she said" politics. I, for one, grow weary of it.

Sarah Palin Fails to Stumble in Colorado Springs

McCain and Palin made a campaign stop in Colorado Springs. I had watched a little of the speech, which you can be seen in its entirety here.

I will admit I did not watch the whole thirty minute coverage. But it was difficult to judge the size of the crowd. Then I stumbled upon the following picture from PrestoPundit. (Which might be named a little too similarly to the famous Instapundit but no matter.)


Click on the image for a full-sized version. I can only wonder why the scene depicted by this image wasn't part of the coverage. Clearly a simple hockey mom should have stumbled under the pressure...

Palin on Sex Education

Byron York at the Corner has posted an analysis of a C-Span video from the 2006 Republican debate in the Alaska governor's race. Part of the video clarifies Palin's stance on sex education in schools.

Question:

In a recent survey you said that you would support abstinence-until-marriage education but that you would not support explicit sex-ed programs. What are explicit sex-ed programs, and does that include talking about condoms in school?

Answer:

No, I don't think that it includes something that is relatively benign. Explicit means explicit. No, I am pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I'm not anti-contraception. But yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something that I would support also.

This was a much different answer that I was expecting. Somehow I had heard the comment that she was pro-abstinence education and my initial thought that could be a potentially embarrassing point of view given her daughter's pregnancy. I even used this argument when discussing Palin with a fellow political junkie.

I find I need to apologize for being duped into parroting a talking point. Once again, there is more to the real story than the scrolling CNN headline on the subject. This issue I find of minor importance--actually of no importance. The president and vice president have far greater things to worry about than sex education. This just serves as one more example that if we can get past the mud slinging there is often more information and positions that are much more interesting.

Sarah Palin: The Backlash Has Now Gone Full Circle

Oh what a difference a week (or so) can make. The weekend before last when McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, the media pounced. She was a nobody, she had no experience, how dare he pick somebody that we have not vetted ourselves?

Those attacks quickly degenerated into questions about her children. Wild accusations that seemed to be based more on the song I'm My Own Grandpa than on reality. Andrew Sullivan, admittedly while trying to be civil for a change, referred to Sarah Palin's family as f-ing rednecks.

Now that the polls are in and McCain is up and Palinmania shows no signs of being a flash in the pan, the attacks, now veiled, have come full circle. This article by Andrew Malcolm at the Los Angeles Times suggests that while Palin is the VP candidate, she is really the Number 1 on the ticket. McCain is an afterthought. It is all about Sarah all the time. Malcolm's article is hard to gauge. Are sections like this:

He snatched the 44-year-old female reformer from the....

...political oblivion of the largest state, where her approval rating had slipped to 80%, about 10 times better than Congress' approval rating. And McCain threw her onto the national stage.

Where she didn't stumble. Yet.

positive or negative? OK, so she's popular. She hasn't stumbled. Yet. I suppose it is inevitable, then, that she will make a fool of herself?

The piece ends with:

Oh, and another good thing about Palin's brief return home: The top of the GOP ticket can get back to hearing the crowds cheer him for a change.

How remarkable. So not only is Sarah Palin not a weak candidate, she is such a strong candidate that she is overshadowing poor, poor, insignificant John McCain. As I stated above, what a difference a week makes.

Gallup: Convention Bounce for McCain Now at 5%

The latest Gallup tracking poll has just been released.

John McCain leads Barack Obama, 49% to 44%, in the immediate aftermath of the Republican National Convention, according to the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking results.

These results are based on Sept. 5-7 interviewing, and are the first in which all interviews were conducted following the completion of the GOP convention. Immediately prior to the convention's Sept. 1 start, Aug. 29-31 interviewing showed McCain with 43% support among registered voters, compared with 49% today. Thus, Gallup credits McCain with a six-point convention bounce.

With this release, most of the major national polls have now reporting on data taken after the Palin and McCain speeches from the convention. The RealClearPolitics aggregate now shows a 3.2% lead for McCain.

Collection of Sarah Palin Rumors

Charlie Martin, at PajamasMedia, has an article detailing all of the rumors concerning Sarah Palin he has seen made into stories. (Hat tip: Instapundit.) I'll quote a few of them here, but first consider this.

The sheer volume of this list is both ridiculous and telling. Discrediting your political opponent is a time-honored tradition. Sarah Palin when selected was known only to conservative political junkies that had been throwing her name around for months. It was expected and natural for the Obama campaign to look for weaknesses in her as a candidate and to try to exploit them.

That is where the expected and the actual took two very different paths. Typically you'd pick one or two--maybe three--angles of attack and explore them. Between Obama's official comments, media investigations, and internet buzz the attacks didn't stop at three, they didn't stop at thirty. The approach quickly slid from reasonable to atrocious.

It also gives the public impression of being totally immature. It smacks of desperation. "She has no experience!" Oh wait, she does. "Her daughter carried her own sister to term!" Oh wait, she didn't. "She was a horribly corrupt Governor!" Oh wait, she wasn't. "She banned books as a librarian!" Oh wait, she didn't. And on and on and on. Then on and on and on and on again. The one-hundredth accusation you hurl makes it obvious to most that you have an agenda. At times, it makes you appear a raving lunatic.

Martin's article drills this point home with the embarrassing length of the list. I was tempted to quote it all here, but frankly it is too long for that.

• Yes, she is governor of Alaska. No, she’s not the lieutenant governor. No, she’s not currently mayor of Wasilla. Yes, she was mayor of Wasilla, some years ago.
• Yes, as governor of Alaska, she’s the commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard. And yes, her professional military subordinate is quite impressed with her in that role.
• And yes, the New York Times says the job of governor of Alaska is one of the harder, and more powerful, jobs in state government.
• No, the Downs baby (Trig) isn’t Bristol’s kid, and no, the kid wasn’t born with Downs because (a) Palin flew on an airplane (b) went home to have the baby after an amniotic leak (c) because he was the result of incest between Todd Palin and Bristol.
• No, Track (the kid who is leaving for Iraq) didn’t join the NG because he was a drug addict. He may have joined the NG because he was tired of people saying his Mom was getting him into the good hockey leagues. (Yes, that one was original reporting. I’ve got sources in Wasilla.)
• No, Willow and Piper aren’t named for witches on TV. Among other things, Willow was born before Buffy came on TV, and Piper was born before Charmed.
• No she wasn’t a member of the (wild-eyed libertarian) Alaska Independence Party, although her husband once was.
• No, neither the (Canadian) National Post, nor Marc Armbinder at the Atlantic have troubled themselves to issue a correction. Yes, the New York Times did finally correct their story of September 1 — on September 5. And on page 14. This was after Elizabeth Bumiller was quoted by Howard Kurtz as saying she was “completely confident about the story.” Yes, that was after the New York Times’s source retracted the story. Yes, this should embarrass the Times, Bumiller, and Howard Kurtz. No, there have been no signs of embarrassment.

Some of the points on his list are silly. Others are not. A couple of last comments to point out. One, these two entries on the list stand out:

• No, the list of books she wanted to ban that’s being passed around isn’t real; among other things, it includes a number of books published after her time in office there.
• No, that hasn’t actually deterred people from claiming it really is true even if the list isn’t correct. For example: “This list might not in fact reflect the books Sarah Palin wanted banned. As more than one person in Comments has pointed out, some of them were not published when Palin was in office. It is my hope that the mainstream media will not let this story drop and that at some point an actual list will surface. The very thought of having someone who once advocated book-banning possibly occupying one of the highest offices of our land fills me with profound dread. It should fill you with dread too.”

This is the same dangerous attitude as the "fake but accurate" documents that CBS tried to use to destroy Bush. The same attitude that ended Dan Rather's career. The reason I started blogging in the first place.

Think carefully about that line of reasoning. Someone creates a fake document with the intention of discrediting someone else. The document is proven to be an obvious fake. Yet, somehow, we are suppose to believe the document is "fake but accurate" and not drop the story. If there is real evidence that supports your point, bring it forward. If you have no evidence, then there is no story. I'm sorry but that is the way the world works. Actually, check that, I'm not sorry. If any idea that pops into anyone's head is taken as truth just because the original thinker knows it has to be true the world would drown in chaos.

The second comment of Martin that deserves specific attention:

So this is the complete list of Palin rumors, at least as it stands about midnight Mountain Time on September 7, 2008. (The link will take you back to the complete and current list on my blog Explorations.) I make a point of the time because the list has been growing by around seven rumors a day; there’s at least one in my queue that I haven’t been able to completely track down yet.

Seven rumors a day. We have gone so far past the line of credibility that it is laughable. I'm shocked to see the vitriol continue with such fervor even in the face of strong evidence that the backlash is a major boon to the target of the attacks. If Sarah Palin becomes the next Vice President of the United States she has in great part the unhinged response of her opponents to thank.

Olbermann and Matthews out at MSNBC

MSNBC has made the decision to pull Olbermann and Matthews out of the news anchor position for any future political coverage.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

Given the depth to which Olbermann in particular has sunk during this election campaign, I can only say that this decision is more than past due. I will add that MSNBC only regains a modicum of respect if they also employ some more conservative analysts during the news casts. News casts aren't editorial programs and should not be stacked with "analysts" that only see one side of all issues. More established NBC news personalities agree with the decision.

Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams, the past and present anchors of “NBC Nightly News,” have told friends and colleagues that they are finding it tougher and tougher to defend the cable arm of the news division, even while they anchored daytime hours of convention coverage on MSNBC and contributed commentary each evening.

As someone who has followed media bias for years, I am still in shock that networks are starting to realize the issue themselves. This decision is a start, but they have a long way to go to reestablish credibility as a unbiased source of information.

As a final thought consider a potential 10% lead among likely voters for McCain. Consider liberally biased news anchors removed from the big chair. If you are at all a student of the political process can you not sit back and be amazed at the change wrought by Sarah Palin on this election cycle? Whether you love her or hate her, her impact is undeniable.

USA Today Poll Shows Large McCain Lead

Continuing the poll analysis, USA Today has a new poll out tonight.

McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican's biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points.

This is about what is being measured by other polls.

One of the comments made on all these polls is that it is based of registered voters. Some argue that "likely voters" is a better predictor. The likely numbers for the USA Today poll suggest:

In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.

The first thing that comes to mind when you seen a spread this large compared to other polls is "outlier". But then other polls aren't reporting on likely voters so a direct comparison is very difficult to make at this point in time.

Regardless of the accuracy, unless their internal polls are telling them something different, this will cause glee in the McCain camp and panic in the Obama camp.

Will Clinton Help Obama fight Palinmania?

A news item I declined to cover the other day was that Obama would call on female surrogates to fight Sarah Palin. That's the actual headline:

To counter Palin, Obama to dispatch female surrogates

I guess because this sounds oddly like a theme inspired by Invasion of the Body Snatchers, headlines quickly changed. The NYT covered it this way:

Obama Camp Turns to Clinton to Counter Palin

Ann Althouse covered this switch of headlines here. She also posted a poll question "Which headline was more accurate, and why did the NYT switch to the second headline?" and the poll results ... well I hope it doesn't surprise you.

So far Clinton has be coy with her answers, but saying:

Advisers to Mrs. Clinton said that she stood ready to help the Obama-Biden ticket, but they urged the campaign not to overestimate the impact Mrs. Clinton could have, noting that she had other commitments this fall, like campaigning and raising money for Senate candidates.

is pretty much a political "good luck to you". Though you have to admire his audacity, in a way. After not picking Hilary as VP and reportedly dismissing the idea immediately, it takes some doing to go begging for her help now.

Today, Instapundit linked to a more general article on the presidential race at the Moderate Voice. The whole article is interesting and as Glenn says, "Read the whole thing." But the political cartoon linked in the article is germane to this topic so I thought I'd link it here.


Brilliant.

Video Obama's "My Muslim Faith" Gaffe...Does He Look Tired?

So a couple of hours ago, in a interview with George Stephanopoulos, Sen. Barack Obama accidentally said "my Muslim faith" instead of "my Christian faith". I'm sure the right is going to go nuts with this. The video is already on YouTube and the LittleGreenFootballs thread on it has over 500 comments already.

Personally I don't care what Obama's religion--or lack or religion--is. I don't care about any candidates religion so long as they keep religion out of policy making.

What struck me about the video is how tired Obama looked in it. The normally eloquent Obama just seemed distracted? Uninterested? He makes the gaffe and then doesn't react to it until Stephanopoulos corrects him. Combine that attitude with the fact that the interview was conducted by two men in suits, sitting on metal folding chairs, in the middle of what appears to be a horse barn? The visual is just bizarre:



If I were managing Obama's campaign, I would get Obama out in front of a crowd where he is most comfortable. To heck with the worry that it makes him appear a celebrity. The recent string of personal interviews on O'Reilly and Sunday morning talk shows have been pretty poor performances.

Survey of Post-Convention Poll Results

Update: Gallup has the Sept, 7 results. McCain 48%, Obama 45%.

McCain's 48% share of the vote ties for his largest since Gallup tracking began in early March. He registered the same level of support in early May. This is also McCain's largest advantage over Obama since early May, when he led by as much as six percentage points. Obama has led McCain for most of the campaign, and for nearly all of the time since clinching the Democratic nomination in early June.

I didn't expect bump this big until Tuesday. End Update.

Poll results that take account three full days of data after McCain's speech are still one day away. But here's what polls that have full data after Palin are saying as of this morning:

Rassmussen: McCain and Obama tied at 46%. With leaners, tied at 48%. Rassmussen also reports state-by-state results, but these are woefully out of date compared to the national ones. (For example, the last Colorado poll was reported on August 14. That is pre-convention for both parties.)

CBS News: Obama and McCain tied at 42%, with more undecideds than Rassmussen. These results were reported Sept 4th, so they didn't include full data from Palin or McCain speeches.

Zogby: As I noted, below, the latest Zogby poll has McCain at 49.7% and Obama at 45.9%. I continue to question Zogby. Having McCain near the 50% barrier, if accurate, would be big, big news.

Gallup has yet to update results today, but as of yesterday they have Obama 47%, McCain 45%.

The accuracy of polling is of course always to be questioned. Additionally, the state-by-state breakdown is likely of much greater importance but post-convention examples of state-by-state results won't be available for some time.

I think the major impact of this polling will be seen in how the two camps handle it. McCain needs to feel the momentum and keep pushing it. Taking time off now would be devastating. Obama needs to not panic and refocus on presenting a strong, confident image.

Latest Zogby Poll Shows Slight McCain Lead

As the election draws closer I'm going to be spending more time digging into poll numbers. Zogby has released a new presidential tracking pall and as usual I am not sure exactly how to interpret it. I've said it enough, but Zogby is often a random number generator. They're internals are available but only for a cost and I'm not willing to pay for a poll I already consider questionable. That said, here are the numbers:

McCain-Palin	49.7%
Obama-Biden	45.9%
Others/Not sure	4.4%

The data shows a 3.8% lead for McCain with a margin of error of 2.1%. So a slight lead, statistically. Zogby also provided data for survey questions where the vice presidential candidates were not mentioned. The numbers for this case:

McCain	48.8%
Obama	45.7%
Others/Not sure	4.4%

So the race tightens if Palin and Biden aren't in the picture. Note that Obama's numbers are unaffected without Biden; McCain looses about 1 point without Palin.

Dick Morris: Democrats in Trouble

Dick Morris, former political adviser to President Bill Clinton, has an article in the New York Post (via Real Clear Politics) entitled "Democrats in Trouble". His main point:

The turning point was the designation of Palin and the personal attacks on her. By stirring up a storm, Democrats assured that Palin would speak to 37 million Americans - just a million fewer than watched Obama's acceptance speech.

...

They've seen the media and Democrats gang up on her and do their worst. And they've seen Palin stand up and stuff the challenge right back down the establishment's throat. All this may have created an entirely new dynamic in the race.

On this point, I agree with him. Both the Democrats and the media (sorry if I am being redundant) grossly underestimated Palin and her appeal. They figured they would squash her quickly and easily, McCain would be shown to have poor judgment, and the race would be over. Instead they have unleashed a sleeping giant of enthusiasm and the eventual impact could be catastrophic for Obama's campaign.

I disagree with Morris on one point, though:

Anecdotal evidence already suggests that women may have a gut reaction to the establishment's sexist assault on a woman candidate - and flock to McCain. They've seen him stake everything on this one big move of turning toward a woman - in direct contrast to Obama's deliberate decision not to name a woman.

There is also anecdotal evidence that many liberal women don't really mind sexist behavior when the target is a conservative woman. To them Sarah Palin is just another old white guy in a skirt who deserves no sympathy.

Hilary Clinton's supports are just too far away from Palin for them to "flock" to her. While Palin may get a few percent of them, the lion's share are going to Obama. What Palin did do was excite the conservative base. In the end it is all about percentages.

DJ Drummond, over as Wizbang, as is he style has a ultra wordy piece on a recent Rassmussen daily tracking poll that has Obama up 48% to McCain's 46%. But the interesting internal is:

Rasmussen has weighted the respondent pool, with 39.7% weighted as Democrats, 32.1% as Republicans, and 28.2% as unaffiliated.

This means Rassmussen is assuming that ~40% of the voter will be Democrats and ~32% of the voters will be Republicans. In an election with Republicans unenthusiastically supporting McCain, that might be an accurate assumption. In an election with Republicans passionately excited about Sarah Palin, that assumption could be horribly inaccurate.

It is the conservative base that the media attacks woke up, not waves of female Clinton supporters suddenly crossing party lines in solidarity. But the end effect could be just the same come election day.

Gallup Polling Data on Palin's Speech

Gallup just released the daily tracking poll. The data shows a 4-point lead for Obama, 48% to 44%. It is important to note that the Gallup poll represents data taken over a 3-day period. The time period for this poll includes one full day after Sarah Palin's speech and (virtually) no data after McCain's speech.

Gallup notes:

While both conventions are now over, measurement of public reaction to them is not. Results, based on interviewing conducted Sept. 2-4, include just one day of interviewing conducted after Wednesday night's widely viewed acceptance speech by McCain's vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Most interviewing Thursday night was conducted before McCain's acceptance speech, so Gallup Poll Daily tracking results will start to reflect its impact in Saturday's report. The full impact of the GOP convention on voter preferences will not be known until Monday's report, the first in which all interviews will have been conducted following the convention's conclusion.

With the inclusion of one day of data after Palin's speech, Obama's post-convention lead dropped from 7% to 4%. Statistically, that's just inside noise. Realistically, it should give Obama's camp cause for concern.

Baseline poll information before the speech was delivered is archived here.

Police Coverup of Dog Killings

In July, sheriff officers raided the home of the mayor of Berwyn Heights, Cheye Calvo, looking for drugs. The police were investigating a large shipment of marijuana that they tracked to the mayor's residence. They chose to use a full-out swat team raid, busted down the door, and in the ensuing chaos shot and killed the mayor's two black labs. Indications were that the drugs were sent to the mayor by mistake and he was not involved in drug trafficking.

The Prince George's County Sherrif's Office has conducted an investigation and determined that the killing of the dogs was justified. The claim is:

The sheriff said that one dog was engaging an officer and that the other was running toward a second officer at the time the black Labs were shot...

However the mayor says the claim is a fabrication, and has medical evidence to back it up:

The necropsy concluded one dog was shot four times and the other twice, including once in the dog's back legs.

Calvo said the necropsy has bolstered his contention that neither dog was threatening law enforcement officers during the raid and that one dog was shot from behind as he fled into a back room.

Disgusting. Invade someone's home. Shoot dogs fleeing in terror. Cover it up in the ensuing investigation. I can only hope that the investigation doesn't stop here. If a mayor is powerless to prevent such police overreactions such as this, what hope does a common citizen have?

Lame Google Searching

I love how Google works sometime. A while back I quoted an Ann Althouse post about media bias. The title of the post was "Media Bias Shameless and Lame" and it was based of the quote from Ann, which I will re-quote here:

How many media folks are dying to piss off McCain and get him to blow up and confirm the idea that he's a big hothead? Obviously, he knows that and he's not taking the bait. Yet you still publish an article called "McCain's Prickly TIME Interview," trying to portray it as the blowup you were not able to procure. Lame. Shameless bias.

Additionally, much later, I also posted about the set changes for McCain's acceptance speech last night. The title of that post was "Set Changes for McCain's Speech Tonight."

Well, late last night, somebody did a google search. The search terms were:

tonights mccain's lame acceptance speech

Google merged the text of the two posts, above, together and decided I was the best match for a lame McCain speech. While the search no longer returns my blog, last night I was the number one choice for these search words.

Isn't it funny what people will search for? This individual was actively looking for a feel-good echo chamber. They thought that the speech as "lame" and wanted to find others that felt the same way. Note that it wasn't "ineffective" or "poorly delivered" or something a unbiased author might use to describe a bad political speech. They wanted "lame"--a choice clearly only a person firmly biased against McCain would choose.

Excitement All About Palin

The difference between Wednesday night and last night at the convention was staggering. Not from the coverage (I didn't really watch) and not from the speeches (I didn't get a chance to see McCain's speech live). I am judging from the activity online.

On Wednesday night, people were absolutely buzzing. Post after post were being made on blogs everywhere. You could go back to your favorite blog, hit refresh, and be almost guaranteed to see an update or a new story. I posted a few comments on popular blogs and the traffic hear hit the normal daily totals within 5 minutes.

On Thursday night, there were relatively few posts made. I read a few "good speech, not as good as Palin's" posts. A few of the more prominent conservative blogs were idle--the authors went to bed and posted their thoughts in the morning.

More on this later, but the excitement and buzz that Palin has caused in the conservative base is just shocking. I've read comments that say they haven't seen anything like this since Ronald Reagan. At first I scoffed at that suggestion. The more I think about it, though, the more it is hard to argue.

I don't agree with Sarah Palin on all the issues. But my initial reaction of "what a brilliant political move" when McCain picked her is becoming more true than what I every would have predicted.

Obama Amazed the Surge Worked

I honestly don't know what to say. In part of his O'Reilly interview, Obama said:

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

In ways nobody anticipated? Is he serious? Did he mean "In ways that people argued passionately for, only to be met with ridicule?" and just mis-speak, as politicians like to call it?

In his typical to-the-point style, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit says:

Actually, I think it succeeded in ways that John McCain anticipated. And General Petraeus, who was mocked by Obama-supporting MoveOn as "General Betrayus."

When it comes to social issues, Obama speaks with passion and experience. I don't agree with many of his solutions, but he definitely has a view point. When it comes to military issues in general, and Iraq in particular, he is so obviously over his head that I sort of feel sorry for him.

Twist on Biased Polls: Rigged Focus Groups

Digging into the internals on polls and looking for bias is a geeky passion of mine. Here's a new twist on the phenomenon: rigged focus groups.

So on September 3, Free Press hosted a voter panel and got their reaction to Sarah Palin's speech. A number of the independent voters were somewhat harsh in their assessment. A little digging has determined some of these same people were used in a voter panel to judge the reaction to Michelle Obama's speech on August 25. In that case, these independent voters were quite positive towards Michelle's speech.

It turns out that two of the people involved in these groups were members of Code Pink, the extreme anti-Iraq war group. One of them was involved in a hunger strike for noted anti-war nut Cindy Sheehan.

In case you aren't convinced that just being anti-war disqualifies you from being an independent, I'll post the following picture. This photo is from !!WaynePhotoGuy and he has all rights reserved. (Photo was found vis Ann Althouse.)


Now this isn't a photo of one of the people involved in the fixed focus groups, described above. But picture in your mind a typical independent voter. Is the above picture representative?

Sadly while many might have read the results of the focus groups, few will learn of the shenanigans that go on behind the scenes.

Polls on the Impact of Palin's Speech

Polling data measuring the impact of Palin's speech is still limited. It will be several days before the three-day rolling average polls will include data taken completely after Wednesday night. Two results are available and both show promise for the McCain-Palin ticket.

First up is a CBS poll that shows the race tied at 42% each. This is particularly surprising since the data was taken Monday through Wednesday--meaning the impact of Palin's speech was yet to be factored in. Still, last week, the same poll showed a 48% to 40% lead. Comparing across polling agencies is difficult because of the different methodologies used. Comparing the polls from the same agency from week to week isn't rock solid, but should be somewhat more valid.

The second poll is a study conducted specifically after Palin's speech to assess the impact. The data was collected by HCD Research and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion (MCIPO). The most interesting results is described here:

There is a positive change in how independents anticipate voting in the Presidential election after viewing Palin’s speech, with a 9% increase among independents indicating that they will probably or definitely vote for the McCain/Palin ticket after watching the speech.

Palin’s speech proved to be equally effective in swaying votes for both men and women. Among the independents who watched her speech, respondents who report that they will “probably” or “definitely” vote for McCain increased by 10% across both genders, around 38% of female independents and 36% of their male counterparts.

If that holds, a 9% increase in independents for McCain is huge. Palin's strength was to shore up the conservative vote; having such a positive effect on independents would be surprising.

The Gallup and Rassmussen data still doesn't include the effects of the speech, but they show Obama with 7% and 4% leads, respectively.

These data are good reference points to note before Palin and McCain conventions speeches are included early next week.

Update: There's a SurveyUSA poll out with similar data:

24 hours ago, independent voters nationwide were split on whether Palin was an asset or a liability to McCain's campaign. Today, by a 2:1 margin, independents say Palin is an asset. Overnight, the percentage calling the Alaska governor an asset to the campaign climbed 13 points; the percentage calling her a liability fell 17 points.

The numbers are similar among moderates, who 24 hours ago viewed Palin as a liability by an 11 point margin; today, Palin is seen as an asset by an 18 point margin.

Also:

24 hours ago, when asked if they would bet on Obama or McCain becoming president, Obama was a 16:15 favorite; today, it's flipped, and McCain is favored by the same ratio.

Full numbers available here. (Hat tip: Hot Air)

At Least Biden Thinks Sarah Palin Is Good Looking

Biden, well, pulls a Biden and accidentally demotes Sarah Palin to lieutenant governor:

And the other thing I heard, I heard a very - by the way, I mean this sincerely - a very strong and a very good political speech from a lieutenant governor of Alaska, who I think is going to be very formidable, very formidable.

I know this was just simple mistake while speaking, but eventually these things add up. A joke about a cute girl in the skirt here. Mayor of a small town there. Given how well she handled herself on the national stage, I'd be careful with the subliminal insul--I mean honest mistakes and misunderstandings.

Timing of Obama's Appearance O'Reilly is Rude

A week or so ago, I criticized McCain for running an ad during Obama's nomination acceptance speech. I had to recant that criticism when it turned out that ad was a congratulatory message to Obama on being the first black American to achieve a presidential nomination. In that second post, I noted:

It also preempts any sort of shenanigans during the RNC.

It seems I am once again proven wrong. Tonight, during McCain's turn to give his nomination acceptance speech, Barack Obama will appear on The O'Reilly Factor on FoxNews. I think we can assume he won't spend most of his time during the interview praising John McCain.

Now I can't watch Bill O'Reilly. After about 30 seconds it becomes so obvious that all the man is interested is hearing his own voice and driving up ratings. But the timing of this interview is just rude.

Obama's speech in Denver was his turn, his night. It wasn't a night for divisive attacks or counterpoints. And thankfully McCain realized that. Tonight is McCain's night. Even if he ends up losing the election, McCain has worked hard to get where he is and this night should be a recognition of that.

A poor choice of timing on Obama's part and I expected him to be craftier than this. I hope he gets the criticism he deserves.

Satire of the Red vs. Blue Silliness

On a lighter note, I found this post over at the Volokh Conspiracy. It is a short play inspired by the comment threads during this political season.

Scene: A Volokh Conspiracy comment thread. Enter two commenters, Red and Blue.

RED: I sure like apples.
BLUE: Apples? They're rotten. Oranges are better.
RED: Are you insane? Oranges are disasters.
BLUE: At least oranges aren't corrupt fruits that hate America.
RED: Yes they are, in fact Hitler liked oranges!
BLUE: WTF? Hitler was an apple.

The End.

Sadly this is almost so true that it is not funny. But I laughed anyway.

Palin and the Union Vote

One of the interesting side-stories with Sarah Palin is that her husband is not a registered Republican and that he is a union member. Two characteristics that I'm sure will not be popular with conservatives.

However, as with the last few presidential elections, this one is likely to be decided in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Obama is currently doing well in the later two, not so well in Ohio. In his contest with Hilary Clinton, his major weakness in states such as this was seen in the blue-collar union vote. How will Palin influence this vote?

I came across this posted email to Hugh Hewitt:

I work in a small manufacturing facility in the greater Syracuse NY area. It is pretty darn "blue" around here, but kind of a "centrist dem, labor-oriented, working class value blue-collar blue". Not the "fever swamp truther, BushCo kind of blue". Anyway, to the point. No one EVER talks politics here, but the place is BUZZING with Palin fever. Everyone's talking about her, and the most often used phrase I hear is "finally, one of us!"

The left is in serious, serious trouble. I myself wasn't enthused about McCain, though my respect for the man's sacrifice alone gets my vote. But now I will writing my first EVER check to any candidate. And I will gladly support the McCain/Palin ticket because she inspires me.

The problem here is that Hugh Hewitt is about as far right as you can get. While he claims he has a "virtual in-box" full of similar emails, how many is that, really?

I would be very interested in any polling done to test this. I am as harsh a critic as anyone when it comes to the accuracy of polls. But this is an interesting and potentially pivotal issue and I would welcome any data beyond the anecdotal.

Obama vs. Palin Experience

I have to preface this post with a comment that comparing Palin's experience to Obama's assumes that McCain is going to drop dead as soon as he takes office. While that might be "funny" to joke about it is a rather absurd assumption.

That said, we know what the Republicans and the Democrats think. Republicans think Obama is an empty suit and Palin is the most popular Governor in the nation. Democrats think Obama is the best example of hope and leadership this country has to offer and that Palin is a uneducated hick from the a small town that can't stop popping out babies.

But what to independent voters think? From Rasumussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll:

Perhaps most stunning is that, among unaffiliated voters, just 42% believe Obama has better experience than Palin to be President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) say Palin has the edge on experience. Again, most of the interviews for this survey were completed before Palin’s well-received speech last night.

It will be interesting to see how this changes with data that takes the speech into account. But those numbers have to be considered positive for the McCain camp.

As an aside, there doesn't seem to be any doubt about my pet subject, media bias:

Last night’s polling shows that, by a ten-to-one margin, voters believe reporters are trying to hurt Palin’s campaign rather than help. Republicans and unaffiliated voters strongly believe that a double standard is being applied to Palin because she is a woman. Democrats disagree.

This is very strong evidence that you can't see a bias if you agree with it, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't open your eyes and try to see things objectively.

Clinton Aides Consider Palin's Treatment Sexist

A few posts down there was a noteworthy occurrence for a (new) blog with low readership--somebody actually posted a comment! For blog authors that have millions of page hits and thousands of readers, it may seem silly to even note the occasion. But to Alphaliberal, I say thank you.

The comment got me thinking, too. Here it is:

Ask yourself who has attacked her for being a mother and politician? Not Democrats. We nominated same 25 years ago.

Dr Laura, a very conservative person has. That whole thing is a fake out.

I can dismiss the Dr. Laura part immediately. Dr. Laura is caricature and I wouldn't care to comment on her views no matter what the issue.

But it is of course true that the Democratic party was first to nominate a woman for vice-president. Hilary Clinton came inches away from being the first woman presidential candidate, again for the Democratic party. Would it be likely that a sexist attitude towards Palin would come from her own party or from the party that has shown more support for women candidates in the past?

Today some people you'd probably least expect to do so weighed in on the issue. Top aides for Hilary Clinton have gone on record to say that the treatment Sarah Palin has received from the media and from Democrats has been sexist.

Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen, who has written best-selling books on gender differences, said she agrees with complaints that Palin skeptics — including prominent voices in the news media — have crossed a line by speculating about whether the Alaska governor is neglecting her family in pursuit of national office.

“What we’re dealing with now, there’s nothing subtle about it,” said Tannen. “We’re dealing with the assumption that child-rearing is the job of women and not men. Is it sexist? Yes.”

“There’s no way those questions would be asked of a male candidate,” said Howard Wolfson a former top strategist for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Commentary on the remarks has suggested that the timing constitutes a continuation of the disagreements between the Obama and Clinton campaigns. I'd suggest that the reason behind the comments could possibly be that the treatment is indeed sexist and that is upsetting to some people. The article notes two of the more egregious examples that have occurred recently. First, one by Joe Biden:

Democrat Joe Biden, in what he intended as self-deprecating remark, observed, “There's a gigantic difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent. ... She's good looking."

Was Joe Biden trying to be "funny" or was this a clever jab at a woman opponent by a seasoned politician? Given the history of off-the-teleprompter gaffes by Biden, I'm inclined to say the former. But the comment still is was uncalled for. The second example is from a NOW spokeswoman:

A spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women, noting Palin’s opposition to abortion rights and support of other parts of the social conservative agenda, told Politico, “She's more a conservative man than she is a woman on women's issues. Very disappointing."

This I think brings up a key point. It is unreasonable to believe that all women should feel the same on all "women's issues". While I don't agree with the extreme nature of pretty much anything NOW says, I myself don't agree with Sarah Palin on issues such as abortion. But I can't assume that all women should be of one mind any more than I could assume all men are. Furthermore, by calling singling out some issues as "women's issues" doesn't that somehow designate the other issues as "men's issues"? Does it suggest that women shouldn't have opinions about national defense, terrorism, energy independence, and illegal immigration?

Even if the McCain/Palin tickets loses in November, I think they may have accomplished a lot just by bringing inequities such as these to national attention.

Set Changes for McCain's Speech Tonight

It has been recently announced that there will be set modifications before John McCain gives his speech tonight. There have been idle speculations that this is being done to prevent any comparisons to the Greek-temple themed Obama set that the Republicans mocked during several of last night's speeches. I don't think this is the case.

From the press release, note the following:

The podium used for the first three nights of the convention was modified to enable John McCain to deliver his acceptance speech from the center of the Xcel Energy Center. The new podium is a reflection of the town-hall style that has been a hallmark of McCain's campaign. In the new forum, he will be surrounded by the delegates that nominated him the night before.

The new podium was constructed by removing the front corner sections of the existing platform and extending its midsection by 30 feet. The extension will be eight feet wide. Near the conclusion of tonight's program, Sen. McCain will address the convention from a lectern positioned near the end of this newly-constructed extension. To accommodate the modified platform, delegates from the state of Ohio will be re-seated on either side.

"The extended podium will serve as a fitting complement to John McCain's preference for direct interaction with his fellow citizens," said Maria Cino, president and CEO of the 2008 Republican National Convention.

This is not the first time I've heard of such a set change. I've searched for a record of the following story but to no avail. But I've been a long time fan of Jay Leno and I know the story well.

When the Leno-Letterman wars started, Letterman initially clobbered Leno in the ratings. Letterman was seen as energetic and innovative, often running through hallways and down streets and into the audience and to where ever the funny joke was to be found. Leno, in contrast, seemed oddly stilted and didn't connect with his audience. Then they made a set change. If you watch, when Leno comes out to do his monologue, a mini stage slides forward from the main stage. It puts Leno up close and personal with the front rows of the crowd. According to interviews, this was the environment Leno was use to--intimate nigh clubs where the audience was "right there". This change is attributed as the reason Leno became dynamic once again and the reason his ratings shot to the top and stayed there.

While the above text is from a press release and of course should be taken with a grain of salt, it is true that McCain seems to thrive in the town-hall format. So much so that the Obama camp has refused, to this point, to debate McCain in town-hall style meetings.

If the set change can make McCain more comfortable and a better speaker--an area that is clearly an Obama strength--then it could be view historically as a very savvy decision. I can also imagine the far right having a field day with the fact that Obama sought out a huge stadium and grandiose platform to feel comfortable while McCain looked for a more intimate setting.

Both Sides Seem Impressed with Palin's Speech

Before Palin's speech I offered the bold prediction that the right would love it and the left/media would hate it. I have to admit I was half-wrong.

True enough, people on the right seem very excited about Sarah Palin's performance. Kim Priestap at Wizbangblog is beside herself with emotion:

I LOVE SARAH PALIN!!!! Her speech left me breathless! I can't believe how well she did with all the pressure and the scrutiny. She delivered in spades. And to those in the mainstream media who were trying to force her off the ticket: NOT A CHANCE! You're all chumps! She and McCain played you!! Ha ha ha! I'm so jazzed right now.

This reaction seems over the top, but as I said, expected. To see if I was right on the other half of my prediction I went over to MSNBC and found this lead story about the speech. They seemed notably positive. For example:

On the night Republicans nominate John McCain for the presidency, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin accepts the VP nod and launches a withering attack on her critics and Barack Obama.

and here:

But in a speech that connected strongly with delegates who interrupted her numerous times with standing ovations, she dismissed critics of her background as snobs who looked down on ordinary Americans and their concerns.

They covered the Democratic response, as they should, but didn't do it with a obvious bias. (And, as a side note, the response from the Obama camp seems to be that she used a Bush speechwriter? I would hope they come up with a more substantive response than that.)

All in all, people seem impressed with the performance. It will be interesting to see if the reaction holds 24 hours from now, after McCain's speech.

Reaction to Sarah Palin's Convention Speech

Tonight I did something I haven't done in a long time--I watched a speech at a political convention. I have to start by saying that, in general, I hate speeches at convention for the same reason I really can't stand to listen to State of the Union addresses. It is almost impossible for even the best of orators to get a good rhythm going when they are interrupted constantly and for prolong periods by excessive applause.

But I must admit that the historical implications and the media frenzy got the better of me. If she killed, I wanted to see it. If she broke down and left the stage, I wanted to witness it. So at 9am, I turned on ABC (Peter Jennings still affects me to this day) and was greeted with Rudy Giuliani.

Now I like Rudy. I admired the way he handled himself during 9/11. I thought he was make a good president and was disappointed when his campaign faltered and badly. I was shocked, therefore, to not think much of his delivery. He certainly nailed his talking points but I thought he came off angry and mean-spirited. I know part of his role tonight was to play the attack dog but I thought he could have handled it more deftly. His less than stellar performance had an unforeseen consequence--it made Sarah Palin appear much better than I expected.

If Giuliani had given the speech of lifetime it would have been a hard act to follow. But he didn't. In comparison Palin appeared poised and her timing was much better. True it was impossible to tell because of the ridiculous number of interruptions, but I think it would be hard to argue that she gave a poor performance.

I think the highlight quote of the night from Palin was:

There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you.

Cliche perhaps, but appealing to peoples patriotism in a clever manner in never a bad idea in a convention speech. I think the other killer line of the night was delivered by Giuliani:

"One final point. And how dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time to spend with her children and be vice president. How dare they do that.

When do they ever ask a man that question? When?

I have no idea how large an audience of women that plays to but they are out there.

Bold Predictions About the Palin Speech Tonight

I'm going to make two bold predictions about Sarah Palin's speech tonight at the Republican National Convention.

1. Excited conservatives will praise the speech as one of the best ever delivered at a convention for either party.
2. Excited liberals will openly mock the delivery of every word and offer up the performance as proof McCain will pick a new VP candidate within the week.

For proof of (1), I offer up this, where the pre-released text of the speech is being cheered as if it were being delivered live. While I can appreciate the enthusiasm for your candidate, isn't this really cheering the speechwriter? Unless you can believe Sarah wrote the speech herself?

For proof of (2), just go to ... well just turn on MSNBC after the speech. Having lost any integrity as a journalistic organization, it is pretty easy to predict the "coverage" you will see there.

As for my real prediction, I think she'll have a strong delivery. While so many are attempting to question McCain's judgment for making the Palin pick, her repuatation of being good under fire makes me think she'll do just fine. Considering how much pressure is on her, living up to the hype will be no small feat.

The real challenges lie in the weeks ahead, of course. But she needs to get off to a good start tonight or it will be over before it began.

Credit Where Credit Is Due

My tracking of the front page of CNN continues. For the first time, a positive slant on Sarah Palin.


The text is undeniably positive:

When she played basketball in high school, Sarah Palin, the soon-to-be Republican vice presidential nominee, earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" for her fierce competitiveness. In the 21 months she has served as governor of Alaska, no one is suggesting she's lost her fighting edge.

Of course the question right under it is:

Is Palin ready to lead?

This is a valid question. I would love to have been tracking long enough to see if the counterpart "Is Obama ready to lead?" was ever asked.