Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 09/12/2008

Spreading dirt on Palin--and Obama

By Michael Dobbs


"The attacks on Governor Palin have been called 'completely false, misleading.' And, they've just begun. The [Wall Street] Journal reports Obama 'air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers' into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Palin. As Obama drops in the polls, he will try to destroy her."
--McCain "Fact Check" Ad, September 10, 2008.

A McCain ad earlier this week twisted newpaper quotes to ridicule Barack Obama's record on education reform. The McCainites are using a similar technique to claim that Obama has "air-dropped a mini-army" of lawyers and opposition researchers into Alaska in an attempt to "destroy" the reputation of Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

The Facts

Titled "Fact Check," the latest McCain ad uses unsubtle imagery to deliver a very unsubtle message. A photograph of Obama flashes across the screen as a woman's voice denounces recent attacks on the Alaska Governor as "completely false." A light airplane is shown flying across a mountainous wilderness. (Opposition researchers being airdropped?) A pack of wolves moves through the pristine forest (Alaska?) in pursuit of its prey. (Sarah Palin?)

There are a number of serious problems with the ad.

First, while it is clear that the Democrats have been conducting what is politely known as "opposition research" on Palin, the claim that "a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers" has been "air-lifted" into the state rests on very flimsy sourcing. The Wall Street Journal opinion piece in question was written by a conservative commentator named John Fund and appeared on September 9. It has been flatly denied by both the Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign. Fund has not produced any evidence to support his claim beyond his unnamed "sources."

"We have zero people who have gone up to Alaska to research Sarah Palin," said DNC research director Mike Gehrke. He adds that the DNC has used "local volunteers" to research Palin's background as well as "help from people who have run against her in the past." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor says that the Obama campaign has not sent anybody to Alaska to research Palin's background, and refuses to comment on the activities of campaign staffers and volunteers already in the state.

If the McCain campaign, or John Fund, has evidence that Gehrke and Vietor are lying, they should produce it. Anonymous sources lack credibility.

Contacted yesterday, Fund said he still believes his story to be true, but did not provide supporting evidence. He complained that the McCain campaign had twisted his story by saying that "Obama" had sent the "mini-army" of lawyers and opposition researchers into Alaska, when he used the term "Democrats." He also pointed out that he did not use the term "dig dirt" against Sarah Palin. Instead, he used the more neutral expression "dig into her record and background."

The McCain campaign also misquoted the website, Factcheck.org, in suggesting that Obama had been responsible for the "false attacks" on Palin. Factcheck.org had earlier debunked a number of false and misleading claims about Palin that appeared in chain e-mails and Internet postings, but found "no evidence" that Obama was behind the "wild accusations." The non-partisan fact-checking organization says that the McCain-Palin campaign "altered our message in a fashion that we considered less than honest."


The Pinocchio Test

For the second time in less than a week, the McCain campaign has strung together a series of media quotes to create a fundamentally dishonest ad. The ad creates the erroneous impression that Obama was behind the false attacks on Palin. It repeats an unsubstantiated claim by a conservative commentator as if it is proven fact. The overall result is an untruthful, misleading ad.

(About our rating scale.


By Michael Dobbs  | September 12, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  3 Pinocchios, Ad Watch, Barack Obama, Candidate Record  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sarah Palin's 'Worst Nightmare'?
Next: Weekend edition

Comments

How McCain can claim to want to change Washington when he engages in old Washington tricks like this defies logic and honesty. He is not the solution. He is precisely the problem, as evidence here. FC, you can say this is dishonest, but what it realy is constitutes out and out lying.
Do we need another 4 years of lying?

Posted by: ots | September 12, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

This totalitarian technique of repeated lies exposes Kim Il McCain's real intentions of transforming the USA and North Korea into sister-states.

There is no feedom of speach, no free and open debate, when one side deliberately avoids having to present its position by relentlessly twisting facts and repeating lies.

Honorable? Not!

Why aren't YOU mad at McCain? He's not kickin' Obama's butt, he's kicking yours!

Posted by: Toady | September 12, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Doesn't matter how many ads are debunked. Nor does it matter how facts the McCain camp stretches for political gain. And nor does it matter that they blatantly lie.

Those who support McCain will continue to wear their blinders with partisan verve and deny all reported fact.

Dillusional perception can rationalize anything.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 8:13 AM | Report abuse

You should fact check Anne Kornblut's story in the Post this morning where she misrepresented what Palin said to the departing soldiers yesterday

Posted by: Bill | September 12, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

All of this is garbage. Republicans will always vote Republican and Democrats will always vote Democrat. Nader 08'

Posted by: Mike | September 12, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

guys, read teh alaskan newspaper that has the story referring to thier entire opposition against palin being screened by a "team" searching for anyone in the alaskan government who opposed palins time in office (all 17%).

this article is true, but its also COMPLETELY MISLEADING.

yes the article on fox news ran, but it was a repeat of an article in the local alaskan newspaper (which you can find if you check the sources of the fox article).

and it doesnt matter if "obama sanctioned the hit" because the overall purpose of mccains statement was to validate the facts that there is a group of investigators in alaska searching for information to discredit palin.

please post, ur liberal bias is showing.

you should give yourself 20 pinochios just because your entire page for facts is on mccain and not once have you questioned obama.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

lol, i voted for kerry last year, i am voting for mccain this year, i never voted for bush.

it sounds to me like you people are voting for obama only because you want to erase the pain of having chosen teh wrong candidate (bush) 2 years in a row like the rest of your phony democrat brethren.

ive seen enough elections to know that history proves the best candidate in teh end, and kerry was teh best choice last year, gore before that. point is we havent had a good republican candidate for a long time and now we do.

i am proud to be a republican again. and if my voting history tells me anything its that mccain will be proven the best choice after the next 4 years are over.

Posted by: dale | September 12, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

I have noticed that whenever issues are being discussed, you will find a post that throws out garbage to derail the conversatiion and take focus off the issue. This is the strategy of Republicans. They have no leg to stand on and must divert attention from the real issues to try to prevent intelligent conversation or questions on issues. If I am not mistaken this was the strategy of Hitler and his propaganda machine.

Posted by: Sandra S | September 12, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

I think that as ads go, it's very effective. Especially the wolf pack on the hunt footage. That neatly reminds viewers that wolves are dangerous, which also counteracts the story about Palin authorizing wolf hunts from helicopters.
If this were a 'news story' instead of an advertisement, then words like 'facts' or 'bias' would matter. But, since most of the news stories these days run like Obama advertisements.....

Posted by: freelisa_2000 | September 12, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

It's too bad we are being forced to dig through all this irrelevant junk coming from both campaigns. It's really distracting. Let's face it neither candidate is really about "change". Obama is leaning to more of the same from the democratic power brokers, Kennedy, Bidon etc. and McCain towards the republican power brokers.
What we need is an honest discussion of the economy, the defense of our country and the environment. Neither candidate has made it clear what their policies will be and why they will work.
Too bad for us all...

Posted by: Stan | September 12, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

At least Michael Dobbs is good for a good laugh to start your morning. Of a story regarding how many Democrats were sent to Alaska to start digging up dirt on Sarah Palin, Dobbs accuses a WSJ columnist of using "very flimsy sourcing".

This comes, of course, one day after Dobbs himself administered a "Fact-Check" based solely on the claims of a fellow Washington Post reporter. "Flimsy sourcing" indeed....

Posted by: dbw | September 12, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Bill:

Anne Kornblut already outed herself as an unobjective Obama supporter via her "What's Fair for Sarah Palin..." article, where she clearly placed herself on the side of Democrats by constantly asking "well, what would the GOP do?" (hint: any unbiased reporter wouldn't imply that the GOP is the "other side", unless the reporter is standing firmly on the side opposite).

I don't think there's any reason for Dobbs to run a Fact-Check on her, since she isn't really concerned about reporting facts as much as she is focused on going after Palin in any negative way possible.

Posted by: dbw | September 12, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

The Washington Post is conservative like John McCain, so why is it so critical on him? It must be because he is against the self-serving establishment that puts the country on the backbench.

Posted by: Ron C. de Weijze | September 12, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Biased reporting seem to be the norm. It makes my stomach churn. It all depends on how it is spun.....left perhaps?

Posted by: rural lady | September 12, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Do you really expect us to beleive that the Dems are not trying to dig up dirt on Palin? Come on, I have never seen such a biased attack on any candidate by the media. Guys, she is the VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE and is under much more scrutiny than Obama has ever been subjected to, and that is a fact. Another fact is that the libs have been caught on their heels on her selection and the elitist brats don't know what to do with a real person that is thrown into their midst. Keep it coming, all of the lame attempts to demonize her only bring more voters to her side.

Posted by: electric_sailor | September 12, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Will all of these lies directed against OBAMA ever end? Looks like Sarah Palin's strong belief in God and truth,have many clauses..like "only when it supports my purpose" I wish she would stop using GOD as her platform.

Posted by: PUREDEMO | September 12, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

If ya'll are tired of BIASED reporting - which is just another way of saying you can't handle the truth - may I suggest you go read a right wing rag, like the Washington Times.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

I applaud the fact checking, because the obvious Republican strategy this year is to avoid any issues, and rely on lies and phony charges and expect that the media, like it did in 2004, will not hold them accountable. Is the media up to the task? At least Charley Gibson was not as big as a wimp as he usually is when he interviewed Sarah Palin. Maybe he felt Tim Russert and Peter Jennings looking over him.

Posted by: cdonham | September 12, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

I think it's high time Mr Dobbs defined the term "whopper", at least for Fact Checker column purposes. One begins to wonder what it will take to merit the award of 4 "Pinnochios".

Posted by: zukermand | September 12, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

cdonham said: "At least Charlie Gibson was not as big as a wimp as he usually is when he interviewed Sarah Palin."

So even Gibson is being harsher on Palin that he would have been on a Democrat? Now even Democrats are even admitting that the media establishment is playing it tougher on Sarah Palin! I never thought I would see the day that you guys would admit it!

I thought it was just us conservatives who thought the media was biased against her since she is a pro-life conservative Republican, or in other words, 3-for-3 on things most in the media loathe.

Posted by: dbw | September 12, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

What is needed during Presidential and Congressional races is a FACTCHECK.ORG TV channel? Even though the Internet is becoming a very powerful tool in researching into political campaigns, many people, especially older Americans, rely exclusively on TV for information.

You only need to listen to C-SPAN when they have voter call-ins. Many of the people who call in have talking points directly from FOX News or NBC or CNN.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 12, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

zukermand:

Bill Clinton isn't running this year. I'm afraid he's the only one who could ever truly lay claim to a 4-Pinnochio rating.

Of all the directions Obama could be taking his campaign to get back on message, his latest decision is to run out an ad that.......makes fun of McCain for being old. That should win over a lot of AARP members.

Is this part of Obama's strategy to win the critical state of Florida? Make fun of old people? Who's running his campaign?

Posted by: dbw | September 12, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Who's going to fact check fact check? There is a big steaming pile of stupid on the ground and every one of the media's purveyors of truth are stepping in it. McCain couldn't buy coverage like this. Thank you main stream media!

Posted by: voo doo chile | September 12, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

To quote Dobbs:
"Anonymous sources lack credibility."

This is funny. I can't count the number of articles written against political people primarily based on "anonymous sources" and those stories are taken to be true. If this is main problem with the McCain ad, you have issues with a lot stuff written by your own Washington Post.

Posted by: jfg | September 12, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

If you've shown all these claims to be false or misleading, why only three Pinocchios?

Posted by: Texas | September 12, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

dale,

don't be so stupid. we are voting for obama because he represents the very best chance we have to move this country forward. bush drove this country into the ground.mc cain hasn't got the brains to set it back on track, and neither does Palin, who is ignorant on every important problem we face. don't read the papers - listen to her words yourself. she's a lightweight, a two-bit politician.

Posted by: fr | September 12, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

eletric sailor: Palin has been under more scrutiny that obama ever? Have you been hibernating?

Listen, kids. Read the words, not what you want into them. If Palin doesn't want people looking into her record, then she shouldn't run. She sure is thin-skinned - how ever will she deal with Putin when McCain dies of melonoma? He'll have her for breakfast.

Posted by: llor | September 12, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

dbw:

Obama is not making fun of McCain for being old. He's saying what I've said all along: McCain is way way too old to be president. This is not poking fun. This is a valid opinion. We need to move forward into the future, not into the past. Why is this so hard for you to see?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

All these people claiming that Palin is being unfairly investigated compared to Obama have apparently had their heads in the sand for the last 9 months.

He was torn to shreds during the Primary season. Conflicting stories about his radical Christian pastor, despite the "fact" that he's apparently a muslim. More stories about his ties to Rezko and Ayers etc etc.

I didn't hear the right complaining about that.

The only reason the scrutiny of Palin may seem extreme, is because John McCain (quite deliberately) sprung her on us with only 10 weeks to go to the election. His (and your) hope is that the media doesn't have enough time to investigate her.

Posted by: Jerry | September 12, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Is thIs this an indication of Rupert's influence over the WSJ newsroom?

I have rarely agreed with the WSJ editorial positions, but I always felt that the newspaper did a reasonably good job of fact-checking and source-testing. You might disagree with its conclusions, but you could respect its research. This calls that concept into question.

At this point, journalism--especially that of the political variety--is starting to don the polyester suit of the car salesman. If the WSJ follows this path, we'll all be the worse for it. Thank God for The Economist, and I don't always agree with it (especially over the Iraq war). It's had the best editors for years, and it appears the gap is widening.

Posted by: bulldog6 | September 12, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

And this 2008 election poll says it all.
You won't believe these results!

http://www.votenic.com

Instant Results!

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

This year's presidential election is no doubtedly a race issue. When an editor can write and believe Mrs. Sarah Palin inspires young women... Obviously, her morals and values are construed and lack decency. When Palin can say that she agrees with our now President George Bush's War Strategy and plans to go into other countries to retain and detain terroists-there's going to be more large scale deficit spending and all of our children Left Behind. We all want our country to be safe but how can we when you want to repeat "Reagonomics". Folks need to understand it's not about a black man representing our country, it's about hope and change for a better nation;It's about ending a war that has obviously cost taxpayers billions and put our country into an economic downturn. It's about real Democracy, Diplomacy and a better and safer nation for our families and the next generation. Let's not forget Palin's unwed pregnant daughter displaying other 17 year old girls how to fornicate. Are these the kind of people we want to lead our country. Why didn't Palin's ideals about the war with in her interview with Mr. Charlie Gibson make the headlines of the Washington Post? Quiet as Kept...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Are sure your paper isn't called THE OBAMA POST.Although a democrat,I havn't seen such bias until this year.
All the Republicans have to do to win is show Obama's judgement of taking his children to Reverand Wright's church.

Posted by: joseph taylor | September 12, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

it's amazing how you folks only point out Mccains lies but when faced with democrat lies you just turn a blind eye to it, do us all a favor untill you get an honest man to run for office,In the words of Hank Hill, "SHUT THE HELL UP"!!!!

Posted by: JonE | September 12, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Ever notice how many of the pro-Obama posts are "Anonymous"? They must be so proud...

Well, "Anonymous", I see quite clearly through the veil of Obama hypocrisy, so thanks for asking. Watch the ad and tell me most people over the age of 65 won't find it insulting. "If you don't use e-mail, you aren't fit to to be involved in the political process". Good message to grandparents everywhere!

Obama keeps protesting that he just wants to talk about the 'issues', and he has so many opportunities to do so. Yet he chooses to keep up this ludicrous strategy.

Tell me, how many undecided voters do you think an ad making fun of McCain's age will bring over to Obama's side? Now, tell me how many undecided voters (especially retiree's in Florida) Obama risks alienanting because they may not necessarily like a guy who makes fun of old people?

That's what I thought...

Posted by: dbw | September 12, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Another proud Obama supporter posting as "Anonymous" said:
"Let's not forget Palin's unwed pregnant daughter displaying other 17 year old girls how to fornicate. Are these the kind of people we want to lead our country?"

Isn't it funny how the same people who defended Bill Clinton turning the White House into Playboy Mansion-East are now suddenly looking down their noses at a pregnant teenager?

And you wonder why middle-class moms are flocking toward McCain since Palin came on board. They know blatant hypocrisy when they see it...

Posted by: dbw | September 12, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Out with the Old, in with the NEW.

OBAMA/BIDEN '08

Posted by: Larry Johnson | September 12, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

>Ever notice how many of the pro-Obama posts are "Anonymous"? They must be so proud...

Soooo... You choose to be "dbw"... Oh, how "Anonymous" of you......

Alaska's 'hockey puck' is scary as Hell! This religious freak can only be worse than Bush! Go back to Alaska, do the right thing - Take care of your family's affairs!!!! They need you, more than 'we' do.....

The last time that 'Team USA' didn't listen to the world opinion, Bush declared war, for ALL the wrong reasons! The world's opinion is correct again: Elect Obama!

Oh yeah...And after 20Jan09, jail Bush/Cheney, for ruining this world's progress, for the next 20-30 years! Go Earth! Beat the GOP!

Posted by: Tom Hayes | September 12, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

and the mind control goes on.

What matters and what elections campaigns dwell on are two different things.

On January 21, 2009, someone will sit down behind the desk in the Oval Office and start dealing with the real business of being President. Probably 95% of what happens will be the same no matter who that is.

Since 1980, ideology, the stuff of campaigns, has played an increasing role in the other 5%, creating an increasingly unstable and polarized world. We should have been careful about wishing that politicians would keep their campaign promises.

I think that both presidential candidates are capable of doing a reasonable job. However, if McCain passes away during his term, I think that an army of nameless ideologues will take over the Oval Office, and we'll be wishing for the good old days of Bush 43.

Posted by: bugbuster | September 12, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

The new Magoo/Palin Axis of Evil:

1. Russia
2. Iran
3. FactCheck.org

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Baracky Hussein Obama has an extremely liberal Senate voting record - he cannot run and hide from that fact.

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Helen | September 12, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

So McCain put out an outright lying ad that claims Obama's doing something he's never done. This, as you say, is chronic behavior of the McCain campaign.

What on Earth would it take to earn four Pinochios? Is it simply impossible for McCain, with his high approval rating among the press, to ever be called a liar when he lies?

Posted by: Aleks | September 12, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

This is really sad.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Do we really want another REPUBLICAN LIAR in the White House?

I don't see how McCain can claim to bring "change" when even his campaign's new theme is stolen!

Has there been a bigger thief & liar running since Nixon? I keep half-expecting McCain's pants to spontaneously catch on fire.

Posted by: Joe | September 12, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Funny, in all these posts I do not see any arguments or facts to dispute the topic of this particular Fact Check article -- the accuracy of McCain's latest campaign ad accusing the DNC and Obama of dropping in 30 lawyers into Alaska to uncover dirt on Palin. This is an outright lie, disseminated without compunction by a campaign that has shown itself to find truth anathema. As for the "dirt" on Palin:

*She took steps to ban library books
*She pressured the state's top cop to unjustly fire her former brother-in-law; when he wouldn't, she unjustly fired him, then hired a sex offender
*She believes rape victims should be forced to continue a pregnancy that was forced on them through an act of violence
*She believes Iraq had some connection with 9/11
*She believes global warming isn't happening
*She believes children should be taught nothing about sex and have no access to contraception
*She awarded a pipeline contract to a company she has ties to; the pipeline will not get built because the oil/gas companies she supposedly has taken on are simply going to build their own, wasting millions of taxpayer money
*She fired a former underling for improperly using his personal email account for business; then she improperly used her personal email for campaign and government business, copying her husband on government business-related emails, even though he is in no way a government official
*She hired Ted Steven's lobbyist to secure over $27 million in earmarks for a town of less than 8,000 people, where she was mayor but found the job so daunting she had to hire an administrator to do the work; then she left the town $20 million in debt
*She supported the Bridge to Nowhere, the most egregious proposed pork barrel spending ever sent to Congress, then only withdrew her support when it became untenable
*Her husband, and possibly herself, had contact with a radical group which promoted Alaskan secession from America and which has a relationship with Russia

And many, many more yet to come. All facts, undisputed, and no lawyers were sent to dig them up. They are right there on the surface, for any reasonable person to see. This facile campaign strategy will ultimately fail to obscure her and McCain's atrocious, corrupt records.

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

All distraction.
Oil- worldwide market sets price - our drilling won't reduce price. Save our oil til it's really scarce & 5000/barrel as we run out of oil worldwide this century. Double car fleet mileage cuts demand and will cause prices to fall more. Detroit needs hi mpg cars to be competitive worldwide.
Both candidates ok with nuclear. That's a sane green approach.
Tax- Obama will make tax more progressive raising tax for those making millions, and cutting somewhat for the rest of us. Both plans raise deficits - but Obama less so.
We have tough times and hard choices ahead for our children.

Posted by: dick | September 12, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Scott | September 12, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Mac-Bush is four more years of GOP lies, Iraq, Katrina, high gas prices, a busted economy and nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance. vote for real change. Obama 08.

Posted by: north | September 12, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I realized after years of being a Republican, that most politicians calling themselves Republicans only pay lip-service to the key tenet of small government, reduced spending, and relaxed legislation. Both McCain and Palin are the perfect examples -- both say they want to cut taxes, but it won't be for you and me. They both have records of increasing spending, not reducing it; increasing the government reach, not reducing it. They're not reformers, they are bombers and spenders. Sen. Obama offers the only route to a reduced federal deficit and lower taxes for working Americans!

Republicans for Obama/Biden 08!

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"But, since most of the news stories these days run like Obama advertisements....."

No coincidence, since most or all of what the McCain campaign says is untrue.

Posted by: tomt | September 12, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the fact checking. It is good to know that someone checks into the hyperbole of political ads, but hey when are we going to get serious and substantive about reporting these obvious stretches in a big way in the media? Is this campaign going to be reduced again to emotional trumping up of "perceived" moral problems i.e. "digging dirt" "disrespectin" is it the Jerry Springer show? or is it a campaign for national office? Maybe IDIOCRACY is for real.

Posted by: observations | September 12, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Since June 4, 2008 there have been no Four Pinocchio awards: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/ratings/4_pinocchios/

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Many countries governed by powerful women, such as Margaret Thatcher, President Mary McAleese of Ireland, and President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, have raised their children during their time in office, what is the big deal? While watching C-Span this morning, they had an open phone session; the session concerned Sarah Palin's ability to lead and her experience in government. A woman from Atlanta, GA, had brought up the point that she feared Sarah would not have any clout in the Middle East due to the lack of credibility Muslim’s place on women in their society. The reality is, Bangladesh, Turkey, India, and Indonesia are run by women, and coincidentally they all happen to have large Muslim populations. Otherwise, Condoleezza Rice has held audiences with the powers that be in most every Muslim country without a lack of credibility. This argument is as invalid as the circumstances surrounding Palin’s firing Monegan. It is a governor’s prerogative to hire and fire those in her cabinet at her will. These attacks on her character are nothing more than fear mongering.

The liberal media has launched an offensive against McCain's vice presidential running mate Sarah Palin. The New York Times suggested Palin wasn't properly vetted. ABC News' Matt Dowd is saying that Republican delegates are turning on Palin. I doubt that very much--it appears that just the opposite is happening--Republicans are rallying around Palin. The perpetrators of these controversies are the liberal media.

Let's take a look at the left's bill of particulars against Sarah Palin, gleaned from The New York Times:

1) Her seventeen year-old daughter is pregnant.

Even Obama agrees that this is being dwelled on by the media is shameful. It is blight on the credibility and reliability of those who have reported on it. Carolyn Russell and Kate Linthicum of the LA Times are so biased the will not even let you post a comment in their editorials if it goes against the grain of their liberal views . . . this I have experienced first hand.

2) Palin's husband was arrested for DUI 22 years ago.

That this is brought up is merely a joke. How many members of Congress have gotten DUIs? And this happened when Mr. Palin was in his early twenties. The liberal left is definitely frightened if they are bringing up issues that old.

3) Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for two years in the mid-90's, and they support a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the Union.

Alaska isn’t New York City or Los Angeles, but the politics there are much different than they are in the lower 48. Kalifornia, being the most populous state in the US, has trampled on more delicate wildlife ecosystems than any other state in the nation, not to mention that even though they have by far outsourced their water and electricity needs, The irresponsible leaders keep on building, irregardless of the impact of the environment. And now that they have overpopulated the area, and stretched their resources to the breaking limit life is unbearable. Just as the odds of getting shot there are 100% greater than the rest of the nation, they want to lead the country in making wacky legislation that is only relevant if you live amongst the crowded and ill-resourced, smog filled cities on the west coast. I can only imagine how those who are truly living on the Last Frontier feel about being bossed around by people like Nancy Pelosi; I’d want to flip the US the bird too. If anything, California should do the US a favor and succeed; I’m certain the notion would get rave reviews from the other 49 states. Nonetheless and ironically, her voter’s registration card was released and this was proven to be just another rumor cooked up by the liberals to stain the reputation of Sarah Palin.

4) Palin has hired a private lawyer to defend her "in an Alaska legislative ethics investigation into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner." (That is another quote from the liberal and biased reporting at the New York Times.)

It's funny; I don't remember the media making a big deal of it the countless times the Clintons hired private counsel to defend them in various scandals. And this also another erroneous statement, as the State of Alaska hired the lawyer, not Palin.

Regardless of all the other misrepresentations made by the deceptions of the liberal media, on the surface this last one appears to be the most serious charge against Palin, but Palin’s firing Monegan because he didn’t fire Wooten, as ALLEGED, it also falls apart even under mild scrutiny.

The essence of this matter is that Palin's staff is alleged to have pressured Alaska's Department of Public Safety Commissioner to fire a state trooper, and ultimately fired the Public Safety Commissioner when he did not do so. This state trooper was involved in a nasty custody fight with the Governor's sister.

In the first instance this "ethics" investigation is being led by Senator Hollis French, a Democrat and a Massachusetts born, Cornell educated lawyer who advocates socialized medicine. In other words, a liberal. Subsequently, ABC has already released statements made by French about the investigation that is not supposed to be completed until October. Simply stated, the underhanded comment was that "It's LIKELY to be damaging to the Governor's administration." In my opinion, any cop that beats up his wife, makes a threat against his father-in-law’s life, and uses a taser on his ten years old son deserves to be fired if not worse; how many people actually know the truth? We have a country full of young people who never bother to follow up on the news other than reading the headlines.

The other thing you won't get from the liberal media is that this Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was appointed by Palin and according to the Anchorage Daily News, "she had a right to fire him for any reason." This will shock you, but that important detail was left out of the Times story. But if this is an investigation into whether Palin abused her power by firing Monegan, as the Times says, the investigation should be over already--she had the legal right to do what she did. Hollis French, as a liberal lawyer, should know this. That the investigation continues shows that it is nothing but a partisan witch hunt. It’s called prerogative: A Prerogative is an exclusive legal right given from a government or state and invested in an individual or group, the content of which is separate from the body of rights enjoyed under the general law of the normative state.

This sounds just like the selective outrage at Bush's dismissal of a handful of US Attorneys when the media barely made a peep when Bill Clinton fired every sitting US Attorney.

And here's another little tidbit that The New York Times does not want you to know about, and in fact left out of their story--the trooper who Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan refused to fire threatened to kill Governor Palin's father if he got a lawyer for his daughter in the custody fight. And then the trooper lied about this in an internal investigation.

This "ethics" witch hunt reflects poorly on the liberal lawyer who is leading it, and the liberal, cheerleading media, not Palin.

It's time for McCain to stand up and denounce this anti-Palin garbage dump. All he needs to say is that it has been clear from the start that the media are in love with Obama, and their anti-Palin feeding frenzy is just a part of their efforts to elect him. And Palin's 17 year-old daughter Bristol is nothing but collateral damage to the liberal media, who have pulled out all the stops for Obama.

And it's time for conservatives to rally around Palin. McCain could have picked Mother Theresa and the liberal media still would have found a way to savage her.

Majority of Article and text is courtesy of www.notwrightforamerica.com some alterations and inclusions have been made.

Posted by: gettyleigh | September 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

That makes TEN (10) Pinocchios in one week for the McCain campaign ... is that an all-time Fact Checker record?

Posted by: Lawrence | September 12, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Many countries governed by powerful women, such as Margaret Thatcher, President Mary McAleese of Ireland, and President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, have raised their children during their time in office, what is the big deal? While watching C-Span this morning, they had an open phone session; the session concerned Sarah Palin's ability to lead and her experience in government. A woman from Atlanta, GA, had brought up the point that she feared Sarah would not have any clout in the Middle East due to the lack of credibility Muslim’s place on women in their society. The reality is, Bangladesh, Turkey, India, and Indonesia are run by women, and coincidentally they all happen to have large Muslim populations. Otherwise, Condoleezza Rice has held audiences with the powers that be in most every Muslim country without a lack of credibility. This argument is as invalid as the circumstances surrounding Palin’s firing Monegan. It is a governor’s prerogative to hire and fire those in her cabinet at her will. These attacks on her character are nothing more than fear mongering.

Posted by: avg joe politico | September 12, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

the media needs to cover the lies, uncover the lies and expose the truth. I would have thought they would have felt guilty for their contribution to the buildup of the Iraq war in promulgating Bush's lies. Now they're colluding with McCain... what's really going on is anything but CHANGE.

Posted by: MassamachusettsWoman | September 12, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Why should McCain be upset if Obama did sent this mini army to spy...thats politics as his party practices it!

Posted by: caligirl | September 12, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

That mccain, he's a real man of integrity.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Hah - nice double (one abridged) reposts of McCain campaign cant, avg joe politco and gettyleigh. Verbatim and vapid. Hope you both are getting paid well -- that cash cow (and lipsticked pig) will be over in November. Then it's back to your regular means of employment, which I'm guessing consists of hocking beaniebabies on Ebay, day trading and fraud perpetrated over Craigslist. If you're going to troll for McCain, at least do it a different sites or cut-and-paste different content! So sad...

Posted by: JakeD | September 12, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

What is going on with McCain and his campaign? I'm for Obama, but I still liked and respected McCain, but with all of the lies that he is spreading, my respect for him is dropping rapidly. He was on the View and he was still denying that he and his team are rapidly spreading lies (even though they have been shown to be false)...has he started believing these lies?

These are some pretty serious lies, actually some of the worst that I've heard in previous campaign. These repeated lies are making McCain look really bad. Is he even going to like himself, when this campaign is over?

Posted by: kd Oklahoma | September 12, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Lie now, lie later. It speaks to the character issue. McCain may have been next to the last in his class at Annapolis, but today he his proving last in the honor code.

At first he was merely deceitful, then delusional. The best excuse I can find now is that dementia is setting in. How else to explain throwing away so easily the one thing a military officer truly will die to preserve: his personal integrity.

Shameful? Shamed? Maybe his condition is just a shame.

Posted by: mmfleming1 | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

It is a new lie every day from McCain. They come so fast, no one can keep up. What a disgusting downfall for the fomer "Straight-talker." Even if he wins, he has to be embarrassed by the way he has run this campaign.

Posted by: bgjd1979 | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that businesses can get sued for false advertising and politicians get away with stuff like this?

Posted by: Jane Q Citizen | September 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Let's be succinct: LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

Posted by: Chico and the Man | September 12, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Pray tell, when does it reach this definition:

"fraud (n.) - 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. 2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds." ...

Source: Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary.

Let's call it what it is: fraud.

Posted by: Just Wondering | September 12, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Of course the ad is a lie. They didn't actually "jump" from the plane, they simply walked off after it landed. Gee, what a liar.

Posted by: Ken | September 12, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

The only thing McCain has lost with his new strategy is his integrity. His journey to the Bush side is complete.
Lies, deception, and distraction have worked twice before. Reform is for losers and those hung up on issues.
McCain chose corruption, after he spoke against it.

Posted by: Affinity1 | September 12, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

There are so many complaints about the "liberal MSM" from the commenters here, but McCain is lying (not just his campaign, but the straight-talker himself)and it doesn't make headlines! This is mega-scale election fraud.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I am an independent and I think a pox on both parties is appropriate. Such BS.If you are either a Dem or Rep. you are drinking the KoolAid. They are all lying bastards. Telling you what you want to hear. Pandering to everyone. You will vote for them and then they will represent the corporate interest that have financed them and screw us over. Its that simple. You just don't get it. Lou Dobbs said it right, all they are is two wings of the same bird, period.

Posted by: BRUCE | September 12, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

mccain is a real loose cannon, and this is a tell-tale sign of dementia setting in.

palin isn't a leader, she isn't even someone you would want as a PFC or corporal in the USMC or Army.

why would you nominate her to be a VP candidate?

Posted by: frank | September 12, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"not once have you questioned obama."
Yeah, when he's said questionable things in the past, they've given him pinochios for his sins. It's just that he hasn't been lying about McCain.
McCain, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be able to find the truth with both hands and a road map. He may be the same guy he always was, in which case we didn't know that guy either.

Posted by: dijetlo | September 12, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Hey 'just wondering' i'm with you. If that is the correct defenition of 'fraud' then these guys are committing fraud, man! Lying is one thing but when you do it to get ahead then that is fraud. And the fraud is on us, that is messed up.

Posted by: Chico and the Man | September 12, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

What is the Republican's mission?

1) Providing laws to protect the rich?
2) Taking money from the poor and give it to the rich by taxes?
3) Creating more wars so the rich can get richer by getting contracts with the military?
4) Making people believe that there is no such thing as globle warming?


Posted by: Tony | September 12, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
What happened?? Were you knocked off your horse on the way to Damascus?

Its really sad looking at all of these entries treating the election like a football game. That being said, I am disappoint in McCain. I thought he was an honorable man...well he is a politician. After a life time of being a Republican, after two terms of Bush and now McCain trying to imitiate him, I am changing to an Independent. Its a shame Brownback didn't win. He would have campaigned on the issues and we could have made a sensible choice on who we want to lead the country.

All of you whining about the "liberal" MSM...who do you think owns the MSM?? Conservatives. Hearst, McClatchy, Murdoch, Grahm, Sinclair all conservatives and big owners of MSM. The MSM is putting out what the owners want.

Posted by: Repub | September 12, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I don't want to spread any lies or distortions or make up anything about Obama, so could anyone help me in locating the whereabouts of any of the following regarding Obama? They seem to be missing from the "vetting" process where all the whiny liberals just took the Messiah's word for their existence and authenticity:

Occidental College records
Columbia College records
Columbia thesis paper
Harvard College records
Selective Service Registration
Medical records
Illinois State Senate records
Illinois State Senate schedule
Law practice client list
Certified copy of your original Birth Certificate
Embossed, signed paper Cerificate of Live Birth
Harvard Law Review articles that were published
University of Chicago scholarly articles
Your record of baptism

Thanks for ANY help in this search.

Posted by: MA from NM | September 12, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

I hope they have more than a "mini-army" because it will take more than that to "destroy" her. Regardless they need to do something to knock this crazy, pro-life, republican but not conservative, gun toting, pit bull of a woman off of her pedestal. I used to chant GO PON PAUL... and now I scream GO OBAMA!!

Posted by: Tyler | September 12, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

MA from NM

Good idea, while we're at it...lets get McCain's full military and health records too.

Posted by: Repub | September 12, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

JonE STFU!!
IF SHE HAS NHOTHIHNG TO HIDE WHY DOESN'T SHE COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION?
FIRST DUDE IS PRIVY TO E-MAILS THAT SHOULD BE SEEN BY PARTIES WHO ARE IN GOVERNMENT NOT THEIR SPOUSE. WHY DOES HE SIT IN ON OIL/FISH NEGOTIATIONS WHEN HE IS NOT ON THE STATE PAYROLL? WHY DOES HE ATTEND MTGS ELSEWHERE AND BE PAID TO REPRESENT ALASKA?
THE FISH WRAPPED IN NEWSPAPER STINKS AND SO DOES THIS PROBLEM OF failin' palin.
SHE WANTS TO PLAY IN THE BIGS BUT DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUBSTANCE TO HER. CAN WE SAY PENI$
ENVY??

Posted by: Katerina Deligiannis | September 12, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Here's another question:

If Obama intends to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, hoo-ray.

That means he intends to raise taxes on the other 5%. I'm not in that bracket, so I could care less.

Here's the math problem. Anyone who knows anything about statistics knows that the majority of the American population's income is distributed across all income levels and can be shown graphically by a bell curve. Statistically speaking, even if Obama raised the tax rate to, say 90%?, on those wealthiest 5% of Americans, there's NO WAY he can replace the revenue he gives away in the tax cut to the 70% of MIDDLE AMERICANS.

Secondly, he promised in his speech from the Greek Parthenon (I didn't realize it was in Denver all these years) that he would spend BILLIONS on this program and BILLIONS on that program.

If he's BILLIONS short on revenue and BILLIONS long on spending, the national debt will be MULTIPLE TRILLIONS in a very short time.

Face it. Congress (meaning every low-life that has voted for increasing taxes or spending my tax money over the last 50 years) has figured out that MIDDLE AMERICA is the CASH COW.

McCain want to CUT government and leave taxes right where they are (so, mathematically, we can start to pay off what Bush did to us over the last eight years)

Obama and the IRS will rape us over the next 4 years. Mark my words.

Posted by: MA from NM | September 12, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Dear "MA": You are absolutely wrong. Your rantings are a prime example of what is wrong with US politics.

Please try to stay on task: the subject today is the systematic promulgation of lies by a political candidate to the extent that it may constitute election fraud. Not income, not wages, not taxation.

Besides, you obviously know nothing about statistics. Both the "Binomial Probability Distribution" and the "Normal Probability Distribution" (that's "bell curve" to you) have to do with random variables. I suggest enrolling in a course at the JC. It can be quite enlightening.

Posted by: Just Wondering | September 12, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

To MA, since you like talking money, let's take a look at our checkbook:

Per the US GAO report, August 2008, quote: "Since fiscal year 2003, Congress has appropriated about $48 billion to U.S. agencies to finance stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, including developing Iraq’s security forces, enhancing Iraq’s capacity to govern, and rebuilding Iraq’s oil, electricity, and water sectors, among others. As of June 2008, of the $48 billion in appropriated U.S. funds from fiscal years 2003 through 2008, about $42 billion (88 percent) had been obligated and about $32 billion (68 percent) had been spent."

That's a lot of tax money, MA. But it gets worse:

Per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), October 2007 report, the US has spent $368 billion on its military operations in Iraq, $45 billion more in related services (veterans care, diplomatic services, training), and nearly $200 billion additional in Afghanistan. The CBO estimates the costs of the Iraq war, projected out through 2017, may exceed $1 trillion, plus an additional $705 billion in interest payments. The total cost of Iraq and Afghanistan combined could reach $2.4 trillion.

That's a helluva lot of tax money, MA, don't you think so? And check it out, we're actually borrowing money to do this. I mean, look at the interest payments- who signed for that loan? I sure as hell didn't. Did you MA?

Wait, don't go away mad MA. I have an idea. Maybe we could stop borrowing money to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and re-allocate some of that tax money to pay for stuff here at home. Maybe get rid of that nasty loan with the high interest. What do you think? I mean, it's just a thought.

Semper Fidelis, and E pluribus unum.

Posted by: E pluribus unum | September 12, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

" "We have zero people who have gone up to Alaska to research Sarah Palin," said DNC research director Mike Gehrke. "

Uh, OK, Mike. Nothing to see here.

Oh, and we aren't saying the big newspapers aren't doing any oppostion research. No sah.

Posted by: jdwill | September 12, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Looks like new lies from the GOP are coming out now... guess now the area is voter fraud in swing states...

http://news.racinepost.com/2008/09/gop-absentee-ballot-mailings-called.html

Posted by: TruthSeeker | September 13, 2008 2:49 AM | Report abuse

Repub:

That was a fake JakeD.

Posted by: JakeD | September 13, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Truth Seeker:

Wanting only ELIGIBLE voters to participate is wrong now?!

Posted by: JakeD | September 13, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

This exposes what most of us knew already, that all of McCain's ads are lies from start to finish..

If this doesn't deserve 4 pinos what does ?

Posted by: Ain't it the Truth | September 13, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama Cancels SNL Appearance

"In light of the unfolding crisis in Texas, Senator Obama has decided it is no longer appropriate to appear on Saturday Night Live tomorrow evening," his campaign said.

========================================

Since it is learned that the actual candidate that bumps off mutual opponent first will automatically win November's elections and it has nothing to do with issues and popularity polls, wonder if Obama's decision to cancel SNL show this morning and head back to Chicago tonight after rally in NH, is an orchestrated public distraction from his specific attempt to bump off mutual opponent in the middle of the night tonight instead?

Apparently the mutual opponent exposed corruption within both parties and is specifically targeted. It is also learned this party is wealthy so this is another motivation to bump person off.

The question is will Obama solicit an OJ Simpson convict type with jail time to do the bumping off? Will the Dem party employ the popular law enforcement practice of 'sweetheart deals' where such crimes/murders are committed by convicts in exchange for less jail time, conveniently covered up and real culprits publicly unsuspected?

Should we too have to worry about our family's safety as our habits and plans are known in advanced via bugging devices both in private and public places frequented? For example, should we worry when we do our routine jog, shop or are asleep in the middle of the night in the privacy of our home?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama Cancels SNL Appearance

"In light of the unfolding crisis in Texas, Senator Obama has decided it is no longer appropriate to appear on Saturday Night Live tomorrow evening," his campaign said.

========================================

Since it is learned that the actual candidate that bumps off mutual opponent first will automatically win November's elections and it has nothing to do with issues and popularity polls, wonder if Obama's decision to cancel SNL show this morning and head back to Chicago tonight after rally in NH, is an orchestrated public distraction from his specific attempt to bump off mutual opponent in the middle of the night tonight instead?

Apparently the mutual opponent exposed corruption within both parties and is specifically targeted. It is also learned this party is wealthy so this is another motivation to bump person off.

The question is will Obama solicit an OJ Simpson convict type with jail time to do the bumping off? Will the Dem party employ the popular law enforcement practice of 'sweetheart deals' where such crimes/murders are committed by convicts in exchange for less jail time, conveniently covered up and real culprits publicly unsuspected?

Should we too have to worry about our family's safety as our habits and plans are known in advanced via bugging devices both in private and public places frequented? For example, should we worry when we do our routine jog, shop or are asleep in the middle of the night in the privacy of our home?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 13, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why people are saying McCain is another Bush only because he's republican. That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard.

From what I've read about what McCain is going to be doing if he becomes president it's NOTHING like what Bush has done for his two terms.

Also, why would anybody want a president that voted against English being the official language? Think about that folks.

I have proof that Obama voted against English being the official language.

Now, I have nothing against Obama, I just don't think he's experienced enough to run this country. He's been in the Senate for four years and I never even heard of the guy until I found out he was running for president. People all over the country have heard of McCain for many years.

You don't just want a president who matches your ideas and values, you also want one who has the experience to lead this country.

Posted by: Brad | September 13, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

As for the Sarah Palin thing; all this is happening because she's female. Frankly, I'm sick of reading and or hearing about it.

They should just leave the poor lady alone.

Posted by: Brad | September 13, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Palin is a political prop, for all intents and purposes. The McCain camp dangles her out there like a pinata, waiting to see who takes a swing at her.

And she adds fuel to the fire with taunts about Obama being better off if he picked Hillary as his VP (Obama would rather lose on his own terms, then have to carry the Clinton baggage in to the WH with him).

Even the most innocuous comment gets turned in to an attack on Palin. Look what they're doing to poor little Sarah. Trolling for boo hoos, mostly from female voters, McCain is proving he'll do anything to win.

Add this to the non stop barrage of largely mendacious ads aimed at Obama and you have the McCain strategy in a nutshell. Soften Obama up and then actually discuss some substantive issues a few weeks before election day.....maybe.

In the meantime, media outlets and even some Republicans have begun to question McCain's tactics and his "facts".

But as long as it keeps McCain moving up in the polls, and it remains to be seen if it will, this line of attack will continue.


Posted by: MA | September 13, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

I think it is nice
an expert on misrepresentation,
like the Post,
brings it's experience with
misleading and biased
reports, to the election,
thank you.
Takes one to know one.
Nobama08!

Posted by: USA3 | September 13, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

I used to vote Democrat, but after watching the blatant discrimination that CNN and ABC have used in producing their shows on Palin, I no longer buy the story they are trying to get me to swallow. It is disgusting to see the obvious bias that they have against Palin. With their slick presentational methods (background music, pauses in the story, etc)and choice of who they interviewed, they have slanted her story to look as bad as they can make it. I know that some of what they said has already been discounted. I am going to be a lot more discerning about what I accept as truth from now on!

Posted by: NoLongerBlinded | September 13, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

"It is disgusting to see the obvious bias that they have against Palin. With their slick presentation"


Like I said, trolling for boo hoos.

Another one takes the bait.

Posted by: MA | September 14, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

barrys new name OBUMBLER

Posted by: cjcable39 | September 14, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

Spreading dirt on Palin--and Obama

The media needs to step aside with the crap and allow the real American people's issues to front the spotlight. The people already know the truth by now, so save the drama media.

Posted by: Nisey01 | September 14, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Wonder if it is true that the candidate that bumps off mutual opponent wins in November and it has nothing to do with issues and popularity polls?

Apparently the mutual opponent not only exposed corruption within both parties but is wealthy and is presently targeted. Once bumped off, his wealth is be easily stolen.

The question is how?

Will the Dems use an OJ Simpson-like, black convict with jail time due? BTW, OJ Simpson is available til tomorrow morning for his own robbery and kidnapping trial in Las Vegas.

Will the GOP use a Guiliani-like mob ties like his protege had and was indicted for up to 140 jail time? Or Gotti, Jr. who is available tonight before his murder trial begins in the morning in Florida?

Will both political parties employ the popular law enforcement practice of 'sweetheart exchange deals' where convicts commit crime/murder, gets less jail time, conveniently covered up and the real culprits are not publicly suspected?

As we share this information, will we too have to worry about our physical safety day by day until the election on November 4? For example, do we have to worry about our jogging in public, shopping, or sleeping in the middle of the night as our habits and plans are well known in advanced via bugging devices in both private and public?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 14, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Again and again it is the same.
It is ok for Obama to lie,
but any fact check by the other side is so wrong.
I agree the ads imagery is a bit misleading, but the facts are not.

Is there any non-partisan, non biased truth check site left for those of us who are not demigod party nor repubic party members?

Posted by: Jon Q Public | September 14, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

How did Obama vote for a law to force doctors to kill babies born alive during a botched abortion and now I can say I will never vote for him?

Here is the answer.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=164320

Posted by: George Ali Jones | September 15, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Mike | September 12, 2008 8:34 AM
All of this is garbage. Republicans will always vote Republican and Democrats will always vote Democrat. Nader 08'

Mike, It's folks like you who got George II elected and caused the worst administration in the history of this country to do so much damage. Wake up and face reality. Whether you back a candidate or not, you have to decide between the two that are running or you're a spoiler. We cannot afford another Republican admistration. Pick the issues that most fit your views and vote for the candidate who actually has a chance of getting elected. It's sad that we only have a 2 party system, but you won't change it by creating a country with less rights and more debt. Use some common sense.

Posted by: childernfirst | September 17, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Vote for Obama and you will have DESTROYED Hillary's chance at becoming
President!!

Consider this:
If you elect Obama for 2008 , Hillary CAN'T RUN IN 2012!! The
incumbent always runs for their party in reelection.

Hillary will then be 69 when she gets a chance to run as democrat.
Then people will call her old(like they do McCain who is 72) and she
will NEVER become President.

Reagan was 69 when he got elected but he wasn't trying to break the
glass ceiling at the same time.

So if you care at all about Hillary, you will VOTE AGAINST Obama this
time around. Plus, you will break the glass ceiling and Hillary WILL
BE THERE in 2012!!

Think about it!! It makes sense!!

If you support Hillary, YOU MUST VOTE AGAINST OBAMA!!!

Posted by: Eric | September 17, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company