I already said that both sides were out of line. I said that no one was using the will of their voting base as the primary decider of their vote, which results in a total disconnect in this case that will hurt the incumbants up for election this year, no matter what they voted. There's nothing 'noble' about either side.

The assumed 'train wreck' was that he would spend most of his time solely blaming the Democrats for this vote. I was surprised to hear him attack the Republicans as well for playing politics. But as I mentioned earlier, he did slowly go downhill after that, so I downgraded my shock level and turned him off. :)

i feel like this is pretty much par for the course for congress though. they do this all the time. the will of the actual voting base is VERY rarely the primary concern of any politician.

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

*The bill should pass.

*Simply voting against it is unacceptable. Those voting against it need to explain their alternative proposal. Doing nothing is not an option. (Well, it's an option, but not a good one.)

*The bill should be worked out in a bipartisan manner.

*Pelosi's speech was not a good idea. Doesnt make sense to broker a 50-50 compromise so you havea bipartisan solution and then attack the people you just made a deal with.

*Blaming Pelosi's speech doesn't make the Republicans look good. Makes it sound like theyre putting hurt feelings above the good of the country.

*Every challenger candidate across the country should have to answer the question on how they'd vote. It's chickenshit to stay mum now and then attack whichever way the incumbent votes. I have a feeling we will have alot of challengers "deciding" on how they feel about the bailout after the final vote.

Then what is your explanation for the more Democrats voting for the bill than Republicans? If both were equally and only concerned about losing their re-election then we would expect an equal number of "nos". Clearly there is a greater antagonism to this bill in the Republicans and I would suggest that is their ideological opposition to government interference.

Agree completely with all the above. The house republicans should explain their alternative (which is a much better bill, IMO) and argue for that. At worst, pass a small bill for the initial amount as a loan.

+1

lol - so i know i'm like the only one still cracking on Palin, but i just saw this line by someone commenting on the AC360 blog about the island in Alaska.

Jim W.

September 30th, 2008 12:02 pm ET I can see the moon from my house. I have space traveller experience!

made me LOL

I think everyone is in such shock over our government actually working the way its supposed to for once no one knows how to react. That's certainly the case for me.

I agree, but in the opposite direction. Absent the election, I don't believe the vote would have been anywhere near as close as it was so quickly. Instead of a plan eventually approved on the next week or so as I expect we'll see, I imagine we'd be looking at 2-3 weeks of wrangling instead. Both sides would have taken more cracks at finding some political hay in the situation if they had more time.

Doubtfull. My bet is if this crisis would have happened the week after the elections, a lame-duck congress would have passed it very quickly.

Quoting Scherer:

"Nearly every major political leader in America supported the bailout bill. The President of the United States. The Vice President. The Treasury Secretary. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Democratic and Republican nominees for president. The Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and the Senate. All of them said the same thing. Vote yes."


If there wasn't an election next month, this sails through with no problem.

As stated in the paragraph you quotes above:

Now, if you want to argue that being in a GOP dominated district means they have to vote one way ideologically to not get thrown out on their ass, then you'd be right.

SI

He is also up 64 to 35 in the head to head markets. Someone posted that during the debates it had dropped to a 7 point margin, so it seems the money has really gotten behind Obama the past few days.

If Obama is leading by five or six points after the next debate, the election is over with.

There's a surprising poll on the Senate race in Georgia. SurveyUSA has Saxby Chambliss up by only two points over Jim Martin. Definitely an outlier at this point, so we'll wait and see what other polls say. I almost want Chambliss to lose more than I want Obama to win.

Quik pointed me to 538 which shows Chambliss very safe. His approval rating is actually over 50% and he's barely advertising here (at least I haven't seen too much). Amazingly, he and Purdue have high-ish approval ratings. I'm waiting for the gas prayer at the capital.

All Obama has to do is to play it really safe. Just go to rallies in certain places, keep a low profile in the DC mess and let the DNC et al do the dirty work. He should be president by default and then he'll let those around him tell him what he should do and say while president. That's better than what we have now.

and i have faith that Obama will do that - listen to those around him, where I don't have that same faith of McCain...I think he'd get carried away with his "maverick" image or get headstrong and not listen to anybody else. And that's what worries me.

The problem is that he is going to get conflicting advice and will succumb to analysis paralysis.Plus some of the people around him will not be smart enough to give good advice, some will be mavericks in their own accord. That will happen no matter who's there as Potomac Fever and the media will wear anyone down. Like I said, I would be keeping more of a wary eye on Congress and what punitive legislation they will force.

Wait...Isn't that what happens now? :)

I trust that Obama will hire better people. I do wonder if Obama wins the election, if the bar will be set too high for what people will expect.

I have no doubt whatsoever that that's true, sterlingice, but the House Republicans don't need that motivation - the bill is antagonistic to everything they've believed in all their political lives. It would be no problem opposing the bill without any push from their districts.

Yeah, that's why I was surprised by the SurveyUSA poll. There's a Dem poll that confirms this one, but I'd like to see what Rasmussen says before I get excited.

dola...

This was new information to me, having not given much thought to her education. In light of the apparent lack of it, though, here is the text from Wikipedia:


Potential President of the United States, ladies and gentlemen.

Any hard sources, besides Wikipedia?

Sure thing: here's an AP article, for one.

The Wiki article is pretty well footnoted.

yeah - i'm not necessarily an educational-snob, but that is amazingly weak as far as a college-resume and course of study

Thanks....I just don't fully trust wikipedia (sometimes they don't have footnotes).

It's good to treat Wikipedia with caution and double-check the info.

Bush went to Yale, look at him. It's a good question that springs to mind. Do the choice of college matter in politics? Bill Clinton went to the University of Arkansas, a respectable public school (but not as selective, competitive, and "cache" of the Ivy League pedigree). Do you think you learn more from the more diverse demographics of a school like Arkansas, than an exclusive school like Harvard or Yale, that will benefit you in politics in life?

I think I'm more concerned that her B.S. was in communications/journalism from a number of relatively unknown schools, which isn't really the educational preparation I'd like to see for the potential leader of the free world.

Communications/Journalism? Oh well (throws his college degree in Communication Arts out into the trash)

Also, how do you respond like this:


...when your degree is in communications/journalism?

I really think a lot of people are under estimating what role Obamas background (yes, primarily race) will play in the voting booth the day of the election. Minority candidates usually see a drop from poll numbers to vote numbers, and if battleground states remain close...

While I don't think it matters much, Clinton went to Georgetown.

Why am I thinking of University of Arkansas (I know he was gov. of Arkansas, or course)?

Georgetown, Oxford and Yale Law.

A quick google search says he taught at the University of Arkansas.

She's clearly out of her league at this point, but she's had a very inspiring career.

Extremely successful people tend to find themselves in positions before they're ready for them.

Wow, she didn't remember the name of a few newspapers or magazines that she had recently read off the top of her head. What a travesty! How can we have a president who doesn't state off the bat they read Newsweek, Time, the Washington Post and New York Times.

I'm betting she was referring to some local papers and didn't want to look like a hick and say "well, last week I read the anchorage gazette and Wasalla times". So, instead of lying and say she reads the New York Times every day, she decided not to answer. I don't see the big issue here. It was a stupid question that was made even more insufferable by Couric asking it 10 times in a row when it's obvious Palin didn't think her newspaper basket was all that important given the other things going on.

i don't even know where to start with your response.

1. i don't think we should have a president (or VP) who while on the campaign trail is reading the anchorage gazette and the wasilla times (or whatever) over the NYT, the Washington Post, and Time magazine.
2. She is a hick. By all accounts she's proud of the fact, so why not look like one. That seems to be her sweet-spot in terms of voters she's attracting too.
3. Not a stupid question at all - it demonstrates that she's up-to-date on current events and engaged with the world outside of Alaska
4. Even if couric asked her about the other things going on her answer would not have been coherent and intelligent (as she has shown time and time again)

I agree with this. She's in a position where every slip up she has is magnified by 10 and put on the front page of every paper. If she says there are 57 states or FDR was on TV in 1929, SNL has material for 3 weeks and every comedy show, columnist and new program is hammering her. Obama says something like that and it's "well, he's just tired from the campaign and you have to give him some slack." Biden or even McCain say something like that and it's "well, it was just a slip of the tongue - can happen to anybody."

In football terms, Palin is basically Eli Manning from 3 years ago and Obama/Biden are Brett Favre. No matter what Palin does, the media will report it in the worst possible light. With Obama/Biden, they circle the wagons. Palin has made plenty of mistakes and mis-statements, but so have the other three candidates.

For whatever reason (you can choose from she's young and pretty, not schooled in the right university, a pro-life woman, has a weird accent, from Alaska, she's undeserving in many people's mind), a ton of people (esp on the left) just flat out despise her and are giddy at every mis-step she makes.

The truth is that Palin has gotten to this point a little quicker than maybe she deserves, but you can say the same thing for Obama. While Obama got a good 20 months to ease into this situation with a mile of slack and lionizing media articles off the bat, Palin has been thrown in with no margin for error and a ton of criticism. At this point, she should just realize that she will be made fun of no matter how she handles things, be herself and hope enough people relate to her that she can help McCain.

This comment is exactly why she fumbled the response. She knew the truth would draw even more ire. I guess papers in Alaska are incapable of picking the AP wire like the NY Times does for most of it's articles.

When you're made fun of being who you are for 3-4 straight weeks, it probably gives you pause when you feel like you are overly playing into your own stereotype - especially when you are not a season vet of national coverage.

So, again, you aren't up to date unless you read the NY Times or Washington Post? This isn't the 30s, 80% of real reporting is done through AP and syndicated across the country to even "hick" towns in Alaska, Idaho and Montana. Even those cattle ranchers in Wyoming read in their local paper about that there war down there in EYE-RACK.

It's just experience in dealing with a critical media. It takes people some time to adjust to it. Obama had 20 months to adjust to a mostly friendly media, she has 20 days to adjust a firing squad. She's going to look a little rough at times.

It really wouldn't matter who was saying it or when, that is just a hilarious clip. It basically boils down to:

Person A: "What newspapers and magazines do you read?'
Person B: "Ohh, you know... most of them"


Its a response that borders on incoherent and seems totally worthy of ridicule to me!

Are you serious? She could read "Redneck Weekly" and you'd probably consider it intellectual reading. I thought Palin was actually a wonderful wildcard pick by McCain, but the more I see of this, the more JIMGA (of the top of my head) and others who decried it are turning out to be right. This woman is not ready for the stage.

I don't have a problem with people having fun with her on the bumbling. The end result is she just needs to relax a bit as she looks very tight in every interview. At the end of the day, she will be mocked not matter what. If you're going to be mocked, atleast be yourself. Hopefully that's the advice she's getting for the debate.

I've heard and seen some pretty pathetic Palin apologists on TV in the past week, but Arlie, this is just sad.

It's simply a different perspective. I understand many won't agree, but it's nice to know that once again dissent from the right is treated with respect in this thread.

I think I'll let the 90% of the Obama lovers pat each other on the back for the rest of this thread and check in from time to time. But, I lack the determination and patience required to respond to the 10-15 angry/belittling comments made for everyone I make at this point. It's just not worth the time (and I have other things to work on now ;) ).

So, Barack Obama is having is having success despite being inexperience. Arles says that is because Obama had many months of lionzing media press.
i
Sarah Palin is being bombarded because of her inexperience.....and she was thrown into it without being able to adequately prepare.

Sounds like John McCain's/McCain's advisors' fault to me.....Maybe he should have chose someone a little more fire-retardant than Palin.

Too bad..your candidate made a horrific decision, and now he's getting roasted over the coals for it by the media.

Thankfully for you, there are many people that will just vote conservative no matter the circumstances.

Okay, okay...there are many people that you would assume to vote liberal no matter the circumstances, and that's true. However, a lot of bad things have happened during this last 8 years. Hell, a lot of bad things have happened since the re-election. Sometimes people need a multiple break-ups before finally discarding a terrible spouse. How many women go back to their boyfriends/husbands after being hit by them?

2000: Okay, I'm falling in love

2004: That was bad, but maybe he only did this because he truly, truly loves me.

2008: You worthless piece of shit....you promised to make things better, but really were only looking out for yourself. You don't care about me at all! Goodbye!

McCain will probably get elected anyhow...because of the FreeMasons....or something.

Horrific decision?

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: On Dumping Palin


Obviously it helped McCain a great deal in this race.

Arles - Palin is the first person I've ever seen talk that makes George Bush look like a scholar.

This lady is a dolt.

On a different note, reading the NYT, Newsweek or any other paper of choice makes you an idiot. I should hope that if you are a president, vp, or someone running for the spot you get your news and information from more reliable sources then those crap papers/magazines.

I really hope that we don't have an actual president or VP who wastes their time reading any of the above. Summaries of them okay maybe, but actually reading major portions of them? If the person in either position has that sort of time when the majority of the country doesn't then maybe they need to look at their priorities & find something more worthwhile to work on.

And that goes for Bush, Obama, or anybody from either party (that ends up in a top 2 executive position).

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that more accurate info would likely be available first-hand in the Oval Office.

Agreed- if you have enough time to read a paper more than once in a blue moon, you're probably not doing your job and that's where she's at right now. She's getting pumped so full of information that I'm sure she hasn't read a newspaper since getting the VP nod.

I just don't understand why she didn't say that- "I haven't read the paper since being picked, it's been a whirlwind", flash smile, onto next question. Or, "on the campaign trail, we get our news off the internet" or "I don't read the paper much but we watch a lot of news off the tv since it's a quicker response media".

But she didn't even have the wherewithal to think of anything- she just stood there like a deer in the headlights and bumbled something out. She looked like me in a job interview (I do poorly in that arena, to be sure). And you can see it in her eyes- she's always searching for a handler's answer and how she can fit it to the question. Whereas she couldn't judge that it was just a harmless question and she could go off the cuff.

SI

at least your dissent isnt being called unpatriotic.

BTW the correct answer for Palin wouldve been to flip it around on Couric to sarcastically say, "y'know Katie the only thing I truly feel loyalty to is CBS news. Ill get summaries of a lot of different things, most recently been knee deep in security paperwork regarding our country's national security or in the case of the last few days details from Sec. Paulson, Bernanke, and the Senate and House leaders regarding the Financial Crisis, but at 630 it all shuts down so I can watch you on TV." ~ or something like that.

I understand what you're saying, but I think politics has simply entered a post-fact stage now. Look at this thread for perfectly good evidence. You have people lining up to defend pretty much anything that Sarah Palin does or says, and when even they can't continue to do so, they simply sidestep and attack the media instead.

And look at the people who are breathlessly posting and re-posting the evidence that she was a terrible selection. You think any of those people's votes were up for grabs and potentially swayed by a more thoughtful, experienced running mate for Senator McCain?

Let's face it. Elections don't get decided by people who have the timber to wade into threads like this. They get decided by the people who are over in the "console sales" thread bickering about whether Alien Hard-on Bloodbath IV will be better than III (or their societal equivalents). Those are the Americans who get to decide this stuff, not anyone here, and most definitely not anyone who is actually investing time into trying to understand issues or policy at any meaningful level.

"Sir, Peter Gammons is here to give you yesterday's baseball highlights, Marilyn vos Savant will be working the NY Times crossword puzzle with you, and Cobra Commander would like you to give him your weather forecast for today so he can set the Weather Dominator appropriately"

SI

(I would point out that a lot of the people in the console sales thread are here)

Finally, something I can sink my teeth into in this thread! The Alien Hard-on Bloodbath series just went downhill after II, man. Everyone should know that! Oh, and when's the election? Is that Ron Paul guy still running? :D

SI

Where?

But isn't that depressing? :(

I think it was Winston Churchill who once said something to the effect that the best argument against democracy was to spend an hour with the average voter :eek:

Elitist crap, of course ;)

Exactly, one's a QB who has been in the spotlight for a few years (or a lot of years if you're Biden) while the other is a pissant johnny-come-lately spoiled brat who whined until he got sent to a team he and his daddy approved of. Yeah, I see some similarities there but it's not a perfect analogy.

SI

lol

Churchill was far too optimistic. No way you'd need an hour.

Well, you, me, Sack, Big Fo, cartman, I was thinking wade moore but maybe he was just in the recession thread. There are a few of us who just love arguing or something like that ;)

SI

It took them under 5 minutes to point this out on Monday on the Daily Show

SI

:D

LOL

touche. i guess i shouldn't have said "read" and should have said more like "had more of a familiarity with"

essentially: i'd rather have someone who's idea of a newspaper is closer to the NYT than the Anchorage Gazette. Does that make anymore sense?

I certainly don't want any candidate getting their news from either source, but I'd much rather have someone who would be inclined to read the NYT over the Anchorage Gazette.

Does that make things any better?

Somewhat, although I still think it fails to take a practical reality into account -- that in this case we're talking about the sitting governor of a state.

I can't help but figure that a sitting Gov. Clinton read Arkansas papers as/more closely than the NYT, just as Gov. Perdue reads Georgia papers more closely today, just as Gov. Richardson reads New Mexico papers, etc.

Candidate or not, I would think the routine would die hard especially considering how little time I figure any candidate has to spend reading newspapers while they're on the trail. Throw in the amount of wire service content they all share & I really don't see a great deal of difference what paper they read if any. There's probably an equally legit shot to be taken today at anyone who reads a hard copy (vs the online edition) of any of them anyway.

edit to add: And that's coming from someone who has consistently been less than impressed by the Palin pick.

By all accounts Obama has been, throughout his career, very good at either a) obtaining a decision via consensus or b) where consensus isn't going to happen, making a decision on the available information so things can move forward.

Obama's not Jimmy Carter. He's more attuned to late Boomers/Gen-Xers in business who value continuing progress over extended periods gaining consensus.


IMO, the main benefit of going to prestigious schools is the opportunity to network. Obviously there are other benefits like prof/student ratio (mitigated by having TAs for a lot of courses) and better facilities, but it's the networking that's going to help you the most later in life, if you take advantage of it.

I think that can be especially important for politicians, in the sense that it can help them be more successful in raising money & winning elections. I don't think it necessarily adds a lot to their understanding, unless they themselves are naturally attuned to those possibilities.

For instance, the stereotypical drunken legacy-admission student to Harvard probably doesn't get a lot out of the diversity and exposure to top minds at Harvard because he/she doesn't really care. The driven blue-collar student at, say, the University of Minnesota, who takes advantage of a study abroad program, seeks out campus programs, and wrings every possible learning opportunity out of that institution, probably gets more out of their 4 years.

Seriously though, if Palin doesn't read the newspaper, then she should say so. I don't understand why she was having a hard time with that.

You're missing the point. Her answer is a transparent evasion of a very simple question. She sounds like a 10-year-old answering the question "Why did you force your younger brother to eat slugs?"

You know, an acceptable answer would have been "I read a little of everything, depending on the time I have available. The Anchorage paper, of course, national newspapers & magazines, and of course the Wasilla Times so I don't lose touch with home!" But no, she has so say "all of them", which is just ridiculous. I mean, who reads "all of them?"


Archie's draft day machinations, combined with the hype and comments from Accorsi & Coughlin, made it quite clear that Eli was supposed to be a Super Bowl QB. Until he won the Super Bowl, everything he did was compared to this standard, and as a result he often failed to achieve this standard. Thus was every mistake amplified.

You pick a VP candidate, you tell everyone she's awesome, and then she acts less prepared than a first-year U.S. Rep, well of course there's going to be a media frenzy.

It's a simple case of signal to noise. Sure Obama & Biden have some noise in their records (mistakes, gaffes, etc...), but there's plenty of signal (saying the right things, looking presidential, accomplishments, etc...). Palin's noise-to-signal ratio isn't very good, and American loves noise.


Two things:

1. The media pays attention to her because she's a walking, talking copy-generator. The McCain campaign clearly hoped the media would pay attention to her because she was young, pretty and sharp-minded. Well, you live and die by that sword.

2. Face it, her stance on many issues makes her polarizing. More polarizing than the other three. There's going to be a sizable chunck of the electorate who, because of her stance on the issues, want to mount a crusade against her getting into office.


When I interned for George Mitchell I worked in his press office, and was pretty sure he didn't read/watch much of the media. I know one of the things we did each day was compile a "briefing book" of newspaper clips from his home state (Maine), which I understood he read each day personally so that he was kept up-to-date with his home state (this book was circulated, by me, to about 25 of his staff at the time - which was fun, btw).

I'm sure some federal politicians read a newspaper daily, especially those with non-trivial commutes (Joe Biden, for instance). But yeah, most, especially the senior ones, should be getting more first-hand info, and that goes doubly for the President.


When I took the train into Chicago on a regular basis for work, almost everyone older than 35 was reading the NYT, WSJ or Chicago Tribune. In fact, you could tell who was a lawyer/judge because they were reading the NYT and who was working for the Merc or elsewhere in the financial industry because they were reading the WSJ.

Sure, it was an embarassing display. And as this discussion illustrates, it was actually kind of interesting question - where DOES a governor get their news from? Any answer would have been fine. The Alaska governor should be in tune with Alaska news first. One who's running for VP should probably have a passing interesting beyond that. But whatever, any answer would have been better than the one she gave.

I was just expressing the fact that this lady has had a pretty remarkable political career. Hopefully she can recover from all this (I'm assuming back in Alaska after the election).

Clinton isn't a fair comparison. He was a current events & news nerd even before he was governor. You can still be a great elected official and not read every page of every paper.

But your key point is that Palin's staff should be assembling Alaska newsclips from all the papers in the state every day, and she should be reading them. I expect that she does. She should have said exactly that to Katie. By evading the question, she forces the viewer to draw his/her own conclusion as to whether she reads anything at all. Not smart.

Don't count Palin out yet. By stumbling as much as she has over the past couple of weeks, the expectations about her performance at the debate will be Bushian. If she can appear even modestly competent, she'll probably get decent reviews and be back on track. If, somehow, she comes of reasonably well, the ticket could get a big boost.

Biden, on the other hand, has to come off as brilliant for his performance to have any effect on the race.

+1 The unnecessary obfuscation and lying is the problem. No one gives a shit what paper she reads or doesn't.

That's one of the reasons I'm glad that the United States is a republic instead of a democracy.

:D

I find Arles staunch defense of Palin to be laughable, until I think about it more and then it becomes a little sad.

And I'm guessing a good portion of the electorate doesn't know the difference between the two.

I agree completely here. Listen, I have an unhealthy amount of bias for Palin. I would agree that most people should not feel all that safe if Palin is president tomorrow. Heck, I'm one of Palin's biggest fans and that would worry me. Still, if there's one thing about McCain, it's that he is one resilient old mofo. I don't see how someone who survived years in a torture camp, defeated cancer twice and survived other serious injuries would somehow kick the bucket a month after he's elected. This guy is going to outlive a ton of people - he's the Keith Richards of politics ;)

But, I want to be clear that I completely understand the apprehension with Palin and think it's fair. My comments have been more aimed at some of the specific criticisms which I think are a double standard when compared to her and the other three. Still, the debate is going to be big for her and she needs a quality showing to get some good vibes going for the home stretch.

Another quality, well-reasoned dismissive comment that has become very commonplace in this thread. There were a ton of strong arguments you could have made in 2-3 sentences on why my comments were not appropriate. Instead, you played the "pity" card which is always a wonderful way to enter a discussion.

Kudos for you for making my point above and making it 100% clear that there is really no value in replying to this thread (as QS said above). Here's my comments again:

How's this: your defense of Palin is like the parent of a convicted murderer that just can't admit that her little 'baby' would ever do anything wrong, despite the security camera footage of her 'baby' shooting the store clerk and stealing the cash from the register. Sometimes, no matter how much you love something or want to defend it, it just becomes indefensible.

Palin has generated more embarassing footage out of one interview than many politicians do in entire careers. Her response to the video in question here is AWFUL. "All of them". Really? It was one thing when she spun off into a series of talking points, but to respond with "all of them" is ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC. The only thing more pathetic is someone trying to defend it.

Nah, there's plenty of worse stuff. Off the top of my head, watching anyone try to defend a empty suit liberal piece of walking dog crap like Obama as being worthy of entering the Oval Office except as a tourist is a lot more pathetic.
And that's just an easy example off the cuff.

Expect a lot of litigation and recounts in Missouri if the vote is close. I spoke with a friend who works for the county election office and Missouri voter registration is receiving a large number of ACORN fradulent voter registration applications in several counties in Kansas City, Columbia, Jefferson City, St. Louis, and Springfield. He said they aren't sure how many bad registrations may have slipped through. They just busted 4 ACORN workers here in KC in conjunction with the fraud, but they think there may be more...........

ACORN Workers Indicted For Alleged Voter Fraud - Politics News Story - KMBC Kansas City

:popcorn:

Heck, that's not fraud. That's just well-intentioned, albeit slightly overzealous, effort to enhance minority voter involvement. You must be a rich white racist capitalist pig to even suggest otherwise, you should be ashamed of yourself.

What's next, are you going to mock worthwhile activities such as community organization? ;)

There's so much spin in this thread that every time I read it, I go back in time.

Obviously you failed to read my words with the appropriate cloyingly sweet tone of voice that I used in order to pretend that my comment was an impartial observation instead of partisanship. Try it with the right tone of voice & see if you're less concerned.

Hey, it seems to work for the lefties here, I figured it would work for me too.

I get the impression you're trying to stir me up, but if so, you're barking up the wrong tree. As an outsider I'm not really partial to any of your candidates.

Always good for a :lol: Jon.

The answer Palin gave Couric about what she reads is damning because up until a month ago she was in the same position as just about every other citizen in the country. There is no way that as governor of Alaska she had a staff generated report each day about the big international issues. If she was interested in the information, she would have had to seek it out herself.

And the relevance of the NYT and the WSJ are not in the reporting, as said above the AP does an adequate job of that, the value is in the intellectual level of the commentary and editorials. Even in the internet age all the big thoughts end up in the major broadsheets as op-eds. She could have easily said “I stopped reading the NYT because the commentary from the likes of Paul Krugman has become so biased that it’s lost all value.” It would have been a great answer, but I doubt Palin has any idea who Krugman is.

The story you posted "just happened" 2 years ago. Look at the date on the story.

I don't think Palin needs much help looking bad at this debate tomorrow night, but this just adds to what might be a perfect storm for entertainment (from wiki):

"Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a book called The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, which is being released on January 20, 2009."

How is this allowed? Imagine liberals, that the 2nd debate was going to be moderated by someone who was releasing a McCain book - would you think that was fair? I mean, she has a lot at stake financially in this election, and she's obviously a huge and public Obama fan.

At this point though, I'm just hoping for entertainment.

Sure, we can argue about whether or not reading major newspaprers is necessary for higher office, but does anyone here think that the correct answer for a candidate to that question is "Many of them" and then failing to name what any of them are?

I mean, if she's afraid of letting on that she only reads the Wasilla Weekly or the Anchorage Gazette, that's fine, but why didn't she just name some newspapers off the top of her head?

I wonder what's actually going on her head there. I'm assuming that she could at least NAME a newspaper, but who knows. I mean this as a non-faceitious question, what's going on there?

Did her people tell her to never name a specific newspaper? Was she so panicked that her answer would be spun negatively that she was paralyzed with fear? Was she worried about being associated with a "liberal" newspaper?

good question

She just panicked. She's so nervous in these interviews that she can't think straight, so she says everything that pops into her head without filtering any of it. It reminds me a lot of unprepared guys I've seen in oral comprehensives.

Dont care who the moderators are from either side. AAMOF, I'd prefer if they have some people on who challenge one or both of the candidates. It could make the candidate even look better if they can answer the challenger and perhaps even spin the challenger around. I'd hope they'd have one that balances it out at one of the debates.

Don't be fooled. Conservatives are happy that Ifill is moderating the debate. Palin is bound to screw up no matter who moderates the debate, so at least this gives them the good ol "liberal media" attack angle to use as an excuse for her performance.