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.

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.