Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Palin's War on the Press



Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin talks with CBS News anchor Katie Couric. The McCain campaign is criticizing "gotcha journalism" of those covering the ticket. (CBS News via Associated Press Photo)

In a series of recent interviews, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has expressed her disdain for the way she has been treated by the press, stoking resentment toward the media among conservatives but also raising questions about how this strategy will help reach independent voters who remain decidedly non committal about Palin.

Her latest jab at the press came last evening in an interview with conservative talk radio show host Hugh Hewitt. (Full disclosure: The Fix is an occasional guest on Hugh's show.)

"I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago," Palin said in response to a question from Hewitt about alleged gotcha questions being asked of her by ABC's Charlie Gibson and CBS's Katie Couric.

She added:

"I'm going to take those shots and those pop quizzes and just say that's okay, those are good testing grounds. And they can continue on in that mode. That's good. That makes somebody work even harder. It makes somebody be even clearer and more articulate in their positions. So really I don't fight it. I invite it."

Palin's comments to Hewitt came roughly 24 hours after CBS aired a portion of Couric's interview with both McCain and his running mate. In that conversation, McCain decried the "gotcha" journalism that led Palin to say she favored cross border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan. (McCain disagrees with that position.)

It's also a few days removed from another -- it seems like there have been 100 -- Couric interview with Palin in which the Alaska governor generically blamed "reporters" when asked to explain comments she made citing the proximity of Russia to Alaska as evidence of her foreign policy credentials.

Palin's recent condemnations of the press are part of a broader war against the media by the McCain campaign. Last week, McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt expounded on the alleged deficiencies of the New York Times on a conference call. "This is an organization that is completely, totally 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate," Schmidt asserted.

Blaming the media has been a tried and true Republican tactic to rally their base, and -- judging from the derogatory chants of "NBC! NBC!" at the Republican National Convention it has worked like a charm. (Democrats are not immune from this strategy either, as they have learned in recent years that the press makes a convenient scapegoat.)

The issue for Palin (and McCain) is whether simply blaming the press for the problems that have arisen in her candidacy -- questions about her experience, knowledge and readiness -- will be persuasive to independent voters and those who remain undecided in the race.

Press criticism is the ultimate process story. That is, it has to do with the rules of the game -- rules most average voters have absolutely no idea even exist. Most people, especially in a time of massive economic uncertainty like we are currently experiencing, want to hear about how the candidates (and their vice presidential nominees) are going to make every day life better. Refereeing whether or not the press is being fair to the candidate is not typically in the purview of the average undecided voter.

That's not to say Palin's strategy of late is not smart -- to a point. It does keep rank and file conservatives behind her although, as we wrote yesterday, some within the conservative chattering class have begun to jump ship.

Rallying conservatives is a HUGE part of Palin's job on the ticket because of the lack of warmth toward McCain in that crucial voting bloc. But as the campaign moves into its final weeks and the task for both campaigns is to find a way to persuade undecided voters, simply complaining about the way in which she is being covered isn't enough for Palin.

She needs to show these undecideds -- particularly white, working class voters in places like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania -- why she and McCain are the better choice to represent their interests in Washington. And, to do that, she needs to make a convincing case on issues, ranging from the economy to health care to the war in Iraq.

Perhaps Palin will start that effort tomorrow night in St. Louis.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 1, 2008; 6:30 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Torricelli's Anniversary: A Speech for the Ages
Next: Independent Group Raises McCain Health Issue

Comments

Even before he's in office, McCain is such a warmonger that with his polls slipping, he HAS to start a war on something. Why not the press? Because it is there, pointing out the shallowness of his running mate and the brashness of his decision making, and every time he says something incredibly stupid like "the fundamentals of our economy..."

With the economy going in the toilet largely because of Republicans, Reagan's trickle-down economics and McCain's own penchant for deregulation, AND a costly unnecessary war, which he doesn't want to end, he grabs at the Rush Limbaugh enemy, pinko press.

What are we supposed to do, stop thinking and reading newspapers of quality, and turn to the blowhard blabber of talk radio? Or just let Palin recite her lines, without being asked questions. McCain's war on the press just shows how disturbed he is.

Posted by: MrGrug | October 3, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

So this media elite is the same group of reporters that John McCain loved in 2000. The same group of intellectual thugs that fell for the Rovian red herrings and helped demonize McCain in 2004 and swift boat a fellow verteran. This is the same group of men and women who McCain adored during the primaries.

But NOW, "media" is a dirty word? Is it because John McCain really feels that way or because the Bushies running his campaign (and if elected his presidenecy) say it is so?

Most Americans take the media with a grain of salt, but it doesn't mean the facts are wrong.

Posted by: hbfrancis | October 2, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"If the press were really doing its job Sarah Palin would not even be going through the embarassment of debating Joe Biden tomorrow"

Oh they are doing THEIR JOB, so to speak, alright - like the Washington Post praising Sandra Bernhardt for calling for the "gang-rape" of Sarah Palin....

However, some groups don't enjoy the same diseased perspective that would praise individuals that call for "gang-rape":

Shelter Cuts Sandra Bernhard for Saying Palin Would Be Gang-Raped in N.Y.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,431617,00.html

But you won't see any protests about the PRESS who praised Sandra Bernhard, will you?

Posted by: jeff-in-dc | October 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Actually, McCain will do well by dumping Sarah, the Ultimate Bimbo sooner rather than late. But then again, has he got sound judgment or even guts to do it? We'll wait and see. Everytime Sarah opens her mouth, things get more and more absurd.

Posted by: thisworld | October 2, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

When you cut through all of nuance of Obama you quickly realize that he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about half the time, the other half he is saying absolutely nothing. I never once heard him take position in the debate or in interviews. He spends half an hour describing the problem, then blames it on Bush but never, ever offers a solution of his own. In the debate he said that nuclear weapons in a suitcase were the real danger, duh...then he said we have to strengthen this and strengthen that but he never once said how, he does that all of the time and it fools the fools.
On the rare times he has taken a position or offered a proposal, he backtracks the next day after he sees if it flies or not.

Posted by: no_USSA | October 2, 2008 4:26 AM | Report abuse

What is going on with McCain's left eye? (Check out recent photographs.) It looks droopy and unfocused. Perhaps he has suffered a minor stroke. That would explain some of his odd behavior of late, including his selection of Palin to be one heartbeat - or melanoma - away from the Presidency.

Posted by: HughBriss | October 2, 2008 4:13 AM | Report abuse

If the press were really doing its job Sarah Palin would not even be going through the embarassment of debating Joe Biden tomorrow. She should have dropped out of this shortly after her selection, instead the right wing main stream media (you read it right) keeps her candidacy alive by molly codling her to no end, and they will do so tomorrow night after the debate as well.

Posted by: nwsjnky1 | October 2, 2008 3:41 AM | Report abuse

McCain selected Palin and she is a victim.
Further, the American people are victims by the risks of Palin as VP or President.
I state again, McCain has arrogance disease and do a quick search and plenty of professional psychological information lists causes, symptoms, behaviors, and then compare to McCain and these people do not care about others and to hide this they display an over concern for others in group and public settings. It is not against the law but it is also not moral.
The office of President has no place for it and McCain would be a disaster of the worst nightmare. I am a Vietnam era veteran and support veterans but arrogance is another matter and psychologists are correct in saying the only solution is to avoid. Palin is just a victim and McCain is where this began and I have no sympathy for anyone who does not care about others.
Look up arrogance disease and make your own judgment as to McCain and the office of President.

Posted by: radiantenergies | October 2, 2008 3:41 AM | Report abuse

Hey, Katie, if you're so clever (and perky!) and smarter than poor dumb ol' Sarah, why haven't you been elected a governor and run a state? Just haven't got around to it yet?

Posted by: dlund | October 2, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

It boggles the mind how some people can't see the bias of the media and cultural elites. I guess if the tank is vast enough, when you're in the tank, you think the tank is the whole world.

To paraphrase a wise man, "I'd rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Wasilla, Alaska phone book than by the elite media talking heads."

Posted by: dlund | October 2, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

"It's amazing that republicans get away with blaming the press when for the most part the press is corporate controlled and right leaning. They have their on propaganda network in fox news and essentially own talk radio yet they have their brainwashed myopic morons convinced that the media is liberal."

Hmmm... Fox news and talk radio...guess you never heard of NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC, newspapers, magazines, nearly all colleges and universities, all urban school districts, all unions. Maybe you have a real weird TV and radio and live in a cave. (At least you admit left wing radio is DOA).

And you say media are corporate controlled. Big revelation. That's because to build TV and radio stations and newspaper facilities requires MONEY. (Perhaps you'd prefer smoke signals). Public corporations aren't right or left, though. They're amoral. They will do and say anything for anybody if they think it will increase their profits. Period. (Though I'm reconsidering this watching the MSM coddle poor little Barack and carry Democrats' water while they watch their ratings and profits dry up).

Posted by: dlund | October 2, 2008 12:54 AM | Report abuse

When I first started tuning into the election, McCain had just requested that Obama meet him in a series of town hall meetings. I watched CNN that evening. They criticized McCain, saying that his town hall meeting request was an attempt to get "free publicity". Later that same evening, their special report about Obama's life history lavished and gushed free publicity on Obama for an hour. I realized then of the bias we were in for from CNN. Then one night I watched MSNBC and it made CNN seem like amateurs of bias.

Posted by: jrv11 | October 2, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Palin first attacked the media at the republican convention which did seem odd. This is not Alaska. Our media has been basically right winged for years regardless that republicans continually say there is a liberal media. Why would McCain and Palin be so hostile to the media? McCain has brought about the impossible which is having the conservative media judge him honestly. Palin plans to blab a lot of nonsense tomorrow in her debate with Senator Biden. This has always worked for her before. Will everyone think she was wonderful?

Posted by: fedup11 | October 1, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Oh for God's sake.

All of this back and forth regarding the biased media ignores the crucial role the "Fourth Estate" plays in our Representative Democracy System of Government. The "Press" is supposed to play the role of investigator, to provide the answers to the questions that an informed electorate requires to make intelligent rational decisions.

If the Press (now deemed "Main Stream Media") is NOT on the attack, regardless of political persuasion, they are NOT doing their job.

I wouldn't care who they supported but that's the reason that in my mind Faux (Fox) News deserves the derision that the "liberals" heap on them while conservatives cling tightly to them. They ARE biased. When those in power - the President Bush or Vice President Cheney feel comfortable appearing on them then I call bias. I wouldn't care if it was Bill Clinton or Obama in the White House.

I want who ever occupies that seat, or any seat of power, to feel UNCOMFORTABLE appearing on ANY and EVERY "News" show or interview. If they want a friendly source of information dissemination then use PRNewswire an put out press releases. If they want to speak to the people then be prepared to be GRILLED each and every time.

Your position is voted on one time every 2, 4 or 6 years and the trust of the people is earned not given lightly. And it must be EARNED EACH and EVERY DAY. You do NOT get the benefit of the doubt.

IF you don't like those standards, go use your Liberal Arts or Governmental Policy Degree and work at Walmart or as a typist in some city or state bureaucracy but don't come complaining about the harsh treatment of the "Press".

P.S. My standard is "When the Lady Doth Protest Too Much", she probably has something to hide. And I damn well want to know what it is.

Posted by: agentprovokatur | October 1, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

The Republican efforts to intimidate the media has been used at least since the era of McCarthyism. Joseph McCarthy and his cronies, Spiro Agnew, the second Bush administration, lately McCain with Palin have been trying to stifle reporters with carrying out their First Amendment right to cover the news accurately.

They have tried to inhibit critical news coverage, while using smear campaigns and inane propaganda to influence guillible voters. Republicans seem to think only they can be outrageously partisan and whenever Democrats strongly criticize Republican policies, as Speaker Pelosi briefly did, with accuracy, they are denounced by Republicans by being "partisan."

Sorry, GOP, most Americans are not going to fall for propaganda in this election. The competent management of the economy, expanding health care and not becoming involved in more unnecessary wars are issues which favor the Democrats.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | October 1, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Offending the media is of course the dumbest thing any politician can do. Letterman was so furious at McCain for ditching him that he put an anti-McCain barb into his monologue every single night since then.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | October 1, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

How is asking what she reads a trick question? Just answer it and move on.

Or asking about her foreign policy experience? Answer it.

Trouble is, she doesn't listen to the questions. She hears a key word and is off and running on her prepackaged answers and looks like an idiot.

She's exaggerated her experience and abilities, so when asked for specifics, she can't provide it and has to "get back to ya." If it hasn't been written out for her, she's lost.

Liadan

Posted by: giollab | October 1, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

How is asking what she reads a trick question? Just answer it and move on.

Or asking about her foreign policy experience? Answer it.

Trouble is, she doesn't listen to the questions. She hears a key word and is off and running on her prepackaged answers and looks like an idiot.

She's exaggerated her experience and abilities, so when asked for specifics, she can't provide it and has to "get back to ya." If it hasn't been written out for her, she's lost.

Liadan

Posted by: giollab | October 1, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Gotcha..smotchya....
Biden answered the identical questions with intelligent and thought...
the woman is nearly an idiot...
it has nothing to do with what's being asked....

Posted by: easysoul | October 1, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Governor Palin will do just fine tomorrow evening. The McCain campaign knows she's an asset and they now need to let her go and be herself. So what? She's had some terrible interviews with the "gotcha" elite journalists who do not like her and try to define her. They forget the public hates them anyway.

Governor Palin will do the debate tomorrow night, she may very well have a down spot or two, but she will come out on top and the buzz will be all around her! End of story, Then we will see the unleashing of Gov Palin on the trail by herself, on talk radio and on television now through the election and all the buzz will be on her.

She's been kept under lock and key preparing for the past month; give her a break. She does not have an 80% approval rating as governor for nearly two years unless she's done something right - no matter if it's Alaska or California.

Get over it.

Governor Palin has won my vote from Massachusetts!

Posted by: washpost33 | October 1, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

I AM 100% SURE GOV. PALIN CAN DEAL WITH THE WORLD BETTER THAN ANY OF THE OTHER 3 CANDIDATES!!!! THIS WOMAN STRENGTH LIES IN HER POTENTIAL!!!

Up until 2 months ago, Gov. Palin focus was solely on governing Alaska. Also, her schedule has been very busy for the past 2 months. So, she will need a little more time to become more familiar with national and international affairs. When she has more thoroughly studied these things, she will be more prepared to deal with the world than any of the other candidates. I am 100% sure of this.

Why will she be much more capable of dealing with the world than the other 3 candidates? She has a much stronger foundation:

* She has more EXECUTIVE (leadership) experience.
* She is more WORLDY and TENACIOUS.
* She communicates and listens well.
* She is SHREWD, humble, personable, moral, and emotionally stable.
* She has diverse occupational knowledge.

BTW, for you Hillary supporters, compare Gov. Palin’s qualifications to Sen. Clinton’s. Gov. Palin comes out ahead. So, if you were willing to vote Sen. Clinton, here is a better reason to vote for a woman. (BTW, this woman needs to do a resume. It will surely give her focus, and maker her see how she can apply her talents to the Presidency. Also, she has to emphasize her strengths.)

Posted by: CoreyB2 | October 1, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

GOV. PALIN IS RIGHT TO POINT OUT THE MEDIA BIAS!! EVERYONE IS FOR TRUTH AND NO ONE IS FOR LIES AND DECEPTION!!

* Ms. Couric questions was designed to shape Gov. Palin answers. So, Gov. Palin should look out for these things from media.

* Gov. Palin does need to become more familiar with national and international affairs. However, I will forgive her for not beings very familiar with these things since up until 2 months ago, her focus was solely on Governing Alaska.

Posted by: CoreyB2 | October 1, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton tried this tactic earlier this year. At that time, Palin derided Clinton as a 'whiner.' Palin is not sitting down for many interviews. People are very interested in her and what kind of leader she is, but she is stuck on the same scripted speeches and tired talking points that simply repeat the words reform and maverick many times over. She has a compelling story, but apart from reading from a script, she seems to be unable to communicate that story very well.

Posted by: wesfromGA | October 1, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"did the surge succeed?"
Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 4:59 PM |

-------------
The stated purpose of "the surge" was to provide a state of calm so the political parties could pass some laws to work towards political reconciliation. It required BOTH parties to do their part, America has done its part, the Iraqis have not, so, as of now the surge has not succeeded.

One must also consider the reasons for the "fragile and easily reversible peace" in Baghdad.
1. The surge of cash to pay Sunnis (former insurgents) not to shoot at us
2. Al Sadr lost control of his army which devolved into criminality. He's weeding out the bad and regrouping.
3. The Anbar awakening 6 months before the surge was announced.
4. The assassinations and ethnic cleansing done by Shiites in highly-populated Sunni neighborhoods. Satellite data shows that large areas populated with Sunni fled or were "cleaned out" long before the surge was even announced.

There simply was no one there.

Car bombs and suicide bombers still go off nearly every day in Baghdad, along with kidnappings and other types of murders.

I'd say that Gen. Petraeus, Robert Gates and nearly every counter-terrorist expert in the world are right, there is no military solution, only political.

Posted by: JRM2 | October 1, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Adding my two cents' worth:

If you look closely,the Zogby poll numbers that "king_of_zouk" refers to are actually from the Sept. 9 - 12 date range. For example, even though the results for Ohio show an update on 9/30, the poll numbers seem to be from mid-September.

The following information comes directly from the Zogby website:

State: Ohio

Updated: 9/30/2008

Summary:
McCain - 49.8%
Obama - 43.9%
Not Sure/Other - 6.3%

"Ohio mirrors the nation. In our Sept. 12 interactive poll (see above), McCain had pulled ahead. Just as Obama has picked up nationally, other polls now show the same movement in Ohio, making it again too close to call."

"Methodology: Zogby International conducted an online survey of 847 likely voters. The poll ran from Sept. 9-12. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points."

So, it seems that the date (9/30) is likely because Zogby updated the comments section, not the poll numbers.

Just saying...

In addition, if you look at Virginia, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, for example, those polls were also carried out within the same timeframe (September 9 - 12).

Posted by: LadyLuck2 | October 1, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

For all you cry babies out there complaining about the biased media let's not forget the Katie Couric interview with McCain where they edited in the correct answers for him instead of showing his real incorrect answers.

Posted by: JRM2 | October 1, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

As it turns out none of her kids play hockey so she's not even a hockey mom.

Is ANYTHING true about this woman?

Posted by: JRM2 | October 1, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse


Jeff-in-DC hyperventilates:

Would that be the same press, like the Washington Post, that praised Sarah Berhardt for calling for Sarah Palin to be gang-raped?

Yet "The Fixer" thinks that Sarah Palin is a war with the press. Maybe the writer should read his own newspaper once in a while??
-------------------------

The Post's reviewer of Sarndra's show never praised her for calling for Sarah Palin to be raped...

but then, reality never deters the rigid right.

Here's the review for those who want to decide for themselves...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103625.html

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

LynnL123 writes:

"...She may not be knowledgeable about foreign policy, but she knows what an average American went through. She can get things done. As a governor of Alaska, she's a no nonsense person and tough. She knows what people want and fought for them and not afraid of making a few enemies in the process. That is what we need in Washington, D.C"

LynnL123, and all who agree with this post, ARE IDIOTS!

What the **** are you talking about?

I defy you to tell me that you had ever heard the name Sarah Palin before John McCain asked her to run. I defy you to tell me that you knew whether the Governor of Alaska was a man or a woman before that date, or whether Alaska was a well-run state.

And, now that we have had a month or so to get to know her, I defy you to tell me that if Sarah Palin were a Democrat and said all these things that you would not be going ballistic right now and demanding that she be disqualified from office.

Idiot!

Kevin Olson
Manassas, VA

Posted by: noslok | October 1, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

The real problem here with left-leaning papers such as the Times and Post is that they do not apply the same dirt-digging standard to the democratic presidential candidate that they do to the vice presidential republican candidate. Why are there no reports on Obama's ACORN connection, and the nature of that organization? Where are the journalists sniffing around Obama's shady dealings with Rezko? That buy of the adjacent lot from Rezko's wife at a discount is at the very least the appearance of conflict of interest. Why is there no tracking of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mack campaign contributions to Obama? Where is the hard fiscal scrutiny of Obama's promised spending spree to solve all of the USA's domestic problems? You newspapers have an obligation to vette all candidates fully, rather than just lay into candidates you do not endorse.

Posted by: Wiggan |
------------------------------------
Don't worry sweetie, all of that was covered, you just missed it because you came onboard late in the game. You see the campaign started long before Sarah "I'm a Pitt Bull in Lipstick" Palin hit the scene. Some of us have been watching this thing for almost two years and Obama and Biden were vetted far worst than the Pitt Bull and much worst than McOld. Sorry you missed the preliminaries, I guess the Pitt Bull brought you out to the game.

Posted by: Beingsensible | October 1, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Would that be the same press, like the Washington Post, that praised Sarah Berhardt for calling for Sarah Palin to be gang-raped?

Yet "The Fixer" thinks that Sarah Palin is a war with the press. Maybe the writer should read his own newspaper once in a while??

Posted by: jeff-in-dc | October 1, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Zouk breathes:
Is it lonely in there or do the voices keep you company?
------------------------

LOL. As long as Obama keeps movin on up, I is fine.

Worried conservatives not so happy though...

"As former Bush administration aide David Frum explains: "Mr. McCain's supporters argue that he is more serious about national security than Barack Obama. But the selection of Sarah Palin invites the question: How serious can he be if he would place such a neophyte second in line to the presidency? Barack Obama at least balanced his inexperience with Mr. Biden's experience. What is Mr. McCain doing?" "


Indeed. What IS Mr. McCain doing??

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Also, Obama drew a +1 in Missouri...

MISSOURI!

McCain's RCP lead is down to 1.7 in that state.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"I'm going to take those shots and those pop quizzes and just say that's okay, those are good testing grounds. And they can continue on in that mode. That's good. That makes somebody work even harder. It makes somebody be even clearer and more articulate in their positions. So really I don't fight it. I invite it."
-------------------------------------------
See, there lies the problem...who is "somebody"? Isn't she referring to herself? Why the third party reference? Maybe because the "somebody" she's speaking of does become "even clearer and more articulate in their positions" after being questioned by the media and failing poorly. If that's the "somebody" she's speaking of, it sure is not her. If the McPain camp truely believe that it's the media that's unfairly covering Palin, they would have some credible evidence to back up their claim. As it is, facts don't lie, every interview she has given has been awful even the one she gave to Fox News. Now if Fox News can't get enough coverage to present her in an intelligent light, who can? Palin, it's not the media sweetie, it's you--face it, you're playing with the big dogs now; it's time you put your lipstick on darling.

Posted by: Beingsensible | October 1, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

By the way, Obama has drawn leads in three consecutive Florida polls.

Yeah, McCain fans have to hope for the inaccuracy of a LOT of polls.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

The McCain campaign is already in Desperation mode.


Desperate campaign tactics:

Rule One: When a campaign starts attacking the media, things aren't going well.

Rule Two: When a campaign says the polls are wrong, things aren't very good.

Rule Three: When a campaign says "the only poll that counts is the one on election day" usually means a campaign is about to lose.


Now we could probably add a new one: when partisan Republicans start saying let the candidate be the candidate (Palin), it means things are off course.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 1, 2008 3:38 PM
****************

I normally agree with this wholeheartedly; however, in this case there's an x-factor: dirty tricks. There are a host of things Republicans have done in the past, and with erratic McCain at the helm, undoubtedly some new ones we've never seen. Expect increasing sideshow activity in the two weeks prior to the election. Clinton proved that the the under-informed swing votes are susceptible to distractions that will siphon some votes from Obama. Don't count on the current commanding lead to hold fast.

Posted by: abqcleve | October 1, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"I'm saying I don't waste my time on discredited NeoCon journalists. "

not it seems on any facts about the candidates or their views.

Is it lonely in there or do the voices keep you company?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"The media elites have so wildly gunned for her since her national debut, they have become a non-stop self-parody."

Yeah, Tina Fey does a wonderful impression of the "media elites"


"After their ridiculous performance in this campaign, no one with an IQ over 80 will ever take WaPo, NYT, LAT, Time, Newsweek, MSNBC or the broadcast nets seriously again."

You mean UNDER 80. Remember, its the idiots that Palin appeals to, not the over 80 crowd.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Intrade correctly predicted the outcome of the presidential election in every single state, even those the pollsters thought too close to call.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 3:23 PM


which one of your many schizo personalities will respond? Like Obama you will never admit you are wrong.

did the surge succeed?

Is raising taxes good for the economy?

Is giving veto power to the UN a wise decision for US policy?

Can government run anything properly?

Just some simple gotcha questions for Libs.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

[Biden]"He recently said Sen. Hillary Clinton is "more qualified than I am to be vice president." "

He never said that. This is a total lie.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Title is wrong on this piece. It should be press declares war on Gov Palin and Gov Palin responds

----------------------------

Better yet:

Press asks Palin "who, what, where and why?;" Palin responds: WAR!"

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"Perhaps that should be the McCain campaign response, rather than whining about 'gotcha journalism'."

Hillary Clinton actually got slammed several times on having opinions that differed from her husband's. Did she complain about media treatment?

Oh wait, she did. Damn.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

zoouk hyperventilates:
wpost moonbat - are you saying that the author of the times article got it wrong - that biden didn't say all thoase things and do all those things.

-----------------

I'm saying I don't waste my time on discredited NeoCon journalists.

I thought Biden was a bad pick from the get go. But Palin is in another universe. Biden is the greater of two mediocres.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"1) The press has not been asking gotcha questions."

I think the Bush Doctrine was a gotcha question. That was exactly the point of the question.

That's not to say she shouldn't have had at least SOME kind of answer.

Let's not forget the questions Bush got eight years ago pertaining to foreign leaders. He failed, yes, but at least he was asked.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Title is wrong on this piece. It should be press declares war on Gov Palin and Gov Palin responds

Posted by: rsl775 | October 1, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Title is wrong on this piece. I should be press declares war on Gov Palin and Gov Palin responds

Posted by: rsl775 | October 1, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Zouk patoots:

Result, the idea that Intrade has "never" been wrong is preposterous.
======================

Never said they had never. But still right about the 2004 election.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"Could it just possibly be she has an opinion independent of McCain's? Imagine that."

Perhaps that should be the McCain campaign response, rather than whining about 'gotcha journalism'.


Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

This be entitled "The Press' War on Palin."
The media elites have so wildly gunned for her since her national debut, they have become a non-stop self-parody. These snooty aristocrats are truly scared out of their wits by this populist outsider. It reminds you of the final scene in "Bonnie & Clyde."

After their ridiculous performance in this campaign, no one with an IQ over 80 will ever take WaPo, NYT, LAT, Time, Newsweek, MSNBC or the broadcast nets seriously again. Sayonara, Old Media. Your freak show was just plain pitiful at the end.

BTW, Palin said the same thing about incursions into Afghanistan in the Gibson interview, and her conflict with McCain (and accord with Obama) was pointed out then. Could it just possibly be she has an opinion independent of McCain's? Imagine that.

Posted by: threedy | October 1, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

wpost moonbat - are you saying that the author of the times article got it wrong - that biden didn't say all thoase things and do all those things.

As usual fact free liberal miasma.

Second I noticed you lay lots of blame on MCCains staff. any blame for obama himself who was the biggest collector of Fannie graft? I know you like to compare Obama to Palin a lot and now it seems Obama to Mccains staff. Interesting subterfuge.

to use the NYTimes as a link on journalistic integrity is more amusing than your pea brain can accomodate.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

moonbat alert:

Here is the Intrade price for the Bush Kerry election on 10/5 of that year. If the price is above 50, it means that the "market" thinks bush will win. I have only listed the wrong predictions:

www.intrade.com/news/images/rank.pdf

NM = 37.7
WI = 64
NH = 51

note that as the election gets closer, the Intrade prediction gets better. but the places where it was wrong are precisely the borderline states that are difficult to predict. until these bets go above 70 or below 30, they are nothing to be sure about.

Result, the idea that Intrade has "never" been wrong is preposterous. this is math as understood by Liberal dunmmies - the barney Frank economic geniuses.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''


Zouk opines:
this is another prediction about economics from a famous Liberal. something about Lib predictions and reality just doesn't jive.
---------------------

At least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, netting at least $12.3 million in fees over the past nine years.

Political insider Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., picked by McCain to vet his vice presidential nominees, once worked for the mortgage giants.

And for years, Rick Davis of the McCain campaign, served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that defended the two companies against increased regulation.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Zouk scrawls:
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times.

---------------------------

Read all about the journalist integrity (or lack thereof) of Mr. Kuhner here:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/29/news/rumor.php


or here


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/us/politics/29media.html?pagewanted=2&fta=y

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

This is not simply a case of Mr. Biden being historically illiterate. It goes to the core of his candidacy's problem: He is a buffoon and a bumbler. His list of gaffes is becoming legendary. He recently said Sen. Hillary Clinton is "more qualified than I am to be vice president." In Missouri, he told a paraplegic state official to stand up to be recognized. He has referred to his wife, a college professor, as "drop-dead gorgeous," but who problematically has a doctorate. Last year, he described Sen. Barack Obama as clean, bright and articulate. He once said an Indian accent is needed to enter a Dunkin' Donuts or 7-Eleven in Delaware.

Mr. Biden has become a national joke. And although late-night comedians are lapping it up at his expense, the Democrat's penchant for silliness raises a very serious issue: How could Mr. Obama have chosen such an irresponsible, vacuous person to be his running mate? Compared to Mr. Biden, Gov. Sarah Palin is the embodiment of mature, seasoned leadership.

Democrats have a ready excuse: That's just Joe being Joe. He may be gaffe-prone and loquacious, they argue, but he's substantive on the big issues-especially, foreign affairs. This is false. Mr. Biden is a classic Washington insider: He is full of credentials, sits on numerous panels (including being chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), and boasts of vast experience. He is impressive on paper; in reality, he is intellectually and morally weak.

He has been wrong on almost every major issue during his last 35 years in the Senate. Mr. Biden is a trendy transnational progressive, who votes the liberal line when it is politically convenient - regardless of the costs to the national interest or in human lives.

Along with congressional Democrats, he voted to cut off support to South Vietnam. This ensured America's defeat, and enabled communist forces to conquer Vietnam. The result was a regional holocaust, in which hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were slaughtered, the country's Chinese minority was ethnically cleansed, and more than a million citizens were jailed or tortured in Hanoi's gulags. The decline of American influence in Southeast Asia also led to the brutal Khmer Rouge seizing power in Cambodia, and systematically murdering more than 2 million people.

Moreover, Mr. Biden opposed America's anti-communist efforts in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Angola. He voted against Ronald Reagan's military build-up and his Strategic Defense Initiative - pivotal factors in the Soviet empire's defeat.

Mr. Biden's Iraq policy has been erratic and inconsistent. He denounced the 1991 Gulf war that repelled Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Following 1992, however, with a Democratic administration in power, Mr. Biden became a leading proponent of regime change. In 2002, he voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. But as the antiwar forces captured the Democratic Party, and Mr. Biden became consumed with his own presidential ambitions, he shifted positions again - coming out against the Iraq invasion and the military surge.

He put forth a reckless 2006 proposal that called for the partition of Iraq along ethno-sectarian lines. This would have led to further violence, encouraged the expulsions of ethnic and religious minorities, and invited foreign military intervention from Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Had it been adopted, Mr. Biden's initiative would have turned Iraq into another Bosnia and triggered a regional war. America would have been defeated.

Mr. Biden is not a foreign policy guru. Rather, he has shown himself to be a feckless internationalist moralist, who is naive about world affairs. Mr. Biden was wrong on Vietnam, on the Cold War and on Iraq.

That he was chosen for his alleged foreign-policy experience exposes Mr. Obama's fatal flaw: His lack of judgment and poor leadership skills. Mr. Biden should not be a heart beat away from the presidency. The more he opens his mouth over the next few weeks, the more voters will come to the same conclusion. He is the jester of Congress. This time the joke is on Mr. Obama.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''


this is another prediction about economics from a famous Liberal. something about Lib predictions and reality just doesn't jive.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

The premise of the article is a bit humorous - that there is no media slant for Democrats. It can't be invisible to media liberals who, while voting for Barak Obama, claim they can still deliver objective coverage of their despised, ideological opponent. It's impossible to do. Reporters donate to Democrat candidates 10-1 vs. Republicans. No-one passionate about politics is able to rise above their own. Reporters are no exception. For their own credibility, I wish they would just stop the ridiculous charade.

Posted by: Supra1 | October 1, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama also has a higher overall average today then he did when he was up 8 in the Gallup. 8 by the way may have been too high in the first place. Gallup has admitted that they often have a lopsided sample of one party but because they use the last three days it works out but sometimes it doesn't. Remember a few weeks ago when Gallup had Mccain up by 10 and could not explain it themselves other then to say they think that the sample may have been 70% republican after checking..


-----------
Gaining momentum, John McCain edged closer to Barack Obama in Wednesday's Gallup Poll. McCain now trails 48-44 percent, slashing the 8-percentage point lead Obama held over the weekend. Again, this is surprising news for all the Obama supporters who thought the bad news about the bailout bill would hurt McCain. That's because McCain had failed to get a bill approved, even after announcing he was suspending his campaign a week to work on it. ""

Oh darn - a snapshot not in line with the silly predictions of the math dimwits, the barney frank wing of the party.

aka - further proof of Obama's decline as accurately predicted by Zouk.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 states:
Intrade correctly predicted the outcome of the presidential election in every single state, even those the pollsters thought too close to call.

Zouk sputters:

this is bunk. Intrade changes minute by minute. I bet there on the last election on bush and on state races and won neatly, that is more than 1 to 1. Kerry was favored to win all day based on exit polls, same with gore. the traders knew this and altered the price accordingly. but by the end of the day, those bettors were losers.

Watch for more unsubstantiated claims by the moonbats about the inevitabilaty of the messiah, right up until he loses.

you may recognize this pattern as a well worn path traveled by many ultra-liberals in the past including Kerry, gore and a host of other clowns.
---------------------------


Alas, poor Zouk.

A simple google search of "Intrade" and "2004 elections" will bring you a wealth of proof.

Facts are facts.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

The McCain campaign is already in Desperation mode.


Desperate campaign tactics:

Rule One: When a campaign starts attacking the media, things aren't going well.

Rule Two: When a campaign says the polls are wrong, things aren't very good.

Rule Three: When a campaign says "the only poll that counts is the one on election day" usually means a campaign is about to lose.


Now we could probably add a new one: when partisan Republicans start saying let the candidate be the candidate (Palin), it means things are off course.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 1, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Intrade correctly predicted the outcome of the presidential election in every single state, even those the pollsters thought too close to call.

Posted by: wpost4112


this is bunk. Intrade changes minute by minute. I bet there on the last election on bush and on state races and won neatly, that is more than 1 to 1. Kerry was favored to win all day based on exit polls, same with gore. the traders knew this and altered the price accordingly. but by the end of the day, those bettors were losers.

Watch for more unsubstantiated claims by the moonbats about the inevitabilaty of the messiah, right up until he loses.

you may recognize this pattern as a well worn path traveled by many ultra-liberals in the past including Kerry, gore and a host of other clowns.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

zouk, I'm tiring of your nonsense for today. See you tomorrow, I'm sure.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The more they try to divide and conquer the further away from the White house they get. In times of crisis people want statesmen (or women) not quarrelling kids.

I am Erik and I approve this message.

Posted by: erik031 | October 1, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

popasmoke queried:


I always like to check intrade. Right now Obama is leading Mccain by a hugh 32 points. I believe the volume is 7 million. That is a much better indicator then a daily poll of 900 people.

I don't believe they have even been wrong.
--------------------------


I don't know if they have ever been wrong (H Clinton/New Hampshire), but in 2004, Intrade correctly predicted the outcome of the presidential election in every single state, even those the pollsters thought too close to call.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Palin's War on the Media? Is the poor defenseless media too meek to handle her and actually playing the victim card? Gimme' a break.

Posted by: theBSR | October 1, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Gaining momentum, John McCain edged closer to Barack Obama in Wednesday's Gallup Poll. McCain now trails 48-44 percent, slashing the 8-percentage point lead Obama held over the weekend. Again, this is surprising news for all the Obama supporters who thought the bad news about the bailout bill would hurt McCain. That's because McCain had failed to get a bill approved, even after announcing he was suspending his campaign a week to work on it. ""

Oh darn - a snapshot not in line with the silly predictions of the math dimwits, the barney frank wing of the party.

aka - further proof of Obama's decline as accurately predicted by Zouk.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

so simple simon. you prefer a steady downward trend to an even, non-changing line?

this sounds like the Lib economic policy. and the war policy and the health care policy and the education policy and the retirement policy. why do you Libs love losing so much? Is it so everyone else in the world can be as angry and bitter as you all are? that is equality of outcome - so necessary to the Dem platform. make sure everyone is at the lowest level of acheivement so there can be no winners.

It is so "je ne sais quoi". Libs are so "je ne sais rien".

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Palin:

"Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel and paper by the ton".

---------------------

Why not? No guts? No backbone? No faith?

No McCain. No Palin. No way. No how.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"Ok pick any adjacent point or the one next to that"

I will pick McCain's mid June number and McCain's current number. Conclusion:

McCain has flatlined at about 190.

Is this a DNR patient?

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Two things:
1) The press has not been asking gotcha questions. No one has asked her who the mayor of Ulan Bator is or to name the ambassador from Uruguay. They have thrown her softballs. The whole seeing Russia thing is nonsense, but she could have killed it a month ago by saying, "Some people in the party may have gone a bit overboard in their praise of our ticket. It's kind of silly to think just because you can see a country you know a country. However, as Governor of Alaska I do have experience with Canada because.... (presumably fishing, logging, arctic issues, etc... are things Canada and Alaska deal with.)" That kind of answer is what a good politician comes up with again and again.

2) When times are good the American people's fondness for fairness is very pronounced. Hence the 2000 debate: Al Gore better not pick on poor Georgie Bush. Everyone knows Al is a debate champion and Georgie is learning disabled. There was no way Gore could have delivered a killing blow. Setting expectations worked then. When times are bad and people are wondering about keeping their homes and jobs, competence trumps fairness. Say Biden goes overboard and somehow makes her cry or she physically attacks him. People may dislike him for it, but if they think he can keep them employed, and she cannot, they can live with it.

Posted by: caribis | October 1, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

My wife just got a call from one of the people at the local Obama office today and they registered 900 new voters in just three days, a new record for them in their little Florida office. They are tasting blood now as the polls begin to pull their way and are working even harder then ever. They wanted her to come in so she dropped what she was doing and off she went. It is getting to be crunch time and the Obama camp are really pouring it on now.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

**What's up with that? Is this a quiz show or an interview?**

You don't find that illunimating in the least? Other than Roe v Wade, she's not familiar with a single supreme court decision or their ramifications?
These are the deicisions that shape the box the President must work in if he or she is to be an effective administrator of the US government and Palin has never even heard of one of them?
Listen, if you make a movie about an uneducated red neck becoming President of the US, it might be funny. If it happens in real life it'll be tragic. I would vote for a high school drop out who demonstrated an understanding of the Federal Government and the rules that bind it before I'd vote for an Ivy league idiot who didn't, but to vote for a woman who might well assume the duties of the Presdident who is so woefully unprepared for the job is unconscionable.
To say she is a quick study is not an answer, I'm interested in her opinions on these cases, since those reflect the ideology she will practice if she ever becomes President. The problem is she doens't have an opinoin, because she knows less about these things than I do (the uneducated high school graduate.)
No thanks, she may be pretty in pink and have a cute family, but we're not electing a prom queen here.

Posted by: dijetlo | October 1, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I always like to check intrade. Right now Obama is leading Mccain by a hugh 32 points. I believe the volume is 7 million. That is a much better indicator then a daily poll of 900 people.

I don't believe they have even been wrong.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

don't think other readers here are fooled by such nonsense.

Posted by: bsimon1

considering that most of the readers here support Obama, I suspect that there is no amount of nonsense that is beyond their gullibility.

but I see your "math" argument is much like Barney franks. ignore the problems, that trend is not important. those points were cherry picked.

Ok pick any adjacent point or the one next to that. the simple simon fact of the matter is that the more we get to know about the non-accomplishments and empty promises of THE ONe, the lower he sinks. this could have all been avoided if the press had done its job last year.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

"Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel and paper by the ton".

Still applies today but even more so..

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

According to Rasmussen national polls have Obama at 51% and McCain at 45%.

McCain did ecliipse Obama in the polls after their convention and McBushes selection of Sarah Pain.

Since then he has settled back into his perpetual trailing position.

As they say in Alaska, Unless you are the lead dog, the scenery always looks the same.

Posted by: DougH1 | October 1, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

King_of_Zouk, you asked, "Please explain how it's possible to cut 95 percent of Americans' taxes when the Tax Foundation reports that 40 percent of Americans don't pay any income tax. If you think you can, I'd like to interest you in a sub-prime mortgage." First of all why don't you attempt to find out what you are bashing before you start hitting it. Obama clearly says that he will provide a tax credit for working families. take a look, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/index.php#jumpstart

I also noticed you have posted 6 times as of the writing of this comment (I'm sure its more by now). How can you reconcile calling drindle,"A dimwit moonbat", and stating that it's "A shame no one will pay her for her rantings. then she could possibly go find a job and get a life.

"I have found that ignoring it is the best approach. It will then wander back to Kos and huff - it's home."

This is hilarious, you have commented on her posts over and over.

Posted by: stevenmpalmer | October 1, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

zouk writes
"Obama's number in June: almost 350
Obama's number today:: about 280

nope - no downward trend there."

How convenient to pick two data points and represent them as showing a long downward spiral. Personally, I don't think the world is that simple.

More importantly, I am happy with Obama's predicted 286 electoral votes today - particularly when compared to McCain's paltry 190. If you're worried about downward spirals, you might want to focus on Sen McCain's numbers instead. 190 isn't the lowest he's been - but its close. Considering he had over 270 last week, that's probably a more relevant trend to evaluate, rather than picking one day in June, comparing it to one day in October and claiming you've identified a trend.

I don't think other readers here are fooled by such nonsense.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

allenridge appears to be very angry. I guess impending doom can do that to ya.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 1, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

It's not too late for McCain to do the right thing and remove Sarah from the ticket and add his one, his only true hope to the ticket...

Dick Cheney.

There's nothing constitinally blocking this move. Cheney would keep the continuity. Who knows more about the Iraq War than Cheney? No one. Not even W.

Plus, think of the Web of Power Cheney has throughout the land. McCain could capitalize on that Power.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is a Winner:

McCain / Cheney '08 ! ! !

Posted by: AdrickHenry | October 1, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

zouk zips:
you forget that with Obama voting PRESENT, as usual, we only need 49. If his cell phone is working and limp noodle Harry can reach him that day.

---------------------

LOL. So cute!
It's good to see you retain your sense of humor in face of impending loss.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Not with Hagel around.

Posted by: wpost4112


you forget that with Obama voting PRESENT, as usual, we only need 49. If his cell phone is working and limp noodle Harry can reach him that day.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, am more intrigued by the media's bloody war on Gov. Palin, beginning the minute she was announced. So, I say, "What is a girl to do??"

Posted by: mushrumps | October 1, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I count 22 Lib states that would vote for President Obama. you need 26. It is unclear what happens if an entire state delgation can't agree.

In a tie the choice of VP goes to the Senate. and it is not the new congress, it is the old congress. that means all we have to do is offer Joe Leibermann a private washroom for life to get to cheney picking Palin as VP.


-------------------

Not with Hagel around.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, am more intrigued by the media's bloody war on Gov. Palin, beginning the minute she was announced. So, I say, "What is a girl to do??"

Posted by: mushrumps | October 1, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama's number in June: almost 350
Obama's number today:: about 280

nope - no downward trend there. If you use Barney Frank math, that is.

I must rememner to call you by your proper name - simple simon.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

John Zogby:

"Obama needs to connect with the American people a little bit more to answer the question 'Who are you, and where are you from?' If Obama can do that, he has the potential to win in a landslide. If he doesn't, he has the potential to lose in a landslide."

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

This goes beyond party loyalty.

This choice of a running mate is not only irresponsible, it's insulting to both men and women. If Palin is merely inarticulate, then how did McCain come to understand that she's the best choice from among many intelligent, experienced, Republican women who CAN articulate what they think? If elected to office, how can we expect her to articulate what she thinks to those she must work alongside, much less other heads of state? She's had lifelong experience speaking to the public-at-large as a student council member, a beauty pageant contestant, a town mayor, and the governor of Alaska prior to this VP nomination; is this the POLISHED result of those years that we're seeing? It is not merely that she cannot stay on point; she often clearly DOES NOT HAVE AN ANSWER. "I'll get back to you"?? Was it a SURPRISE that she was going to be interviewed? It's not like the issues of this election and our current society are so nebulous that she cannot adequately prepare. We all KNOW that economy and foreign affairs--most especially wars present and possible--are uppermost on anyone's agenda. How could she not be clear on even the most basic political points in these areas, even after being pressed more than twice?

There is only one answer: she is not someone who can execute at a National level. Given her age and experience, if she has not yet developed the cogence, articulation, and clarity of mind to come off well in a KATIE COURIC interview, can we really expect her to do so by January?

This is not about being Republican, conservative, nor female. This is about qualification, and it's just that simple.

Posted by: sprice205 | October 1, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

me: In a tie at 269, it goes to the newly elected House. The way the House races look today, the House would likely pick Obama. Therefore, again, an electoral tie means an Obama win.

Posted by: bsimon1


I count 22 Lib states that would vote for President Obama. you need 26. It is unclear what happens if an entire state delgation can't agree.

In a tie the choice of VP goes to the Senate. and it is not the new congress, it is the old congress. that means all we have to do is offer Joe Leibermann a private washroom for life to get to cheney picking Palin as VP.

I almost forgot how simple and peevish simple simon can be. Still compared to drindl, he is a rocket scientist. As is any creature above dog or cat level.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

zouk imagines
"One trend that is interesting on your site is the downward spiral of Obama since June and the constant climb of Mccain."

Apparently you are looking at a different site than I cited. Sadly, there are probably people that take you at your word, rather than checking the site for themselves.

What electoral-vote says, that zouk apparently doesn't see: Ohio, NC & Florida are all tied. Without them, Obama still has 286 electoral votes, to McCain's 190.

The graph I cited (below) shows, in states where each candidate's lead is 5% or more, a score of about 250 for Obama to about 170 for McCain.

The 'downward spiral since June' that zouk reports is nonexistent. What we do see is a slight dip in late august, though McCain never takes the lead during that time. We see a second, larger dip following the RNC, that has since evaporated.

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html


Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Palin, in the parlance of broadcasting is "talent". This is indiscriminately applied to any one who is on camera and moving their lips. This designation is often an oxymoron, if not a moron.
Going to six colleges to achieve a journalism degree is not what most would consider a recommendation. Especially from a person who is unable to make a clear statement of where she gets her news information. McCain deserves her the American people deserve better.

Posted by: RodgerLemonde | October 1, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I think most of you are missing a point here. The right wing attack machine has been ginning up a direct attack on Gwen Ifill. She is, alternately, an Obama supporter or some sort of black radical bent on doing harm to the good little Aryan white girl. If you would take ten minutes and listen to Fox or Limbaugh or Hannidy or any of the other assorted monsters from this criminal syndicate, you would see what they are up to. The are going to try and get Gwen Ifill removed and, barring that, to so intimidate here, get so far into her head, that she hesitates before asking Palin anything remotely like a tough question.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 1, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Of course McCains camp has a problem with the media. If it wasn't for the media the people would have to believe all of the McCain campaigns lies. If it wasn't for the media we'd never know that Sarah Palin is a moron and John McCain a dishonorable liar and a nut-job. A liar always hates the light of day and a dictator cannot stand a differing opinion. If it was up to the Republicans there would be no freedom of speech or idea.

Posted by: F7711 | October 1, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Poor little Mccain and Sarah -- or should I say poor Uncle Fester and Valley Girl? The mean old media is picking on them, they say... aaah, too bad they're so weak and helpless.

Posted by: drindl | October 1, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - your site predicted that Kerry would win with 300 EVs. zogby has never been wrong.

One trend that is interesting on your site is the downward spiral of Obama since June and the constant climb of Mccain.

since I actually teach forecasting and probability, I would advance the argument that this background trend is much more interesting and pertinent than any snapshot poll taken today. the regression to the mean and the trend analsysis indicate that Obama's best days may be behind him.

but keep up the hope. It is all your candidate is offering, lacking any accomplishment or substance whatsoever. but that pretty much sums up all Dem leadership these days.

but thanks for that link. I love that site and visited it daily last election but lost it somehow.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

War on the Media?? Did I actually read that correctly? Ahhhh. Poow widdle babies' get dew widdle feewings hurt?
This is the same media that printed and spewed the most insane, unhinged, distorted, false, personal and hateful bilge I have ever seen or heard in my entire life. The media can't seem to figure out why on earth the target of their despicable behavior isn't anxious to get more of the same. The arrogance and evil nature of the biased media, as exemplified by Gibson and Couric, is a toxin in the national bloodstream. If their annointed one wins the election, there will be a loser: The United States of America.

Posted by: chefdaniel | October 1, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

According to the REAL pollsters

Obama is ahead in PA,WA,CA,CO,NM,IA,MI,MN,WI,IL,PA,and the whole north east for a total of 282 electoral votes.

Under this scenario, he doesn't need OH (tied) or FL (tied)

for the details see www.electoral-vote.com

Posted by: DougH1 | October 1, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Couric didn't ask Palin to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with; she asked her to name a Supreme Court decision.

What's up with that? Is this a quiz show or an interview? What is the maximum airspeed of an unladen swallow?

Posted by: FrederickMichael | October 1, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

me: "I demonstrated how Obama would still win, even if your data is used. "

zouk: "no you didn't. It was possibly a tie."

me: In a tie at 269, it goes to the newly elected House. The way the House races look today, the House would likely pick Obama. Therefore, again, an electoral tie means an Obama win.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I don't think any one pollster is right all of the time. So when someone claim's one pollster's results are gospel, I tend to figure that person has an agenda that is served by cherry picking.

My default source for polling data is electoral-vote.com, which updates daily with new state level polls as they appear. The interesting page, to me, is the electoral college graph which shows where the candidates stand in the electoral vote both with and without the 'barely' states (below 5% lead):

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/ec_graph-2008.html

The trend lines are clearly showing McCain's convention bump evaporating and are starting to imply a post-debate bump for Obama. Other nonpartisan sites, like pollster and 538 are showing similar trends.

Maybe they're all wrong and only Zogby is right. But I seriously doubt it.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Quinnipiac...........fyi is a flaming liberal college in CT.

Nuff said...............COOKED by liberal crooks........the new Liberal Fascists.

Posted by: allenridge | October 1, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Author writes "the war McCain is waging against the media." I'm sorry, but I think that is a mischaracterization. When the NYT wrote that libelous unsubstaniated front page article about a supposed affair McCain had with a staffer, when ABC News reporters say admit they can't cover Obama objectively yet stay on the air, when the media ran all the silly stories that turned out to be a lies, it becomes obvious that the media declared war on McCain, not the other way around.

Posted by: shecallsmemoe |
============================

You nailed it shecallsmemoe,

our press is JUST like the Nazi press of the 1930's.

It's PURE PROPAGANDA........

How do you like our new breed of "Liberal Fascists" in this country?

Sad but true. The flaming corrupt liberals that control our information are simply corrupt elite liberals...

Posted by: allenridge | October 1, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Author writes "the war McCain is waging against the media." I'm sorry, but I think that is a mischaracterization. When the NYT wrote that libelous unsubstaniated front page article about a supposed affair McCain had with a staffer, when ABC News reporters say admit they can't cover Obama objectively yet stay on the air, when the media ran all the silly stories that turned out to be a lies, it becomes obvious that the media declared war on McCain, not the other way around.

Posted by: shecallsmemoe | October 1, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"The betting pools are more accurate historically than any pollster."

Not to take you to task on any Lib facts, but I made a small fortune betting on Bush over there last election. I also won in FL and OH by betting on bush. now I have no idea where you got the notion that this is more accurate than polls. I would love to see the link on that claim.

those betters are relying on the same information that you and I are, they have no insider trading secrets. an outlier poll ,like the Quinnipiac, leads those bettors to increase the favor of Obama, even though the result is mathematically suspect. so that means that the bettors are less accurate then a average of polls taken. In this case, the average points to a Mccain win or a tie. but keep up your hope. More chanting and more press coverage might make a difference.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

EXCLUSIVE:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade, a practice of paying a spouse with political donations that she supported banning last year.

Financial Leasing Services Inc. (FLS), owned by Paul F. Pelosi, has received $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting fees from the speaker's "PAC to the Future" over the PAC''s nine-year history.

The payments have quadrupled since Mr. Pelosi took over as treasurer of his wife's committee in 2007, Federal Election Commission records show. FLS is on track to take in $48,000 in payments this year alone - eight times as much as it received annually from 2000 to 2005, when the committee was run by another treasurer.

.......The flaming corrupt liberal Elites get richer and the rest of us get poorer........just the FACTS


Posted by: allenridge | October 1, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Author writes "the war McCain is waging against the media." I'm sorry, but I think that is a mischaracterization. When the NYT wrote that libelous unsubstaniated front page article about a supposed affair McCain had with a staffer, when ABC News reporters say admit they can't cover Obama objectively yet stay on the air, when the media ran all the silly stories that turned out to be a lies, it becomes obvious that the media declared war on McCain, not the other way around.

Posted by: shecallsmemoe | October 1, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

The GOP has just demonstrated how sexist they are. Coddling the VP candidate? John McCain by her side in her latest encounter with Katie Couric?

What, is Palin too fragile to have to face the press, like every other candidate? Is it considered 'gotcha' to ask any OTHER candidate a foreign policy question?

If a question about Pakistan (posed by a voter, no less) is a 'trap question' then Sarah Palin is unqualified to be VP or president.

Jack Cafferty called her out best...and he did it twice.

If you have not seen either of Cafferty's choice words for Palin, from last Friday and yesterday, I have both videos posted at:

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/09/jack-cafferty-rips-palin-again-on-2nd.html

Posted by: scootmandubious | October 1, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I appreciate the chance to be "edubacated" by the vitriol of a recent poster, though I consider myself a moderate, not a "nimrod lib." As for mathematical literacy, intrade currently shows Obama as a 66% favorite, vs. McCain's 34.5%. A week ago, it was 51% to 48%. The betting pools are more accurate historically than any pollster. Of course, the race is far from over, but right now Obama has a not insignificant advantage, and the trend looks to be more his friend than McCain's.

As for Palin, I find it disturbing that she couldn't name one other Supreme Court case besides Roe v. Wade. Not Marbury v. Madison, not Dred Scott, not Brown v. Board, not Bush v. Gore, not even the recent Exxon Valdez case affecting her own home state where punitive damages were reduced 90%, from $5 billion to $500 million. I don't think it makes someone a moonbat to expect a candidate for high office to have the basic background knowledge of a bright high school senior.

Posted by: charlie3410 | October 1, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

If you are an apologist for Sarah, do not make it worse by trying to justify your position. It just makes you look irrational, at best. SURELY you can see her as she really has presented herself, not as you wish her to be or as you were originally told she was. Like her, if you wish, but don't try to defend the indefensible. For example, I really like Biden but I'm not going to defend his gaffes or blame them on someone else.

Posted by: Byron5 | October 1, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Your numbers are from 9/12

---------

no you didn't. It was possibly a tie.
and according to the Zogby results from TODAY (not outdated) the messiah is way behind, even in this environment. consider pollster, which averages polls, not relying on any single result. you will find pretty much a perfect tie.

what is wrong with THE ONE, he is so clearly superior to mortals yet can't seem to pull ahead?
Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

""You then cited outdated poll data for OH, NH, NV & FL. I demonstrated how Obama would still win, even if your data is used. ""


no you didn't. It was possibly a tie.
and according to the Zogby results from TODAY (not outdated) the messiah is way behind, even in this environment. consider pollster, which averages polls, not relying on any single result. you will find pretty much a perfect tie.

what is wrong with THE ONE, he is so clearly superior to mortals yet can't seem to pull ahead?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse


The only site worth looking at for polls. Bookmark it and you will know what is going on.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

John McCain's economic forum just now, in which McCain, talking about energy policy, stresses the importance of "ensuring that America is secure, and not dependent on oil from people like Hugo Chavez or other parts of the Middle East which is, we know, could be destabilized under certain sets of circumstances."

LOL -- he's really losing it.

Posted by: drindl | October 1, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

But to edubacate you Libs, here is Zogby's poll results, the most accurate one. If you don't like him, try pollster, roughly the same results:

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

------------


That poll is unless. Do you know how they do it? It is all on line and depending where they place the poll to be responded to they can get what ever result they want.
They can do a poll today that will say smoking is good for you if that's what the one paying for the poll wants.


Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

One key thing about the new Quinnipiac polling released today is this: It is now the fourth recent public to find Barack Obama ahead in Florida, a state most observers have previously thought would be John McCain's to lose:

• Quinnipiac: Obama 51%, McCain 43%, in a poll released today. Three weeks ago, McCain lead 50%-43%.

• PPP (D): Obama 49%, McCain 45%, in a poll released yesterday. Three weeks ago, McCain was up 50%-45%.

• ARG: Obama 47%, McCain 46%, in a poll released a few days ago. Two weeks ago, the candidates were tied 46%-46%.

• Mason-Dixon: Obama 47%, McCain 45%, in a poll from a week ago. They also had Obama ahead 45%-44% a month ago, but were something of an outlier at the time.

There are other pollsters that don't have Obama ahead, but they've all shown him making significant progress:

• Rasmussen: Tied 47%-47%, in a poll released two days ago. Late last week, McCain had a 48%-47% edge.

• SurveyUSA: McCain 48%, Obama 47%, In a poll released two days ago. Two weeks ago, McCain was up 51%-45%.

The reason for Obama's surge in Florida is the same as it is everywhere else: The economy. Both the Quinnipiac and PPP polls, which have supplied data on this, show that over 60% of Florida voters list the economy as their most important issue, and they give Obama a double-digit lead over McCain on how to handle it.

Posted by: drindl | October 1, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I see the moonbat wing of the math dropout league is again trying to appeal to other nimrod Libs by proclaiming a clear outlier as today's fact. I understand you need every advantage you can get, including a wiling and helpfully blind press, billions in foreign contributions, ignorance of previous associates and votes, etc.

But to edubacate you Libs, here is Zogby's poll results, the most accurate one. If you don't like him, try pollster, roughly the same results:


State: Florida

Updated: 9/30/2008

Summary:
McCain - 52.1%
Obama - 41.8%
Not Sure/Other - 6.1%

State: Ohio

Updated: 9/30/2008

Summary:
McCain - 49.8%
Obama - 43.9%
Not Sure/Other - 6.3%

State: Virginia

Updated: 9/25/2008

Summary:
McCain - 50.3%
Obama - 43.8%
Not Sure/Other - 5.9%

State: Colorado

Updated: 9/30/2008

Summary:
McCain - 47.5%
Obama - 45.5%
Not Sure/Other - 7.0%

Uh oh. bad news for the class warrriors

State: New Hampshire

Updated: 9/25/2008

Summary:
McCain - 49.1%
Obama - 42.8%
Not Sure/Other - 8.1%

State: Pennsylvania

Updated: 9/30/2008

Summary:
McCain - 49.1%
Obama - 44.3%
Not Sure/Other - 6.6%

summary - Obama gets close but no cigar, even though Bill told him where to hide them. One can only guess those bitter, gun toters still are. Or maybe raising taxes right now doesn't sit well as your only idea in your life.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

zouk writes
"I assume you concur that this is most certainly not the landslide your friendly moonbats are predicting? this is Obama's high water mark, this late and with all his D advantages this year."

You assume incorrectly. I was merely demonstrating how your original claim was wrong. Remember, your claim was that "McCain is winning where it matters." You then cited outdated poll data for OH, NH, NV & FL. I demonstrated how Obama would still win, even if your data is used.

Personally I'm still predicting a landslide. Senator McCain has utterly and completely failed to maintain the Republican coalition of Reagan & Bush II, and he has squandered his support among independants. I don't see how he can both enthuse the base and rebuild support among swing voters. Oddly enough, this is what I've been predicting for the GOP for over a year - long before we knew their nominee. As 2006 demonstrated, the electorate has figured out that the GOP is more concerned about the GOP than about America. While the Dems have their own problems, the voters are looking for change and the Dems are the only option available.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

-----------------------------

Engineers for the Titanic in 1912!

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

They bought 1/10th of the adjacent lot for 1/10 of the price the Rezkos payed for it.

---------------------------

That's probably what it's worth now, given the inflated real estate market.

And nothing compared to Keating 5.

Ya got nothin. Pathetic, really.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

If you watch Palin's past governor debates it is funny. At one point after she finishes a long string of nonsense. The guy she is debating turns and says, " I have no idea what you just said it was all gibberish". She was not a good debater back then she did the same thing she does now. She just goes on and on. She was also debating other people like herself in the Alaskan primaries. Some who had never run for office before or debated in their lives. She can be a smooth talker we all know that, but Thursday she will be in a different league. The NY Times has some of her debates on line and they are terrible. The Dems saying how good she is is a ploy, they know she can't debate with anyone other then someone of her level. Beyond memorized talking points, she will be her usual incoherent self Thursday


=======
The Palin MO: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance [and Lord knows she can't pull that off], baffle them with bulls%^t."

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 1, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

but I assume you concur that this is most certainly not the landslide your friendly moonbats are predicting? this is Obama's high water mark, this late and with all his D advantages this year.

--------------------

Landslide? LOL.

He's half black.

I don't care if he gets in by a single vote. He's in. And America is saved from a reckless senior citizen and an incompetent religious zealot.

Fortunately, Amercia is waking up...the polls are rising steadily for Obama...the McCain/Palin disaster is being averted.

Good enough for me.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Wiggan -- get your math straight

They bought 1/10th of the adjacent lot for 1/10 of the price the Rezkos payed for it.

Read the article.

Posted by: DougH1 | October 1, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: hclark1 | October 1, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Thats a lie. She made a profit on the property. Obama go no break at all and paid full market price to her for the property that on todays market was probably a bad investment based on when he bought it. The original seller had been trying to sell the property and could not get a buyer. Obama got no deal, the seller was lucky Obama came along when he did and has said as much.


---------------
That Rezko's wife takes a $500K loss on the adjacent property price for the hell of it? Come on. It is graft, Chicago Style. This is what is coming to the White House if you punch the button for Obama.
Posted by: Wiggan | October 1, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

If our corrupt liberal press manages to "move the masses" with their corrupt reporting and COOKED polls then we will have the "Axis of Incompetence".

Obama, Harry, and Nancy.........three clueless left-wingers.

A Chicago Gangster.......a Las Vegas Mobster.....and a San Francisco Snobster.

Welcome to Jimmy Carter's second term.

Does everyone remember the first Jimmy Carter term? ..............Disaster waits.

Posted by: allenridge | October 1, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

The Palin MO: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance [and Lord knows she can't pull that off], baffle them with bulls%^t."

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 1, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have been liberal for years.

They have been liberal in their evisceration of the bill of rights.

They have been liberal in using tax money to fight a useless Iraq war.

They have been liberal in their use of deregulation to collapse and bankrupt the financial structure of America.

They have been very liberal with words like patriotism to cover their actions.

Obama seems conservative by comparison.

Posted by: schmuckduck | October 1, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Let's stick to the VP competence questions:

Here is the list of "gotchas"

What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?

Answer: (Unintelligible)

How does Alaska's proximity to Russia add to your foreign policy experience?

Answer: Where do Russian fly over when they leave Russia? Alaska.

When in comes to establishing your world view, what newspapers or magazines did you regularly read to stay informed before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Answer: I read them all.

What horrible, left-wing, unethical, journalism. It's obvious that these guy are in the tank for Obama. They would never ask these questions of the other candidates.

What a irresponsible person; to blame her interviewers for her own inadequacies.

Posted by: DougH1 | October 1, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Do we really have to go through this again.

From factcheck.org

You might as well know what actually happened so you can make up your own mind without the lies.
If you are interested read below.

Q: Does Obama have a real estate problem?

A political patron from whom he bought a strip of land is under federal indictment, but there's no evidence Obama did anything improper.
Here’s what happened: In 2005, Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, bid $1.65 million for a house on the south side of Chicago. According to newspaper reports, the owner was also trying to sell an undeveloped parcel of land adjacent to the property Obama was buying, and he wanted the sales of the two to close on the same day. Obama has said that he mentioned he was buying the house to a longtime political patron, Antoin (Tony) Rezko, a developer. Rezko’s wife wound up buying the lot adjacent to Obama’s. At the request of the Obamas, who were seeking a bit more space for their yard, she later sold them a 10-foot wide strip, or about one-sixth, of her land. The Obamas paid $104,500 for it, or about one-sixth of what Mrs. Rezko had paid for the entire property.

Obama doesn’t appear to have reaped any financial advantages from the transactions. The reason the deal has received a good bit of attention is that Tony Rezko – whose political contributions to Illinois’ former governor, Obama and others totaled in the hundreds of thousands of dollars – was known to be under federal investigation at the time the Obamas were purchasing their home. In 2006, Rezko was indicted in three federal cases: Two involved fraud schemes in which he allegedly demanded payments from firms wanting work from the enormous Illinois teachers’ pension fund and from those wanting favorable rulings from a state board that regulates the building of new hospital facilities. In the third, he was charged with fraudulently obtaining more than $10 million in loans for a pizza restaurant business; in December 2007, prosecutors added more fraud counts to that indictment.

Obama has a relationship with Rezko that dates back many years, but there’s no indication Obama did anything improper. Shortly after finishing law school, Obama, who had turned down a job offer from the developer, went to work at a law firm where he represented some community groups that partnered with Rezko to apply for housing rehabilitation loans. As a state legislator, he wrote letters to city and state officials in support of Rezko’s efforts to build apartments for the elderly with government money; the senator asserts that this was a project the community wanted. Obama got together with Rezko a couple of times a year, he has said.

Obama has donated campaign contributions from Rezko and his associates to charity, and he said in 2006, when the real estate transaction was reported by the press, that he made a “boneheaded” mistake by participating in the deal when it was known that Rezko was being investigated. “I regret it,” Obama said. “I’m going to make sure from this point on I don’t even come close to the line.”


--------
I am not quite sure how Obama was cleared from Rezko. From the Chicago Sun-Times on the 8 things you need to know about Obama (Jan 24, 2008)

"A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor."

You see, to me, no matter how much Palin mangles a Couric interview, it pales in comparison with the outright corruption demonstrated by Obama in his dealings with Rezko. How do you reconcile this? Obama just gets lucky and gets the house for $300K below market? That Rezko's wife takes a $500K loss on the adjacent property price for the hell of it? Come on. It is graft, Chicago Style. This is what is coming to the White House if you punch the button for Obama.
Posted by: Wiggan | October 1, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Flaming liberal LIARS in the most corrupt institution in America today, our mostly liberal MSM wolfpack press.

And the flaming left-wingers at the corrupt Washington POST are some of the worst LIARS in America today.

The POST has ran an ATTACK story EVERDAY since Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's veep.

Anyone that thinks for one minute that the POST is an "Independent Paper" is completely contaminated.

What's the difference between the Nazi propaganda of the 1930's and America's wolfpack press today?

Answer: NOTHING..........The left-wingers in control of our "free left-wing press" are like poison in the bloodstream of this great nation............SCUM

Posted by: allenridge | October 1, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Yup. And in a tie, the House votes, one vote per state. The way the House map is looking, a 269 tie equals an Obama win.


Posted by: bsimon1


very exciting! Perhaps we can peel away one of those Maine votes - Kennebunkport?

but I assume you concur that this is most certainly not the landslide your friendly moonbats are predicting? this is Obama's high water mark, this late and with all his D advantages this year.

If I were you, I would be very fearful of any last minute surprises. they would make your amatuer look very naive, as this finance issue has and as the Georgia invasion showed.

when the voter gets in the booth, they are going to think to themselves "do I really want to take a chance with an extreme tax and spend liberal who got half his donations from overseas, who promises to raise taxes, who will phone in approval for Pelosi and reid, who will surrender our foreign policy to the UN, who has very shady friends, who voted to kill babies, who wants government to run everything, who never met a program he didn't want to expand, etc.

sounds like a risky scheme to me. but don;t take my word for it, ask hillary, bill and Biden what they think of the messiah?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Mccain agitators are in town for the debate and offering hundreds of dollars to students to hold signs and protest. Mccain has no shame and lost pretty much any integrity he ever had. When this is over he will have thrown a lifetime of public service in the garbage. This trash campaign is all he will be remembered for.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

I am not quite sure how Obama was cleared from Rezko. From the Chicago Sun-Times on the 8 things you need to know about Obama (Jan 24, 2008)

"A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor."

You see, to me, no matter how much Palin mangles a Couric interview, it pales in comparison with the outright corruption demonstrated by Obama in his dealings with Rezko. How do you reconcile this? Obama just gets lucky and gets the house for $300K below market? That Rezko's wife takes a $500K loss on the adjacent property price for the hell of it? Come on. It is graft, Chicago Style. This is what is coming to the White House if you punch the button for Obama.

Posted by: Wiggan | October 1, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

""It is virtually impossible for McCain to win the White House without Florida and Ohio," CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib said. "The financial crisis is playing right into Obama's message of change, and putting the GOP on the defensive all across the electoral map."

Actually, it is virtually impossible for McCain to win without Florida OR Ohio, given how well Obama is doing in Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia.

VA is still in play. His best hope is to take that back along with NH. If he cedes VA, then he's got to take Minnesota and Wisconsin.

If he loses Ohio or Florida, this is done.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Lying Republicans in retreat!! Republican party on verge of falling apart!!

"An air of confusion and disbelief still reigned among House Republicans on Tuesday, as GOP leaders kept a low public profile, quietly calling their colleagues to try to figure out what led to Monday’s bailout vote meltdown and what steps to take next.

But there was one issue on which the fractured caucus seemed to agree: The GOP leadership’s initial excuse for the $700 billion bailout bill’s demise — that some Republicans were upset by a partisan speech by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) prior to the vote — was a red herring.

Immediately after Monday’s stunning defeat, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) appeared at a press conference, waving a copy of Pelosi’s speech and claiming that her remarks turned some Republicans against the bill and led to its failure.

Yet a parade of Republican lawmakers who opposed the bailout package denied the accusation against Pelosi by their own leadership, saying they voted against the legislation due to principle, not spite.

“I want to assure you that was not the case,” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said in a press conference following the vote. “We are not babies who suck our thumbs. We have very principled reasons for voting no.”

Rep. John B. Shadegg (R-Ariz.), told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough — himself a former GOP lawmaker from Florida — that Pelosi’s speech had nothing to do with his “no” vote. Shadegg was one of 133 House Republicans to vote against the bill, even though it was supported by Boehner, Cantor, Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

“No, I didn’t, Joe,” Shadegg said on Tuesday morning when asked whether he turned against the legislation because of the speaker’s comments. “And I don’t know a single Republican who did. It was a stupid speech by her, but it didn’t move any votes. On an issue of this importance, nobody would be moved by that.”"

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

How to tell if the Sarah charisma is getting to you.

1. You begin to hate polar bears.
2. You think about going to church and you are Jewish.
3. You comb through the auto ads looking for a Ford Maverick to buy.

Don't worry it will go away after the debate.

Posted by: schmuckduck | October 1, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

The Prophet of Change is only to be admired, not questioned. In the stretch run of an American election, there is to be no examination of a candidate for the world’s most powerful office — whether about his radical record, the fringe Leftism that lies beneath his thin, centrist veneer, his enabling of infanticide, his history of race-conscious politics, his proposals for unprecedented confiscation and distribution of private property (including a massive transfer of American wealth to third-world dictators through international bureaucrats), his ruinous economic policies that have helped leave Illinois a financial wreck, his place at the vortex of the credit market implosion that has put the U.S. economy on the brink of meltdown, his aggressive push for American withdrawal and defeat in Iraq, his easy gravitation to America-hating activists, be they preachers like Jeremiah Wright, terrorists like Bill Ayers, or Communists like Frank Marshall Davis. Comment on any of this and risk indictment or, at the very least, government harassment and exorbitant legal fees.

Nor was this an isolated incident.

Item: When the American Issues Project ran political ads calling attention to Obama’s extensive ties to Ayers, the Weatherman terrorist who brags about having bombed the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol, the Obama campaign pressured the Justice Department to launch an absurd criminal prosecution.

Item: When commentator Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center was invited on a Chicago radio program to discuss his investigation of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an “education reform” project in which Obama and Ayers (just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood”) collaborated to dole out over $100 million, the Obama campaign issued an Internet action alert. Supporters, armed with the campaign’s non-responsive talking points, dutifully flooded the program with calls and emails, protesting Kurtz’s appearance and attempting to shout him down.

Item: Both Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, have indicated that an Obama administration would use its control of the Justice Department to prosecute its political opponents, including Bush administration officials responsible for the national security policies put in effect after nearly 3000 Americans were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

Item: There is a troubling report that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Section, top officials of which are Obama contributors, has suggested criminal prosecutions against those they anticipate will engage in voter “intimidation” or “oppression” in an election involving a black candidate. (Memo to my former DOJ colleagues: In a system that presumes innocence even after crimes have undeniably been committed, responsible prosecutors don’t assume non-suspects will commit future law violations — especially when doing so necessarily undermines the First Amendment freedoms those prosecutors solemnly swear to uphold.)


Just another Liberal criminal in line for graft and corruption.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

When is anyone going to ask Mrs. Palin WHO IS TAKING CARE OF HER CHILDREN ? Is this the image we need for the moms of America ? Get involved with politics and leave your babies to WHO ? My ohter question for Mrs. Palin is who is going to support your up and coming grandchild ? or is this going to be a Social Services client. Unmarried, newborn child and potentially unemployed..... Is this what we want for the young people to have as an example as well??? What is wrong with the Republicans have they gone mad ????

Posted by: clark6715 | October 1, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

It is bizarre that the McCain campaign can criticize media coverage of Palin when they have yet to allow her to hold a news conference. Biden was used as a surrogate to spin the debate performance of Obama on Friday night. Palin was unavailable. Why was that? Except for her infomercial with alleged journalist Sean Hannity, she has only had two sit down interviews with actual reporters and they both went disastrously. That any Republicans can defend her candidacy at this point is an indictment upon their party and John McCain's judgment.

America first? This time you outsmarted yourself, Senator McCain. You put yourself first and exposed yourself for the dishonorable fraud that you are.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | October 1, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse


New state polls show Obama with clear leads.

(CNN) – New polls released Wednesday morning suggest the race for the White House could be breaking for Barack Obama in three key battleground states.

Just-released Quinnipiac University surveys show Obama with wide leads in Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as Florida — the showdown state in the 2000 presidential race where John McCain has had held an advantage for most of the summer.

The latest poll results are bad news for McCain as Election Day inches closer and just may be the clearest sign yet the nation's ongoing financial crisis is taking its toll on the Arizona senator's candidacy.

"It is virtually impossible for McCain to win the White House without Florida and Ohio," CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib said. "The financial crisis is playing right into Obama's message of change, and putting the GOP on the defensive all across the electoral map."

Quinnipiac's new survey in Pennsylvania shows Obama with a stunning 14 point-lead over McCain, 54-39 percent. Averaging that survey with other recent Pennsylvania polls, the latest CNN poll of polls there shows a 10-point lead for Obama in the state that only voted for John Kerry by a 2-point margin in 2004. Several polls released earlier this month in Pennsylvania suggested Obama's lead there was in the mid single digits.

A new Quinnipiac Ohio poll also released Wednesday morning shows Obama leading McCain by 8 points there. CNN does not have enough recent polling in Ohio for a poll of polls, but several surveys released earlier this month before the extent of the financial crisis became clear showed the two presidential candidates tied there.

A new Quinnipiac Florida poll also shows big gains for Obama, with the Illinois senator now holding an 8 point lead, 51 to 43 percent.

Posted by: drindl | October 1, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Great news!

Time:

Propelled by concerns over the financial crisis and a return of support from female voters, Barack Obama has opened a formidable 7-point lead over John McCain, reaching the 50% threshold among likely voters for the first time in the general campaign for President, according to a new TIME poll.

Obama now leads McCain 50%-43% overall, up from 46%-41% before the parties' national conventions a month ago. Obama's support is not just broader, but sturdier too; 23% of McCain supporters say they might change their mind, while only 15% of Obama's say they could be persuaded to switch.

Among the poll's most dramatic findings: McCain is losing female voters faster than Sarah Palin attracted them after the Republican convention. Obama leads McCain by 17 points with women, 55%-38%. Before the conventions, women preferred Obama by a margin of 10 points, 49%-39%. After McCain picked Palin as his running mate, the gap narrowed to a virtual tie, with Obama holding a one point margin, 48%-47%.

In a stark indication of just how much the political landscape has changed over the last four years, white women now favor Obama by three points, 48%-45%; in 2004, George W. Bush won the same demographic by 11 points against John Kerry. Where Bush carried married women by 15 points in that election, 57%-42%, Obama now leads by 6 points, 50%-44%, a 21-point shift.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"There can now be little doubt that Nancy Pelosi has an unrivaled record for lacking achievement."

Unfair to Sarah Palin. She would give anyone a run for the money for lack of achievement.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 1, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

By the way, she sounds downright reasonable in the recent Couric installment. (how many parts is this thing anyways?)

Talks about global warming, abortion, contraception, homosexuality, evolution.

I don't agree with everything she says, but she sounds pretty reasonable.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/10/palin_on_couric_hewitt.html

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

der bein mean t me!!!!!!!!!

WHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!


I gotta degree in journaling and I got ethics and you'r not bein nice WHAAAAAAAAAAAA

Posted by: msmith97 | October 1, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if there ever has been such a high-profile debate where the moderator has been so obviously biased.

Ifill stands to make a fortune when her pro-Obama book is published on . . . Inauguration Day. Isn't that convenient?

And if McCain wins? Would they even bother publishing her book?

Just imagine if the roles were reversed. This would be the top story in all "mainstream" media, and tens of thousands of people would be protesting the debate site.

Posted by: info42 | October 1, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

posse comitatus? What does std have to do with the debate?

Posted by: schmuckduck | October 1, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Dude, Palin couldn't even identify a single specific newspaper or any news source she used before being tapped for the VP.

This is just pathetic.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Moving On Up? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]


It took some work to find this on the Washington Post's website, but Obama has a narrower lead in their (and ABC's) poll this week:

Negativity about the country's financial prospects continues to lift Obama, but he now has a narrower advantage over McCain in Post-ABC polling than he did last week. Overall, the senator from Illinois holds a slim lead in the new national poll, with likely voters dividing 50 percent for Obama and 46 percent for McCain.

A few readers point out, FWIW:


You might want to note that in the print version the Post put Obama's previous 9 point lead in a front page headline. Now that it has narrowed to 4 points I had to struggle to find any mention of it. They did bury a graph of the polls deep in the paper.

If the polls are in the D favor, trumpet them, if they make R's look like winners, scoff at the accuracy.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

For the past couple of months I have been reading the Washington Post and the opinion pieces online for the first time, after hearing about its liberal bias for years. It is true. Reading almost every article and opinion piece is like going to a Ripley's Believe or Not Museum. Compared to the rest of America, where even 80% of the land area in California is red not blue politically, it appears that the writers in this newspaper want us to believe that black is white, day is night and east is west.

This writer seems to think that the relentless half-truths and out and out lies about Palin and McCain are in our imagination. Even worse, this newspaper takes unvetted gossip from leftwing bloggers and places the lies as fact in not just opinion pieces, but also articles. No wonder Palin, McCain and their campaign advisors perceive that the elite media at businesses like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post are an extension of the Obama/Biden campaign effort.

Obama is clearly unqualified but talks a good game and says what his handlers tell him to say. Biden has hoof and mouth diease or cannot remember if he was shot at in Afganistan?, but he is going to mentor Obama until he learns how to make decisions in the White House? But, 90% of the article in this newspaper are either negative about Palin and/or McCain and almost always either positive about Obama and Biden or state nothing. Obama can disappear on the bailout crisis and say "call me if you need me" and he is "Presidiential"?


Duh!


Until writersin the newspaper treat each party equally, it will not just be Palin and McCain that do not bleive and information coming form these media sources.

Posted by: rljmsilver | October 1, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

For the past couple of months I have been reading the Washington Post and the opinion pieces online for the first time, after hearing about its liberal bias for years. It is true. Reading almost every article and opinion piece is like going to a Ripley's Believe or Not Museum. Compared to the rest of America, where even 80% of the land area in California is red not blue politically, it appears that the writers in this newspaper want us to believe that black is white, day is night and east is west.

This writer seems to think that the relentless half-truths and out and out lies about Palin and McCain are in our imagination. Even worse, this newspaper takes unvetted gossip from leftwing bloggers and places the lies as fact in not just opinion pieces, but also articles. No wonder Palin, McCain and their campaign advisors perceive that the elite media at businesses like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post are an extension of the Obama/Biden campaign effort.

Obama is clearly unqualified but talks a good game and says what his handlers tell him to say. Biden has hoof and mouth diease or cannot remember if he was shot at in Afganistan?, but he is going to mentor Obama until he learns how to make decisions in the White House? But, 90% of the article in this newspaper are either negative about Palin and/or McCain and almost always either positive about Obama and Biden or state nothing. Obama can disappear on the bailout crisis and say "call me if you need me" and he is "Presidiential"?


Duh!


Until writersin the newspaper treat each party equally, it will not just be Palin and McCain that do not bleive and information coming form these media sources.

Posted by: rljmsilver | October 1, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

THIS GWEN IFILL BOOK THING IS A PROBLEM.

AND THIS IS COMING FROM A PALIN CRITIC.

AT THE LEAST IT'S A PERCEIVED CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

THE FACT THAT IT TOOK DRUDGE TO MAKE IT AN ISSUE IS BESIDE THE POINT.

IFILL SHOULD RECUSE HERSELF. THEN LET LEHRER ASK ALL THE TOUGHT QUESTIONS...

WITHOUT GIVING PALIN APOLOGISTS A REASON TO DISCOUNT THE DEBATE.

ps. Someone needs to ask these candidates about posse comitatus and the Oct. 1 domestic deployment in the U.S. of a US Army unit skilled in urban combat in Iraq. It's the first time US troops will be deployed on American soil for domestic "peacekeeping" -- what seems to be using the military for domestic policing, which is prohibited by the 130-year-old Posse Comitatus Act.

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 1, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Mccains new ploy to get out of VP debate. The moderator is black and has written a book on blacks in politics that is coming out next year. They claim they never heard about it even though she has done interviews on the book. I guess after the debate they will be claiming foul.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"Actually if your scenerio comes true it is an exact tie at 269."

Yup. And in a tie, the House votes, one vote per state. The way the House map is looking, a 269 tie equals an Obama win.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Cocky and Bullwinkle tried to double team Katie Couric. It didn't work.
The populist facade of Palin is crumbling.

It will be fun to watch Bullwinkle dodge and stammer when Gwen Ifill pulls out her Remington rifle and goes moose hunting during the debate.

Posted by: schmuckduck | October 1, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I suppose if you are clueless then every question is a GOTCHA question.

Posted by: thor2 | October 1, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Actually if your scenerio comes true it is an exact tie at 269.

I will admit I am uneasy today after hearing about all the vote stealing going on in OH by ACORN - Obama's employer.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric posed some really straight-forward questions....there were absolutely no curve-balls. I don't know what the hell Palin means by "Gotcha" journalism. The only thing "Gotcha" about this whole situation is the appalling lack of depth Palin has displayed in her knowledge and experience of the world today. She's running for the post of VP (ie second-in-command). She's supposed to take an active interest in world affairs. I find it utterly shocking to note that she cannot recall the name of A SINGLE NEWSPAPER that she reads on a regular basis. All Palin has done so far is parrot out sound-bytes provided by her handlers. Nothing more.

Posted by: vmunikoti | October 1, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

zouk claims
"OK, factless void of moonbattery, here goes ... From Pollster.com:

OH: 48 Mccain 45.1 Obama
FL: 48.1 McCain 46 Obama
NH: tied at 46.2
NV 48.1 McCain 46.3 Obama
I can give you CO and NM and PA"


You forgot Iowa. If Obama takes Kerry plus IA, NM & CO, its game over. He doesn't need OH, FL, NH* or NV.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

For all the conservatives jumping on the "Gwen Ifill is in the tank for Obama" train please make sure you know that Ms. Ifill's book announcement was PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE TWO WEEKS BEFORE SHE WAS CHOSEN TO MODERATE. That means that if the McCain/Palin ticket had an issue with Ms. Ifill moderating they had ample time to know about her book and insist that she not moderate. I know it's hard for you all to admit this but IT IS A FACT. You can't dispute this fact or wish it away as more Liberal Media bias.

Quite simply, if you believe in your heart that Sarah Palin is qualified to be on the ticket and you don't have any reservations with her potentially being the POTUS then you should follow your heart and vote for McCain/Palin. If you do God help us!!!!

Posted by: ceedub35 | October 1, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

McCain Palin are simply outrageous. Asking followup questions is not the same as attacking a candidate. Journalists are supposed to get infomation from their subjects, their ideal is to seek the truth. This means asking followup questions when candidates are trying to or inadvertantly not informing the public of what they want to know.
The only way McCain/Palin not accuse journalists of attacking them is if journalists stop asking them any questions. This would not be fair to the American people who deserve to know their candidates before they vote for them.
Fundamentalists may be ok without learning anything more about their candidates other than that they support limiting or restricting a woman's right to choice.
I however, am not.

Posted by: stevenmpalmer | October 1, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

LOVELY SARAH, VP RUNNING MATE
(to Lovely Rita, the Beatles)
WilliamBanzai7

Lovely Sarah VP running mate
Lovely Sarah, VP running mate

Lovely Sarah, McCain's sweet running mate,
Nothing can come between them.
When it gets dark just throw your smarts away.

Standing by a gallop meter,
When I caught a glimpse of Sarah,
Filling in an entry in her political phrase book.
In a Veep cap she looked much older,
And the gun across her shoulder
Made her look a little like a military gal.

Lovely Sarah VP running mate,
May I inquire discreetly,
When are you free to come debate with me?
(Sarah!)

Let her out and they tried to skin her.
Had a laugh and over dinner,
Told her we would really like to hear the issues again.
Got the bill and McCain paid it.
Interviewed her home and nearly nailed it,
Sitting on the sofa with a five kids and a moose.

Oh, lovely Sarah VP running mate,
The media's out to get you!
Give them a wink and make them think of you.

Posted by: williambanzai7 | October 1, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Are they gonna allow McCain to "babysit" Palin when she gets to debate Biden on Friday?

That would be sooo awesome...LOL,LOL...

Posted by: Rednack4Reason | October 1, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk it really goes like THIS-

Preview of the McCain administration:

Grab up all the money you can find and take it. then hand it out to your friends, like ACORN and fraudulent lenders. finally, blame it all on the Dems. when the sh!t hits the fan, you can't be reached on your cell phone.

Posted by: Rednack4Reason | October 1, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

There can now be little doubt that Nancy Pelosi has an unrivaled record for lacking achievement. In retrospect, it seems incomprehensible that Democrats chose a grating, partisan, San Francisco liberal to lead both parties in the House. During the bailout debate, Pelosi used her last breath to channel the shade of Henry Wallace, attacking conservative economics as a "right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation." When one thinks of the skills of the speaker of the House, (BEG ITAL)rubbing your face in it before a vital vote(END ITAL) is not usually high on the list. House conservatives were insulted -- then watched as some of Pelosi's committee chairmen and closest political associates voted against the bill. Seeing Democrats saving their political hides provided little encouragement for Republicans to risk their own.

Dem leadership on display. vote D for more like this.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

HA!
Republicans nominated mad John and Silly Palin and now they are trying to defend her.
I am sorry. I watched the interviews and did not listen to the media's interpretation of it and she sounded like she didn't know anything!
Now, you can talk about bias in the media which DOES occur on both sides. For instance, many media outlets stated that Obama won the debate EXCEPT for POX news and the like.
So, the reason the media is so hard on McLame - Failin is because they have not stood firm on ANY issues (look at Sarah, SHE is even confused about what McCain's stance is)and Palin has NO IDEA about anything. She could not even list a magazing that she read, for G&d's sake!
Wake up, people, no one is going to know if you actually voted for someone besides the repubs. This is our country at stake. If you must, vote for Barr or Nader but PLEASE do not vote for this pair JUST because they are Republicans. SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE VP (which ultimately means that she should be qulaified to be POTUS).

Posted by: phorse | October 1, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Give me a break. This woman is full of run-on sentences with no substance. Good thing she's white and a woman. If she was black or a man, no one would make all these excuses for her.

Note to Palin: DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Read a paper, listen to CSPAN, read a book or two. They can even be conservative, I don't care. Just get informed about what's happening outside of Alaska.

"I read everything" is not acceptable answer to the question "What do you read to stay informed?" Oh wait, maybe that was a liberal media, unethical, in the tank for Obama, gotcha question. I'm sorry, I must be stupid.

Posted by: DougH1 | October 1, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

drindl wrote: Gee, you sound just like Palin herself. Sure that's not you, Governor?

Is this how you answer a post?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


I had forgotten what a complete dimwit moonbat drindl was until today. It was posting under anonymous fr so long to hide her loony views, even from herself.

you can expect nothinkg but the tired old invective of the angry loony left, no fact, no argument, simply insult and spite and hate. this is also called the Liberal base. In this case base also means low, uneducated, sniveling, deceitful and of no value.

A shame no one will pay her for her rantings. then she could possibly go find a job and get a life.

I have found that ignoring it is the best approach. It will then wander back to Kos and huff - it's home.

I think wpostxx is nearing this malady too. I suspect it was also one of the anonymous LOUD and DUMB cowards.

All thinking bloggers should ignore these misfit tykes and keep our blog functioning above an IQ of 60.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Nobody is buying the whining from Puppet Palin and her handlers. Couric asked legitimate questions -- and I fervently hope the press keeps up the heat. The media, for a change, is putting country, reality and democracy first -- unlike McCain and Palin, who are phony to the core.

Posted by: button2 | October 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Come on. No Obama supporter has yet explained in what ways his experience is superior to Palin's. (I concede that both are on the weak side.) As for the interviews the visual of pompous Charlie Gibson peering thru his Ben Franklin specs at her was worth a thousand words.

The issue is that BO has never gotten the kind of scrutiny that is being given to Palin. How much did the press really pursue his bad judgement in associating with a black David Duke for 20 years? How much have we really heard about his links to Ayres and the work which they did as coequal members of the Annenberg Challenge Grant? How much have we heard from the press about his earmark organization which is now under investigation for fraud? how much have we heard about his experience with "affordable" housing in Chicago? The answer is nothing.

I acknowledge Palin has not done a good job in some of her interviews but some of the questions have been meaningless gotcha. Can Palin give McCain's entire regulatory record? Can Obama give Biden's regulatory record? No but Palin or Biden could give Obama's record because other than accepting money from Fanny and Freddie there is none. Palin has not shone in her interview but neither has Obama- the difference is that the press covers for him- remember his comment to George Stephanopoluos about "my Muslim faith"???

Posted by: peteinny | October 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Come on. No Obama supporter has yet explained in what ways his experience is superior to Palin's. (I concede that both are on the weak side.) As for the interviews the visual of pompous Charlie Gibson peering thru his Ben Franklin specs at her was worth a thousand words.

The issue is that BO has never gotten the kind of scrutiny that is being given to Palin. How much did the press really pursue his bad judgement in associating with a black David Duke for 20 years? How much have we really heard about his links to Ayres and the work which they did as coequal members of the Annenberg Challenge Grant? How much have we heard from the press about his earmark organization which is now under investigation for fraud? how much have we heard about his experience with "affordable" housing in Chicago? The answer is nothing.

I acknowledge Palin has not done a good job in some of her interviews but some of the questions have been meaningless gotcha. Can Palin give McCain's entire regulatory record? Can Obama give Biden's regulatory record? No but Palin or Biden could give Obama's record because other than accepting money from Fanny and Freddie there is none. Palin has not shone in her interview but neither has Obama- the difference is that the press covers for him- remember his comment to George Stephanopoluos about "my Muslim faith"???

Posted by: peteinny | October 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

extra, extra, read all about it - palin reveals global warming caused by reporters.

Posted by: lawrence2xl | October 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

To agapn9 :

Of what you speak is one of the fundamentals
lacking in America political life for some time now. It is a crucial element, along with independent free press to maintain a viable democracy. Sadly, America no longer has either.

How to get a critical mass of qualified, knowledgeable, and decent people into positions of leadership in federal government?

Here're some suggestions to start with:

1. Institute public financing ONLY for eligible candidates.
2. Establish something like Ecole Nationale d'Administration in France or at least require from potential holders of federal political offices at least a year of intense preparation at a specialized leadership program at any of the appropriate top American graduate schools, e.g. Fletcher, Walsh, Nitze, Kennedy, Heller, etc.
3. Require a graduate degree, or exceptional life/work/accomplishment experience in lieu of that.
4. Require that all campaign activities commence no earlier than 6 months before the general election and cease no later than 2 weeks before the general election.
4. Require that the media give equal and FREE access to all qualified candidates during the 5.5 month election period.
Say, cumulative one hour a day to be divided between all candidates, whether on radio or TV, in a format of the candidate's choosing (e.g. a one on one interview or an infomercial, etc.). Also, half a page per week, per candidate in all major newspapers in all US markets, for free as well.
5. Drop the stupid requirement of being US-born. What if I came here at age 1 and am far more qualified and/or beloved or trusted than any of the American-born candidates. How am I any less American than the others? And why should American people be denied any of my special skills or talents just because I wasn't born here?
I mean, you do trust your life in cases of emergency to foreign-born doctors in this country, don't you? Why not political leaders?

Posted by: VMR1 | October 1, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

wpwpwp1, I believe that was sarcasm, in case you don't get it.
And now comes (at least to all of you libs) another 'unbiased' journalist to moderate the VP debate. Oh, did I mention she's totally in the tank for Obama and is even writing a pro-Obama book due to come out the date of the inauguration? And she gets to actually write the questions the candidates have to answer?
This election is a JOKE and I sincerely hope Couric et al lose their jobs over this!

Posted by: RUBY2 | October 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Andrew Halcor debated Palin in Alaska over 20 times and one day she told him:
"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.

What does it matter? Bullwinkle says.
For her it's all about B.S.ing the voters with her folksy charm and stories.

B.S. won't buy our way out of this mess and it won't buy her and McCain the white house. Not this time.

Posted by: schmuckduck | October 1, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"With regard to Russia, what the press will never accept is that Alaska is actually part of the Far East with about 95% of it exports to the countries of the Pacific Basin. This makes all Alaskans far more aware of foreign trade policies and events in that region than most of the rest of us in the US. It is like Texans being far more aware of the situation in Mexico which is their immediate neighbor far more than people from Illinois or Delaware. It just is."

Philindc1, all can readily acknowledge Alaska's trade relationships with its foreign neighbors and their importance. Palin seems to be oblivious to Russia's importance, save for her bizarre ramblings about Alaska being the place where Putin sticks his head in. She's a complete ding-dong, and as your post proves, not only is she unfit to be VP, but her fitness as Alaska's governor should be called into question.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Oh boo hoo! Sarah is picking on the innocent lambs of the MSM. These poor hard working objective journalists have NEVER
shown their bias. It is so unfair to criticize them when they are just doing their best to bring the glorious story of the messiah to the ignorant masses.

Posted by: jbianco28 | October 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Palin is blaming the press for reporting what she says. Gotcha journalism? YGBSM. I think the big editorial debate at CBS right now is whether or not they run the dead air after Palin can't think of another Supreme Court decision besides Roe.

I watched some of Palin's Alaska debates, and came away with this impression: she's a "Decider".

Someone who doesn't have to think before making a decision (you can't blink!). Someone who doesn't have to know a damned thing about the subject before making a decision. Not only is she ready on foreign policy, she's ready, willing and able! What more do you people want? she seems to think.

She really doesn't think it's necessary to be informed about a subject, or have any idea of history, the law, how government works, or any of those tedious details. She knows what she wants in some cases: she wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, she wants to teach intelligent design along with evolution and "let kids debate 'em", for example.

If she doesn't know what she wants, she's confident that her basic values will tell her what the correct decision is.

The difference between her and George Bush? Lipstick.

Well I have had enough of a dumba$$ anywhere near the White House. No way, No how, No McCain/Palin

Posted by: dpc2003 | October 1, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

In 2008, reporters and columnists touting Obama are repeatedly citing numbers by something called the Tax Policy Center -- and you'll never hear that this is a project operated by two liberal-Democrat think tanks -- to suggest Obama will actually cut middle-class taxes more than John McCain. That, of course, assumes that President Obama will follow his plan to the letter, and that a newly elected liberal House and Senate will rubber-stamp his alleged tax cut for "95 percent" of Americans. That, by the way, is a serious math error. Please explain how it's possible to cut 95 percent of Americans' taxes when the Tax Foundation reports that 40 percent of Americans don't pay any income tax. If you think you can, I'd like to interest you in a sub-prime mortgage. This math apparently is too sophisticated for the guardians of "fact," who are nowhere to be found.

When Democrats claim they'll be more generous in tax-cutting, does anyone believe a liberal-dominated Washington is going to do less taxing and spending than the Bush administration?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

The attacks on the press are classic examples of trying to oppress detractors, using disguised anger for power and control - that is the sad reality of John McCain. .......
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/10/01/mccains-world-view-power-and-control/

Posted by: glclark4750 | October 1, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Blaming the press is just a tactic Republicans have used to brainwash an entire generation into thinking they could not trust or believe the media IN ANY CASE.

The argument loses a lot of weight for me in these days of Google when you can go to Google News and search for say "Biden gaffes" and find thousands of articles written (many from the top MSM publications) on a subject that supposedly no one is talking about. Try this for just about any topic and you'll find out that the media is far more balanced than people give it credit for. The problem is that people only rely on certain types of media nowadays - people that watch Fox only hear certain stories just as those who watch CNN get certain stories. And those people become convinced when they hear somebody say something that it must be true. Yet if they tried checking up on the facts they would probably be surprised.

Ironically, one of the funniest ways the republicans try to prove media bias is by quoting stories that they found in MSM publications!

Posted by: lightgrw | October 1, 2008 11:04 AM

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

Excellent post!

Posted by: dauphins | October 1, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

drindl wrote: Gee, you sound just like Palin herself. Sure that's not you, Governor?

Is this how you answer a post? And immediate defensive reaction without even reading the site I referenced or thinking about the administrative, financial, and private sector responsibilities Gov. Palin has held? When was the last time Sen. Obama or Sen Biden balanced a budget,(beyond their personal one)? Have they directly engaged and taken on their offending party members or big oil?
Of course one would expect Gov. Palin's foreign affairs knowledge to be lacking in contrast to theirs, hasn't that been their job for years now? If Sen. McCain (who has the knowledge), places a strong Sec. of Defense and State in place... it will be just fine with Gov. Palin as President, if the need should ever arise. Isn't that why Sen. Biden was chosen? To help Sen. Obama choose his cabinet?

Posted by: Genevieve01 | October 1, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

One good thing for you. Since Obama is almost certainly going to win, you will have a chance to say "I told you so" if he does all you say.
I will take my chances though over a war mongering, demented lunatic like Mccain.


-----------
Preview of the Obama administration:

Grab up all the money you can find and take it. then hand it out to your friends, like ACORN and fraudulent lenders. finally, blame it all on the Repubs. when the sh!t hits the fan, you can't be reached on your cell phone.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: popasmoke | October 1, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

so, dear readers, it seems the Obama campaign has been OBE, as they say. too bad for him (but great for us) is the fact that the SURGE worked, despite his best efforts to pull the rug out, and the war in Iraq is pretty much winding down now as promised. the Iraqi parliament is magnitudes of effectiveness more qualified to rule than the pitiful and feckless Pelosi/Reid congress.

the other foundation of the Lib platform, raise taxes to pay for all sorts of big government social sepnding and redistribute the rich's money to campaign contributers, is also no longer an issue. the profligate spending of the Libs and the cover up of their wicked graft, particluarly in the housing sector, has resulted in financial meltdown, despite the R's warnings. so there is no money to be spent, no rich to tax, no ability to SPLURGE all that stolen money on supporters. Even Acorn may have to get a legal job now.

Poor, poor, barack. his press fueled candidacy only had a few more weeks of subterfuge before he was awarded the keys to the vault. It is a shame it had to come to this for the voters to wake up and smell the skunks in the Liberal congress.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

"Sarah is not qualified to be Vice President. I suspect after she built the road to nowhere for $8 million a mile that many Alaskans are wondering if she is qualified to be Governor of Alaska."

Both Senators Obama and Biden voted for the funding of the bridge to nowhere. Not once, but TWICE! Governor Palin wasn't even a governor of Alaska at the time. So I guess Senator Obama is not qualified to be President?

Posted by: lynnL123 | October 1, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps the reason the Republicans have so much success in attacking the press is because the national press is so obviously in the tank for Obama. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

Posted by: political_junkie1 | October 1, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse


Palin is simply unqualified to be VP as is now becoming clear. McCain goes on the offence as he often does to detract from the facts. This woman couldn't even name one national newspaper/magazione she has read and tried to bluster her way out of Ms. Couric's question. She is vapid and shallow and has no knowledge of national or international affairs and worse Foreign Policy. McCain & his handlers chose her to cement the religious base who were not enamoured of McCain and she succedded. That's not a qualification for VP or POTUS.

Posted by: sandpiper1 | October 1, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse


"And let's all try to remember, Gov. Palin is running as the VP and still has knowledge and experience in some aspects Sen. Obama nor Sen. Biden have ever experienced."

Gee, you sound just like Palin herself. Sure that's not you, Governor?

Posted by: drindl | October 1, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Poor psycho zouk -- try to come up with an original remark, just once, that doesn't sound like it's coming out of a 5 year old.

Posted by: drindl | October 1, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Are we possibly up for another "gotcha moment" during the debates? Great story on Ifill and her conflict of interest, the problem is you won't see it on most sites and no mention of it here.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/01/vp-debate-moderator-pens-pro-obama-book/

And let's all try to remember, Gov. Palin is running as the VP and still has knowledge and experience in some aspects Sen. Obama nor Sen. Biden have ever experienced.

Posted by: Genevieve01 | October 1, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"They hate truth, they hate facts, they hate reality. They can only flourish when the population is ignorant, uneducated and therefore, accepting of the garbage/lies/propaganda "

drindl - why do all your psychotic rants accurately descibe YOU to a tee? Is that perhaps a mirror instead of a monitor in front of you?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

"Biden, a 30-year Senate vet and a lawyer, tells us that FDR was President during the Great Depression and that he addressed the nation's financial fears 'on television'"

First off, I would like to ask the wing nuts to, whenever the hourly Gomer Palin gaffe comes ricocheting off YouTube, to come up with something other than this chestnut. We get it already. Biden, FDR, radio. Obama/Biden supporters will concede this slight inaccuracy if McShame supporters concede Quaylin is an empty suit.

Second, Biden never said FDR was president in 1929. If you want to play gotcha with the pros, you need to get your quotes straight, dumba$$.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 1, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

wpost, SHP was certainly referring to "six pack abs" not alcoholic couch potatoes.

Dara Torres has sixpack abs. Who could be opposed to such a thing?

All politicians game the press to one end or another. McC has had his turn as the press darling and it lasted longer than most. Gaming the press includes filming ads that will never be run as paid spots, but that are repeatedly run gratis by the 24-7 news channels as if they were news, filling dead air time. Both campaigns are doing this. When a campaign is criticized by a journalist, it is now standard to attack the journalist as a biased source.

Regardless of one's predisposition, one should take all journalism with some reserve of skepticism, simply because no one is perfect, and reported information is no better than its sources. But one should be even more skeptical of the claims of the nominees. The journalists can sell anything that has sex appeal, or entertainment value, or that spreads shock or fear. The politicians have only themselves to sell.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 1, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Hey CC -- you're surprised so-called conservatives hate the media and want it destroyed? Where have you been all these years? They hate truth, they hate facts, they hate reality. They can only flourish when the population is ignorant, uneducated and therefore, accepting of the garbage/lies/propaganda that rightwing tools like your live-in poster, kingofzouk, peddle.

Posted by: drindl | October 1, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

It is really outrageous for the McCain camp to blame the press for the fact that Palin cannot construct a comprehnsible English sentence without a teleprompter in front of her. It is outrageous and a scandal. In any other industrialized country this person would be laughed off the political stage. Only in America, the country of neoconservativism and know-nothing Christianism, is Palin possible. The Emporer and his running mate truly have no clothes.

Posted by: raqualung | October 1, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Preview of the Obama administration:

Grab up all the money you can find and take it. then hand it out to your friends, like ACORN and fraudulent lenders. finally, blame it all on the Repubs. when the sh!t hits the fan, you can't be reached on your cell phone.

Posted by: king_of_zouk
--------------------------------------
A preview of a McLame and Plain administration.
...........................................................................................NOT HAPPENING! LOLOLOL You will lvoe this King of zouk!

survey shows Obama leading McCain in Florida 51 percent to 43 percent, in Ohio 50 percent to 42 percent and in Pennsylvania 54 percent to 39 percent.
Um, it looks like you're getting what you want since you described it like the moron you are.

Posted by: gabbamonkey | October 1, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

October is not starting well for Sarah Palin.

The respected Pew Survey reports now that 51 percent of Americans say that Palin is not qualified to be President. This is a large increase from the 39 percent that said that she was not qualified just a few weeks ago.

And Obama Biden got 49 percent favorable from likely voters compared to 43 percent for McCain Palin.

See the survey results at: http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead

Posted by: mykolas1 | October 1, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

This is more like Palin's war on the collective intelligence of the US.

Not even Chuck Krauthammer would dare defend -- or try to translate -- some of her responses to Katie Couric. Kudos to her Alaska debate opponents for accurately, if futilely, calling her answers to some questions gibberish.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 1, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

The only grounds on which Palin is defensible are if you genuinely believe that no knowledge of the world is required to be VP (or POTUS) - only "character" and "attitude".

Which is utter nonsense - it would be like the CEO of a large corporation who had only the most superficial knowledge of marketing, finance, IT etc. In order to listen to the experts in those fields and make intelligent decisions, the chief executive has to understand what the issues are.

It's clear from SP's interviews that she has no understanding of the proposed mechanisms of the bailout package, or the role of the Supreme Court, let alone foreign policy issues. She contradicted McCain's line on Pakistan without realizing that she'd done so, and was unable to name a single newspaper or magazine that she read. (For God's sake, she could just have said "Time" or the "Economist", couldn't she?)

And if that was because she's afraid of offending people in the GOP who think that everyone in the media are sneery East Coast liberals, then shame on her, and them.

She may corrall a few more of the Christian conservative extremists than McCain would have done by himself, but they're kidding yourselves if they think that is the way to bring in the undecided.

Only in America could it be a debating point that the President needs to be super-smart and super-well-informed - especially when facing multiple complex crises as at the moment. Haven't we learned anything from the past 8 years?

Posted by: simonbuckland | October 1, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Preview of the Obama administration:

Grab up all the money you can find and take it. then hand it out to your friends, like ACORN and fraudulent lenders. finally, blame it all on the Repubs. when the sh!t hits the fan, you can't be reached on your cell phone.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 1, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Good news....

Pew Research now finds that 51% of Americans now believe that Palin is unqualified, up from 37% after her announcement..

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

nwcanadian writes
"Republicans are expected to accept that journalists like Gwen Ifill and Chris Matthews are un-biased?"

Lumping in Gwen Ifill with Chris Matthews is inappropriate. Ms Ifill is an excellent journalist who does a great job of staying neutral in her reporting & moderating. She has far more in common with her colleague Jim Lehrer than the talking heads on the major broadcast & cable stations, who are largely idiots, from what I can tell.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

You know, it's not a question of anyone thinking that they are smarter than Governor Palin, or anyone else on the conservative side of issues. In the case of Governor Palin, I cannot abide her style. She is arrogant without putting in the time and effort to do anything other than repeat talking points.

This is the question, specifically, with Governor Palin - from her answers to questions - specifically regarding the economic bailout, her foreign policy experience and what magazines she reads. This is person of little depth, and with little inclination to achieve any depth of knowledge about the problems facing this country. This may fare well for someone who is the Governor of what is essentially a small state, but does not cut it when it comes to someone running for national office.

You can talk all you want about experience, but if some base of knowledge does not back that experience up, what you have is an empty vessel.

And I thought the Supreme Court question, by the way, WAS a gotcha question.

Posted by: JohnDinHouston | October 1, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

"Biden, a 30-year Senate vet and a lawyer, tells us that FDR was President during the Great Depression and that he addressed the nation's financial fears "on television", and suddenly Sarah Palin is the dumb one? Oh, now I get it."

Glad you get it! Dumb as a box of rocks.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 1, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"As for the knowledge thing, she can pick things up quickly. (Think: Senator Obama has 500+ advisors!)"

Well, she's had this gig for a while now. Let's see some of that learnin' already.

Tommorow, I guess.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

1. While many people in the press do not recognize Canada as a foreign country, the fact is that the Canadians are very much aware they are not part of the USA and can be as prickly to deal with as the Japanese, French, Italians, Israelis or the Turks. Palin in fact has negotiated successfully with the Canadians on a major pipeline from Alaska through Canada into the lower 48. That is a lot more real foreign policy experience than Joey Biden, who in reality has traveled around the world doing photo ops with foreign leaders as groups of Senators including Biden traipse thru their offices and staying only a half hour or hour at max. By the time they make their introductions, get their photos taken and start with the usual opening statement blather, the time allotted is up. One cannot say that Biden has been particularly successful as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. The leislative track record there is not all that impressive.

With regard to Russia, what the press will never accept is that Alaska is actually part of the Far East with about 95% of it exports to the countries of the Pacific Basin. This makes all Alaskans far more aware of foreign trade policies and events in that region than most of the rest of us in the US. It is like Texans being far more aware of the situation in Mexico which is their immediate neighbor far more than people from Illinois or Delaware. It just is.

Barack Obama has made the argument that because he livedin Indonesia for four year from age 6 to 10 he knows more about the world than Hillary CLinton and the other opponents in the Dem primaries. I have yet to see the same skeptical eyeraising from the press that Palin is getting over her lack of experience. She never claimed to have in-depth experience and certainly never claimed she had more than anyone else in the race the way Obama has claimed.

Gibson acted like a school principal interviewing a wayward child in his interview of Palin. He had that blank and disapproving look of "well, what do you have to say for yourself today, Sarah" that you'd get for misbehaving in sixth grade. Contrast that with Geoge Stephanopoulos's intervew also on ABC with Obama recently in which George was correcting Obama's answers, givign him helpful reminders like throwing out "St Augustine" to remind Obama to mention that in his answer on abortion, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the claim that the big media companies are 150% in the tank for Obama-Biden. Even Democrats acknowledge this.

Posted by: philindc1 | October 1, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

can they ever come up with something more creative than blaming the media for the less than stellar qualifications and interviewing skills of their annointed vice presidential nominee? i saw the interviews and she is as horrible as the skits on saturday night live. as a matter of fact, you virtually can't tell which is the real sarah and which is the bogus sarah.

if conservatives think she has done well in her past several interviews, then i want to re-register in my debate class from college. i'm sure i'd pass with an "a+" this time.

Posted by: glenknowles | October 1, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Biden, a 30-year Senate vet and a lawyer, tells us that FDR was President during the Great Depression and that he addressed the nation's financial fears "on television", and suddenly Sarah Palin is the dumb one? Oh, now I get it.

-----------------

oh, that's not too bad, Palin thought FDR was a fashion label.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

What's funny -- not funny ha ha, but funny scary -- is how much more strident Palin's defenders get the more apparent it becomes that she is a simple-minded boob.

Her answers to many questions are indeed gibberish. Tells you a lot about her defenders that they can't admit this.

Plus, they are proving to be as sick and dangerous as the rest of us believe them to be. The responses to the Katherine Parker column are proof.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 1, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Biden, a 30-year Senate vet and a lawyer, tells us that FDR was President during the Great Depression and that he addressed the nation's financial fears "on television", and suddenly Sarah Palin is the dumb one? Oh, now I get it.

Posted by: Rocks66 | October 1, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Good news....

Pew Research now finds that 51% of Americans now believe that Palin is unqualified, up from 37% after her announcement...

The gender gap in Pew's poll is huge -- 17 points among women in Obama's favor, and only four points among men in McCain's...


FINALLY, America is waking up to the Palin DISASTER.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

THE BAIL OUT CRISIS WAS CAUSED BY A HANDFUL OF CORRUPT CONGRESSMEN AND A HANDFUL OF EQUALLY CORRUPT FANNIE MAE OFFICIALS WHO BOUGHT UP 7 TRILLION IN BAD DEBT IN ORDER TO PAD THE BOOKS AND COLLECT HUGE SALARY BONUSES.

HERE ARE THREE VIDEOS THOSE CORRUPT FANNIE MAE OFFICIALS & AT LEAST FIVE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DON'T WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMouthPeace


If you agree, then PLEASE pass it along To All Your Readers And To Your Friends. Someone Needs TO GO TO Jail For This !!

And Here Is Another Shocking Fannie Mae Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs


And Yet Another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2WKtp01yOw

As Soon As The Source Of This Meltdown is exposed, the sooner those few Corrupt Crooks will give up their strangle hold on the Democratic Party. And The Sooner This Sorry Chapter Will Come To A Close. But as Long As Those Corrupt Democrats are allowed to hide behind their flimsy accusations of Republican responsibility, this charade will continue. These corrupt Democrats broke it, now let’s shine some light on them and disinfect the situation. The sunlight of knowledge is a miraculous disinfectant for political corruption. Will You Do Your Part And Pass These Videos Along To Everyone You Know?

Posted by: gdodd414 | October 1, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

jdougherty1 - Obviously, judging by your rant, you are NOT independent. You are firmly in the McSame camp. It's OK to be wrong, just admit it!

People like you make me laugh. You start out by saying you're independent then start listing all of the Republicretin talking points. You are no more independent than your hero Rush Limbaugh.

Try getting some intellectual honesty and integrity. I know it will feel strange at first, but you may get used to it.

Posted by: xconservative | October 1, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Palin: "It’s time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency,..."


------------------

It's not the idiocy of this statement that bothers me, it's that there are Americans who agree with it.

It's like saying....it's about time we put a bartender in surgery to do heart transplants. Those elite college types are too out of touch with their patients.

Well, some surgeons are out of touch with their patients, but don't expect to come out alive if the bartender operates.

Pure idiocy.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Poor widdle pwess got its feewings hurt.

Shaddup and report the news. Not the style of this ignorant chit but the corruption of her administration.

Yes, I know it's difficult for washington reporters to be so far from their favorite take-outs, but I'd much rather you behave as journalists than whiners looking for a seat on Oprah's couch.

(& not you Chris, someone competent.)

Posted by: krm13 | October 1, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Blaming the press is just a tactic Republicans have used to brainwash an entire generation into thinking they could not trust or believe the media IN ANY CASE.

The argument loses a lot of weight for me in these days of Google when you can go to Google News and search for say "Biden gaffes" and find thousands of articles written (many from the top MSM publications) on a subject that supposedly no one is talking about. Try this for just about any topic and you'll find out that the media is far more balanced than people give it credit for. The problem is that people only rely on certain types of media nowadays - people that watch Fox only hear certain stories just as those who watch CNN get certain stories. And those people become convinced when they hear somebody say something that it must be true. Yet if they tried checking up on the facts they would probably be surprised.

Ironically, one of the funniest ways the republicans try to prove media bias is by quoting stories that they found in MSM publications!

Posted by: lightgrw | October 1, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

The reason the McCain campaign is railing against the media is they're asking questions people want to know. McCain has sheltered Palin, and now we know why (see Couric interviews). But it also comes from the fact that the man keeps changing positions and lying, and the media is simply filming the train wreck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Posted by: bernie11 | October 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse


FIXISTA, BEWARE: IS BIG BROTHER HACKING YOU?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/parallel-internet-big-brother-screening-censoring-political-blogs OR (if the link becomes disabled)
members.nowpublic.com/scrivener re: "The Parallel Internet..."

If links are disabled, please contact admins at nowpublic.com via their contact page or a post to one of their other blogs.

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

"...questions about...experience, knowledge and readiness..." -- Are we talking about Obama? I'm an independent voter...so sometimes I get confused! I like Palin’s straight talk...not a lot of stuttering I hear from Obama. Palin’s smart, articulate, comes from a hard working middle class background(therefore I know she is for the...you know, “middle class”), and yes, Governor Palin is in charge of the Alaskan National Guard. Hmmm! Imagine that!

Posted by: jdougherty1 | October 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

ca67klein wrote about a media analysis from James Hirsen that it was the editing by NBC and ABC that made Governor Palin look bad.

How to solve? Hmmm...maybe a press conference that would be run in its entirety with no editing by the entire media? Nope, the McCain campaign doesn't believe she's up to it.

Folks, it's not the media's fault. The media is here to stay, forever, with different media favoring conservative causes and others favoring progessive causes. So plan ahead.

Posted by: amaikovich | October 1, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Hey LABC:

Repeat after me: S-A-R-C-A-S-M.
The scariest people on earth, either on the right or the left, are the ones lacking a sense of humour.


Posted by: VMR1 | October 1, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Looks like we've got Popeye and Ellie Mae running here;

Popeye:
Bulging right eye
Sailor
Droopy Jowls
Slurred, stroke-like speech

Ellie Mae:
No passport
Thinks she can see Russia from Wasilla (news flash - she can't)
Finds in-house electricity and running water fascinating

For those of you two young to remember, Popeye is a cartoon character who ate spinach and started fights. Ellie Mae was the somewhat attractive hillbilly daughter on 'the Beverly Hillbillies' in black&white.

Posted by: FivePlaneMcCain | October 1, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

How about acknowledging the bias in the mainstream press? When is the last time a Presidential or Vice-Presidential debate was hosted by a conservative?? Republicans are expected to accept that journalists like Gwen Ifill and Chris Matthews are un-biased? Please. But an interview on FOX is viewed by Democrats as a deal-breaker. Dem politicians are the real wusses.

Posted by: nwcanadian | October 1, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: MerrillFrank | October 1, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Forget about the "gotcha" or didn't "gotcha" moments. The McCain campaign itself has shown absolutely no confidence in Governor Palin, hiding her from everyone the entire campaign.

Is that any way to run an election for the highest office in the land? Really, even McCain supporters should demand more.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows she's not qualified for the position. However, she's not totally incompetent as the McCain campaign would have us believe.

Posted by: amaikovich | October 1, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Sarah is not qualified to be Vice President. I suspect after she built the road to nowhere for $8 million a mile that many Alaskans are wondering if she is qualified to be Governor of Alaska.

What bothers me about politicans in general is they don't seem to know the basic principles of foreign policy: balance of power, nature abhors a vacuum, and the enemy of my enemy might make a good friend. These are basic concepts that any high school teacher of modern european history knows.

Politicans don't have master degrees in government or modern european history military tactics. Most of them certainly don't have master's degrees in economics. Most are lawyers, some are very bright some aren't.

The qualifications that get them into the game don't qualify them for governance. Yet the fiction inherent in the political game forces people to have a thick skin. But usually very bright people are thin skinned. So how do we fix this? That's the important question. Sure Palin isn't qualified. Perhaps McCain isn't either - but how do we get better candidates?

Posted by: agapn9 | October 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

In the end, voters will decide based upon who they think is authentic and who they trust. Hard-line Dems don't care if Biden gaffes up a storm, if they think he's those things, they'll vote his ticket. Ditto Palin. If voters believe she is a person who shares their values and has integrity, they'll vote for her ticket. Voters have blinders. They disregard anything that doesn't fit their perception of their candidate and overhype the perceived downsides of the opponent. People really don't listen to or inform themselves about ALL the facts, regardless of party affiliation. It's the spin that whips voters into a partisan frenzy.

Posted by: nwcanadian | October 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Famous hillbilly women in history:

Ellie Mae
Tammy Faye Baker
Lyndie England
Sarah Palin

My favorite was Ellie Mae from the original Beverly Hillbillies.

Posted by: FivePlaneMcCain | October 1, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Cilliza, ethics-challenged journalist and Republican hater:

You write:

"Blaming the media has been a tried and true Republican tactic to rally their base, and -- judging from the derogatory chants of "NBC! NBC!" at the Republican National Convention it has worked like a charm. (Democrats are not immune from this strategy either, as they have learned in recent years that the press makes a convenient scapegoat.)"

Can you distinguish between a tactic and the truth? If so, what are your criteria? I do not believe that Republican criticims of the media, especially including yourself, are tactics; rather, they are claims to truth that should be evalutated as such.

When Governor Palin submitted to questioning from the MSM she was shocked to find that she faced THE SPANISH INQUISITION. This fact is quite easily proved. The first question from that buffoon Gibson was "Are you qualified for this job?" No such question has been asked of another vp candidate. Are you reading Mr. Cilliza? I doubt it. But, if you are, I have just introduced a standard for judging MSM folk who interview vp candidates. The standard is very simple: do not dive to the lowest common denominator with a question that would never be asked of another vp candidate?

Turning to Mz. Kouric, she asked Palin for evidence that McCain favored regulation of Fannie and Freddie and other such. Ms. Palin cited McCain's efforts to pass bills that regulate Fannie/Freddie. Rather than respond to that point, Mz. Kouric asked "Do you have another example?" Mz. Kouric is not stupid. She knew that McCain's support for regulation of F/F was far more than any Democrat had dome. She should have discussed that matter. However, she covered the democrats by asking "Do you have another example," as if the number of examples is what is important when the question is conceptual. Clearly, Mz. Kouric is a shill for the Left. In endorsing her, you too are a shill for the Left. Aren't you ashamed of yourself. Is the money that you receive from your job worth surrendering all integrity?

Posted by: JohnMarshall1 | October 1, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

CBS Distorts Palin Interview

Monday, September 29, 2008 10:20 AM

By: James Hirsen Article Font Size

It is a tale of two con jobs.

As outlined in my previous column, ABC’s Charles Gibson interview of Sarah Palin was questionably edited. Now CBS has followed suit with the Katie Couric interview of the GOP vice presidential candidate.

A pattern of distortion has emerged. Both ABC and CBS cut answers by Palin; answers that would have indicated a more nuanced approach to foreign policy when it comes to the issue of multilateral diplomacy.

In the Couric interview, Palin answered a question that dealt with what the U.S. should do to convince Pakistan to take a harder line against terrorists.

“At a time when new leadership comes in, that is the opportunity to forge better, tighter, more productive relationships and that’s what we’ll take advantage of with new leadership in the U.S. and in Pakistan. And I’m sure that President Zardari, too, will agree with us as we commit to the support that Pakistan needs, that other nations in the region need, in order to win this war on terrorism,” Palin responded.

This question and answer were edited out.

Could it be that Palin’s response did not serve CBS’ desired post-interview spin?

When Couric inquired about the implementation of democracy in other parts of the world, Palin answered, “Well, one is that America cannot be counted on to do this solely, to be the savior of every other nation, but we need friends and we need allies, and we need this nation-building effort and we need to forge new alliances, and that is what a new election will provide opportunity to do.”

This response, too, was withheld from the public.

Could it be once again that CBS did not find the response to be consistent with the hawkish image of Palin that mainstream media are trying to cloak her with?

Similarly, Couric asked about instances when a democracy does not produce the desired outcome, such as in the election of Hamas.

“Especially in that region, though, we have got to protect those and support those who do seek democracy and do seek protections for the people who live there. And you know, we’re seeing today, in the last couple of days here in New York, a speaker, a president of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends — Israel — and we’re hearing the evil that he speaks. And if hearing him doesn’t allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will,” Palin responded.

“If Americans are not waking up to understand what it is that he represents, then nothing is going to wake us up and we will be lulled into some kind of false sense of security that perhaps Americans were a part of before 9/11,” she added.

Again CBS editors snipped away.

ABC News cut similar content from the Gibson interview. Intelligent, thoughtful, reasoned responses edited out? Beyond shameful, this represents the utter corruption of the Fourth Estate.

The New Media thankfully ride to the rescue.

In other media missteps, CBS, Katie Couric, and Barack Obama had to be corrected by famed diplomat Henry Kissinger.

Kissinger released a short statement that was intended to clear up some false representations made about something he had allegedly said.

During the Couric-Palin interviews, Couric asked the following question of Sarah Palin: “You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?”

Palin answered, with respect to Ahmadinejad, “You can't just sit down with him with no preconditions being met.”

Couric claimed that negotiating with Iran without preconditions was Kissinger’s position.

When the interview ended, Couric told her audience, “Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview.” She repeated that Kissinger supports talks “without preconditions.”

Is it possible that CBS and the Obama campaign are communicating?

During the first presidential debate, Obama claimed that Kissinger “along with five recent secretaries of state just said we should meet with Iran, guess what, without preconditions.”

John McCain shot back, “Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve a face-to-face meeting [with Ahmadinejad]. He did say there could be secretary and lower level meetings.”

Kissinger later weighed in, saying, “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next president of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend, Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”

I think that, without preconditions, CBS, Couric, and Obama should engage in talks with a make-up artist on how to get the egg off their faces.


James Hirsen, J.D., M.A. in Media Psychology, is a media analyst, teacher of mass media and entertainment law at Biola University and professor at Trinity Law School.


Posted by: ca67klein | October 1, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Rush_is_Right - Actually Rush is not right. Like everything he says, he is wrong.

As for you, try having an original thought. Publishing Republicretin talking points and Rush Limbaugh's latest rant is not really adding anything to the dialogue.

Think for yourself, you might like it. It will hurt at first since you are not used to it, but push through the pain!

You know what they call a Republican that can think for themselves? A Democrat.

Posted by: xconservative | October 1, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

To scrivener50:

"could...could....could...could"?

Wake up, man. It HAS happened a long time ago. Where've you been? In college, writing papers on the nonsense they stuff into you
through the social science curricula?

Posted by: VMR1 | October 1, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"Palin's recent condemnations of the press are part of a broader war against the media by the McCain campaign."

It's bigger than that. There are reports on line of a study done at Georgia State University. People who identified themselves as "politically conservative", when told a lie that they believed, believed the lie even more strongly after it was refuted. So...tell them a lie, let the press refute it, and they will believe it more strongly. As in "Obama will raise your taxes", "Obama is a Muslim", etc.

Posted by: dr11 | October 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I have been posting in the last few days this message hoping that journalists, the McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden staff read it:

As an Independent voter, I still have not made a decision who I will vote for U.S. President. I am concerned about Senator Obama’s lack of participation in the Senate, his willingness to continue campaigning rather than attending a hearing which is really part of his job description, and the most important his willingness to talk without conditions to megalomaniac and thug leaders who hate us. (e.g. Rev. Jesse Jackson's and others of that team visits with Hugo Chavez.

Similarly, I am terribly concerned about Sarah Palin’s hunting. If the McCain/Palin ticket were to win how the new generation and children would feel about animal rights if they watch Sarah Palin hunting as a sports game. Perhaps, if the McCain/Palin staff would watch the webcast of Animal & Religion conducted on this date at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC they can understand what animal rights are all about.

Please watch the Sunday Forum with guest Wayne Pacelle
http://www.cathedral.org/cathedral/

Thus, my general thoughts are: I like Senator McCain, but worry about his temper. I liked Gov. Palin until I learnt about her hunting passion. If the hunting is stopped, and animal rights are enforced then Gov. Palin will be ok (so far). I am worried sick about Senator Obama friendliness with deranged leaders who hate us, and I really like Senator Biden.

My blog is: http://maruangarita.blogspot.com/


Posted by: MaruAngarita | October 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Moosedresser:

I speak of the newsroom, not the op-ed department. They are separate. Regardless, the op-ed pages of any newspaper should be about 50-50 between liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning voices, shouldn't it, to reflect the country as a whole? But the vast majority aren't even close to that.

Posted by: justthefacts08 | October 1, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I am pretty sure she is from Stepford.

That joint interview with McCain was visually awful -- it looked like she went and got dad to scold the playground bully.

Posted by: MShake | October 1, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Hey LABC,

You said it wrong. It should be;

Iya-all Giiiyt ba-yack tew Yah.

Posted by: FivePlaneMcCain | October 1, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Well Chris, looking at the views held of Palin, Biden, and Obama I can only conclude that Plain is the devil and Biden and Obama are God's chosen.

Obama and Biden have not erred in the past two weeks, or if they have you and the rest of the MSM have ran interference for them.

How about a front page story about the Dems loading the bailout bill with some funding for ACORN?

Posted by: 5280sail | October 1, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse
**************************************
Oh my, ACORN. How terrible!!!
Look, if Obama as much as farted in public, FOX would do a half hour special on it. MSN would not have to run interfereance. Look, face facts, Palin is not qualified to be VP. Don't you give a damm about the country? Why do you continue to support this person?

Posted by: sherardg | October 1, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Blaming the press.

Well, I've just come from the RCP polls and it looks like that strategy (or is it a tactic?) is not working - but hey - YOUR EXPERT ROVE KNOWS ALL.

Avoid the issues, offer no plans, blame the press and 'media elite', act stupid, be condescending to the black dude, shove your wierdo religion down everybody's throat.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Posted by: FivePlaneMcCain | October 1, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

To put it nicely, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken manure.

Posted by: alvin12 | October 1, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Scary stuff, ain't it?
Posted by: VMR1
**************************
Did the doctor use those words at your birth?

Here's a riddle for you 1+1= what? a) your I.Q. b) 2 c) both d) I'll get back to ya on that!

Posted by: LABC | October 1, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

How, exactly, does the act of asking relatively simple policy questions of a vice-presidential candidate constitute "gotcha" journalism? The fact that Palin was unable to answer the questions does not make the questions unfair--it just demonstrates that Palin is unqualified to be vice-president.

Posted by: joemomma3 | October 1, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Palin's war on the press? That's akin to calling the 1941-45 unpleasantness between Washington and Tokyo as "America's war on Japan." Who can blame her for being wary of swimming with the piranhas of the press -- especially the insular press based in Manhattan?

Posted by: bsanchez1 | October 1, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

The current congress are out of touch with the people. She may not be knowledgeable about foreign policy, but she knows what an average American went through. She can get things done. As a governor of Alaska, she's a no nonsense person and tough. She knows what people want and fought for them and not afraid of making a few enemies in the process. That is what we need in Washington, D.C. Even with all those craps and lies the media and the liberals has thrown at her, she has remain strong. I am proud to have Sarah Palin represent our country.

As for the knowledge thing, she can pick things up quickly. (Think: Senator Obama has 500+ advisors!)

Governor Sarah Palin - please continue to be yourself. We love you the way you are :-)

Posted by: lynnL123 | October 1, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

THE PALIN SELECTION AND THE DIMINUTION OF DEMOCRACY:
IS A SILENT COUP HAPPENING IN THE U.S.A?


• Could the Palin Phenomenon be a symptom of a seismic power grab that is transforming our government?

• Is the Palin selection part of a larger plan to seize control of the Executive Branch and make it beholden to another set of decision-makers -- unelected, entrenched, and in charge of the forces of power and control?

• Could the federal takeover of more than half of the mortgage market via the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout -- and now, a proposed $700 billion taxpayer bailout of Wall Street -- signal a turn toward autocratic control of the economy by hard-right conservatives who comprise the corporate/military/security complex -- what Eisenhower in his farewell address called the "military-industrial complex"?

• Could this seizure of economic control further the interests of those who are using government policy as "social engineering" to neutralize political opposition and transform society to suit their far-right ideology?

• Could this plan dovetail with reports from a Dutch newspaper recently that the U.S. is planning to strike Iran's nuclear facilities; and an Army Times report about the first-ever domestic deployment of U.S. troops to handle possible civil disturbances -- an apparent violation of the 130-year-old Posse Comitatus Act?

• Could the fruition of the "Help America Vote Act" -- the widespread use of electronic voting machines, the vast majority of which leave no voter-verified paper trail -- also be part of this mosaic?

• Could John McCain's vacillations on the vice president issue and his eventual acquiescence to those who recommended Palin be part of a skillful campaign to influence and oversee his decision-making?

• Are we in the midst of a silent coup that is resulting in the loss of personal freedom via the extra-legal targeting of American citizens in an unconstitutional bypass of the judicial system, a denial of due process under the law?

• And is this power grab resulting in the emasculation of both Congress and the Judiciary, rendering those institutions little more than symbols of power, when in fact power has been quietly usurped by unelected officials of entrenched institutions of power and control?

• Is anyone -- in the media, in Congress, in think tanks, in academia -- pondering these questions?

• If not, can we afford not to be asking these questions?

http://www.theocracywatch.org
http://www.members.nowpublic.com/scrivener - "Gov't Agencies Support Domestic Terrorism"

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 1, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse


bsimon1: They had to endorse SOMEONE in the Republican primary. What were they going to do, back Huckabee? As for Giuliani, the Times wouldn't endorse him for dog catcher, much less president.
I have spent 30 years in the Northeast news media. The vast majority of reporters and editors are Democrats, plain and simple. Most try to submerge their bias, but they often fail. (You should see editors struggle to be fair at news planning meetings.) Some simply cannot hide their contempt for Republicans.
Republican, should you ever be interviewed by a reporter on a political matter, I suggest you just ask them up front: Are you a Democrat? If the interview continues, the tone of the questions, at least, may become more balanced.

Posted by: justthefacts08 | October 1, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

I hate to resort to name-calling in what is supposed to be a discussion of a critical issue but, anyone who still supports Sarah Palin for Vice President is an idiot and a traitor to your country.

I would like someone to give me a specific example of a "gotcha" question that has been put to Gov. Palin by Katie Couric, or any other reporter, or voter, during this campaign. In fact, I would like someone to give me their definition of a "gotcha" question. Because, to me, a "gotcha" question is one that is framed in such a way that there is no good answer, or one that is intentionally so off-topic and unrelated to the interviewee's experience that it is unlikely that a good answer can be given.

I want -- no, I demand -- that someone give me, right here and now, one example of such a question that has been put to Gov. Palin at any time, by anyone, during this campaign.

How is asking the Governor to clarify her stated position that living in Alaska gives here sufficient insight into foreign affairs? Since Ms. Palin has stated that she has read extensively over the years to gain a greater world view, how is it inappropriate to ask her to give us a few examples of her reading material?

I demand one example of an inappropriate question put to the Governor. And I further demand a full explanation of your objections to the question. If you cannot comply, and you still support this woman for election to an office where it is more than just a little likely that she will end-up President of the United States at one of the most critical times in this Nation's history, then I submit to you that you are putting partisan politics ahead of the safety, health, and even reputation of this great country. In short, you are a traitor.

Kevin Olson
Manassas, VA

Posted by: noslok | October 1, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Well Chris, looking at the views held of Palin, Biden, and Obama I can only conclude that Plain is the devil and Biden and Obama are God's chosen.

Obama and Biden have not erred in the past two weeks, or if they have you and the rest of the MSM have ran interference for them.

How about a front page story about the Dems loading the bailout bill with some funding for ACORN?

Posted by: 5280sail | October 1, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

justthefacts08 writes: "The New York Times is deeply biased against McCain-Palin, at all levels of the organization.What percentage of the Times' editorial staff are Republicans? Perhaps 2 percent at best. How many Times staffers will vote for McCain? Single digits, most likely....That is a fact, and it's evident in the paper's coverage every day."

Would justthefacts08 like to provide the FACTS to justify this ridiculous bit of conjecture which he/she has spewed? On the Op-Ed page alone, at least 25% of the writers are patently -- and in the case of one (Kristol) insanely -- right wing.

Posted by: Moosedresser | October 1, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

The question: "What newspapers do you read?"

How in the world can that be a "gotcha" question?

Posted by: cfow1 | October 1, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Wow, Obama also drew a +15 in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Sad, she can't even stick up for herself. Margaret Thatcher she is not! At least Geraldine Ferraro had the guts it took to compete.

Posted by: tculver | October 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

This isn't the media playing gotcha with Gomer Palin - it's the media doing the vetting that the lazy McCain camp didn't bother with.

McSame/Quaylin are dropping like stones in the polls. At least they'll get Alaska's three electoral votes (but hey, that's more than most countries have, right?).

Posted by: bondjedi | October 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Here's a bone to chew on for the McCain/PAlin supporters on these blogs.

Isn't it very telling that when you consider names "Obama" and "Biden" it is as if they were constructed or derived from "Osama" and "Bin Laden"?
You just change one letter in his first name, and remove 2nd 3d and 4th letters from his last name - you get Obama and Biden. Also, if you add 2+3+4 you get 9. As in "9/11". Scary stuff, ain't it?
Posted by: VMR1 | October 1, 2008 10:20 A
****************************************
Yeah, just like McCain rhymes with Hussain>

Posted by: sherardg | October 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

The qualifications for President and Vice President are very few: age requirement and birthplace. Anyone can run for political office with the required qualifications. It is up to the voters to decide things along experience lines.

For me Obama has proved that he has the experience that is most needed to lead our country in this time. His experience? He has become an accomplished orator and has the gift of delivering uplifting and motivational speeches. His attitude toward people has been on display for many months. He is compassionate, understanding, diplomatic, intelligent, insightful, and humble. He knows that behind what we call government and media are people, people like you and me. Republicans treat government and media like inanimate objects and therefore subject them to all sorts of mistreatment. For Obama and for people like me, government and media are made up of people just like me, people who want to do a good job. Our U.S. Consitution says that our government is of, by, and for the people. What makes us so different from all of the other people in the world is our free press and our democratic republic form of government. There is a proper place for government and the press. To vote people into office who detest government and/or the media is to put people in positions who will ultimately try to prove that government and the free press are incompetent. "W" has proved this by being as incompetent as the government that he heads. I am thankful that there still may be a dedicated group of competent career government workers remaining when Bush leaves office that will be challenged again to work for the people of this wonderful country. Bush has just about destroyed the government as we know it with the extreme politicizing of every department, even the intelligence branches.

Let the right scream about the press. For me, I want my liberty and freedom. I can assure these by having a free press.

Posted by: EarlC | October 1, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

She seems a little delusional (people are attacking her unfairly vs. she is not experienced or knowledgeable about certain things) which scares me as we have 8 years of someone who was completely delusional and out or touch with reality.

Posted by: qwerqwer1 | October 1, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Dear Rush_is_Right

You say "only he/she has wisdom, everyone who doesn’t agree is an idiot, and they waste no opportunity to let the world know it. The liberal is never wrong, always knows what is best for everyone else, and is blind to their own hypocrisy".

Can't you say the same for the Neo-Cons? You put your religious beliefs ahead of the good of the country arguing Palin's religious beliefs supercedes all other issues?

Posted by: sherardg | October 1, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Here's a bone to chew on for the McCain/PAlin supporters on these blogs.

Isn't it very telling that when you consider names "Obama" and "Biden" it is as if they were constructed or derived from "Osama" and "Bin Laden"?
You just change one letter in his first name, and remove 2nd 3d and 4th letters from his last name - you get Obama and Biden. Also, if you add 2+3+4 you get 9. As in "9/11". Scary stuff, ain't it?


Posted by: VMR1 | October 1, 2008 10:20 AM
----------------------------------------
What are you a fuukin retard? The only scary stuff is YOU! Keep this up and we'll put your azz on that little island in Alaska that can see Russia!

Posted by: gabbamonkey | October 1, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

"In light of this, shouldn't the GOP base be insulted?"

Um, the GOP base are idiots.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin radio interview yesterday (9/30/08):

SP: "Oh, I think they’re just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying you know what? It’s time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that’s kind of taken some people off guard, and they’re out of sorts, and they’re ticked off about it."

What if a black VP candidate had said the equivalent, "It's time that a normal "Bro from the Hood" is finally represented in the position of vice presidency?"

What do you think the reaction might be? White privilege, perhaps.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

"Joe Six-Pack" as VP and possibly as the next President... I was hoping for a bit more this time.

I thought we just tried that and it didn't quite work out... George W Bush.

I can see the bumper stickers now... "Joe Six-Pack for President"

Heck, just shoot from the hip! Ready, fire, aim!

Who needs education and experience, that's for Elites and Liberals, not Joe Six-Pack!

Go, Joe, go!

Posted by: BusterJMorris | October 1, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Here's a bone to chew on for the McCain/PAlin supporters on these blogs.

Isn't it very telling that when you consider names "Obama" and "Biden" it is as if they were constructed or derived from "Osama" and "Bin Laden"?
You just change one letter in his first name, and remove 2nd 3d and 4th letters from his last name - you get Obama and Biden. Also, if you add 2+3+4 you get 9. As in "9/11". Scary stuff, ain't it?


Posted by: VMR1 | October 1, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Ok so let me get this straight, a Temple university student ask's Palin if she would go into Pakistan to get Bin laden if we had him in our sites and she says "YES" so now he's playing gotcha journalism? Katie Couric asks her about ANY other Supreme Court decision and she can't come up with ONE, so Katie Couric is playing gotcha journalism. Charles Gibson asks her about the Bush doctrine, SHE HAS NO CLUE so now Charles Gibson is playing gotcha journalism? NO MRS. PLAIN PALIN, WE GOTCHA! YOU DON'T KNOW SHIIIT!

Posted by: gabbamonkey | October 1, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I haven't bothered to post here for months because I got disgusted with how low the level of discourse had sunk with right and left wing partisans hurling insults and absurd caricatures of each others' positions. However, as an independent moderate and wavering McCain supporter, I have to say that Governor Palin is breathtakingly unqualified to be an elderly man's heartbeat away from the presidency. I read the transcript of the Couric interview on foreign policy and thought, at first, it was a Saturday Night Live sketch. She was positively incoherent. How can anyone make the argument that proximity to Russia and Canada counts as foreign policy experience. How would the self proclaimed national security party react if a Democratic VP candidate tried to sell such proximity as foreign policy credentials? What would Rush and the right wing echo chamber be braying about? When Bill Clinton first ran, he was ridiculed by the right as governor of a small state and therefore unqualified to be president. Whatever his personal shortcomings and policy positions, no one can seriously argue that he wasn't well grounded on the issues. Palin is governor of the state with an even much smaller population and had only served a fraction of the time in that office that Clinton had.

Posted by: jimd52 | October 1, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Well, RCP.com has Obama taking the lead in Ohio and Florida now. Obama drew a +8 in both of those states.

Of course, this is probably just an example of the voters' liberal bias.

This could become embarrassing, especially since McCain has decided to throw his reputation into the gutter.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 1, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

yep

Posted by: noslok | October 1, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

At this stage, the McCain/Palin press war isn't going to work.

People don't care if a candidate thinks they're being treated "unfairly". The McCain campaign is running the same kind of strategy Bush ran in 2004: attack the media for bias, paint your opponent as an out of touch elitist who can't keep us safe and wants to raise everybody's taxes.

The problem is: nobody cares about that strategy now. First, we've seen it before, and the Democrats know how to counter. Second, there is an overriding issue that drowns out any kind of identity tactics: the economy.

As of now, with no toss-up states, Obama would crush McCain in the electoral college, 348-190 (RCP). Short of a game-changing October Surprise, there's virtually no way McCain can recover, especially with Obama solidifying his position in MI and PA, and McCain's collapse in OH, VA, and FL.

There's a reason why McCain is in free fall: it's the economy, stupid.

Posted by: cam8 | October 1, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

So Palin playing the press is meant to keep the base behind her, and thus in open support of McCain. However, she has been so vapid in interviews that it is clear to any reasonable person that she lacks even a rudimentary grasp of the most basic policy issues and current events. Some prominent, well respected conservatives have jumped ship on her (Will and Frum weeks ago, and others in the past week) in response to her display of profoundly cocky ignorance.

In light of this, shouldn't the GOP base be insulted? McCain went out and picked the most uninformed, least capable conservative mind he could find and stuck her on the ticket. She is so fundamentally unprepared to lead that she will have zero role in a McCain Administration. McCain picked her to get votes, knowing full well she's too incapable of getting in his way when governing. He did this so that the Right Wing will also have zero role in his administration.

McCain is such a loose cannon that he doesn't even want a qualified voice of reason in government with him.

Posted by: hiberniantears | October 1, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

The simple but unfortunate truth is that Governor Palin has been incoherent in many ways when she has been questioned by Ms. Couric and Mr. Gibson. That is not the fault of "the press". Her level of coherence is something she has to own and be accountable for.

Funny, in the "old days" conservatives believed that people should be independent and accountable. I was a staunch supporter of Republicans who (at least seemed) to stand by those values. However, these jokers on the far right are not the traditional conservatives I used to know. In fact, given their penchant for increasing the size of government and legislating to tell people how to run their private affairs they are better called right wing liberals.

I don't like the left-wing, but these right wing neocons are destroying this country's economy and our standing in the world. Hopefully they will get the thrashing they deserve in this election cycle, right-minded conservatives can re-take control of the Republican party and we can be rid of the pox that is the neocon agenda.

Posted by: scott032 | October 1, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

I would like to ask "Joe Sixpack" Palin what her favorite beer is. I would also like to know how her self proclaimed alcohol use reconciles with the official position of the Assembly of God against the consumption of alcohol because of its Satanic nature.

Posted by: clarkw | October 1, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Dear Sherardg—
In the big tent of republicanism, there are all kinds of agendas. Most of the criticisms against Palin are based upon a fundamental disagreement in what she believes, not so much in her experience levels. To the liberal, only he/she has wisdom, everyone who doesn’t agree is an idiot, and they waste no opportunity to let the world know it. The liberal is never wrong, always knows what is best for everyone else, and is blind to their own hypocrisy.
No candidate and VP has ever had 100% backing, so those republicans coming out against Palin don’t concern me and there are often 2nd guessers who offer their inspired opinions. So what? I can find many Democrats who oppose Obama, would you accept that as proof that he should go? In our democracy, we vote as we want, regardless of the label. To date, no candidate captures my every preference, but given the huge deficiencies of the liberal political movement, it will destroy our country the way it has already damaged our current economy so I will vote against socialism/liberalism every time. Sadly, there is no real conservative on the ticket except perhaps Palin. That’s not ignorance; that is making the best of what we have been offered! Obama will oppose conservative policies, seeking to reshape the country in ways most don’t want. That is the most significant reason I oppose him.


Those who really oppose her are anti-republican or anti-evangelical, and wouldn't vote for her ticket regardless of her experience level.
Posted by: Rush_is_Right | October 1, 2008 9:36 AM
************************************
Man, are you really that ignorant? Don't you think some republicans who really care for the country are opposed to this VP candidate too?

Posted by: Rush_is_Right | October 1, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

justthefacts08 writes
"The New York Times is deeply biased against McCain-Palin, at all levels of the organization."

'just the facts' - are you aware of the fact that the NYT endorsed McCain in the Republican primary earlier this year? At least one level of the organization - the editorial board - thought he was the best Republican candidate. Please note that at the time he was running against former New York City mayor Rudy Giulianni.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

bravetruth wrote: "I can never figure out (and probably never will) understand why all Hollywood types are stooges for the Democratic party?? Can some one explain this to me?"

Charlton Heston, Mel Gibson, Tom Selleck, James Woods, Patricia Heaton, Andy Garcia, Gary Sinise, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chuck Norris, LL Cool J, Freddie Prinze Jr., Sarah Michelle Gellar, Dennis Miller, Denzel Washington, Robert Duvall, Catherine Bell, Danny Aiello, James Earl Jones, Ron Silver, Kelsey Grammer, Morgan Brittany, Ben Stein, Pat Boone, Kathy Ireland, Rick Schroeder and Bo Derek to name a few hollywood stars that show why your logic is more than a little flawed.

Stop listening to Fox News and living in their paranoid alternate reality where everyone is against you. The real world is safe and a lot less threatening than they would lead you to believe.

Posted by: bevjims1 | October 1, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

To bevjims1 - So everything Rush_is_Right says to support Palin totally debunks McCain's argument about his foreign policy experience. Its' all about common sense and judgment. Score one for Sen. Obama.

Posted by: pstimus | October 1, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

peeeuuu Palin is a complete waste and joke of any type of candidate and is outright pathetic....

Looking foolish when she does not know the Bush Doctrine, or other Supreme Court cases, or talking non-sensical gibberish about "Putins' head" going over Russia...et cetera.....

Let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin...WHAT???

Will it be heard at John McCaint's ranch near Sedona, Ariz.?

peeeuuu is cloistered there with the senator's chief wordsmith and strategist getting prepped for Thursday night's debate, with Joe the Shark....

Unleashing peeeuuu Palin would create yet another chance to shake up the race, after McCaint's return-to-Washington stupidity her performance on Thursday could be mind numbingly awful...

McCaint may be looking at the last time she spoke freely, in Juneau to a New Yorker reporter a few days before being tapped as running mate.

The subject was Alaska's program to gun down wolves from airplanes.

Wolves kill moose and elk. If wolf populations are diminished, there will be more elk and moose for Alaskans to kill.

Palin approved paying a $150 bounty to hunters who blow away wolves from planes in certain parts of the state.

They would need to chop off the left foreleg and supply it as proof.

A judge halted the bounty program, but not the hunt.

"It's not aerial hunting," Palin insisted. "It's predator control."

Uh.....WHAT???

A lot of people would call it barbarism. And a lot of people are beginning to worry about peeeuuu Palin's vendetta-filled record, as well as her ability to take over if the 72-year-old McCain should die or become incapacitated..

Although carefully scripted, peeeuuu Palin had a rousing entrance to the national stage at the GOP Convention.

The huffy reaction of feminist pundits seemed only to fortify favorable ratings for the "pit bull with lipstick"

An ABC News/Washington Post poll, on Sept. 7, found 58 percent of voters surveyed had a favorable view of peeeuuu Palin, compared to just 28 percent who reacted unfavorably.

Two weeks later, in the same poll, upbeat opinions had fallen to 52 percent, while negative impressions were up to 38 percent.

Favorable opinions among women had fallen to 43 percent.

peeeuuu Palin has been shut off from local news interviews and pulled off of fundraisers, including a lavish Hunts Point event a week ago.

Questions were verboten when Dr. Henry Kissinger tutored her in foreign policy. Even Fox News complained....WHAT??

The result was peeeuuu Palin's deer-caught-in-the-headlights performance under the eye of CBS.

Try to decipher the response from peeeuuu Palin after Couric asked how she felt about the $700 billion Wall Street rescue passage:

"But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the -- oh, it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track.

"So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is part of that."

Absolute gibberish coming from this pathetic vp candidate of McCaint and his laughable campaign...

Does this answer give confidence in, as the vice presidential nominee called it, a "peeeuuu Palin-McCaint administration?"

Obviously, peeeuuu Palin has been overmatched and over coached.

She gave an almost unintelligible answer about Russia and muddled through the Middle East.

Delivering bromides about democracy, Palin was obviously unaware that the militant Hamas won the Palestinian election.

The history of debates shows there is danger in assuming you know more than your foe.

Al Gore, in 2000, sighed during George Bush's answers and made a lumbering physical approach to his opponent.

The verdict across America, and in the Snohomish home where I watched, had Gore winning but Bush the more likable person.

And last Friday, McCaint behaved with condescension toward Obama, preceded his answers with demeaning remarks about the Democrat and refused to look at him.

Post-debate polls showed Obama the clear winner.

So if peeeuuu Palin looks good but sounds stupid, Biden had better not laugh or he'll be made to look insensitive.....to her stupidity....

"Thanks but no thanks to the lies that bridge America to nowhere..."

Posted by: AlexP1 | October 1, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ericmiami42
"First Bush, now Palin. How much lower can America sink?"


Knowing something about the history of the 20th century, I realized a while ago that the epic ideological battle between the USA and USSR had defined both countries so completely - in political, social, military, technological, and economic terms - that in a very weird way one was the crutch for the other. A Yin and Yang of sorts.

When the USSR collapsed in 1992-93, I said that America is next, for it just lost its
crutch, its raison d'etre and its soul, as it were, of the previous 50 years. Here we are, 15 years later, sinking "lower than Bush".

Could Osama bin Laden have contemplated that his terrorist act of destroying several buildings and killing 3,000 people would have this much of a destructive effect upon one of the largest and most powerful nations in the world?

Had he seen and understood the process of American entropy? Had he figured out Americans better than they do themselves?
Or was he just lucky?

Posted by: VMR1 | October 1, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Since Palin believes that the media has inappropriately played "gotcha" with her, and that what's been asked of her is "stump the candidate", "pop quizzes", and "taking shots" at her, I propose the next interview of Palin consist of the following: Put a camera on her, have the interviewer say one thing: ok, start talking. Let Palin know the camera will roll for 45 minutes, and she can talk about anything she wants. No questions of her. If she concludes early, the camera will stay on, and viewers will see the whole 45 minutes. No prepared remarks or speeches allowed. Impromptu, give us your thoughts, Sarah Palin.

Posted by: hitpoints | October 1, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"The issue for Palin (and McCain) is whether simply blaming the press for the problems that have arisen in her candidacy -- questions about her experience, knowledge and readiness -- will be persuasive to independent voters and those who remain undecided in the race."

McCain's problem, all along, has been the need to both rally the base and attract swing voters. Clearly the Palin pick rallied the base, but they've been losing the swing voters. The McCain campaign has been relying on his reputation as a maverick, but it seems the voters aren't buying it anymore - or they're reevaluating what kind of judgement he has. Blaming the press isn't going to attract or reassure swing voters. Gov Palin has to demonstrate at least a base level of familiarity & understanding of the issues our country faces at the national level in order to disprove the media narrative that she's a lightweight.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 1, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

sherardg: Thanks for the advice. I will certainly stop "whinning." And thanks for breaking the news about the secret "Iran" invasion. Haven't seen that reported in the media yet.

Posted by: justthefacts08 | October 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin seems like a nice enough person, but nice isn't enough. My mother is super nice, educated, has leadership experience in her community and is a devout Christian - but that doesn't make her qualified to Vice-President.

Posted by: wildlaurel | October 1, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

After reading a few more blogs, I'll agree with some of the observations regarding Palin.

Actually, Palin and McCain are a good match. They both have big egos, both complain about the press, both are liars, and both put self first.

Actually, the mainstream media have been very kind to both McCain and Palin when one considers the major gaffs that they have made. Remember, people, the press does not force them to tell lies or to make the gaffs. The press reports what they see and hear. Fortunately, we now have video versions of events with live sound. In this way we can hear the voice, the tone, and so forth. When we see the events in this way, there is no editorializing. If you see it on CSPAN, there is no editing.

It is unfortunate that when people see someone they like being a complete idiot, it is easy to blame the messenger. However, thanks to the media for being our eyes and ears. I am sorry when your political champion is portrayed in a bad light. It happens to all sooner or later.

It is just that the right wingers like to pounce all over the media when their people do poorly or do bad things. The religious right is hardly religious when one sees them pounce. James Dobson comes to mind.

Posted by: EarlC | October 1, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Those who really oppose her are anti-republican or anti-evangelical, and wouldn't vote for her ticket regardless of her experience level.

----------------
Anti-republican? No. I would have voted for McCain if he hadn't gone yeller and picked Palin.

Anti-evangelical? D*mn straight! I don't want you talk-in-tongue, evolution-denying, history-ignorant types screwing up the Constitution.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

I'd like to know what Richard Lugar thinks of the Palin nomination. Ditto Olympia Snow and the other lady Senator from Maine. Also any other Republican office holders who can be considered moderates. Why not send a WaPo reporter to find out.

Posted by: rj2z | October 1, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

"She needs to show these undecideds -- particularly white, working class voters in places like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania -- why she and McCain are the better choice to represent their interests in Washington."

Once she's finished that task, convincing the folks who run the Large Hadron Collider that 1+1=3 should be a piece of cake.

Posted by: officermancuso | October 1, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Rush_is_Right wrote: "Regarding Sarah Palin, we all get it that she doesn't have "foreign policy experience"-- so what? Who honestly does?"

Sorry but some level of knowlege of the world is considered important. If not, anyone could claim they could be president. Being president brings many challenges and they involve much more than photo ops and giving speaches. Decisions need to be made, and Palin, with no knowlege of the world, will rely completely on others to make the decisions. Delegating all decision making is not what qualifies one to be president.

Rush_is_Right wrote: "The blow-hard politicians that get elected are not from the diplomatic corps of the state department, and they don't even really set the policies anyway."

Maybe not, but they should understand it since most are charged by the Constitution to declare war and advise on treaties.

Rush_is_Right wrote: "99% of foreign policy experience is pragmatic decision making and intelligence-based policy, not necessarily years of experience working a foreign desk."

Okay, what has Palin shown that gives you a belief she could make pragmatic decisions? Have you read what happened when the Creamery Board decided to close a dairy? Its a classic example of poor decision making that cost taxpayers and was forseen by many as a mistake, except Palin.

Rush_is_Right wrote: "To be honest, she hasn't made any gaffes that would take her out of the running."

Really? You must not have heard anything she has ever said. She lied about the bridge to nowhere. Ok, a lie is not a gaffe.

Rush_is_Right wrote: "Those who really oppose her are anti-republican or anti-evangelical, and wouldn't vote for her ticket regardless of her experience level."

Many "liberals" have expressed a liking of McCain, until he started flip flopping on his own 20 years of statements. As many say, McCain is no longer the McCain they thought they knew. And picking Palin is just remarkable considering all the other people who are so much more qualified that he could have picked. Even many republicans are disappointed. I would just counter what you said by saying that those who are pro-republican and pro-evangelical will vote for McCain/Palin no matter how dangerously unqualified Palin is.

Posted by: bevjims1 | October 1, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

bravetruth,

So are you saying the Apostles and early Christians WEREN'T socialists?

What's this "Dying for our sins" and breaking bread together amongst the apostles.

The free market model would be "everyone dies for him or herself!"

A lot of the early Christians actually existed in communal groups.

When I hear a so-called Christian railing against "socialism" -- I have little doubt that 2,000 years ago those same so-called Christians were EXACTLY the ones who were nailing Christ on the cross.

The so-called Christian right are the new Romans. They elevate the god of the marketplace to the level of a supreme deity!

Sarah Palin has become the Golden Calf of the so-called Christian right.

Posted by: JPRS | October 1, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

During the debate, Palin will be the master of one liners, when asked a question, the moderator should remain silent after she delivers them and let her fill it with gibberish.

Posted by: AverageJane | October 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Living in a "Fly-over" state has had a number of effects on many of us out here. We wake up with the same abilities and intelligence that those inside the beltway possess. We seem to choose to use and apply those similar gifts in a very different way. The exchange of ideas between friends, neighbors, and relatives occurs on a plane of civility that does not seem to exist in your anonymous postings. The hate, venom and bias ooze from the suppurative wounds that your surroundings have left on those whose feelings have been hurt. The overall numbers in your responses, indicate a strong bias against Ms. Palin. I like her, and personally feel that she is a better person and candidate than the other three. The purulence from your wounds, look to have poured forth, leaving only the hyper-immune free from the infectious negativity that plagues the readers/bloggers of the Washington Post. Perhaps we have stumbled onto something here. As I wrote this response, it occurred to me that the common exposure to this yet undiagnosed disease, is your reading and responding, puerile though it may be, to the Washington Post. Now that you are aware of what is likely to be the cause of your ailment, you are free to pursue a course that might relieve you from the obsessive negativity that has you in it's angry grip. Please take this as a "Get Well" card, and know that we understand what has happened to you and we pray for your recovery. With Love and Humility, Pembina

Posted by: Pembina | October 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Simply put, the "blame the media" approach is a ploy to avoid showing that Gov. Palin is woefully unprepared to be VP, let alone President of the United States. In choosing her, McCain and the Republicans revealed again their abysmal judgment -- we are now reaping the bitter fruits of that failed judgment. NO MORE!

Posted by: Thad2 | October 1, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

It is the same old game:

1. Unless you are for us, you are against us.

2. The "liberal" press is out to get us.

3. We are misquoted.

There are always enough of the "base" who will believe that any question is an invasion of Palin's "inegrity." So far, she has not been able to coherently prove that she could even answer the question of who is buried in Grant's Tomb.

One could really be angry about the McCain handlers pushing such an obviously unprepared nominee, but one can also feel how embarrassing this is to the candidate. It is pitiful display of American politics at its absolute worst.


Posted by: clgrafton24 | October 1, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Those who really oppose her are anti-republican or anti-evangelical, and wouldn't vote for her ticket regardless of her experience level.
Posted by: Rush_is_Right | October 1, 2008 9:36 AM
************************************
Man, are you really that ignorant? Don't you think some republicans who really care for the country are opposed to this VP candidate too?

Posted by: sherardg | October 1, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

If CowardlyLie is an example of Conservative thought in this country, then those people really need to go. I don't want Hitler's philosophy guiding this country.

Posted by: ViejitaDelOeste | October 1, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Palin wants to have it both ways - dish out the Republican propaganda in a cutesy style while at the same time complaining when there are further questions. She uses sexuality to promote what she's selling, then screams sexism in response to valid criticism.

She may win the anti-intellectual vote. She may win the racist vote. She may win the single-issue (God and guns) vote. But thinking Americans don't want a showgirl next in line to the most important job in the world.

Posted by: bamccampbell | October 1, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I find her interviews to date to be laughable. Not to be able to answer even simple questions like what she reads for her news is telling. Couric was very clear in her questions. Palin is just a smiling face who is obviously auditioning for a stand-up comedy routine. Her put-on speech with snide, sarcastic overtones does not relate to me. If I had talked the way she does at times, I would have had my face smacked.

I still cannot get over the comment she made about Putin flying over Alaska. I still want her to tell me when she thinks Putin may have flown over Alaska. The trip from Moscow to either DC or NYC does not come close to Alaska. Alaska may be a next-door neighbor to Russia, but the seat of Russian power is figuratively on the other side of the world from her.

Then I listened to an angry Bay Buchanan defending Palin against a few reserved comments from Jim Carville. Bay Buchanan almost blew a gasket. She was downright rude. I guess when you have to defend Sarah Palin and her inane comments, it is easy to turn nasty.

Posted by: EarlC | October 1, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Just because you're getting bad press doesn't mean the press is bad!

This gotcha journalism isn't about embarassing her, it's about trying to get an understanding of her (as she loves to put it) "world view", and whether she knows enough about the issues as the second in line after the president. This is a woman who comes out of nowhere and is thrust on the center stage all of a sudden, so naturally we want to know why she's the right candidate, what she can bring to the table. Unless she gives us reasons to trust her with the position she is running for, why would we do it based on her silence?

Posted by: lmochagirl | October 1, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

The more I see of Palin the more she comes across as a ferociously mean-spirited, nakedly ambitious, corrupt, uninformed, pathologically manipulative sociopath. She honestly frightens me.

Posted by: nvamikeyo | October 1, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

I've become exhausted reading and writting about Palin. I can now contract it into a couple of thouhts. The 'Barbie Doll' is unfit for the job. John McCain can no longer claim 'country first' after putting the entire country at risk to forward his failing career. That's enough for thinking people, the rest are hopeless.

Posted by: kaycwagner | October 1, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

The more I see of Palin the more she comes across as a ferociously mean-spirited, nakedly ambitious, corrupt, uninformed, pathologically manipulative sociopath. She honestly frightens me.

Posted by: nvamikeyo | October 1, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

I can never figure out (and probably never will) understand why all Hollywood types are stooges for the Democratic party??
Can some one explain this to me?

Let me try without upsetting the rabid counterposters: there's a very small (2%) ethnic group that controls the media. They are predominantly socialist and hate everything Christian and republican (the majority). Not the best situation for a 'democracy'. They were the first to complain about minority rule in South Africa. Lorne Michaels (SNL producer) is a member. Understand? Gee why don't we hear more about that?

Posted by: bravetruth | October 1, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

hrow wrote: "Oh come on. Is it possible that you at the Washington Post don't know what a team of snipers you are?"

Maybe you could give some examples of the sniper fire? Just what has the press done that has been unethical or what lies has it written about Palin? All I hear from the Palin supports is that she is being beaten up, but no one is saying what punches were out of line.

And the republican attacks on Gwen Ifill are a typical softening up of the American public so Palin's poor performance can be blamed on Ifill. Its standard RNC dirty politics from the Rove book of dirty politics.

Posted by: bevjims1 | October 1, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

If you want a foolish task done foolishly, choose a complete fool to do it.


I guess that's what McCain thinks of the office of Vice President of The United States of America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHHX9R4Qtk

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | October 1, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

All I can say is, "Thank you Katie Couric for the service that you have rendered to your country. Thank you for doing your job." To the rest of the media, please take note.

Posted by: danatlanta | October 1, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Not to mention that, as a journalism major, she should be more adept at handling interviews than most people. And a journalism major who can't name a single magazine or newspaper that she reads? I mean, that just wasn't a gotcha question.

Posted by: jt12 | October 1, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

The claims of media bias are not a tactic, they are the undisputable facts. There is nearly no news reporting, just editorializing. That is largely why very few care what MSM says anymore. By and large, there are token alternative viewpoints given, with a majority following the bias of the editorial board. If you want the conservative viewpoint, you won't find it in the Wash Post, you need to go to the Wash Times. If you want to watch the liberal view, you won't find it trumpeted on Fox news, you need to go to NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN/PBS. There are independents who don't want their news colored, but they have a real challenge to find any one source-- most of us have to go to several sources to find the balanced story. Couric is so anti-republican that I wouldn't care what she revealed, it probably would be a lie twisted to make Obama look better. If you want a comparable interview, have Rush Limbaugh interview Obama and Biden. The big contrast is that Rush never claims to be a journalist, he gives his opinion, (Just as Couric gives hers).
The blogs are the worst source, since they are infested with paid/volunteer staffers from the campaigns. The same bull$#^! shows up from one source to another, making it obvious that the postings are not the original thoughts of an individual but the talking points of the week.
Regarding Sarah Palin, we all get it that she doesn't have "foreign policy experience"-- so what? Who honestly does? The blow-hard politicians that get elected are not from the diplomatic corps of the state department, and they don't even really set the policies anyway. 99% of foreign policy experience is pragmatic decision making and intelligence-based policy, not necessarily years of experience working a foreign desk. To be honest, she hasn't made any gaffes that would take her out of the running. Those who really oppose her are anti-republican or anti-evangelical, and wouldn't vote for her ticket regardless of her experience level.

Posted by: Rush_is_Right | October 1, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

In running to the right to shore up their base, Rethugs have abandoned the center they fooled for so many years. Strategy: failed. Winner: Obama.

Posted by: zoltan1 | October 1, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

The woman who wants to be Vice President refuses to give a single press conference, calls answering a question from a voter "gotcha journalism" and claims her own journalistic ethics are better than Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson's. Well, she's full of herself, I'll grant that much.

Posted by: cvm1 | October 1, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

The New York Times is deeply biased against McCain-Palin, at all levels of the organization.
What percentage of the Times' editorial staff are Republicans? Perhaps 2 percent at best. How many Times staffers will vote for McCain? Single digits, most likely. There are many kinds of diversity, and The Times, more than most any paper in the U.S., completely lacks political diversity in its newsroom. That is a fact, and it's evident in the paper's coverage every day.

Posted by: justthefacts08 | October 1, 2008
**********************************
You had no problem with the New York Times when they were helping to promote the Iran Invasion. You had no problem when the Justice Department fired lawyers not loyal to the Neo Cons. You have no problem with the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and the Washington Examiner. You have no problem with an entire news network FOX NEWS and Sean Hannity or Bill OReilly. WILL YOU STOP WHINNING. You sound like a complete fool.

Posted by: sherardg | October 1, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

The media are mostly white. Race is a sensitive issue. They don't want to be seen as picking on blacks.
Moreover, nobody wants to watch a black candidate being interviewed by another black reporter.
And take the case of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for example, the incompetent congressmen and women involved were nearly all blacks. No media would want touch this, not even with a long pole.

Posted by: peterdaol | October 1, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

McCain/Palin have absolutely nothing to offer the country. All they can do is attack. Attack Obama, attack Pelosi, attack the media. They hope not to bring themselves up in the eyes of the American people, but to tear everyone down to their level.

Seriously, what are they going to do? Run on an economic philosophy that has destroyed the American economy? Run on a foreign policy philosophy that has us mired in two failed wars? Run on a social policy philosophy that is out of the mainstream with the rest of the country?

One can only hope that after this election, the Republicans commence a bloodletting that forces them to re-examine the wisdom (or lack thereof) that brought them to this point.

Posted by: PDiddy | October 1, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse


Pow-pow-pow!

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/couric-palin-open/704042/

oh, and please call me by my Palin name, Steam Fangs

(Sarah Palin name generator here)

http://politsk.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah_13.html

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | October 1, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Welcome to the big league, Sarah Palin. Actually, I thought Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson were very generous in their phrasing of questions and if you watch the interviews, they actually make an effort to help her instead of embarass her. That she can't answer such simple questions as "What do you read for newspapers and magazines?" with any specificity or go silent when asked to name key Supreme Court cases post-Roe v. Wade is not the fault of the media. It's her lack of intellectual curiosity about the world around her that is alarming. She might have plenty of common sense, but so does my wife and she is not qualified to be Vice-President either.

Posted by: billbolducinmaine | October 1, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Is it that the media has been too tough on her or she just can't handle tough questions - sometimes they were just basic common sense questions. It was embarrassing to see how she answered these questions.

Posted by: ExpressReader | October 1, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

In what was once considered a bold move by some, the choice of Palin has turned from sizzle to fizzle. She's not getting the media adulation she once did, so now McCain's camp decides to shoot the messenger. There are as many right-leaning media outlets as left, so to complain about the 'media' is disingenuous at best. The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for their situation. She is woefully unprepared for VP campaigning (and hiding her away is not a help); it's not the media's fault if she can't answer questions competently.

Posted by: RickJ | October 1, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

"What percentage of the Times' editorial staff are Republicans? Perhaps 2 percent at best. How many Times staffers will vote for McCain? Single digits, most likely."

And this is your proof that Palin is being made by the press to look bad? Do I need to give you a list of youtube videos to listen to Palin yourself?

I don't read the Times. I read many other media outlets online including Fox News. No matter what I read one thing is clear: When Palin talks, gibberish comes out.

Saturday Night Live did a parity on Palin that conservatives have denounced, until they realized the words coming from Tina Fea who was playing Palin were Palin's own words.

As someone else said, she is an embarrassment. Bush was bad enough. How can the republican do this over and over again to America? The only answer is they must really hate America and their reaction to Katrina I think proved it without a doubt.

Posted by: bevjims1 | October 1, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

"Gotcha journalism"? Jesus, what a bunch of whiners.

If she can't take the heat -- and it's been pretty tepid -- she has no business running for VP.

Posted by: inthehood | October 1, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

I forgot to add this link, on an article from someone who has claimed to debate Palin in the past. Please note Palin's belief that understanding a situation thoroughly is not really all that important.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1001/p09s01-coop.html

Her purported statement: "'Does any of this really matter'".

Might not matter in Wasilla. But it sure matters in the real world.

I think Couric has been impressive in her restraint when faced with incoherency on the part of a candidate for the vice-presidency.

Posted by: farmlvr | October 1, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

"...it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago."

She used her position as governor for retaliatin' against her ex-brother-in-law and the public safety commissioner. Her husband is functionin' as an unelected, unaccountable-to-the-public shadow governor. She was supportin' the bridge to nowhere before she was against it, and she kept the federal earmark after killin' the bridge project. As Wasilla mayor, she fired the town librarian for refusin' to ban books. And she's talkin' about ethics?

She speaks in gibberish, stringin' together sound bites from her briefing book. She claims foreign policy experience because she's livin' near Russia. She didn't have a passport until recently. Her "visit to Ireland" turned out to be a refuelin' stop. She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, can't name a newspaper she's read ("all of 'em," she said) and can't name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.

Worst. Candidate. Ever.


Posted by: spotfoul | October 1, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse
**************

I agree 100%, spotfoul. Gov. Palin shouldn't be tossing around accusations on ethics while she's under investigation for ethical failures and abuse of authority. Then again, this woman clearly has no sense of shame or understanding of the word "hypocrisy."

Maybe if she had paid attention that day in journalism school, she wouldn't be having so much trouble now.

Posted by: dbitt | October 1, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Oh come on. Is it possible that you at the Washington Post don't know what a team of snipers you are? Is it possible that you don't realize how you offend political figures with your amazing level of bias and undisguised preference? Is it possible that you don't realize that Palin is simply protesting your rather intrusive attacks on her, and that in actual fact, you started it? It must be possible because here it is big as life, the only other possibility being the somewhat unpleasant one that you are bankrupt of all sense of fair play and simply do these things on purpose. But a responsible newspaper would never use the fact of its wide circulation as a tool to influence an election one way or the other, would it? And speaking of that circulation, what is the market telling you?

Posted by: hrow | October 1, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

I'll say it again: if she can't handle questions from Couric and Gibson, why would ANYONE think she can handle Putin, Ahmahdinejad or Kim Jong Il?

It's insane. ANY question asked to Palin is now a "gotcha!" question. Sheesh. Ask her the names of her kids? Gotcha! Ask her if she voted for or against earmarks? Gotcha!

I'm half-expecting she'll accuse Gwen Ifill tomorrow night of asking a gotcha simply by saying hello.

This bonehead is an embarrassment to the Republicans and to our electoral process in general. How someone so unqualified ended up on a national ticket is grist for a science fiction story, not our uncertain and troubled reality.

Posted by: dbitt | October 1, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse


Is it possible that there is a more ridiculous, inane, fatuous column than the one by the gruesome Libby Copeland today?

The fate of the free world is hanging in the balance, and this is what we get from the Washington Post.

Just unbelievable. It's insulting in its frivolity, its fawning.

At a time when even the most conservative pundits are calling for Palin to step down, calling her "cringe-inducing," Libby Copeland administers a warm tongue bath masquerading as "journalism."

God almighty. No wonder newspapers are dying.

Unbelievable.

Posted by: monk4hall | October 1, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

"...it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago."

She used her position as governor for retaliatin' against her ex-brother-in-law and the public safety commissioner. Her husband is functionin' as an unelected, unaccountable-to-the-public shadow governor. She was supportin' the bridge to nowhere before she was against it, and she kept the federal earmark after killin' the bridge project. As Wasilla mayor, she fired the town librarian for refusin' to ban books. And she's talkin' about ethics?

She speaks in gibberish, stringin' together sound bites from her briefing book. She claims foreign policy experience because she's livin' near Russia. She didn't have a passport until recently. Her "visit to Ireland" turned out to be a refuelin' stop. She didn't know what the Bush Doctrine is, can't name a newspaper she's read ("all of 'em," she said) and can't name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade.

Worst. Candidate. Ever.

Posted by: spotfoul | October 1, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Chris, as you can see on the Drudge Report, the right wing media is up in arms today about Gwen Ifill. In their not-so-subtle race-baiting attacks on Gwen, they are accusing her of being "in the tank" for Obama, and they conclude that she can't possibly be an impartial moderator for the VP debate.

This assault on Gwen is a pathetic pre-emptive strike from those who will try to explain away what they fear will be a poor performance by Palin in the debate.

Everyone knows Gwen Ifill is scrupulously fair in her questioning and moderating. That's why she was approved for the moderator role four years ago for the Cheney-Edwards debate, and why she was approved to moderate the VP debate AGAIN this year. That approval came from BOTH the McCain campaign AND the Obama campaign.

Sorry, conservative whiners, you don't have a leg to stand on when you attack Gwen Ifill.

Posted by: harlemboy | October 1, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Sorry. Palin's arguments, whinings, whatever you want to call them, don't wash. Questions on the national/international stage are far different than questions in Wasilla, or even Juneau/Anchorage. She ought to have known that, and admitted it to herself. She does not have enough intellect to handle this situation properly.

When, in another Couric clip, Palin said she learned about the world through books rather than traveling like someone else's rich kid, I wish Couric had followed up and asked her to name a couple of books she had read that had informed her worldview.

I guarantee Couric would have gotten the same answer she got on the newspaper question. I doubt if she reads at all. She couldn't even name the Anchorage Daily News, for goodness' sake. And to not know ANY Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v Wade is just another clue about her cluelessness.

I agree with other posts that having 'Joe Six Pack' in the White House is a kind of moronic desire.

Palin is a true embarrassment. The European press is not painting her kindly either. Ergo, how would Palin's presence in a new administration assist the U.S. in repairing all the damage the Bush administration has done? Nada.

It would not surprise me to see Palin whine and play victim on Thursday night. Does she have no self-respect? It is sad to see someone whose ambition is so great she cannot admit she is not qualified. Admitting that would be the more mature professional thing to do.

And don't even get me started on McCain's qualifications. If he makes decisions like he made this one, our entire country is in even more trouble than it is now.

Posted by: farmlvr | October 1, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

You know, everyone here making all the comments about McCain and Palin are wasting your breath. Regardless of who gets elected, it is evident that our government is broken. We all know that WE THE PEOPLE will have to pay for the sins of the father. Instead of bashing the candidates, we should be banding together as one voice and stand up for our God given rights and abolish this travesty that we call "the government". We must demand a sound monetary policy and abolish the Federal Reserve and demand integrity in all aspects of governance for it to work for everyone. More government is not the answer, its the problem and that evidence is all around us. What will it take for you to step up to the plate?

Posted by: ghendric | October 1, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

The New York Times is deeply biased against McCain-Palin, at all levels of the organization.
What percentage of the Times' editorial staff are Republicans? Perhaps 2 percent at best. How many Times staffers will vote for McCain? Single digits, most likely. There are many kinds of diversity, and The Times, more than most any paper in the U.S., completely lacks political diversity in its newsroom. That is a fact, and it's evident in the paper's coverage every day.

Posted by: justthefacts08 | October 1, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Someone posted that Palin is a "big girl". She should be if she wants to play in the big leagues. Perhaps she is not - as even many conservatives now write.

She has been given a large stage with many interested listeners and she has fouled her own image. Even still, the media is willing to give her the microphone and she has not corrected her image - if it is not already correct.

I think both Gibson and Couric were WAY TOO polite... Palin has been given the benefit of the doubt by these interviewers. Biden will be polite tomorrow night, but Palin does NOT even have a clue what a debate with this guy will be like.

Biden is ready to speak firmly, directly and intelligently with the leaders of other nations. Palin has yet to demonstrate that she is anything more than a accept the compliments of the leaders of other nations. The Chief Dogcatcher of Iraq told her she's georgeous. Palin giggled and responded..."thank you". Unbelievable!

Posted by: free-donny | October 1, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse


This is surreal. It's bizarre. She's a "journalism major" (didn't realize she was still in school), yet she can't name a SINGLE NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE SHE READS.

Purportedly she was asked to name one important supreme court decision other than Roe v. Wade. Her response? Cue the crickets.

Her answers to questions haven't just been vapid, they've been bizarre.

A few months ago, conservatives were howling when Barack Obama complained about the press. "If you can't stand the heat!" they howled. Now, in a time of unprecedented national turmoil here and abroad, when we need a thoughtful, forceful leader more than ever, they're crying like little thumb sucking five year olds.

We're talking someone who could potentially become PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. This isn't a game (although you wouldn't know it reading the dreadful, unfathomable Libby Copeland story today; I thought Milbank was the biggest hack in Washington. Ladies and gentleman, we have a new winner.)

It's not even an arguable point. The woman, as many conservatives are now saying, should step down.

What an utter disgrace.

Posted by: monk4hall | October 1, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

And speaking of wars on the press, what in God's name is McCain doing campaigning in Iowa and crossing swords with the Demoines Register ?

IA is clearly leaning Obama if not solid for him, meanwhile McCain is in statistical dead heats or falling further behind in OH, FL, VA, CO, NH and NV.

The right loves to beat up on the "media", to include already claiming Gwen I is in the bag for Obama because of an upcoming book about Obama due to be released on 1-20-09.

But if all you have left is beating up on the media and rehashing Wright, Ayers, Rezko, and ACORN, it may be time to start the Mitt in 2012 campaign.

Ole Mitt is looking pretty good in McCain's VP rearview about now.....

Posted by: mathas | October 1, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Stop blaming media~~ Stop playing as a victim's role~~ People are sick and tired of her playing as a victim~~ Come on start becoming leader and stop whining about media, lipstick and have some humor in life, Its good for you health.
"Face the media, If you can't, I do not know how would you be my leader?"

Posted by: GUYFROMCHICAGO | October 1, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Ms Palin was picked to get the Clinton female vote. She was placed in a position for which she was not qualified and which would place her in the media spotlight. Now McCain and the Republicans don't want to media to question her and claim that asking her any question she can't answer is an attempt be the liberal media to make he look bad. She has made statements on her own that would cause anyone to say "what's she talking about?".

Posted by: Jimof1913 | October 1, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

This woman is not qualified to be a girl scout troop leader, let alone a 72 year old heart beat from the oval office. Stick her complaining arse on a plane and ship her back to guard the russian border.

Posted by: pgiaquinto | October 1, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse


look...if palin would give, with regularity, answers that weren't both vapid and vacuous, i'm sure the public and the press would be delighted...as it stands, the woman has shown herself to be an empty talking head, again and again and again.

the mccain camp cannot in good conscience expect us to embrace, unconditionally, an unknown with only a sixty day window...it is imperative that she prove herself and, as of the here and now, she has failed miserably...we have been given a new face and what little bit we have come to know is frightening and unacceptable.

mccain has a penchant for gambling, both in his leisure and his politics...i deserve and demand better...that she could be let anywhere near the oval office is an absolute mockery of leadership, don'tcha know.

part of the intrigue is that this is exactly what mccain has in mind...it is dumbfounding...the press and the general public are watching in disbelief...that a person with no intellectual curiosity , no sense of global policy, foreign policy or even national policy could be in the game is surreal...

supreme court decisions, nada...media rags read with regularity, nada...books read, ridiculous...palin is simply a republican "chatty cathy" doll, spewing out fixed responses in 782 different ways, all nonsensical...palin has shown that she simply cannot wrap her head around the simplest of issues.

"if you can not be a good example, then you may as well serve as a terrible warning."

Posted by: jazzgrrrl25 | October 1, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Palin is comically unqualified to be veep. She makes Dan Quayle seem like Thomas Jefferson.

Posted by: whirlwind81 | October 1, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

We've already had a right wing neocon regime in power, we've seen their stuff, and all we've experienced are terrorist attacks, pre-emptive wars, financial collapses, abolishied rights, and runaway deficits.

Even if Palin were an experienced, astute, and skilled candidate for VP, which she is none of, why replace one neocon regime with another?

It's time to send the Republicans packing.

Posted by: abigsam | October 1, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

ohiodiane wrote: "But if she [Palin] is purposely made to look like a fool, that's the interviewer's irresponsible action."

Oh come on. Palin is a big girl. If someone asks her a question and she gives a stupid answer, then its not the questioners fault. I mean really, blame the press for asking bad questions?

How is Palin going to handle questions from Putin, Jintao, Maliki, or Medvedev? I'm sorry but if she can't handle even softball question from the likes of Katie Curic she has no business running for an office that could require the most skilled ability to meet not only questions but hostile questions. If Palin can be beaten up by Katie Curic, she is not qualified to be VP. Its really that simple.

Palin's problems are of her own making. She has told untruths. She has hidden the truth, and she has exaggerated her resume. Her squirming in interviews is because she must think hard when answering a question because the truth is something she must suppress or invent. And she cannot let on that she is not qualified for the job. Her explanation of how she is somehow in control of the border with Russia is laughable and her inability to explain it, though she fumbled trying, is not Curics fault since it is Palin who touts the issue. All she had to say was "I'm not in charge of foreign borders, the feds are". But no, she tried to take credit for what she has no business taking credit for and then squirmed when asked about it. She tried to claim experience she does not have, like visiting Iraq, and she has tried to hide what she has done or been involved with, like actually advocating for the bridge to nowhere.

She's like a child who has stolen cookies, broken the window and did not take out the trash, trying to explain how she did none of it but instead should be given credit for the roof not leaking and the furnace keeping the house warm.

In short, she is a phoney who is tripping on her own inability to simply tell the truth, and she is slowly going down in flames from interviews with softball reporters like Curic and Gibson. Lets get this over with and put her in front of Helen Thomas. Tim Russert(r.i.p) would have eaten her alive. And its not because these reporters are mean or playing gotcha. Its because Palin cannot tell the truth in a straight way.

Posted by: bevjims1 | October 1, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Palin needs to stop criticizing the media for her own messes.
If she cannot answer questions coherently, then that's her problem.
Placing the blame on someone/thing else is ridiculous.
She obviously is way over her head and is an embarassment/insult to all women.
It's sad that she is so ridiculously unqualified.

Posted by: cmmdee | October 1, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

I read last night that Palin was asked THREE times what newspapers and/or magazines she liked to read, and she couldn't answer the question! Does she read NOTHING? Then Palin made the comment that she was just like Joe 6-pack, hang out with the guys, just a normal Joe. Hey, I don't want a "Joe 6-pack" in the White House! Does she think we are all stupid??

Posted by: GenuineRisk | October 1, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Palin reminds me of Barney Fife of the Andy Griffin show. She just won't admit she knows nothing. I feel sorry for her. What the heck was McCain thinking picking her? Talk about judgment. Can you imagine her as President? And the story last night about the island near the Soviet Union?
She clearly lied about her foreign experience.

Posted by: sherardg | October 1, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Blaming the media is not a tactic. It is being courageous enough to state the obvious. It is also stated for those who don't already recognize the fact that for many years there has been a lack of ethical, unbiased reporting in the so-called mainstream media. The liberal candidates are not asked the tough questions; the background and character of this candidate thrust upon the Democrat party have not been investigated and publicized. As a nation, we will all suffer the results of the actions of a relative few who have controlled the willing minds of so many. When the truth is known, intelligent decisions can be made, but when those in media push their agenda by spewing their opinions in the guise of news and reporting, people willing to be blindly led will vote for someone they don't even know. The real Obama has not been exposed to the American people for who he is, what he believes, and what he stands for. Those who have accepted what they have been told by the newspapers, TV and radio need to do their own research with a mind that is open enough to recognize truth when they find it. The truth is out there to be found if you are willing to learn. Even though McCain may not be perfect, because of our current two-party system, he is the only one who can save America from an Obamanation... "Knowledge is power." (A modern paraphrase of a quote from Sir Francis Bacon that is worth repeating today.)

Posted by: journalismdied | October 1, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

There's a big difference between trying to trip up a candidate with some obscure reference to a minor geographical fact, or a reference to some minor 'world leader' that no one has heard of, and what the press is trying here - trying to pin a VP candidate down on basic issues and past statements.

The press has been totally cowed by the attacks the McCain folks have made on them.

For instance, Couric asked about homosexuality, and Couric was allowed to skate out of the question without answering basic policy questions, like how she justified supporting denial of health benefits for gay Alaskans.

That's a question that really needed to be asked.

Instead she's allowed to say she has 'a gay friend'. That's not really helpful.

Posted by: HillMan | October 1, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Republicans have gotten unbelievably childish over the last 20 years. Whining about the mean old reporters, calling everyone they don't like "evil," calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat" Party, the deep strain of anti-intellectualism, throwing the first punch then running crying to Mommy when retaliation comes.....it's all part of a pattern. If Sarah Palin can't handle being asked questions about her ticket's policies and values, she does have an alternative course of action: she's welcome to tell Old Man McCain "thanks, but no thanks" and head back home and shoot a few moose.

Posted by: Budikavlan | October 1, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

As I recall, not to long ago, Barack Obama was under scrutiny from the media as well. He was questioned about his church, his faith, his wife's comments, his so called elitism. Palin is going to have to deal with the media. If she doesn't deal with it now, if she and McCain win the election she will have to deal with it in the next four years. We don't need another Vice President that we hardly ever see. To shelter Palin and protect her from the media is not fair to the American public. I want to see her step up to the plate and be responsible. If she can't handle the media then how can she handle the pressure from those that will stand in opposition to our country.

It is an utter disappointment that she has been sheltered from the American people. The only way that we have access to her is through the lenses of the media. Granted they often interject their own opinion. It doesn't matter if the media puts their opinion in the mist because Americans are able to read between the lines. However, we can have no clear opinion of her if she has no voice. Regardless of whether McCain is sheltering her or she is just plain insecure, this has been a great disappointment. If she is a maverick then why doesn't she stand up for herself. She may be a mother, she may be a governor, she may be a christian, she may be a woman, yet she is definitely not representative of the women in this country. When we are told to sit down and be quiet we stand up and express.

Posted by: keepfaith-1 | October 1, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

someone dribbled:

The real problem here with left-leaning papers such as the Times and Post is that they do not apply the same dirt-digging standard to the democratic presidential candidate that they do to the vice presidential republican candidate. Why are there no reports on Obama's ACORN connection, and the nature of that organization? Where are the journalists sniffing around Obama's shady dealings with Rezko?

-----------------------


The Chicago Tribune fully investigated Rezco and found nothing.

Blame the media all you want...it stil doesn't explain McCain's reckless drama or Palin's incompetence.

We can see and hear how incompetent they are. And how competent Obama is.
And America is repsonding...Obama is up EIGHT points in OHIO!

Not because of the media but because of the debates.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

I hope your readers are intelligent and sophisticated enough to see this for what it is. This crying about the press is nothing but playing the refs. They are trying to get preferred treatment. In fact, I think the two who interviewed her so far have handled her with kid gloves. (I say "two" because I do not count the Fox News people -- they are cheerleaders not journalists). As a voter, I want the reporters to ask tough questions of all candidates. I have no access to people running for office. I expect to have press represent me and ask the tough questions. If she cannot stand up to tough questions from the U.S. press, what if she has to deal with world leaders should she end up as president (which is not an unreasonable assumption not even counting McCain's age -- over 20% of presidents have had VP's move into the presidency during their term of office. This does not even count having to take over during operations etc.).

This attack on the press has worked for the GOP for years despite all evidence to the contrary (remember during the Clinton administration when the coverage was cover-to-cover and 24/7 Monica?). These are the people who can say they think Fox news is "fair and balanced" with a straight face. That tells you something right there. But they are doing what a coach does who complains about the ref. He knows that the call won't change, but if he complains enough, he is hoping the ref will go easier on him in the future. It is an old trick -- I am sure the press must know it. Now, will that knowledge motivate them to be all the more tough on the candidates because if anyone is trying to get the press to back off, then that is all the more reason to look to see what they want to hide.

Remember Nixon was saying the same sort of things and look at what the press found. Had the press done its job questioning GWB, we may not have ended up in Iraq. It seems to me as a citizen, the only criticism I would make is that the press does not push the candidates hard enough!

It is in the interest of the country, that the people running face tough questions in public.

Posted by: TomfromNJ1 | October 1, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

The real problem here with left-leaning papers such as the Times and Post is that they do not apply the same dirt-digging standard to the democratic presidential candidate that they do to the vice presidential republican candidate. Why are there no reports on Obama's ACORN connection, and the nature of that organization? Where are the journalists sniffing around Obama's shady dealings with Rezko? That buy of the adjacent lot from Rezko's wife at a discount is at the very least the appearance of conflict of interest. Why is there no tracking of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mack campaign contributions to Obama? Where is the hard fiscal scrutiny of Obama's promised spending spree to solve all of the USA's domestic problems? You newspapers have an obligation to vette all candidates fully, rather than just lay into candidates you do not endorse.

Posted by: Wiggan | October 1, 2008 7:46 AM
*********************************
You know, I am so sick of neo-cons always blaming their short comings on the media. My God, have you listened to FOX or the Washington Times or the Washington Examiner lately? Stop whining. Why are the polls so close? Not only do around 25 percent of Americans watch FOX News Channel on a regular basis, but, from coast to coast, there are more than a thousand far-right talk radio stations occupied by shows that make Morning Joe sound like an Olbermann Special Comment. And 17 percent of Americans are glued to it at work and in their cars. Talkers like Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Bill Bennett and Glenn Beck broadcast on your public air around the clock. Non-stop. Unrelenting. Only interrupted by Accu-weather and traffic. Free to anyone with an AM radio.
I don't know if you've dared to listen to far-right talk radio lately, but I can assure you that they're not ignoring Senator Obama -- or his family

Posted by: sherardg | October 1, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

"How about a article about how Drudge hasnt even brought up the Couric/Palin interview? That would be a stretch to write an article that isnt spearheaded by all-might Drudge."

Yeah...Chris. I like your work but you've been rather silent in questioning the absence of these interviews on Drudge. Also, Drudge must have conceded that Obama won the debate because he did not have one story about the debate except the phony bracelet outrage story. That was it! Come on Chris...get on it.

Posted by: whatswrongwithintelligence | October 1, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

She has every right to be upset. The close scrutiny she has been under in regards to her minimal foreign policy experience has completely overshadowed the bigger issue, that of Barrack Obama's total lack of foreign policy experience.
------------------------------

You reveal your ignorance.

Obama is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee....and Biden has the most experience of any of them.
Obama just returned from Europe where he drew millions to listen to him. They respect him. Who will show up to listen to Palin? Zilch.

Your Rush talking points are meaningless.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-couric-on-gotcha-journalism.html

Tuesday, September 30, 2008
McCain and Couric Spar on Gotcha Journalism

COURIC: Over the weekend, Gov. Palin, you said the U.S. should absolutely launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan to, quote, "stop the terrorists from coming any further in." Now, that's almost the exact position that Barack Obama has taken and that you, Sen. McCain, have criticized as something you do not say out loud. So, Gov. Palin, are you two on the same page on this?

MCCAIN: Now, just a minute, Katie. I have to step in here. That's another example of the media's "Gotcha journalism"...

COURIC: But, it was a question from a citizen. How is a citizen asking a candidate a question an example of what you call "Gotcha Journalism?"

MCCAIN: Because it was hard, Katie.

We don't want Gov. Palin to be asked questions, unless she is prepared for them. When she is prepared, as she will be before the debate, she sounds intelligent, knowledgeable and feisty. But when she has not been prepared, she sounds lost and incoherent.

We can't have people asking her questions when she has not had time to be prepared with an answer.

COURIC: But, Sen. McCain, I have to say, you are 72-years old. Actuarial preditions show that if you were to be elected, Gov. Palin would have a 1 in 5 chance of actually becoming President. These are perilous times--unprecedented crises in financial markets, tensions across a wide range of critical foreign policy arenas. Shouldn't we have a Vice President, and a potential President, who actually understands these issues, beyond the preparation necessary for a debate?

MCCAIN: Gov. Palin understands these areas very well, Katie.

COURIC: Here is her response to a question on the economy:

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.


COURIC: That answer, Sen. McCain, as noted by Fareed Zakaria, is incoherent.

MCCAIN: Yes. (nodding his head).

COURIC: Well, isn't it actually important that a potential President actually comprehend issues? That is, beyond debate preparation?

MCCAIN: No, Katie. That's what I mean by "gotcha journalism". It's obvious from these prior interviews that Palin has little to no comprehension of fiscal policy and economics. For heaven's sake, she received a "D" in macroeconomics in college! And, as I've I said in the past, I have little understanding of economic issues myself.

No, what's important, Katie, is that she sound like she understands the issues. In the debate. If she is sufficiently prepared, she can give an illusion of understanding the issues--even if she is only giving answers with the prepared and practiced spontaneity and content necessary to give that illusion force.

Given that the bar is set at the lowest standard imaginable, Katie, if she accompanies that performance with sufficient charm, we believe that media will follow, into focusing on the change from that low standard, and on those superficial entertainment values--you know, Katie, (McCain smiles through tight lips and squinting eyes and moves his hands up and down)--"She certainly appears to be more confident tonight; she appears more poised, coherent, humorous"--rather than her readiness to be President from an objective standard. After all, using the more important standard of Presdidential capability, she has already demonstrated that she is unprepared to be President.

So, Katie, we want them to focus on that difference, on her debate preparation, rather than on her actual well-demonstrated Presidential unreadiness. And that's what I mean by "gotcha journalism."

KATIE: But if I understand you correctly, Sen. McCain, you actually believe that it's not important that she understand the issues actually facing the nation...

MCCAIN: Right.

COURIC: On which many people's very jobs, health and life will rely at this critical time...

MCCAIN: Yes.

COURIC: And that all that really matters creating a standard so low that she actually is rewarded for her widely seen and repeatedly demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding. That we would be using what is essentially a remedial standard for Presidential capability--rather than one of actual capability.

Sen. McCain, you seem to be actually suggesting that we should decide that she is ready for the Presidency, simply because, after preparation, she has improved. Even though just days earlier, time after time, she was unable to give coherent answers on these subjects.

No one can gain Presidential-level understanding in days. And in the office of the Presidency, with its intense crises and unforseeable events, she will not be prepared for each unpredictable day, as she was for the debate.

Yet you expect media to focus on these values, rather than actual readiness to be President. That's what you mean by "gotcha journalism"?

MCCAIN: Exactly. And they will. Once again, Katie--we "gotcha."

COURIC: How can you expect the media to fall for that?

MCCAIN: It worked for Bush.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-couric-on-gotcha-journalism.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | October 1, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

"And when the goal is to trip someone up--for example, asking the question, "What is the Bush doctrine?" when Bush himself probably can't give you a single definition--that is not good journalism."
-------------------------------------------

The question was "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?". It wasn't a gotcha question. I guess Katie Couric was trying to trip her up when she asked Palin about the newspapers that she reads.

Posted by: whatswrongwithintelligence | October 1, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

vimrich quibbles:

Palin speaks in generalities folks, because the specifics do not actually matter to be an effective leader.
=================================


Well, then she loses both ways.

Not only does she not have knowledge of any specifics whatsoever (which is not true for the great leaders of out times including Reagan), she has no grasp of the generalities.

Vimrich, you are typical of what has happened to America...little knowledge and less wisdom.

Give me one example of a great leader who lacked knowledge of the specifics.
Just one.

One.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

She has every right to be upset. The close scrutiny she has been under in regards to her minimal foreign policy experience has completely overshadowed the bigger issue, that of Barrack Obama's total lack of foreign policy experience. By saying that Obama learned foreign policy while he grew up until 10 years old in a foreign county does not regard any foreign policy experience at all, and should be a big hilarious skit on SNL, but of course we will never see the good ol' boy's club (Hollywood and the general media do that)
I traveled the world and had the fortune of visiting over 25 country's (US NAVY), that surely doesn't make me a foreign policy expert anymore more than it does for Obama.
The media in general, are in fact cheer leaders for Obama. Just listen to the tight criticism that Palin has to deal with, and then watch the free pass Obama gets, always a positive, cheerful, upbeat delivery by the media.
I have watched and listened to the media very closely for months, and hardly ever hear about our Democratic controlled congress where the democrats have had the majority in both chambers for almost two years now, the media is still playing the "blame the Republicans " card. Sure they were to blame, as all of our politicians are to blame , but lets put the facts on the table and look at the last two years of democratic control in the house.
My disdain for both parties has been a disappointment, and yes, I have voted for both Dems. and Pubs for president.
A question for Charles, Katie and the rest.. Do all of you have to sign an agreement before you are allowed to get the microphone in front of you, stating that you pledge your allegiance to the Democratic party until death, or something similar? I can never figure out (and probably never will) understand why all Hollywood types are stooges for the Democratic party??
Can some one explain this to me? How can there be such an allegiance unless that is the only way they are allowed to speak to the public?
It must be that the big dogs in the broadcasting company's only allow their political mantra to be heard. Anyways,I have learned to always go/vote the opposite way....
I attempt to stay in the middle, and vote on the issues, but when I see such a tilted media, constantly pushing their agenda, I find their power/brainwashing techniques beyond frightening.....

Posted by: jsaw | October 1, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

The idea that the press is being unfair to Palin is ridiculous.

Let's consider the situation this way: If I repeatedly dodged questions from my employer, spoke vaguely and incompletely about my responsibilities, could not provide specifics about my work, and had an adversarial attitude, how long do you think I would remain on the company's payroll? AND, if I exhibited these traits during a job interview, would I be hired? I don't think so.

Palin is an applicant for the vice presidency. Questions (and answers) are necessary to evaluate her suitability. If she wants the job she needs to provide the information voters need to make an informed decision.

This isn't gotcha journalism - it's called questioning the candidate. The complaining about the press is a diversion. Voters should not be taken in by this ruse.

Posted by: portiaperu | October 1, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

When you're as ignorant as Palin, it's hard to think of a question that isn't a "Gotcha."

Posted by: Skeptic21 | October 1, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Could someone please explain how it is "gotcha" journalism to report something that a candidate said voluntarily and without prompting from the Press?

And why is it GOTCHA journalism to ask what someone reads to learn about national issues? She couldn't say, "The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, mostly national outlets. I also watch the national network and some cable news."

Gotcha implies questions that don't have answers that can make the candidate look good. These are not like that. What we have is a candidate who doesn't look good and is mad that the mirror show it.

Posted by: nrudy | October 1, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Last few months i spent 3 to 4 hours analysing the 2 parties.Mccain has got incredible record in senate foreign policies etc & his personal record in the army,Vietnam war etc.I am suprised by the pick of the VP .Lets be pratical she is utterly unqualified to be VP.Mccain be pratical we need someone to quide the power full country(USA) in the world to 20th century.Mccain by his choice of VP scared everyone now i doubt about his ability to lead the country.HOW CAN HE RUN THE COUNTRY WHEN HE DOES NOT KNOW WHOM TO CHOSE HIS RUNNING MATE.ONLY GOD CAN SAVE AMERICA.GOD BLESS AMERICANS.

Posted by: timmynatsoft | October 1, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Biden has to pull his foot out of his
mouth every day, people get used to it,
obama is stuttering and flip flopping
constantly, common sense would tell you
they should just let Palin loose,
but OH YES, She is a republican,
so every word she says gets the
insane oberman/matthews treatment.
I cant watch CNN anymore, either;
it is insulting
to my intelligence. even FOX is just an
apoligist for the insanity, and as such
it is not a news outlet.
watch PBS and you realize,
the networks are a sign of
the apocalyse....
oberman was flapping his arms
and doing a woody woodpecker
imitation last night?
this guy needs meds!

Posted by: USA3 | October 1, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Palin speaks in generalities folks, because the specifics do not actually matter to be an effective leader. Not only should she keep doing it, but call out the questioner for getting bogged down in trivial nonsense.

We're not electing someone to go play a quiz show for the country. The experts, the wonks, the bureaucrats already have a seat at the table of high power. We're electing someone -- please just ONE at least -- to represent OUR interests, to give us a voice at the table in the White House. So that when all that data is presented and all those experts push their positions, the decisions get made in favor of the average American family.

Posted by: vimrich | October 1, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

"Gotcha" questions? I can maybe buy the claim that the Bush Doctrine question was a "Gotcha" question, if only because you never hear it asked. But the Afghanistan/Pakistan border question? No. Just because oopsie, you forgot to match up your answer with McCain's before answering it? That doesn't mean that the question was a "Gotcha" question. It was a straight forward easy to understand question.

Posted by: delusionalangel | October 1, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

no NEW coal power plants???
so obamabiden would rather
us poor folks burn our furniture
in the winter months?
that's nice of them dopes,
and the global warming issue?
they should all go to India
and China and preach to the countries
burning ANYTHING with no scrubbers,
these liberals are daffy ducks.

Posted by: USA3 | October 1, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Isn't she the one that said, at a townhall event in the last 2 weeks, that we could play a little "stump the candidate"? How's that any different?

Posted by: cao091402 | October 1, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Chris you've got to be kidding. She expresses "disdain" by saying "they can continue... that's good... I welcome it."

You guys are so totally in the tank you can't even hear at this point, let alone think.

Posted by: vimrich | October 1, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

ipso blurts;
Anyone who is honest and objective will have to agree - no matter what your political affiliation - with wiggan's assessment. Obama has gotten a HUGE pass by the media. In case you forgot:

-------------------------

LOL. Such silliness.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Where have all the Palin past "blunders" been debunked. Wasilla would not pay for rape kits when Palin was Mayor. The sheriff said so. She did have several non official e-mail accounts where she say some things that could be officially construed. They were seen by many on the internet. Where are your sources that you have made up. Faux news for the dim ? And At least McCain has a track record ? This is the best a so-called conservative "independent" can come up with to say why he supports him. McBush has flopped so many times it's hard to keep up with where he stands. And with all his flopping who can say what he would do if President. Other questions...Why hasn't Palin released her Tax return, all other candidates have done so. And..Why won't McCain release his full med reports to the public ? And saying that Obama hasn't been
scrutinized by the press is wrong. You forget, he has been running for two years. All your stuff is old news. Palin is the new kid on the block and considering that McBush could be gone at any time with this airhead taking his place. She should be scrutinized ? How can the US afford 4 more years of a bushlike regime ? Change is needed. Obama may not be perfect, but at least he is intelligent.

Posted by: Falmouth1 | October 1, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who is honest and objective will have to agree - no matter what your political affiliation - with wiggan's assessment. Obama has gotten a HUGE pass by the media. In case you forgot:

"...they(media) do not apply the same dirt-digging standard to the democratic presidential candidate that they do to the vice presidential republican candidate. Why are there no reports on Obama's ACORN connection, and the nature of that organization? Where are the journalists sniffing around Obama's shady dealings with Rezko? That buy of the adjacent lot from Rezko's wife at a discount is at the very least the appearance of conflict of interest. Why is there no tracking of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mack campaign contributions to Obama? Where is the hard fiscal scrutiny of Obama's promised spending spree to solve all of the USA's domestic problems?"

Posted by: lrpsoteria | October 1, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

All these Rush Limbaugh dittoheads keep parroting "Rezko, Rezko" yet nobody has ever explained just what laws were broken by Obama and why he wasn't prosecuted for his alleged crimes. Every time some dittohead screams "Rezko" I'll just wink and say "Keating". 'Nuff said.

Posted by: publicmenace | October 1, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

I've been in "proximity" to several banks, I guess that qualifies me to be Secretary of the Treasury.

McCain is the oldest man to run for President and we really need a VP who goes deer in the headlights when someone asks as difficult question. Yup.

Posted by: ronwriter | October 1, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

"Because I can see Russia from my hooouuuussse!!!"

ROTFLMAO!!!

Posted by: omelas | October 1, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

While I don't agree with absolutely everything Palin says, she is right on when she talks about the change in journalism today.

---------------------------

Do you include the odious Rush and hateful Hannity or is it just those who reveal the ignorance of Palin?

The Media in general does s#ck. On both sides. That still doesn't excuse Palin's incompetence.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

If Ford sold automobiles with defects, they recalled them. The Fed's own Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae sold toxic mortgage packages to financial institution worldwide, why don't they just recall them like Ford instead of using terms like 'bailout' and 'rescue'?

Posted by: peterdaol | October 1, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Why does Palin have such ha problem with the media? They are what made her such a political superstar and lavished her with attention that literally changed the race for a month.

Will voters see this as whining and get turned off?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | October 1, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Will The Fix be doing an article on the VP debate moderator's love for Sen. Obama?

About the moderator's upcoming book lauding Obama?

Does The Fix consider Thursday's debate moderator to be even close to evenhanded?

Will the NY Times have three articles above the fold praising Gov. Palin's executive experience in cleaning up Alaskan politics by taking on her own party's rascals while Sen. Obama goes along with his party's rascals in Chicago and in this finacial scandal?

Would the Washington Post and the mainstream media automatically include positive McCain/Palin NY Times articles and ideas in their own papers like they do with positive Obama/Biden articles?

Posted by: Xanadu3 | October 1, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

While I don't agree with absolutely everything Palin says, she is right on when she talks about the change in journalism today. Of course journalists are supposed to ask tough questions; that's their job. But when they approach an interview in a condescending manner--when Charlie Gibson is looking down at someone through his reading glasses, or when Katie Couric is practically rolling her eyes during an interview--that is not good journalism. And when the goal is to trip someone up--for example, asking the question, "What is the Bush doctrine?" when Bush himself probably can't give you a single definition--that is not good journalism. I never saw anyone--not even Bill O'Reilly--treat Obama or Biden like that. If she gives bad answers (which she obviously sometimes has done), that's Palin's fault. But if she is purposely made to look like a fool, that's the interviewer's irresponsible action.

Posted by: ohiodiane | October 1, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Davidchance wrote:
How can you cut taxes and increase spending in an economy as bad as ours.

-----------------------------

FDR did it during the depression. Worked then.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

As far as the campaign is concerned,McCain/Palin= trainwreck.

Posted by: mmaza1 | October 1, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Gee,
Gov. Palin fires back at the press after taking shot after shot and she is the one at war with the press? Give me a break. If the press covered all the candidates as harshly as Gov. Palin, she wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but the continuous gang tackle going on with her is ridiculous and indicative of a press corp desperate to slap a candidate down before they can gain any traction. Unbiased media my rear-end.

Posted by: MikeL4 | October 1, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

The press is in the tank for Obama ?

That must be why we heard non stop stories during the Dems primary about Ayers, Rezko and Wright.

Expect McCain to use these same media outlets, that he so abhors(allegedly)to try and reignite these stories and go all negative all the time up until election day.

The problem for McCain is the economy(not his strong suit) and the news surrounding the bailout bill, are blowing everything else off the front pages. And Obama for his part, has been running a blistering negative campaign attack strategy against McCain, on radio in a few key swing states.

McCain can still win this thing.....but his chances are growing slimmer by the day.

Posted by: mathas | October 1, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

"Dirt digging?
It was Palin and the Republicans who made the ridiculous claim that Alaska's proximity to Russia somehow gave Palin a leg up in foreign affairs. How is asking her to back up that claim "gotcha"? This idea that we're all supposed to just sit back and accept an unqualified candidate for the number-2 office in the land because the Republican "base" is energized is nonsense.
She needs to PROVE she's qualified and so far she's not come close."

Fantastic post, billtara.

Posted by: ethel08 | October 1, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse

The selection of Sarah Palin is a perfect example of Peter's Principle. This person has been advanced to the point of incompetence. She cannot make a complete and cogent sentence in the English language when responding to reporter's questions, and she goes off onto irrelevant spin tangents hoping that people will think that she has said something intelligent. You only have to listen about one minute to realize there is nothing up there between the ears. I honestly hate to be harsh on people, but this is a case where a Vice President may have to step into the shoes as President of the United States. While I do not personally support McCain, I feel he has had demonstrated leadership ability in Washington as a US Senator, which would prove useful as Commander in Chief.

However, the one term Governor of Alaska and former small town mayor who is to become the GOP VP nominee has such limited knowledge and comprehension of the world around her, including the problems that exist within our own nation that she will never be able to actively step into the role of President. In fact, it would be extremely frightening if she did.

Posted by: kerryberger | October 1, 2008 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Think maybe Putin might play a little "gotcha" politics with our next President? If you are not ready for "gotcha," you are not ready for prime time.

Posted by: NomoStew | October 1, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

lol, i get the biggest kick out of the McCain campaign. See the thing is, it's hard not to play "gotcha" journalism when the candidate doesn't seem to know the answer to any questions, no matter what. The fact is, it's not sexist, as a woman running for this office you have to at least show you're as competent as the other candidates, that you know as much about government and foreign relations as they do, or close, or at least as much as my high school civics teacher did. You shouldn't be able to just show up, say "Hey, I'm pretty, I know I don't know anything at all that would be useful in running the country, but I'm cute, and the press is mean, and you should vote for me". This is really McCain's last stand in politics, and it's terrible watching him throw it away like this. I know he lost my vote over the past few weeks, a vote he would have had if he had picked someone like Romney, a responsible pick for this country, not just someone who he hopes you can sympathize with, but is a waste of political space in every other sense.

Posted by: LukeRI | October 1, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Dirt digging?
It was Palin and the Republicans who made the ridiculous claim that Alaska's proximity to Russia somehow gave Palin a leg up in foreign affairs. How is asking her to back up that claim "gotcha"? This idea that we're all supposed to just sit back and accept an unqualified candidate for the number-2 office in the land because the Republican "base" is energized is nonsense.
She needs to PROVE she's qualified and so far she's not come close.

Posted by: billtara | October 1, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

It's amazing that republicans get away with blaming the press when for the most part the press is corporate controlled and right leaning. They have their on propaganda network in fox news and essentially own talk radio yet they have their brainwashed myopic morons convinced that the media is liberal.

Posted by: timebanded | October 1, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Guess it's not working....Obama up by EIGHT points in OHIO!

Partly because of voter antipathy towards Palin.

Gee. Wonder why?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_battlegrounds;_ylt=AuuucKeqKT7bzY645kVNcVOyFz4D

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 1, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

First Bush, now Palin. How much lower can America sink?

Posted by: ericmiami42 | October 1, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse

As a conservative independent, I must be missing something. I find it hard to believe with all the crisis' going on that we could conceiveably elect someone with no work history, experience, or where with all to solve the U. S. problems---all for the sake of change. Change is sometimes slow as is progress, but change for the sake of change is worst and the effects will last a whole lot longer.....The more the liberal left wing media supports Obama, the more I lean to McCain. Good or bad, at least he has a track record to evaluate him by and right now we need experience in the White House, not hollow rhetoric. How can you cut taxes and increase spending in an economy as bad as ours. Does the media ever play themselves back to hear how foolish they sound. Most of them have no working credentials or educations in the fields they are to be experts in. Twenty years experience is good, but 1 year's experience 20 times is not so good---look at Jack Cafferty, weatherman with no education.

Posted by: DavidChance272 | October 1, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse

The real problem here with left-leaning papers such as the Times and Post is that they do not apply the same dirt-digging standard to the democratic presidential candidate that they do to the vice presidential republican candidate. Why are there no reports on Obama's ACORN connection, and the nature of that organization? Where are the journalists sniffing around Obama's shady dealings with Rezko? That buy of the adjacent lot from Rezko's wife at a discount is at the very least the appearance of conflict of interest. Why is there no tracking of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mack campaign contributions to Obama? Where is the hard fiscal scrutiny of Obama's promised spending spree to solve all of the USA's domestic problems? You newspapers have an obligation to vette all candidates fully, rather than just lay into candidates you do not endorse.

Posted by: Wiggan | October 1, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

The media is bent on electing Democratic for the next President, there is no doubt about this.

China's tainted toys got more coverage than the Democratic debacle with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that has severely damaged US standing abroad, and will certainly cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollar.


Posted by: peterdaol | October 1, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

"I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago,"
------------------------------------------
Surprised? You would think it would be easy to stay current when you read "all", "any" or "most" of the newspapers and magazines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y

Posted by: wpwpwp1 | October 1, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse

Palin has every right to feel combative against a press that continues to reporter debunked rumors as fact. In this very paper, today, Karl Vick and research editor Alice Crites continue to spread the lie that Palin used Yahoo email accounts for official business, which the hacker who broke into her accounts (the son of a TN Democrat, FWIW) said that wasn't true.

In the Boston Globe and Editor & Publisher today, they continue to tell the previously debunked rumor that Palin forced rape victims to pay for forensic kits, a lie that began with two Democratic Party researchers digging through the archives of the Mat- Su Frontiersman, pushed the story through the liberal blogs using David Axelrod's speciality of astroturfing, and then got two Democratic officials and and Obama supporters to lie about why the law was created on the record during a press conference

Unfortunately, the meeting minutes of the committee show they lied--Wasilla and Palin were never mentioned in the discussions, and the law was actually implemented because hospitals-not police agencies anwhere in Alaska-charging victims for kits.

Palin has had, at last count, over 91 rumors pushed into the press about her, and most are either categorically false, of deliberately manipulated. If people kept lying about you Chris, you probably wouldn't like them very much either.

Posted by: confederateyankee | October 1, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse

McCain is a reckless gambler, that was why he crashed three jets and shot down during the Vietnam War. How can John McCain stand there and say Country First? When Palin was asked about her knowledge on foreign and domestic issues, all she could muster was, “I will be ready.” What kind of response is that for a Vice President of the United States and potential President. Based on Palin’s answer, Palin is barely qualified to run a Dairy Queen. The only thing Palin can do is reading teleprompter given by her handlers, reign in spending, cut taxes, job creation, and being sarcastic. Palin has absolutely no clues to any questions asked by Katie Couric. She was able to bluff her way from Mayor to Governnor in Alaska because there was no media scrutiny. I pray that America stands up and seizes this historical election from the people who have created this mess and do not allow McCain & Palin to lie their way into the White House. If they are elected, all I can say is MAY GOD BLESS US ALL. The end of day is NEAR.

Posted by: pho_phobaby | October 1, 2008 7:36 AM | Report abuse

I hope Vice-President Palin persuades President McCain to decimate any country willingly harboring terrorists. You go, girl.

Posted by: blooker681 | October 1, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

This woman dishes up noting but vague and vapid answers. That evil media she hates has actually been doing her a favor by rolling over and not calling her on much of it. Granted, she does offer up almost too much silliness to comprehend.

Palin is an embarrassment to the nation.

Posted by: rossor | October 1, 2008 7:09 AM | Report abuse

"I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago," says Palin.

What? She got her degree so long before the people interviewing her?

For the record, she graduated almost a decade AFTER Couric. In 1987.

Posted by: inRIC | October 1, 2008 7:02 AM | Report abuse

.


Voted One Of The Top 5 Political Blogs For The Election of 2008


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet


Bookmark it now !!!


.


Voted One Of The Top 5 Political Blogs For The Election of 2008


http://www.myspace.com/37thandostreet


Bookmark it now !!!

.


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreet | October 1, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

The Fix continues its decent into right wing appeaser. Chris frequent appreances on Hewitt and his Drudgology degree. How about a article about how Drudge hasnt even brought up the Couric/Palin interview? That would be a stretch to write an article that isnt spearheaded by all-might Drudge.

How about Chris mention that the Gotcha journalism Palin (and her co-interviewer - cant do it herself) was from a person yelling out something at a pizza place. GOTCHA!!!! Chris is buying anything McCain/Palin sells.

Greatest election ever says the Fix, but the election that has destroyed the Fix.

Posted by: PJF311 | October 1, 2008 6:56 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company