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.

Media Coverage Differences Between DNC and RNC

Interested, as usual, in media bias I've been paying close attention to the front page of CNN. After Biden and Obama gave their speeches in Denver last week, here's the picture that spread across the top of the page:


There were 10 positive stories under that picture but the stories weren't really important. In this case a picture really is worth 1000 words.

How does coverage of the RNC this week compare. Last night we had what people are reporting was a great speech by Fred Thompson and a historic speech by Liebermann. The Thompson speech wasn't covered by the media. If you were at the convention and liked it or hated it--it really didn't matter. Nobody outside that hall saw it.

As for the Liebermann speech, take a moment to realize that a former candidate for vice president for one party was giving a speech at the convention of the other party in support of the opposing presidential candidate. That's pretty historic and newsworthy regardless of the content of the speech. How did CNN cover it?



By giving the view of the Democratic Party, of course.

How far can media bias go before even people who agree with the left say it has gone too far? We'll see what the picture looks like after the Palin and McCain speeches. But at this point I think we all know what to expect.

Update: CNN has updated the Liebermann story picture to this blurry image.

Media Listening to Obama about Palin, Day 2

So yesterday I noted that the media had ignored Obama's request that families are off-limits in presidential campaigned.

Here's the front page of CNN this morning:


I'm especially impressed that CNN is quoting People. You know, the magazine that tells us how JLo feels about having a baby or getting married? That's some hard hitting reporting there, Lou.

Will the Media Listen to Obama?

Barack Obama has stated plainly and clearly that family members--and specifically the children of candidates--are off-limits during political campaigns. He asked the media to "back-off" of Sarah Palin's children. The current front page of CNN.com focuses on the following:


So here we have picture of the 17-year-old Bristol Palin along with an attention grabbing headline about pregnancy--and right under it we have a link to the article about Obama saying the family is off-limits.

Will they eventually listen to him? Or is it part of the plan to let Obama go on record that this is bad but all the while continue the attacks on 17-year-old children?

If Obama was genuine in his comments that Palin's family is off-limits he should be incensed at the actions of CNN.

McCain Camp Responds on the Experience Issue

Below I commented:

But for a presidential candidate to admit that so far his biggest accomplishment to date has been to running for president? If I were the McCain camp, I'd run this response in an infinite loop.

They haven't used it in a campaign ad (yet), but the McCain campaign has commented officially on Obama's statement.

For Barack Obama to argue that he’s experienced enough to be president because he’s running for president is desperate circular logic and it’s laughable. It is a testament to Barack Obama’s inexperience and failing qualifications that he would stoop to passing off his candidacy as comparable to Governor Sarah Palin’s executive experience managing a budget of over 10 billion dollar dollars, and more than 24,000 employees.

My money is still on this being the subject of a new McCain ad, and soon.

Obama's Biggest Accomplishment to Date Is Managing His Campaign?

I still don't quite believe this one. Yesterday Barack Obama was interviewed by CNN and was asked about the "experience issue". His response (sorry this transcript comes complete with uh's and um's, which I normally see edited out):

Well, you know, my understanding is that, uh, Governor Palin’s town of Wasilly [sic] has, uh, 50 employees, uh, uh, we’ve got 2500, uh, in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. Uh, uh, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. Uh, so I think that, uh, our ability to manage large systems, uh, and to, uh, execute, uh, I think has been made clear over the last couple of years.

So let's clean up the transcript and get to the meat of what Obama was saying.

1. The most experience he has so far has been running for president.
2. Sarah Palin was mayor of a small town, which is a much smaller operation than his campaign.
3. He is comparing his experience to Sarah Palin's.

To which I am forced to comment:

1. Really? I mean I think it is true. Beating someone of Hilary Clinton's political stature in a national campaign is not an easy task. To do so certainly requires good leadership skills. But for a presidential candidate to admit that so far his biggest accomplishment to date has been to running for president? If I were the McCain camp, I'd run this response in an infinite loop. Althouse remarks:
   

   But isn't this a bit absurd? One qualifies to run for President by the very activity of running for President? I'm glad to hear that he smiled when he said that, because I don't think it's an argument you can make with a straight face.

2. Sarah Palin is no longer mayor of a small town. Everybody starts somewhere. A more fair comparison would be Governor of Alaska to Senator from Illinois, right?
3. To directly compare Obama to Palin you'd have to assume McCain has a 100% chance of dying in office. He's old, but he's not that old.

I'm really at a loss as to why Obama would be pushing this angle. It is not as if there aren't a wide variety of issues with which the American populace identifies with the position of the Democratic party. Push the war in Iraq. Push the resurgance of the Taliban in Afganistan. Talk about the economy. Fuel prices. The housing crisis. Global warming. Gay marriage. A woman's right to choose. Education of Americans in science vs China and India. The list goes on.

Instead I read article and article about some 17-year-old's baby bump and self-referential bragging about how running for president qualifies oneself for running for president.

Obama: Palin's Family Off-Limits

Today, Barack Obama stated unequivocally that attacks on families during presidential campaigns are off-limits.

"Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president."

Obama said reporters should "back off these kinds of stories" and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother.

Obama understands. He has the unenviable position of having a group of supports who know no bounds while campaigning for him.

Whether the fringe responsible for the attacks will listen to him remains to be seen. But in any case, Barack Obama is to be commended for doing the right thing and for showing leadership.

Maybe now we can get back to what has fast become an interesting presidential race. Idiotic fixations on personal issues were detracting from more interesting discussion.

The Power of YouTube and Politics

A few days ago, this video appeared on YouTube, where Don Fowler (former chariman of the DNC and Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) are caught on camera joking that the timing of hurricane Gustav and the Republican National Convention must mean that "God is on our side."



Thankfully Gustav is now only a Category 2 hurricane, so it looks like New Orleans and much of the gulf coast will be spared.

When I saw the video I thought that a hurried clip, poorly captured by a cell phone would have little impact. Sure enough, the mainstream media didn't seem to pick up the story at all--it only existed on the net with bloggers posting about it. But now that Fowler has apologized the media has been forced to cover it. (Hat tip Instapundit.)

How amazing, really, when you think about it. Before the web and sites like YouTube, such a story could have easily been buried by the press. But once it is out there, people start talking about it. Fowler was forced to make some sort of response.

Two parting thoughts:

(1) Does it bother you that there is still no accountability? The political pattern of "say something reprehensible and if people get upset, just apologize and move on" is alive an well.

(2) Do you think if the video was instead of Sarah Palin on a plain talking about God being on the Republican's side because a natural disaster was poised to reign devastation that the media might have picked up the story sooner?

Hateful Attacks on Palin, Continued

It took about 3 seconds for people to make my point for me on hateful attacks, below. Ann Althouse is incensed--and rightfully so--about the latest round of attacks on Palin.

Read her whole post for details but the short summary is people are pushing the "she gave birth to her own grandson" meme hard and included in the attacks are blown up pictures of Palin's 16 year old daughter.

Some of these attacks come from a Kos diary. For those that don't know, Kos is not a nameless web site. It attacks millions of readers and has people like Olbermann as guest columnists.

Seriously. Palin has enough holes in her career for there to be several choices of attack if you want to go that route. Pick one of those. I can only hope these attacks backfire and thousands of votes switch to Palin because of them.

I can only read that the race is now tied from more sources and smile.

Update: Ann is continuing to post on this topic. Apparently some other posters at Kos are realizing what the reaction to their "attack the baby" story will be. So they are asking readers if they should pull the story. Althouse notes:

Nice to see that their main concern is preserving their own credibility so they can carry out other, more effective, attacks. Because the whole point of appearing to be decent and feminist is to be able to push your political agenda.

Also, in the comment, I couldn't help but laugh:

There's even a poll about whether this attempt to back slowly out of the sewer is helping -- and the vote is split 72-27."

Actually the poll question is: "Is this helping or should I delete this?"

Making a single "yes" or "no" response meaningless.

Their logical prowess remains intact!

If actions like this become more prevalent then Obama's worst handicap in the election could be the immature nature of some of his supporters.

Questionable Zogby Poll Shows Race Statistically Tied

I just wanted post a quick note about a Zogby poll that is making waves. The poll shows McCain/Palin at 47% slightly ahead of Obama/Biden at 45%. Given margin of errors, that makes the race a dead heat.

I would doubt the accuracy of this poll.

First, of all the major polling agency, Zogby has often been near the bottom in terms of accuracy. From my experience, Zogby often happens to come out with the "surprising" poll--the one no one else agrees with. In most cases, this out-of-the-norm prediction turns out to be incorrect.

Another thing that makes me question the poll results is this internal statistic, in reference to a question as to whether the choice of Palin will help or hurt:

Among Republicans, the choice was a big hit - as 87% said it would help, and just 3% said it would hurt.

Who exactly is Zogby polling--Sarah Palin's immediate family? (Actually Palin's husband isn't a registered Republican, so even that doesn't explain it.) Just a quick survey of conservative editorials and blogs show a percentage far greater than 3% that question the choice. Sure, it was a popular one--but only 3% that think it a poor once seems far too low.

The other major polls such as Rasmussen and Gallop are 3-day tracking polls, so it will take a couple of days before the data here is all post-Palin. Currently Rasmussen shows the spread at +3% for Obama, but they never showed a convention bounce for him greater than 4%. Gallup still shows Obama up by 8, but the data from this poll includes no post-Palin information.

Olbermann and Matthews on Obama

Bill Maher is getting a lot of press commenting in his typical over the top way about the obvious bias the two MSNBC anchors Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann have towards Obama. I don't particularly care for Maher, so I won't repeat those comments here. But this exchange between Olbermann and Matthews is quote-worthy for all the wrong reasons:

Chris Matthews shook the proverbial fist at this detractors as he delivered praise for Barack Obama's acceptance speech during MSNBC's live coverage of the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night, earning loud applause from the audience gathered at the channel's outdoor location.

Leading into the Matthews outburst, Keith Olbermann oozed: "For 42 minutes not a sour note and spellbinding throughout in way usually reserved for the creations of fiction. An extraordinary political statement....I'd love to find something to criticize about it. You got anything?"

Matthews: "No. You know I've been criticized for saying he inspires me and to hell with my critics!"

What can you say really? This is media bias gone so far that they admit to the bias while exhibiting it and don't care. It reminds me of that scene from Batman Begins where Bruce Wayne confronts mob boss Falcone.

Bruce Wayne: I came to show you that not everyone in Gotham's afraid of you.
Falcone: Only those who know me, kid. Look around you. You'll see two councilmen...a union official...couple off-duty cops...and a judge. I wouldn't have a second's hesitation of blowing your head off in front of them. Now, that's power you can't buy. That's the power of fear.

To reach the point of arrogance where a leading news anchor could say, "I know I'm not suppose to show bias...but the hell with that!" is remarkable. And sad.

Offensive Attacks on Palin, Addendum

In my previous post I talked about how offensive attacks on Palin could backfire as they could shock people into supporting her. But I realized I made a mistake in my attempt to describe the internet phenomenon of over-the-top comments because no one really knows who you are. The mistake was that I cleaned up my language. I took the time not to be offensive and used clauses like "When this mother reads comments ridiculing Palin because she is a mother..." without actually using the offensive terms.

Even the quote I included from a blog where the f-bomb--no wait, where fuck--is commonplace was sanitized by the original author:

She’s been on the ticket for two seconds and already the Obamabots are saying she “looks like a porn star,” they’re making rude remarks about her childbearing, they’re ridiculing her intelligence.

Note she says "rude remarks" but doesn't give examples. She says "ridiculing her intelligence" but doesn't say how. It is hard to understand the shock value in these comments and the impact it might have without seeing them.

To try to give an example, I will return to fark.com. If a story gets posted about a woman have a huge number of children, people often make fun of it. Because it is the internet, they don't hold back and say, "I question the decision to have so many children." Instead they post a picture like the following:


In the context of Fark, that's funny. Imagine the difference though if somebody were to photoshop a picture of Sarah Palin's family in the center and post it in comments in a major newspaper. Suddenly funny goes to offensive and offensive will push people to support the target of the attack.

Ed Morrissey has a post on some of the more desperate attacks on Palin. One of these attacks is:

Sarah Palin wasn’t REALLY pregnant — it’s her daughter’s child.

To which Ed comments:

If this is what the opposition comes down to, McCain made the wisest possible choice, and in the process exposed the opposition in a way that could never have been possible with any other running mate.

It definitely will be interesting as the campaigns heat up. Attack Palin too hard and be seen as sexist. Attack her too softly and have Hilary supporters wondering why Palin doesn't get the same treatment as Hilary did.

Obamamaniacs Attacks on Palin Could Backfire

There's a generation gap out there in the US--those people that have a significant online presence (or at least understand what that means) and those of an older generation that just shake their head at "kids these days". The dichotomy is everywhere. More and more people are meeting online and yet another generation wonders how you could ever make that connection in a virtual world.

Obama is known as the hip candidate, the one to appeal to those young people who understand an online life. But one aspect of online behavior might catch up to his campaign in a negative way.

Anyway who has spent any appreciable amount of time online knows that there is very little personal accountability and, as a result, people are rude, vicious, and down right abusive. They "say things" under a cloak of anonymity that they would never say in real life. For example, the site fark.com is a (hilarious) site where people submit news stories with funny headlines and people comment on them. The discussions in the comments can quickly become an all out war between atheists and people of faith, pro-life and pro-choice, liberal and conservative, you name it. The tone of the comments can be down right brutal. Nothing very productive is accomplished but then that is not the point--fark is for entertainment.

The problem comes when people take that "say anything" attitude and bring it an area where a more mature attitude is expected. Note this post from a liberal blog called the Reclusive Leftist. This is not the posting of some right-wing blogger who is going to defend Sarah Palin because the party tells her to. She writes with an online vibe, dropping the f-bomb and several other four letter words in a short post. But notice her observation:

It will complete the alienation of the rest of the Hillary supporters from the Obama camp. How? That’s easy — the Obamabots will do it themselves. Go read the Washington Post blog or anywhere online where the Palin pick is being discussed, and you’ll see the trademark Obama misogyny already out in full force. She’s been on the ticket for two seconds and already the Obamabots are saying she “looks like a porn star,” they’re making rude remarks about her childbearing, they’re ridiculing her intelligence.

People are going to areas with free commenting (such as the Washington Post) and unloading on Palin like they would on fark. What is funny in one context becomes offensive in another. Actions have consequences. Imagine an independent woman on the cusp who isn't sure which way she is voting. This woman happens to be a mother, and through that she can relate in some way to Palin. When this mother reads comments ridiculing Palin because she is a mother...well suddenly John McCain might find he has one more vote.

Certainly Obama himself isn't anti-mother or anti-family. But if his supporters expose voters that are not experienced with the harshness of online behavior to a storm of hatred and insults, the consequences could be severe.

Back to Blogging (aka What Happened to Keith Olbermann)

This is my second (third?) return to blogging after a long break. I can't really explain why I am back any better than I can explain why I started in the first place. I can say that the return has been an interesting experience.

I've made more posts in the last 2 days than I think I ever have in such a short period. I find myself balancing the desire to overdo it with the realization that nobody is really reading this (yet!).

One thing that has happened that I didn't realize is that I still get page hits for posts I made years ago. For example, one of the most recent hits to the blog is from this google search, concerning Keith Olbermann and what has happened to him.

The first link returned by google happens to be a post I made back on August 30, 2005. It had to do with Lance Armstrong and an actor's strike. Now I'm sure whomever started the google search was interested in more recent events. Olbermann recently lost it during the DNC coverage and there was discussion that MSNBC might implode as a result.

But that is a topic for another post. What I found interesting that my old post got dredged up by a new google search and somebody out there read it (or at least started to) years after it was written. It gives blogging a sense of permanence I hadn't associated with it before.

Anyway, enough of that. I'm back and for now have the interest and momentum to keep going. Enough of the meta posts and back to blogging on real topics after this.

Roundup of Reactions to Palin Pick for VP

The web, understandably, is buzzing over the pick of Palin for VP by McCain. In some ways the reactions are exactly what you expect--the left is laughing and already in attack mode, the right is claiming it is the best political move ever. At work at the moment, so I don't have time for a deep analysis but some quick thoughts:

(1) The "lack of experience" line is a dangerous one for Obama to walk. Dems say: "Your VP candidate has little experience." Republicans counter with: "Your presidential candidate has little experience." Where do you go from there?

(2) I'm a little taken aback by the extreme nature of the comments from (conservative, independent) women bloggers. They aren't just interested, they are ecstatic.

Kim Priestap, Wizbang:

This is brilliant. In one fell swoop, John McCain usurped Barack Obama's mantra of hope and change. When Obama was faced with the chance to actually practice what he preached, he balked by choosing a Washington insider, Joe Biden. It was the "cantankerous and old" John McCain who delivered what Obama couldn't: hope and real change with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

And I already have that quote from Althouse in a previous post about being in tears. Note that Althouse didn't vote for Bush and was wishy-washy in this election but seemed to like Obama until recently. This isn't a case of some way-to-the-right woman towing the party line. If the Palin pick can bring just 5% of the female vote to McCain that is a huge swing.

(3) I've been reading up on Palin and the story is certainly different. She worked for a living. Her husband works for a living. She is about as far away from "typical Washington" as you can get. Obama has been pushing that he represents a changing of the old guard in Washington. With the respective picks of Biden and Palin, I don't think that argument is as strong as it was earlier in the campaign.

Other reactions:

Ed Morrissey, Hot Air: A thorough list of risks and rewards.

Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit:

The Insta-Wife is ecstatic, which may bode well for that demographic. I'd like it if she had more executive experience, but to be fair, she's got more than anyone else on either ticket. Is she too liberal on gay rights? Not for me, but maybe for some people.

Much more here.

Victor Hanson, the Corner, has a long list of positives.

And of course Ann Althouse can't stop blogging about it.

More (much more) later.

McCain VP: Now Palin?

All signs currently seem to be pointing to Palin for VP for McCain. I had sort of discounted the possibility, the thinking being that women would considering it pandering for the female vote. Ann Althouse is liveblogging the decision and it has made me rethink that line of reasoning. Notice this paragraph:

On TV, on Fox, they are saying what they know is that Romney, Huckabee, and Pawlenty are out. [CORRECTED TEXT: I'd written "is up" for some strange reason.] Ah so, it's going to be a woman. I'm hearing this for the first time at 8:37 Central Time. I will reveal that, instantly, a chill ran through my body when I heard that, and I have broken a sob or two as I write this.

She doesn't normally get this emotional about issues. So maybe the choice of Palin (if it is Palin) will be an effective one.

I have more thoughts on other Althouse comments from that same post, but I wanted to get this out there.

Edit: It is Palin! Althouse adds:

9:37: "MCCAIN PICKS SARAH PALIN." On the screen. Tears! Chills!!!!

This could be a historically brilliant move. Or of course a blunder if enough people don't vote for McCain because a woman is on the ticket.

Off the Front Page....or Maybe Not

Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey has a post on the imminent McCain VP pick. He keeps updating the post and one of his later updates is:

Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, is also hearing from sources that she’s the pick. What an unbelievable head fake by McCain, perfectly executed to build suspense and knock The One off the front page this morning. Mind-blowing.

Now, I use to be an avid reader of Morrissey when he authored his own blog (Captain's Quarters). Even though I've read him less since his move to Hot Air, I still consider him savvy.

So to check his "off the front page" comment, I went over to cnn.com to see how much space they were giving the McCain VP pick.



Can you spot the McCain coverage? For those that still haven't fully woken up this morning, I outlined it in red. What media bias?

McCain VP: Is it Pawlenty?

There's an interesting post over at Wizbang about how bloggers were predicting back in 2006 that the Republican ticket in 2008 would be McCain/Pawlenty. There are two things here of note.

One, predicting McCain who was considered a long shot against the likes of Romney and Giuliani is impressive.

Two, in my own VP musings, I had given enough credit to the importance of Minnesota in the eventual electoral map. My focus has been on FL/OH/PA. But the quote from the Wizbang post in reference to GOP Bloggers' Mark Noonan is interesting:

Without Minnesota, the Democrat's chances of winning the White House become nearly impossible - and a re-elected Pawlenty as VP for the GOP could pretty well ensure Minnesota's electoral votes go red in 20

The electoral projections have of course changed since 2006 and a generic Democratic opponent. But the point stands.

We'll know soon enough if the 2006 crystal ball was 100% accurate.

AARP and Honesty, Pick One

There's a short but interesting post by David Bernstein regarding a new ad campaign by the AARP.

The AARP is claiming that 1.85 million American per yer are forced to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills. I haven't been able to track down an exact figure on the personal number of bankruptcies filed in the US, but this information would suggest it is less than 1 million a year.

So the AARP is making a wild claim and, it seems, a grossly inaccurate one. As Bernstein says:

In other words, the AARP is claiming that every single bankruptcy in the U.S. is due to medical bills.

It is frustrating that actions like this typically have no consequence. People will see the commercial and not question it. More psychological data that we need socialized health care, or whatever the AARP's goal is. Heaven forbid we have a discussion about the actual issue.

(Hat tip: Instapundit.)

Vladimir Putin is Racist

Speechless. I'm shocked this isn't getting more coverage in blogs and by traditional news outlets. Today, Russian Prime Minister Putin accused the U.S. of orchestrating the Georgian war.

I think people are more likely to believe that he has a shot on appearing on the next season of Dancing With the Stars. I don't know what is more ridiculous about this accusation: that the U.S. would have Russia start a war just to make defense a burning issue in the upcoming election; or that Russia would even begin to do what the U.S asked.

Making defense a big issue favors McCain. What possible reason could Putin have in seeing a war vet in the oval office over an inexperienced and young senator? Wait...I've been taught the answer to this. If he doesn't want Obama in office, clearly he must be racist. Yeah, that's it.

And if he floats on water, he must be a witch...

On the Other Hand...

So just below I posted on how I thought an advertisement by McCain during Obama's speech was inappropriate and disrespectful. I would stand by that statement unless this is the ad that is going to be played:



Whether McCain wins or not, taking time out to congratulate Obama on being the first black nominee for president should be remembered as a classy move.

McCain has been strong enough with "negative campaigning" that I don't think anyone will criticize him after the election for being soft, whatever the outcome. But an ad like the above is well-played and well-timed. It also preempts any sort of shenanigans during the RNC.

Media Bias Shameless and Lame

Ann Althouse on a predictable TIME headline:

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.

The best part about this is that they only post an excerpt from the interview. I'm just shocked they picked the part after they annoyed him.

I'm forced to agree: lame. Sadly I am not even the least bit surprised and you shouldn't be either.

McCain Ad Tonight a Poor Choice

Edit: The situation changed as the nature of this ad became clear. I give my thoughts in this post. Again, hats of to McCain for staying classy.

According to reports, McCain will unveil an ad tonight during Obama's nomination acceptance speech. Details are still sketchy:

Aides would give few details beyond the fact that McCain will speak directly to the camera, addressing Obama.

While the McCain campaign can be given points for quickly reacting to the changing political scene, I feel this particular response is a mistake.

It shows a lack of respect. Tonight is Obama's night, McCain will have a similar night at the end of the RNC. To debut and ad during the speech is inappropriate.

I've never been a supporter of this sort of tactic. I don't like the "opposing party's response" after a state of the union address. The president gets to make that speech and shouldn't be night for "but he's wrong!" To violate this just sets up an atmosphere lacking respect. And you can bet that if McCain does it during Obama's speech, then Obama will do it during McCain's speech.

This well-you-did-it precedent is a bad one. While he certainly made critical mistakes, I always felt the attempted impeachment of Clinton to be a dangerous course of action. Once the precedent was set, the cries of "Impeach Bush!" could be expected. Whomever is elected come November should not face fears of impeachment no matter how minuscule the violation.

There is a time for counter-attack and during a nomination acceptance speech isn't it. Besides, who will be listening? The people actually watching the speech will be heavily pro-Obama and the advertisement is likely only to annoy and motivate them.

Media Bias -- That Didn't Take Long

I have a whole number of topics backlogged that I planned on writing about first. I know media bias would work its way in there--I can't help but follow the topic. However, it took only a couple of hours before I ran across something that I had to post about.

There was some good 2Q economic news released today, and the AP story covering it opened with this:

The economy shifted to a higher gear in the spring, growing at its fastest pace in nearly a year as foreign buyers snapped up U.S. exports and tax rebates spurred shoppers at home.

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that gross domestic product, or GDP, increased at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter. The revised reading was much better than the government's initial estimate of a 1.9 percent pace and exceeded economists' expectations for a 2.7 percent growth rate.

A couple of hours later the headline of the story changed to "Spring's economic rebound unlikely to last" and the opening changed to:

The economy pulled out of a dangerous rough patch in the spring, thanks largely to strong exports, but the rebound isn't expected to last. Economic slowdowns overseas could make exports tail off just as Americans are hunkering down after the bracing impact of rebate checks wanes, plunging the country into another rut later this year.

"There will be heavy sledding for the U.S. economy during the next couple of quarters," predicted Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Bank of America's Investment Strategies Group.

Well isn't that interesting? I guess you can't have good economic news out there so you have to cover the actual news (an increase in GPD) with conjecture (the economy is going to be horrible). If the second part is news, I should be able to make a killing in the stock market come fall by selling short.

Hat tip: Wizbangblog.

Obama and Icarus

The story of Icarus and flying too close to the sun is often used to warn of the dangers of hubris. Obama's choice of using a recreation of a Greek temple from which to deliver his nomination acceptance speech could prove to be a modern retelling of that myth.

For those not following the back story, the Obama campaign has decided that it is best for Obama to give his nomination acceptance speech outside (OK), in a huge, huge stadium (questionable), and from behind a huge recreation of a Greek temple (what are you thinking?).

Fresh from coming back from a European trip that received criticism for making Obama seem "too European" and "out of touch with American values", I can safely say that trying to appear like a Caesar accepting control of the Roman legions is not the best course of action. Poll support for Obama dropped after the European trip; recreating the experience in the U.S. is a poor campaign strategy.

And negativity isn't just coming only from crazed Republicans--only the tone is different. Sure the conservative view point is mocking:

And the guy wonders why most Americans see him as an arrogant, elitist snob. He tries to play himself off as an everyman, and then pulls this?! People are tired of the fawning adulation from the media and from Democrats. They're tired of the Obamamessiah passing himself off as some kind of Savior. If Obama was smart, he'd start coming down to Earth... using less of the arrogant God stuff and more of the "I'm just a regular guy" stuff. Performing a speech on a raised platform in a Greek temple with confetti raining from the sky and fireworks is more than a little bit ridiculous.

and McCain advisors are asking "Is this from the Onion?"

But there is also concern from the within the Democratic party:

"We already know he is a rock star; we already know he can bring 85,000 people together in a stadium. He has done it multiple times. He needs to talk to people who haven't made up their minds yet," said Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen.

"It's likely that the campaign would do it differently if it had to do it again because the decision was made before the European trip," said a senior Democratic elected officeholder who has worked closely with the Obama campaign.

That, I think, is the major point. Obama set on a dramatic stage with 80,000+ people screaming in excitement at his every word is sure to create a feel good moment for Obama fans. But to undecided people, to people who aren't sure about Obama, who have heard a little about a celebrity vibe that they don't care for, such a ridiculous display is unlikely to win them over.

Why Not?

The recent onslaught of media coverage about the presidential election has prompted several political discussions with friends. In these conversations, one of my more savvy friends told me, "You should start blogging again!"

With the mountain of material today's media is presenting, I've found I can't say no.

Let the game commence, once again.

PETA: "A Bunch of Losers" and "Frauds"

I've been wary since moving to Boulder, CO. The liberal meter is just on the right side of absolutely loony. But then the governor of Colorado steps up and makes me feel good:

Colorado Governor: PETA “A Bunch Of Losers,” “Frauds”

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Everyday Heros

I've (obviously) been lax on the blogging lately, but this story just needs to get heard as much as possible.

An 18-year-old boy had a seizure and fell onto the subway tracks in NY city with a train approaching. A 51-year-old bystander jumped on top of him and pinned him down so the train wouldn't hit him.

Hat's off to you Wesly Autrey. Well done.

Military Meets, Exceeds Recruiting Goals

Sorry for the lack of posts--I've been busy moving from Texas to Colorado.

I did notice this article today about how the U.S. military has met or exceeded its recruiting goals. It is an AP article, so of course the author couldn't wait to get his first dig in with the first sentence. You have to keep pushing those media talking points, I guess.

Though Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the war in Iraq, the Pentagon said Tuesday it is having success enlisting new troops. The Navy and Air Force met their recruiting goals last month while the Army and Marine Corps exceeded theirs, the Defense Department announced.

Hat tip Instapundit.

Thank You Sgt. 1st Class James D. Priestap

Details here.

Thank you, sir. Nothing more for me to say.

More On Media Bias

A long but interesting blog post (via Instapundit) about media bias.

Of the three broadcast network news anchors (all of whom are "executive producers" of their programs), do you think any have ever voted for Republican presidential candidate? Katie Couric at CBS? Brian Williams at NBC? Charlie Gibson at ABC? They voted for Kerry, they voted for Gore, they voted for Clinton twice -- they voted for Dukakis, for crying out loud, and no one who'd watched their broadcasts over the years would ever doubt it.

If one can become a multimillionaire news anchor, the very pinnacle of success in the news business, despite being transparently a partisan Democrat and a liberal ideologue, then obviously there is no penalty for such beliefs within the media profession. And since no conservative is a network anchor or executive producer, one might assume (and you'd get no argument from Bernard Goldberg) that conservative beliefs are penalized.

As Glenn would say, read the whole thing.

Would You Believe It? Media Bias

I'm running out of creative titles for posts on this subject. A blog called Flopping Aces has a story about the use of fake sources for Iraq stories. Naturally these sources have led to stories that indicate the growing "Iraq is already in a civil war" angle that seems to be the push of the week for the mainstream media. This has been linked by more blogs than I can list here--suffice it to say, the word is out. Will anyone care? Unlikely.

This is not an isolated occurrence. The Democracy Project has more (hattip Instapundit).

Are you following the links? Again, unlikely. The more you read, the more you should realize the that news you hear does not reflect reality--it reflects a political agenda.

My exasperation comes from a sinking feeling that there is nothing to be done to stop it. People talk loftily of the "blog revolution" and how it will revolutionize media coverage. While there have been isolated incidents (Dan Rather, for example) I don't think the fake and false coverage is going to stop any time soon. Even friends who read this blog say, "Oh I saw your post, but I didn't follow the links." It is much easier to sit back on your couch and hear Katie Couric tell you that the sky is falling. Reading and investigating the truth buried on the web takes a lot more effort. Time will tell, but I fear that Katie has an unsurmountable advantage in this war between fact and fiction.

Iraq, World War II, and Absurd Statistics

As I flew home from Thanksgiving this past weekend, I noticed the passenger to my left was reading USA Today. At the bottom of the front page was an article about how the U.S. has now spent as much time in Iraq as they did in World War II. You can read it online version here.

This "revelation" of course has been picked up by many people, who are using it as the basis to make all sorts of ridiculous assumptions. Everyone has heard the quote, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics," but this example is beyond the pale. Just to make the point, let's look at another (in this case morbid) statistical comparison.

USA Today wants to compare WWII and Iraq? OK, let's compare combat fatalities. The current fatality count in Iraq is 2871 (as of today). The WWII fatality count was 407,300. At the current rates, it would take 519.5 years before the Iraq fatality count would equal World War II count. That's right, somewhere in the year 2525.

Obviously making such a statistical comparison is virtually meaningless. So is comparing the number of days spent, as USA Today and now a host of others are doing. If you have opinions on the war in Iraq, make them known; I firmly believe that society benefits from hearing a diverse view on any subject. But leave the mind-numbingly moronic statistics out of the discussion.

Milblogs (hattip Instapundit) illustrates another way in which the comparison is meaningless. Jay Tea, over at Wizbangblog, rips Michael Moore's use of the statistic to shreds.

Global Warming, Hurricanes, And Politics

Captain's Quarters Blog has a very interesting post on global warming and the (lack of) hurricanes this season.

It covers media bias and self-evident contradictions about global warming, two of my favorite subject.

You might want to stay clear of the comments, though; a lot of text there with very little evidence to back anything up (on both sides).

Top Democrat Wants To Bring Back the Draft

The story that the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Democrat Charles Rangel, wants to bring back has been covered everywhere. My angle? Why CNN's bias of course. They cover the story, front and center, but with the title:

Rangle: Bring back the draft

But how many people know who Rangle is? They don't identify him as a Democrat in the blurb on the front page:

An all volunteer U.S. military is fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that could change if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way. Rep. Charles Rangel wants to bring back the draft.

It's only if you click on the actual article that you see the full headline:

Top Democrat: Bring back the draft

CNN does this hocus pocus with headlines a lot; the headline on the front page rarely matches the headline of the actual article. This often seems to be done for space limitations but often the editing of the text for the front page drastically changes the meaning of the headline. If these changes in meaning are random, then it just shows sloppy editing on the part of CNN. But do the changes in meaning have a political bias?

This brings me to mention an idea I hope to implement some time in the near future. It would be easy enough to record both the short headline and the long headline and compare them when they are different. I, for one, would be fascinated to see if there is a pattern in direction the edits take the headline.

Democratic Leaders Flip-Flop on Kerry's Appearance in Photo-Op

The photographer in me just loves this story. A number of the Democratic leaders in Congress were making a "power walk" photo-op for the press. According to reporters, John Kerry started to walk with them, but was told something by Schumer that made him stop. Powerline comments on the UPI story:

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer appeared to kick Sen. John Kerry out of a Democratic leadership walk in Washington, a reporter who witnessed the event said.

An ABC News reporter said the incident occurred Tuesday outside of the Old Senate Chamber as members of the new Democratic leadership, of which Kerry is not a part, left the chamber en route to the Ohio Clock Corridor to discuss leadership elections, the incoming majority's agenda and Iraq.

The ABC reporter said Kerry left the room behind Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Caucus Secretary Patty Murray, D-Wash.; and Caucus Vice-Chair Schumer, D-N.Y. However, when Schumer noticed Kerry, D-N.Y., walking behind him, he turned and said something to the Massachusetts senator that caused him to stop.

Kerry waited for the Democratic leaders to walk ahead and then ducked between two statues. The ABC reporter speculated that Schumer may have told Kerry to stay clear of the leadership shot.

If you wrote fiction with such an event, editors would reject it as unbelievable. Kerry waited for the Democratic leaders to walk ahead and then ducked between two statues. The before and after pictures are priceless. Here's the before picture. You can actually see Kerry in the background with a what-just-happened look on his face.


The after picture is the effect they were going for (from Wizbang's weekly caption contest).


If you ever needed proof that politics is all about showmanship, here you go.

Writing Your Own News

I grew up near Cincinnati, OH. There's a radio station there, 102.7 WEBN, that use to play these fake commercials by a company called "Brute Force Cybernetics", with the tagline, "The company creates a need and then fills it."

I think CNN could alter that slightly and use it for their own tagline. I suggest:

CNN. The company that creates the news and then covers it.

So yesterday they ran this little story: Bush's Asia trip intensifies Iraq-Vietnam comparisons. The article starts with:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's recent acknowledgment that the war in Iraq was comparable to the Viet Cong's psychologically devastating Tet Offensive in 1968 was hardly the first time a parallel has been drawn between the Iraq and Vietnam conflicts.

Questions about a "quagmire" have haunted the president's Iraq policy since before a single bomb fell on Baghdad.

Since before a single bomb fell, eh? I wonder who was asking those questions. Could it possible have been CNN?

I stopped reading the article right there. I suppose the author might have redeemed themselves somewhere along the way but quite frankly they didn't deserve any more of my time.

Phased Redeployment Rejected

President Bush has received a lot of criticism lately for his abrupt firing of Rumsfield after the midterm elections. Many have suggested that he is fighting for a positive legacy to his presidency and will drift left to help ensure that. While I can understand that fear, I think it is probably somewhat unrealistic. I'm sure those on the left chortle at the idea of Bush drifting "too far to the left".

This story today on CNN regarding the rejection by Bush of the phased redeployment suggestion from Democrats seems to confirm that.

Does anyone else really hate political B.S. terms such as "phased redeployment"?

Q. Senator, are you calling for a full retreat from Iraq?

A. Of course not.

Q. Then what are you calling for?

A. I'm calling for a phased redeployment of our troops...

Please, call it what it is. If you can't even say it, how can you stand behind it?

Jason Dunham To Receive Medal Of Honor

President Bush announced today that Marine Corporal Jason Dunham will be awarded posthumously the Medal of Honor for heroism in Iraq.

In April 2004, Dunham was leading a patrol in an Iraqi town near the Syrian border when the patrol stopped a convoy of cars leaving the scene of an attack on a Marine convoy, according to military and media accounts of the action.

An occupant of one of the cars attacked Dunham and the two fought hand to hand. As they fought, Dunham yelled to fellow Marines, "No, no watch his hand." The attacker then dropped a grenade and Dunham hurled himself on top of it, using his helmet to try to blunt the force of the blast.

Read that again.

So many things one could say, yet nothing seems worthy of his actions. With that in mind, I will just say this. Thank you Jason Dunham for putting the hero in heroism.

Guiliani Now More Than Ever

I've posted in the past about how I think Guiliani would make an excellent candidate for president. My reasons in the past were threefold.

1. The man acts with integrity. With all the scandal stories of the past few years, I think he would be a welcome change.
2. He passed with flying colors the crucible test he was forced into after 9/11 in NYC. Any arguments that he was "just a mayor" are weak in how he acted under extreme pressure.
3. He is popular in the Northeast. Several hypothetical race polls have him ahead of Hillary Clinton. There are very few, if any, scenarios where a Democrat could win the presidency without New York State.

I think after recent events, there are probably two more reasons.

4. Many of potential Republican contenders were too damaged by this midterm election to be seriously considered. In all honesty, Senators rarely make good presidential candidates. Senators who couldn't even win reelection for their own senate seat make horrible ones.
5. The Democrats won back both sides of Congress by running with a very moderate group of candidates in many races. Moonbats such as Pelosi may have the reins but it was moderates that have given her that power. The biggest criticism of Guiliani is that he "isn't conservative enough". In light of the thumpin' (as President Bush termed it) the Republicans just received, and the success of moderates such as Schwarzenegger, I don't think an ultra conservative choice would be a disaster.

Jim Addison seems to agree with me, on reason 4 if nothing else. (Scroll past a rant about Republicans staying home to the bottom of his post.)

That leaves Guiliani. He is already well-known and very popular among all segments of the American electorate. While many have long supposed his liberal social positions would alienate the right, that appears not to be the case. Here in South Carolina, where values are held dear and social conservatism rules, conservatives most often mention Rudy as the candidate they would like to see run in '08.

We need someone who can hold us together in the face of disaster and get us to work rebuilding. Rudy is such a leader. I've seen him do it.

I hope others reach the same conclusions.

What's Next In Iraq?

Kim Priestap at Wizbang has had some interesting posts about what might happen next in Iraq. First off is a post about Pelosi's most recent comments about Iraq:

The point is this isn't a war to win. It's a situation to be solved.

When President Bush said he was open to new directions in Iraq, I don't think this is what he had in mind. So today Priestap had a follow up post concerning an interview with "terrorist leaders":

'There is no chance that the resistance will stop'

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

"(The mujahedeen fighters) brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman.

Not sure what else there is to say directly other than if you worried about what might happen next, you aren't alone.

On a separate note, does anyone else find it shocking that you can read interviews with people explicitly referred to as "terrorist leaders"? Can you imagine reading a interview during the cold war of someone labeled "secret Soviet assassin"?

Losing With Dignity

It's been interesting for me to read some of the more conservative blogs, to see how the authors are reacting to Democratic takeover of the House, and likely the Senate. As I said a few posts ago, one of the keys to a successful democracy is a respect for the majority view. Captain's Quarters Blog gets it right:

However, in terms of policy at least, the American people have spoken. The majority endorsed these views, and now we have to see them play out. We can certainly criticize it -- and we will -- but we have to respect the voice of the American electorate. They wanted a different direction, and now they have to experience its consequences.

This seems to me to be brutally honest. He's certain that he will be critical of policy choices, but understands that the vote last night was rejection of the status quo (as mid-term elections usually are) and that change of some sort has been endorsed by the American people. Hugh Hewitt, I think, gets it wrong:

And it is a wonderful day for new media, especially talk radio. For two years we have had to defend the Congressional gang that couldn't shoot straight. Now we get to play offense.

What the country doesn't need now is sniping by the right who are stinging from loosing an election for the first time in many years.

It will be interesting (and important) to see how many on the right follow the Captain Ed model, and how many follow the Hewitt model.

Exit Poll Silence

Instapundit has typical short post up linking to an article explaining the mechanics of exit polls. Glenn adds the following theory:

My prediction: If they're bad for the GOP they'll leak early. If they're good for the GOP, they won't.

I just checked all the usual suspects (Drudge, etc.) and can't find any leaked exit polls. It will be interesting to see if Glenn's prediction is accurate.

Why I Hate The Two-Party System

The title of this post is perhaps a little strong. I can't hate a two-party system completely as I've yet to learn of a better system. When I have political discussions with Canadian or Indian friends, for example, about their countries political system, I always come away with a greater respect for the founding fathers. It should be noted, however, that many of the founding fathers were opposed to the idea of political parties.

But I was reminded again of the aspect of the two-party system I don't like the most--the adversarial nature it brings out in people. From a NYTimes editorial:

“Two years ago, winning 14 seats in the House would have been a pipe dream,” said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic organization. Now, Mr. Bennett said, failure to win the House, even by one seat, would send Democrats diving under their beds (not to mention what it might do to all the pundits).

“It would be crushing,” he said. “It would be extremely difficult.”

Mr. Cook put it more succinctly. “I think you’d see a Jim Jones situation — it would be a mass suicide,” he said.

Put it succinctly? I would hope Mr. Cook's statement has no basis in reality. It is easy to get caught up in the excitement of rooting for "your team" and certainly the energy interjected by the Bush Derangement Syndrome of many involved is only making matters worse. But I wish people would realize that in the end, we are all on the same team.

I've been reminded recently that one of the most important aspects of a democracy is accepting that sometimes your view will be in the minority and respecting the majority view. You may not like it, you may be motivated to change it, but you respect the democratic process enough not to destructively react to it.

The Republicans may hold both sides of Congress today. The Democrats may take one or both sides back. Any outcome is within the realm of possibility. Whatever the final tallies, neither side should be so upset that the only analogy that comes to mind is joking about mass-suicide.

As Ann Althouse said, commenting on the same quote, "Wow, calm down people! It's just politics."

Jay Cost On Election Polls

I remember being an avid read of Jay Cost during the last presidential election. Cost had his own blog and presented analyses of polls from a statistical stand point. He's now writing for Real Clear Politics and has had two very good articles about the upcoming midterm election.

Both deal with predictions about the House, the second with more statistics than the first.

It's hard to summarize a Cost article as he uses a lot of (simple) statistics. The short summary is that he feels that people are overstating the degree to which seats may change parties. If I haven't scared you off with the statistics comments, give his articles a read (especially the second one). They are well worth the read.

The Only Issue This Election Day

I've seen links to this editorial titled "The Only Issue This Election Day" by Orson Scott Card from numerous sites. The background is that Card is a Democrat, but one that feels that the War on Terror trumps all other issues in the coming election. I found it fascinating, which explain the number of links it has received.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

It quickly becomes clear why Card isn't happy with the Democratic Party's stance on the War on Terror. Using phrases such as "light among nations" in reference to the United States seems to be the antithesis of Democratic Party's platform. In fact, Card almost states as much when he says:

To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- the party I joined back in the 1970s -- is dead. Of suicide.

The rest of the piece deals with why he feels the War on Terror is so important--singularly important in his mind. It's an interesting read. His comments on nation building are particularly noteworthy:

Another charge against the Bush administration's conduct of the war is that they are engaged in the hopeless task of "nation-building." And this is true -- except for the word "hopeless."

But what is the alternative? I've heard several, each more disastrous and impossible and even shameful than the one before.

I am not sure I agree, but read the whole editorial to understand the context of the quote.

Election Predictions, 2006

The web seems to be overflowing with election predictions for tomorrow's midterm election. Blogs and online portals of more traditional media are all full of authors making bold predictions on what will happen. I'm not sure anyway can claim to have the background and analytical technique to make such predictions with certainty, but they certainly are interesting reads. Here's a sample of a few, if you are interested:

Quin Hillyer at the American Spectator.

Bull Dog Pundit at anklebitingpundits.

Several at wizbangblog from Alexander McClure, Ed Torres, and Jim Addison.

Are any of them close to the mark? Check back Wednesday to see...

Who Votes, Who Doesn't, and Why

The Pew Research Center has recently released a report concerning the demographics of voters and their voting frequency title, "Who Votes, Who Doesn't, and Why."

Here are some of the more interesting findings. People 18-29 are only 22% likely to be a regular voter, while those 50-64 are 42% likely to vote regularly. (Jim Addison has a post on Rock the Vote over at politics.wizbang and how it always fails to motivate the 18-29 year-old demographic.)

Those that make over $75K a year are 44% likely to vote regularly, compared to only 26% for those making less than $20K. Which group do you think would be more likely to vote for candidates promising lower taxes?

I didn't have time to delve deeply into the statistics of the survey (probably a dangerous thing to skip) but overall found the report worth the read.

Republicans Outnumber Democrats Online

I've seen the results of this study posted several places now. According to a Nielson report, Republicans outnumber Democrats online. From the press release:

Nielsen//NetRatings (NASDAQ: NTRT), a global leader in Internet media and market research, announced today that 36.6 percent of U.S. adults online are Republicans, 30.8 percent are Democrats and 17.3 percent are Independents. With campaign Web sites becoming increasingly important to reaching the electorate, candidates need to keep their fingers on the political pulse of the Internet.

This difference, while interesting in its own right, is more interesting when you consider the party breakdown for most polls. Pollsters almost always assume a numbers advantage to Democrats when polling. Is there really such a difference between online and total demographics? Or is this one more indication that pollsters use questionable statistical methods to bias polling results?

Best Reaction To John Kerry So Far

This just made me smile.


From Drudge via Lorie Byrd.

Breaking News: Media Coverage Of Midterm Elections Favors Democrats

A report by the Center for Media and Public Affairs analyzes the TV news coverage of the midterm election. The high level conclusion was:

88 Percent Bad Press For GOP; Dems Get 77 Percent Good Press.

...

3 out of 4 (77 percent) on-air evaluations of Democratic candidates and members of Congress were positive during the first seven weeks of the campaign. By contrast only 1 out of 8 assessments (12 percent) were favorable towards their Republican counterparts.

I know you are as shocked as I am.

In the first seven weeks after Labor Day in 2002, network coverage of the mid-term elections totaled only 35 stories. 2006's coverage has been almost five times as heavy, with 167 elections stories.

I guess if you are going to stump for the Democrats, you should get your message out there as much as possible. I found this last data point interesting:

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was featured in 10 stories, even though he's not seeking re-election this year.

Grooming him for a 2008 Presidential run, I imagine.