Palin aces another interview

Boy, this Governor is brilliant, and so well informed. She is totally prepared to step in on a moment's notice and lead the greatest country on earth. How could anyone possibly doubt her?

"Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America."

.

Doing nothing is a very bad idea ...

The current economic crisis is very real, but it is very confusing for many of us. It's important to remember that changes in the stock market are only part of the story. But the wild fluctuations taking place day by day are not a good sign. I did this post on the Hindenberg Omen a while back and it is very interesting. But what I'm reading about is the current credit crunch and how it is affecting big and small companies, municipalities, and all sectors of the economy. Here is Thomas Friedman:

"This time, we are doing it to ourselves. This time, it’s our own failure to regulate our own financial system and to legislate the proper remedy that is doing us in.

I’ve always believed that America’s government was a unique political system — one designed by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots. I was wrong. No system can be smart enough to survive this level of incompetence and recklessness by the people charged to run it.

This is dangerous. We have House members, many of whom I suspect can’t balance their own checkbooks, rejecting a complex rescue package because some voters, whom I fear also don’t understand, swamped them with phone calls. I appreciate the popular anger against Wall Street, but you can’t deal with this crisis this way.

This is a credit crisis. It’s all about confidence. What you can’t see is how bank A will no longer lend to good company B or mortgage company C. Because no one is sure the other guy’s assets and collateral are worth anything, which is why the government needs to come in and put a floor under them. Otherwise, the system will be choked of credit, like a body being choked of oxygen and turning blue.

Well, you say, “I don’t own any stocks — let those greedy monsters on Wall Street suffer.” You may not own any stocks, but your pension fund owned some Lehman Brothers commercial paper and your regional bank held subprime mortgage bonds, which is why you were able refinance your house two years ago. And your local airport was insured by A.I.G., and your local municipality sold municipal bonds on Wall Street to finance your street’s new sewer system, and your local car company depended on the credit markets to finance your auto loan — and now that the credit market has dried up, Wachovia bank went bust and your neighbor lost her secretarial job there.

We’re all connected. As others have pointed but, you can’t save Main Street and punish Wall Street anymore than you can be in a rowboat with someone you hate and think that the leak in the bottom of the boat at his end is not going to sink you, too. The world really is flat. We’re all connected. “Decoupling” is pure fantasy."

It's a scary time, and of course politics will get injected into the process, emotions will run hot and hotter, and some people will make total asses of themselves:

Good times.
Here's Dan Riehl's take on it all:

"While no one should want a major meltdown of the American and world economies, there is a common sense rationale for simply allowing it to burn. I see people going on about a trillion dollars in value lost. But in any real sense, that value wasn't really there.

(...)

Some of the alarmists out there might want to take a moment to consider all the ramifications here. It may sound harsh, but the Great Depression produced many things - one of them was called the Greatest Generation.

The great economic boom of the last few decades propped up by dubious credit has produced a generation or two that thinks enough is never enough and if one can't earn it, than you either borrow it, or the government in the form of hard working taxpayers should make sure you get yours in the end.

I'm no financial expert. I realize that without some plan there will be serious pain. But I also know pain is unavoidable in life. And any government that would have its citizenry believe that isn't the case simply isn't telling them the truth."

Personally, I've always preferred the idea of trying to make myself as decent as possible, rather than waiting for catastrophe to do it for me. But if people's lives have to be destroyed in order to produce a new
"Greatest Generation", I hope that people like Dan Riehl, who think that this sort of character-building through national catastrophe is a good thing, are disproportionately represented among them. After all, as he and his family settle in for the night in their minivan, Dan Riehl would be able to console himself with the thought that it's all for the sake of the greater good. Most of us, not having had this callous and idiotic idea in the first place, would not have that comfort available to us.

.

Twice as bad

Wow. For these two the whole is even worse than the sum of their parts. McCain/Palin sit down with Katie Couric ... again ... and whine about how people shouldn't take Caribou Barbie's words at face value. Then Johnny Drama says the media is soooo unfair. And she learns a lesson ... great! She can learn. But what? That the media are meanies!

No time for a gambler mentality

A massive article in the Sunday New York Times detailed John McCain's history with gambling behavior and gambling legislation. It is a must read because it shows an important side to his personality (he prefers to play the high risk game of craps) and how gambling lobbyists have permeated his campaign.
Americablog's Joe Sudbay posts some comments from a prominent religious commentator who says this could be trouble for McCain with the evangelical base of the party.

One reason this matters politically is summed up in a column today by David Brody at CBN.com ("Christian News 24/7"):

"The DNC knows that McCain’s so called penchant for gambling can hurt him among some social conservatives. It may not play well with other strongly religious voters as well. Indeed, the last thing McCain needs is another problem with the Evangelical base. In this case, the gambling issue could most likely trump the lobbyist issue. I mean it’s not like he’s playing the lottery or bingo or a quick 25 cents slot machine. This is high stakes gambling we’re talking about. Then you throw in the lobbyist angle and you have a dangerous credibility issue. Will voters buy it and will it stick? Does this bother you?"

McCain's got gambling issues: both his love for the tables and his lobbyists. And, his wife made all her money from beer. That's a tough combo for the evangelicals.

And today Obama takes the gambling theme and runs with it!

"I read the other day that Senator McCain likes to gamble. He likes to roll those dice. And that's okay. I enjoy a little friendly game of poker myself every now and then.

But one thing I know is this -- we can't afford to gamble on four more years of the same disastrous economic policies we've had for the last eight.

I know that when Senator McCain says he wants to bring the same kind of deregulation to our health care system that he helped bring to our banking system -- his words -- well, that's a bet we can't afford. We can't
afford to roll the dice by privatizing Social Security, and wagering the nest egg of millions of Americans on Wall Street. We can't afford to gamble on more of the same trickle down philosophy that showers tax breaks on big corporations and the wealthiest few. We've tried that. It doesn't work."

.

Alaskans want accountability and transparency

The McCain Team has been obstructing justice in the Alaska Troopergate investigation, and many people aren't happy about that, and about the possibility of having their unprepared governor being elected vice president. Here is an anti-Palin demonstration over the weekend I think in Anchorage:




When Sarah Palin eventually returns to Alaska, either for the shotgun wedding or after losing the election, she will meet an electorate that is very different than when she left. I wonder what those approval ratings look like toady?

UPDATE:
Another national commentator, Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek calls her out:

Palin Is Ready? Please.
McCain says that he always puts country first. In this important case, that is simply not true.

Will someone please put Sarah Palin out of her agony? Is it too much to ask that she come to realize that she wants, in that wonderful phrase in American politics, "to spend more time with her family"?

...

Palin has been given a set of talking points by campaign advisers, simple ideological mantras that she repeats and repeats as long as she can. ("We mustn't blink.") But if forced off those rehearsed lines, what she has to say is often, quite frankly, gibberish.

Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president.

She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start.

...

In these times, for John McCain to have chosen this person to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. McCain says that he always puts country first.

In this important case, it is simply not true.

.

Body blows bring fighters to their knees

This is probably the most devestating blow delivered by Obama in the debate, and it is backed up by other clips proving the points:


McCain was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong ...
.

Not just a 'yes' man

There are some bloggers good political bloggers out there, and then there are a few dozen or so who are exceptional on an everyday basis. John Cole is one of the exceptional ones. Here is his response to the McCain ad that came out last night and said that Barack Obama agreed with John McCain on one point after another:

"If what you took from the debate last night was that Obama simply agreed with McCain on every issue, you are, to put it simply, a fool. Now, this sort of nonsense is to be expected coming from the McCain campaign and from the professionally silly among us, but it should not be cause for concern among Democrats.

When Obama agreed with McCain last night, in almost every case it was agreeing that there is a problem so self-evident that to disagree would make one seem insane or out of touch. In almost every case he agreed in order to allow himself to gracefully contrast himself. See for yourself. In every instance he claimed McCain was right, he then went on to either contrast himself with McCain or to show that McCain’s approach to solving the issue is wrong:

“Well, I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there’s a crisis. ”
***
“Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up. And he’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn’t the case with me. But let’s be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year’s budget.”
***
“Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right. Here’s the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.”
***
“But let’s get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families. They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.”
***
And, John, I—you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don’t know, you know, how credible that is.

And so on.

As you can see, Obama is clearly not agreeing with him on substance - this is Obama’s style. He works from a point of agreement, and then moves to differentiate himself and or to attack. Everything is "You are right, but…"

I know that this bothers some of you, but it is one of the things I like about Obama. I think it is a graceful and gentlemanly way of debating. Additionally, it works really well in the type of format they had last night, where they are allowed to provide lengthy comments and responses. It may not be as effective in a different type of format, where it really may seem that all Obama does is agree with someone and then get cut off by the buzzer before supplying the “yes, but.” Last night, though, it was exceptional.

Obama was able to come across as a decent, earnest, and honest fellow of integrity who was confident enough to point out when his opponent was right before contrasting the differences between the two of them, while McCain sat hunched over the podium grimacing and unable to look his opponent in the eye.

At any rate, if you still can not understand this, I propose a test. Gentlemen, the next time your wife asks if you love her, say “Yes, but there are things I wish were different about our relationship and I think I may love other women more.” The next time your wife asks you if still think she is beautiful, answer “Yes, but you are starting to sag and look a little old.” The next time she asks you if she is fat, say “No, but…”

Get back to me after you get out of the hospital."

Good stuff!

Angry little troll

McCain's legendary temperment was in full display at last nights debate, and the early reviews aren't very good for him. And after the debates there is usually a dominant narrative that settles into the public consciousness.
What will it be for Obama/McCain I?
Here is John Cole's take:

"...It was sighs and eye-rolling in 2000, but in 2008 it will be anger, contempt, and the refusal to make eye contact. Take it way, Eugene Robinson:

Here’s the politically incorrect way of phrasing one of the central questions about tonight’s presidential debate: Did John McCain come across as too much of a grumpy old man?

That might not be a nice question, but it’s an important one. Americans like to vote for the nice guy, not the grumbling prophet of doom. Throughout the 90-minute debate, McCain seemed contemptuous of Obama. He wouldn’t look at him. He tried to belittle him whenever possible—how many times did he work “Senator Obama just doesn’t understand” into his answers? His body language was closed, defensive, tense. McCain certainly succeeded in proving that he can be aggressive, but the aggression came with a smirk and a sneer.

Your turn, Tom Shales:

John McCain wore the more presidential tie—that much can be said for him—but Barack Obama displayed the more presidential temperament, or the kind of demeanor people presumably would want in a president, when the two candidates met at the University of Mississippi last night for their first debate of the campaign.

Both men seemed well equipped in terms of facts and figures—especially, as one would expect, dollar figures—and neither made an outrageous blunder, although McCain did misidentify the new president of Pakistan. More critically, he came across as condescending and even rude to his opponent, a bit of bad behavior especially evident because Obama may have overdone the fair-minded bit in many of his remarks and answers.

Imperiously enough, McCain—who had threatened not to show up for the debate because of America’s financial crisis—seemed determined to avoid even looking at Obama as the debate went on, although they did shake hands at the beginning and end. Many of McCain’s answers were preceded with belittling references to Obama as if he were talking to a college freshman way out of his depth: “I’m afraid Senator
Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy,” was one typical remark.

Bring us home, LA Times:

Obama declined to be belittled. Although McCain refused to address him directly—despite encouragement from moderator Jim Lehrer—Obama looked at and spoke to McCain. Obama often credited McCain on issues—a grace that was not reciprocated—but he did not accept the role of junior candidate.

That is just a sample of what is going to come. Look for the appearance of the following words in days to come: cranky, grumpy, crotchety, angry, mean, rude, sneering, snarling, contemptuous, off-putting, snide, boorish, and worst of all, not Presidential."

John McCain does not have the temperment to be President at this time in our turbulent history.
.

The war on the middle class

Paul Newman, RIP

Is there anyone who didn't love Paul Newman? As an actor, he was much more than a pretty face. And as a businessman and social activist his Newman's Own brand of products and the contributions to charities changed lives for the better. He was a true Movie Star and he will be missed. Plus he was married to a beautiful and talented acress, Joanne Woodward. Our thoughts and prayers are with her.
Here are my Top 10 Paul Newman movies:

• Cool Hand Luke (1967)
• Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
• The Sting (1973)
• Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)
• The Long, Hot Summer (1958)
• The Hustler (1961)
• Hud (1963)
• The Verdict (1982)
• Slap Shot (1977)
• Nobody's Fool (1994)
• The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)

What are your's?
.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

One more conservative columnist faces reality. Kathleen Parker askes Sarah Palin to quit for the good of the party and her country:

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there.

...

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

How can any reasonably intelligent person watch the Couric interviews (or the Gibson interviews and even the friendly Hannity sessions) and think this woman can lead this country? Her answers are incomplete, nonsensical and an embarrassment.
Nice job, John McCain!

UPDATE: From Americablog.com ...

This is a conservative writer at the lead conservative Web site. This is a woman who was a fan of Sarah Palin, and now thinks Palin is wholly unqualified to be president of the United States.

First off, the writer is a real conservative, not some liberal. ... Second, she's a woman. Third, she was a Palin fan. Fourth, she's willing to say publicly that Palin needs to leave the race.

You don't do that to your own nominee unless it's panic time and you feel you have no choice. This article gives cover to anyone in the future who criticizes Palin. She was declared unfit for combat by a lead female conservative.

Also, there are probably even more conservatives fretting in the wings. This also means that Sarah Palin has not rallied Republicans. She's rallied SOME Republicans. She's freaked out others, just as she's freaked out all of us.

UPDATE II: From religious conservative writer Rod Dreher

Palin Debacle on CBS Evening News

Couric's questions are straightforward and responsible. Palin is mediocre, again, regurgitating talking points mechanically, not thinking. Palin's just babbling. She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero.
... she discusses why having Russia next to Alaska gives her relevant foreign policy experience. I am well and truly embarrassed for her. I think she's a good woman who might well be a great governor of Alaska. But good grief, just watch this train wreck.
.

Running out the clock

The voting is already underway in some states. This is one of the problems people should have with the McCain/Palin hide-and-seek campaign of dodging reporters and only doing select interviews. There are a lot of low-information voters out there, and some of them will be voting before a single debate is held. That is what is infuriating about McCain's proposal to delay the debates. It is a stalling tactic, and it may work.

Here is Amy Sullivan in Time magazine:

Taking Low Information Voting to New Extremes

McCain's let's-postpone-the-debate idea may not be a real possibility now that Obama has indicated he won't play ball. But here's a factor to consider with the proposal itself: by the time the next scheduled (or, as McCain would have it, "first") presidential debate takes place, 16 states will already be voting. That includes battlegrounds like Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

It's bad enough that voters in a half dozen states are casting ballots right now, before a single debate has been held and after only one opportunity to hear one of the vice-presidential candidates field questions from a reporter. It boggles the mind to think that almost one-third of the country could start voting before Obama and McCain have had the chance to engage directly with each other.

.

What's next for Bush?

I just watched this segment of the Daily Show that I recorded last night. It is very funny. But what knocked my socks off was the last line. Check it out:



As John Oliver goes over all of the Bush/Cheney administration disasters he notes the following:

Oliver: Legacy ... we all know he will never be ranked as the best President, but he could still, if he works hard enough ...

Stewart: Be the worst?

Oliver: The last.

Sad, but I think this is actually a possibility!

David Letterman en fuego

Trust me. This is 10 minutes of Letterman you don't want to miss.

Undecided, uninformed and uninspiring

Conservative blogger John Cole slaps undecided voters and lays it on the line about this full-on retreat by McCain"

Let me unpack this for the rest of you retrograde morons out there who are still undecided and can not figure out whether you will vote for Obama or McCain. And no, I am not with the Obama campaign on any official or unofficial level, so I feel perfectly comfortable calling you a total moron if you are an undecided at this point.

1.) McCain is not putting politics aside. He is injecting a massive dose of politics into this debate. Now, when the negotiators stick on points over the next 36 hours, they will have to wonder if it is being done in bad faith in order to suspend the debate.

2.) Sarah Palin is clearly not ready to debate next week, and the McCain campaign is desperate for a way to postpone her appearance.

3.) McCain is giving you another glimpse of his temperament. Obama quietly, without alerting the press, approached McCain. McCain staged a media stunt. Wait till you all hear the statement from McCain to Katie Couric in which he derided Obama’s attempt to issue a joint statement.

4.) If you want some moron to run around like his hair is on fire in a time of crisis, McCain is your man.

My god, this is the easiest choice in an election in my lifetime.

The McCain campaign is running scared. They aren't confident in McCain's ability to stay in the race or the debate with Obama, and they definitely aren't confident in Sarah Palin at this point. Every interview she does is an embarrassmentm all she does is repeat herself and jumble her answers. My guess is the cramming sessions she's getting from the McCain/Bush advisers are not going all that well. This is nothing but a political stunt and a delaying tactic.
.

Waaaa, waaaaaa, waaaaaa

From This Modern World

The McCain campaign thinks his campaign strategy of “suspending” his campaign helps reinforce his “Country First” slogan, but it really just makes him look like an old man who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
.

Searching for Sarah

Two things about Sarah Palin tonight. First, this post from TMPelectioncentral:

Letting Sarah Palin Answer Questions Is Very, Very Dangerous
By Greg Sargent

The lengths the McCain campaign is going to in order to shield Sarah Palin from questioning are reaching truly comic dimensions. Check out this nugget from the pool report, via Jonathan Martin, on John McCain and Palin's meeting with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko:

"McCain then looked around the room and gestured as if to welcome questions. The AP reporter shouted a question at Gov. Palin ('Governor, what have you learned from your meetings?') but McCain aide Brooke Buchanan intervened and shepherded everybody out of the room. Palin looked surprised, leaned over to McCain and asked him a question, to which your pooler thinks he shook his head as if to say 'No.'"

Palin can't even be allowed to answer a question as basic as this? What's really sobering is that the McCain campaign continues to block Palin from answering questions even though it's now resulting in reams and reams of bad press for the McCain-Palin ticket. That suggests McCain advisers know that letting her answer even the most elementary questions in an uncontrolled environment is so dangerous that it's worth weathering the current media drubbing they're taking in order to prevent it from happening at all costs. Has anyone pointed out that McCain has placed Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency?

This relates to a special commentary that CNN Anchor Campbell Brown gave last night where she said it was time for the McCain campaign to "Free Sarah!"




Nice.

Candidate Tax Plans Compared

Where there's a Will there's a sway

Another conservative stallwart is dismayed with John McCain and concerned about his mental state. Can you guess who wrote this?

MCCAIN LOSES HIS HEAD

"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."
-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama. Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated.

This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
...
Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency.

Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience.

Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

If you said George Will you are a winner!
.

I've got no time for bigots and liars

In his article today in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof talks about the presidential campaign and "The Push to ‘Otherize’ Obama." The crux of this "otherness" is the smear that has been debunked, yet it persists, about Barack Obama's religious beliefs. Kristof regrets his role in this smear and writes:

What is happening, I think, is this: religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice. In public at least, it’s not acceptable to express reservations about a candidate’s skin color, so discomfort about race is sublimated into concerns about whether Mr. Obama is sufficiently Christian.

So, let's be completely clear here. Barack Obama is not and has never been a Muslim. And there is no evidence to the contrary. Here are some more statements and details:

“Let's make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate, when I’m presiding … in the Internet age,there are going to be lies that are spread all over the place. I have been victimized by these lies. Fortunately the American people are, I think, smarter than folks give them credit for.”
– Barack Obama, Democratic Debate, January 16, 2008

THE FACTS

• Barack Obama has never been a Muslim and has never prayed at a mosque.
• Barack Obama never attended a radical madrassa.
• Barack Obama became a Christian long before he entered politics. As a community organizer in the1980s, he worked with a group of Christian churches in a depressed neighborhood of Chicago.

NEWS REPORTS HAVE CONDEMNED THE FALSE SMEARS

NEWSWEEK: "Dueling chain e-mails claim [Obama’s] a radical Muslim or a 'racist' Christian. Both can't be right. We find both are false. . . One claims that Obama is 'certainly a racist' by virtue of belonging to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, which it says 'will accept only black parishioners' and espouses a commitment to Africa. Actually, a white theology professor says he's been 'welcomed enthusiastically' at the church, as have other non-blacks. Another e-mail claims that Obama 'is a Muslim,' attended a 'Wahabi' school in Indonesia, took his Senate oath on the Koran, refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and is part of an Islamic plot to take over the U.S. Each of these statements is false. These false appeals to bigotry and fear remind us of the infamous whispering campaign of eight years ago, when anonymous messages just before the South Carolina primary." (January 11, 2008)

LOS ANGELES TIMES: "That the rumors are false and vile is self-evident ... Presidential candidates of both parties have a duty to denounce not only the smear against Obama but the bigotry that underlies it." (December 2, 2007)

ASSOCIATED PRESS: “Interviews by The Associated Press at the elementary school in Jakarta found that it's a public and secular institution that has been open to students of all faiths since before the White House hopeful attended in the late 1960s.” (January 24, 2007)

WASHINGTON POST: “Mr. Obama's slimers seem to think such name-calling and Muslim-baiting can score points with the American people. On the contrary, Mr. Obama's multicultural background (his father was Kenyan, and he spent several years living in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather) ought to be viewed as a plus. A president with an understanding of Islam and the developing world would be welcomed by those who too often feel misunderstood and slighted by the United States. Mr. Obama has never tried to hide his past or his family name: He has written about being educated at a predominantly Muslim school. His father, a non-practicing Muslim, was Barack Hussein Obama Sr.”(January 28, 2007)

RELIGIOUS LEADERS HAVE CONDEMNED THE FALSE SMEARS

FAITH LEADERS: “Many of you have seen hateful emails, blog postings and reports circulating on the Internet and in the media about Senator Barack Obama and his religious upbringing. We are writing to deplore this despicable tactic and set the record straight. We have had enough of the slash and burn politics calculated to divide us as children of God. We must come together as one nation, and see our stake in each other as Americans. The bitter, destructive politics that have so riven our country in recent years cannot stand.” (January 23, 2007)

Signed by: Dr. Robert W. Edgar, National Council of Churches; Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner; Salam Al-Marayati, Muslim Public Affairs Council; Rev. Stephen J. Thurston,National Baptist Convention of America; The Rt. Rev. Preston W. Williams, Global Council of Bishops, African Methodist Episcopal Church; Sister Simone Campbell, SSS, NETWORK; The Rev. John H. Thomas, United Church of Christ; Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, Interfaith Alliance; Rabbi Jill Jacobs, Jewish Funds for Justice; Alexia Kelly, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Dr. T. DeWitt Smith, Jr., Progressive National Baptist Convention

I have no patience or respect for anyone who promotes this lie about Barack Obama. Let's set aside the fact that a person being of the Muslim faith is not a disqualifying characteristic for holding public office. But, to believe this smear is to believe that Obama has been hiding his true religious belief to everyone in his life for decades. It implies that he is a Trojan Horse or Manchurian Candidate who is waiting to get to the White House so he can begin to exert a Muslim influence on the nation. It's absurd, and like Kristoff I believe there are racial undertones in this narrative.

I don't want people who believe this bullshit and peddle it to others to be a part of my life. I prefer to be surrounded by people with character and integrity.

Stop the smears. Stop the bigotry.
.

Obama's Fannie Mae 'Connection'

This is a combination of a lie and a deflection by the McCain campaign:
"Look at how Obama is tied to Freddie and Fannie ... and please, please don't look over here at our considerable ties to Freddie and Fannie."

Here is the Washington Post FactChecker again:

The Facts

The McCain video attempts to link Obama to Franklin Raines, the former CEO of the bankrupt mortgage giant, Fannie Mae, who also happens to be African American. It then shows a photograph of an elderly white woman taxpayer who has supposedly been "stuck with the bill" as a result of the "extensive financial fraud" at Fannie Mae.

The Obama campaign last night issued a statement by Raines insisting, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, telling me in an e-mail that the campaign had "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter."

So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed
Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, ...

The Pinocchio Test

The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple
of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself -- and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.

Two Pinocchios

And here is John Aravosis from Americablog.com:

Politico:
To The Editor:

Yesterday, Senator John McCain released a television commercial attacking Barack Obama for allegedly receiving advice on the economy from former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. From the stump, he has recently tried tying Senator Obama to Fannie Mae, as if there is some guilt in the association with Fannie Mae's former executives.It is an interesting card for Senator McCain to play, given that his campaign manager, Rick Davis, was paid by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several hundred thousand dollars early in this decade to head up an organization to lobby in their behalf called The Homeownership Alliance. ...I worked in government relations for Fannie Mae for more than 20 years, leading the group for most of those years.

When I see photographs of Sen. McCain's staff, it looks to me like the team of lobbyists who used to report to me. Senator McCain's attack on Senator Obama is a cheap shot, and hypocritical.

Sincerely,
William Maloni
Fannie Mae Senior Vice President for Government and Industry Relations (1983-2004)

What did Rick Davis know and when did he know it? Actually, we already know. Joe just found this little bombshell from earlier this year. Wasn't so relevant in February when it was written. It is now. McCain's campaign manager's previous job was ensuring that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't get regulated by the feds:

"Davis, was president of the Homeownership Alliance, a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-led advocacy group which has tried to fend off regulation sought by large private banks and mortgage lenders.The front story of the Homeownership Alliance is that it sought to make home ownership affordable to the broadest possible range of people and feared that that this mission would be compromised if Congress stepped in with too many rules.The back story, according to critics, is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac feared that Congressional meddling would lower their healthy profits."

.

Giving credence to questionable reporting ...

This McCain campaign lie, enabled by an unscrupulous reporter with a history of distortions, deserves to have this full post from Jake Tapper added here:

**************************************

Undermining McCain Campaign Attack, Republicans Back Obama‘s Version of Meeting With Iraqi Leaders
September 19, 2008

Earlier this week, the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., seized upon a column in the New York Post that described Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as having urged Iraqi leaders in a private meeting to delay coming to an agreement with the Bush administration on the status of U.S. troops.

"Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a drawdown of the American military presence," Post columnist Amir Taheri wrote, quoting Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who told the Post that Obama, during his meeting with Iraqi leaders in July, "asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington."

The charge -- that Obama asked the Iraqis to delay signing off on a "Status of Forces Agreement," thus delaying U.S. troop withdrawal and interfering in U.S. foreign policy -- has been picked up on the Internet, talk radio and by Republicans, including the McCain campaign, which seized on the story as possible evidence of duplicity.

The Obama campaign said that the Post report consisted of "outright distortions."
Lending significant credence to Obama's response is the fact that -- though it's absent from the Post story and other retellings -- in addition to Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, this July meeting was also attended by Bush administration officials, such as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the Baghdad embassy's legislative affairs advisor Rich Haughton, as well as a Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Attendees of the meeting back Obama's account, including not just Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., but Hagel, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffers from both parties. Officials of the Bush administration who were briefed on the meeting by the U.S. embassy in Baghdad also support Obama's account and dispute the Post story and McCain attack.

The Post story is "absolutely not true," Hagel spokesman Mike Buttry told ABC News.
"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations," said Obama campaign national security spokesperson Wendy Morigi, "nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades."

Buttry said that Hagel agrees with Obama's account of the meeting: Obama began the meeting with al-Maliki by asserting that the United States speaks with one foreign policy voice, and that voice belongs to the Bush administration.

A Bush administration official with knowledge of the meeting says that, during the meeting, Obama stressed to al-Maliki that he would not interfere with President Bush's negotiations concerning the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, and that he supports the Bush administration's position on the need to negotiate, as soon as possible, the Status of Forces Agreement, which deals with, among other matters, U.S. troops having immunity from local prosecution.
Obama did assert at the meeting with the Iraqis that he agrees with those -– including Hagel and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- who advocate congressional review of the Strategic Framework Agreement being worked out between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government, including the Iraqi parliament.

The Strategic Framework Agreement is a document that generally describes what the relationship between the two countries should look like over time.

According to one person present at the meeting, Obama told al-Maliki that the American people wouldn't understand why the Iraqi parliament would get to have a say on the Strategic Framework Agreement, but the U.S. Congress would not, especially since Bush is only months from leaving the White House, regardless of whether Obama or McCain succeeds him.
Morigi said in a statement that "Barack Obama has consistently called for any Strategic Framework Agreement to be submitted to the U.S. Congress so that the American people have the same opportunity for review as the Iraqi parliament."

It’s possible, Obama advisers believe, that either Zebari or Taheri confused the Strategic Framework Agreement -- which Obama feels should be reviewed by Congress -- with the Status of Forces Agreement, which Obama says the Bush administration should negotiate with the Iraqis as soon as possible.

Two officials of the Bush administration say that if Obama had done what the Post story asserted –- which they believe to be untrue -– Crocker and embassy officials attending the meeting would have ensured that the Bush administration heard about it immediately. If such an incident occurred in front of officials of the Bush administration, it would have constituted a foreign policy breach and would have been front-page huge news; it would not have leaked out two months later in an op-ed column.

Nonetheless, based on nothing more than the Post report, McCain senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann issued a statement earlier this week, expressing outrage.
“It should be concerning to all that (Obama) reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the U.S. administration in power,” Scheunemann said, apparently not having talked to anyone with knowledge about the meeting in the Bush administration, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Hagel, or any Republican staffers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas,” Scheunemann continued. “Sen. Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's foreign minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Sen. Obama's judgment, and it demands an explanation.”

What actually demands an explanation is why the McCain campaign was so willing to give credence to such a questionable story with such tremendous international implications without first talking to Republicans present at Obama’s meeting with al-Maliki, who back Obama’s version of the meeting and completely dismiss the Post column as untrue.

-- Jake Tapper and Kirit Radia
.

Cold Blooded Killers

There are a lot of political ads floating around right now. How effective are they? It looks like many don't make a significant impact on voters. But there is one ad that is changing minds.

"The ad which focuses on Governor Palin's record regarding the treatment of wildlife in Alaska seemed to strike a chord with voters," commented Glenn Kessler, president and CEO, HCD Research

It is a powerful ad and has some scenes that may disturb some people.



I do not oppose most sport hunting. And, for the most part, I don't mind people owning firearms. But this isn't sporting. It is grotesque.

Not a principled man

Another former McCain supporter turns on him. "Citizen McCain" author Elizabeth Drew writes "How John McCain Lost Me":

By then I had already concluded that that there was a disturbingly erratic side of McCain’s nature. There’s a certain lack of seriousness in him. And he does not appear to be a reflective man, or very interested in domestic issues. One cannot imagine him ruminating late into the night about, say, how to educate and train Americans for the new global and technological challenges.

McCain’s making a big issue of “earmarks” and citing entertaining examples of ridiculous-sounding ones, circumvents discussion of the larger issues of the allocation of funds in the federal budget: according to the Office of Management and Budget, earmarks represent less than one percent of federal spending.

Now he’s back to declaring himself a maverick, but it’s not clear what that means. If he gains the presidency, is he going to rebel against the base he’s now depending on to get him elected? (Hence his selection of running mate Sarah Palin.) Campaigns matter. If he means “shaking up the system” (which is not the same thing), opposing earmarks doesn’t cut it.

McCain’s recent conduct of his campaign – his willingness to lie repeatedly (including in his acceptance speech) and to play Russian roulette with the vice-presidency, in order to fulfill his long-held ambition – has reinforced my earlier, and growing, sense that John McCain is not a principled man.

In fact, it’s not clear who he is.

Energy Inflation

You may have heard that Gov. Sarah Palin "knows more about energy than probably anyone in the United States of America." That's what John McCain said in an ABC interview, Sept. 11, 2008.
She recently said, "My job has been to oversee nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas." Sept. 15, 2008.
These numbers have been repeated by McCain and other surrogates several times in the past few week.
Looks like it's time for FactChecker to weigh in.

The woman touted by John McCain as the most knowledgable person in America on energy issues has been having a lot of trouble getting her basic energy statistics straight. Last week, Sarah Palin told Charlie Gibson of ABC News that her state, Alaska, produced "nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." Yesterday, she told a campaign rally in Golden, Colorado, that she had been responsible for overseeing "nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas." Both claims are way off.

The Facts
While Alaska is a leading producer of crude oil, it produces relatively little natural gas, hardly any coal, and no nuclear power. Its share of oil production has been declining sharply, and now ranks lower than Texas and Louisiana. As the following table shows, Alaska is the ninth largest energy supplier in the United States, accounting for a modest 3.5 percent share of the nation's total energy production.
...
After the non-partisan Factcheck.org pointed out Palin's error in her interview with Gibson, the Alaska governor revised her claim somewhat, limiting it to oil and gas. But data compiled by the Energy Information Administration contradict her claim that she oversees "nearly 20 percent" of oil and gas production in the country. According to authoritative EIA data, Alaska accounted for just 7.4 percent of total U.S. oil and gas production in 2005.

It is not even correct for Palin to claim that her state is responsible for "nearly 20 percent" of U.S. oil production. Oil production has fallen sharply in Alaska during her governorship. The state's share of total U.S. oil production fell from 18 percent in 2005 to 13 percent this year, according to the EIA.

The Pinocchio Test
The Republican vice presidential nominee continues to peddle bogus statistics three days after the original error was pointed out by independent fact-checkers. Four Pinocchios.

.

Mythbusters

More on her record by Timothy Egan...

As the Wall Street Journal reported this week, Governor Palin overturned a decision to shutter a money-losing, state-run creamery — Matanuska Maid — when her friends in Wasilla complained about losing their subsidies. She fired the board that recommended closure, and replaced it with one run by a childhood friend. After six months, and nearly $1 million in fresh losses, the board came to the same conclusion as the earlier one: Matanuska Maid could not operate without being a perpetual burden on the taxpayers.
This is Heckuva-Job-Brownie government, Far North version.

Factchecking by CNN

Arrows up, arrows down

The Chart

Toles

Race and the White House

Karen Tumulty at Swampland is talking about the elephant in the room regarding the Obama candidacy -- Race.

I listened to Joe Scarborough a couple of weeks ago saying that if Obama loses many people would blame it on racism and Joe said those people would be wrong because America isn't a racist country, at least not any more.

So here is the question: What percentage of voters would have to say "I did not vote for Barack Obama because he is black" before you would say America IS infected with racism. Ten percent? 20 percent? If five percent of Americans said that and Obama lost by less than a point or two, wouldn't racism be a factor?

Well, in some parts of the country, like Appalachia, you have 25 percent saying race was a factor in their primary vote. Ten percent in parts of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The two big questions in the primary and even now have been, "Is America ready for a black president?" and "Is America ready for a woman president?"

If we ask and we really aren't sure about the answer, then America has deep seated problems regarding race and sexism. And that makes it fair game to ask if those factors affected the election outcome. That's not excuse making. That's introspection for a nation.
.

The sword of Sarah Palin

This is a good comment from a reader over at Altercation:

Name: John B
Hometown: Des Moines, IA

Coverage of Sarah Palin appears to be slowly backing away from openly fawning to a little more critical of her "record", but the MSM still seems to be letting the campaign slide on what should be a major red flag.

Palin has, to put it bluntly, fired a lot of people in her short political career. The McCain camp represents this as proof of her "reformer" status, but couldn't it just as easily be something completely different?

Over and over Ms. Palin has used the reason that she wants people who will "support her more fully." There are actually two questions here, and they're both important. The first is obvious; is this really what "reform" looks like? It looks a lot more like cronyism. The second is a little more philosophical, and goes to the nature of public service.

Apparently public employees exist to serve Sarah Palin. I always thought they served the public. That's not a small distinction.

Many successful cities have a city manager form of government. The Mayor and Council set policy and leave it up to the professional manager and the staff to implement that policy. The nice thing about this system is it gives politicians limited power over personnel matters. There are some key employees they can hire or fire, but most are hired by the professional staff and there are checks and balances in place to protect employees from the whims of the elected officials.

Palin clearly likes the power and is prone to wielding the ax to chopped the heads off anyone who stands in her way. This is ego, pure and simple. And it is a dangerous trait.

The infatuation of the public and press is wearing off and the cold reality of who this woman really is is beginning to sink in with a lot of people.

Some people have been promoting her as the rightful heir to the Bush/Cheney neocon agenda for some time.
.

A Man of Lost Honor

Why Many Women Won't Pull the Lever for Palin

As is typical for the recent (circa 1999 and on) iteration of the republican party where up is down, black is white, and right is wrong, the selection of a woman for vice presidential nominee has the potential to do the exact opposite in serving the interest of women, not to mention the country we love.

How many times will we be fooled by a party that panders to and parades the "values" that attract good, fair minded people, only to serve narrow, status quo interests once in office? Remember Bush running on a platform of compassionate conservatism? Toward whom has compassion been directed during the run of this administration? Do you recall campaign missives about a transparent government and bringing dignity and integrity back to the white house? This administration will go down as the most opaque and secretive in America's history and it will be decades before we truly understand all that was hidden from its citizens and the damage done. And integrity? Read Scott McClellan's book. But don't buy it and line his complicit pockets. Get it at the library. Suffice it to say Valerie Plame, lying our way into a war, Alberto Gonzales and the firing of good and just justice department attorneys as a few examples.

Now, during this election, we are being told that we can make history and take a stand against sexism by voting the McCain Palin ticket. But the vetting that has been done by the people, primarily because John McCain wouldn't, has turned up clear facts about Ms. Palin's archaic, extremely conservative, fundamentalist beliefs. Once in office (heaven forbid), these beliefs WILL COLOR EVERYTHING SHE DOES IN THAT OFFICE. And, as we all know, she will (heaven forbid again) be one melanoma away from being the leader of the free world. And in this regard, let me utter the three most frightening words: Supreme Court Appointments.

Frank Rich, on this past Sunday's (September 14) New York Times opinion page said it best: "before our eyes, McCain is turning over the keys to his administration to ideologies and a running mate to Bush's right", and he of course was referring to Sarah Palin. It's actually a great piece. Take time to read it, as well as the front page article about Ms. Palin in the same edition. It details objectively what she would truly bring to women's rights instead of what you are being told by the McCain campaign to lull you into pulling the lever for exactly the opposite of your own best interest.

The other Alaska rally this weekend

Palin's church and the third wave movement

Sarah Palin's Churches and The Third Wave from Bruce Wilson on Vimeo.

Third Grader Politics

Paul Reiser at the Huffington Post makes the case in a sad, humorous way that all of John McCain's nasty, negative, false ads are Obama's fault. But he ends it with this simple assessment:

Obama treats us like adults, and McCain's team treats us like children.
Obama seeks to inspire and raise us as a nation. McCain's people want to reduce us to infants.
Obama asks us to be deep. And courageous. McCain prays that we're simple. And cowardly.

.

I hate viral e-mails ... except this one!

This is going around ...


I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....


* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."

* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.


* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.


* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.


* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.


* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.


* If you teach teach children about sexual predators, you are irresponsible and eroding the fiber of society.

* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.


* If your wife is a Harvard graduate laywer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America 's.

* If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that hates America and advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.


OK, much clearer now.

.

Women Against Sarah Palin

In their own words ...

• http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/

Lies, lies, lies, yeah

There are big lies, there are little white lies, and there are all types of lies in between. The McCain/Palin campaign is lying and distorting at a pace and scale that is greater than any campaign in recent memory. That is being proven every day by fact check organizations and the media. And when I say they lie about everything ...

• They are lying about her visits to foreign countries.
• They are lying not only about the sizes of their crowds, but they are lying about who told them those estimates.
• They are lying about Sarah Palin's record on earmarks.
• They are lying about Palin's fiscal record.
• They are lying about her governing style and popularity.
• They are lying about many, many, many things.

I always thought lying was a character issue.

UPDATE: From Josh Marshall:

Spokesman On McCain Strategy of Campaign Lies

From NBC's First Read ...

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said this to the Politico about the increased media scrutiny of the campaign's factual claims: "We're running a campaign to win. And we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it."

Josh adds: Basing a campaign for high office on a strategy of deliberate lies is not an issue of tactics. It calls into question the character of the candidate and his fitness for office.

Only serious people need apply

This woman is not ready to be vice president ... and imagine President Sarah Palin? Puhleeze.

Joan Walsh at Salon, what do you think?

John McCain should be ashamed of himself. Ashamed, on 9/11, to have picked someone as ignorant and unready to be president as Sarah Palin.

People who like that sort of thing are going to like Palin's interview, a lot. Apparently, there is a constituency of people who want their president to be just like them, who want him or her to be someone they can have a beer with, to be just as clueless and uninformed as they are.

But I believe that's a small constituency. I believe that most Americans, most independents, and serious, patriotic conservatives, are going to see this interview and be very, very afraid.

.

Nope. Yer no astronaut.

Oh, thank you for this, John Cole!!!

Sarah Palin:
Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin answered:

“They’re our next door neighbors and you can
actually see Russia from land here in Alaska,
from an island in Alaska.”

Our very own Krista, in the comments, responds:

And when I look out my window I can see the moon.
Doesn’t make me a fucking astronaut now, does it?

.

Documenting the attrocities

Dishonest and dishonorable

John McCain put out an add a couple of days ago that was one of the sleaziest ads ever seen in presidential politics, according to Joe Klein and many others, including the fact checkers below:

The New York Times’ “Checkpoint” (“Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy “), Factcheck.org (“Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners”) and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker ("McCain's Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive") say the ad is a gross distortion.

Basically, the legislation that Barack Obama supported in Illinois (but which did not pass), would have provided for educating younger children (as early as kindergarten) about sexuality in age appropriate and responsible ways, such as the difference between good touches and bad touches so they would be better protected against pedophiles.

But the McCain campaign and others are distorting this in sleazy ways. But the Big Money Media is starting to notice this crap and they don't like what all of this is saying about John McCain's character and the type of campaign he has decided to run. Jake Tapper has more:

The script reads as follows: "Education Week says Obama 'hasn’t made a significant mark on education' That he’s 'elusive' on accountability. 'A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.' Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."

The most controversial item in the McCain ad is the assertion that Obama supports children "learning about sex before learning to read," and the accusation that Obama's "one accomplishment" on education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners."

But both claims are false.

The idea seems to be to paint Obama as an insanely liberal sleaze ball who wants to teach young kids who don’t even know how to read all about graphic sexual information.

That's not fair and it's not accurate.

One can only imagine what the John McCain of 2004 – who called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads “dishonest and dishonorable” – would say about this ad.
...
I suppose one could twist this stuff any way you want if your only point is to make an inflammatory charge. And win an election.

One could say that if McCain opposes this bill he supports students in kindergarten making unwanted sexual advances towards each other, that he opposes ensuring that 5-year-old girls aren’t vulnerable to sexual violence.

It wouldn’t be true, but Obama could say that -- if his only point was to throw a rhetorical Molotov cocktail at McCain.

The fact checkers are not getting much sleep with the McSlime campaign running in high gear on the low road.

UPDATE:

(A new) ad defends Obama, and suggests McCain is indifferent to the plight of sexually abused children.

"Every eight minutes a child is sexually abused. That's why Barack Obama supported legislation to teach children how to protect themselves. Now John McCain is twisting the facts and attacking Senator Obama," says the female narrator, over images that suggest abused children.

"Doesn't McCain want our children to protect ourselves from sex offenders? Or after 26 years in Washington, is he just another politician who will say anything to get elected?"

.