election 2008

While Sarah Palin hides from and John McCain whines about the press -- which is really a way to show how "tough" you are -- Barack Obama walks in and sits down with anti-progressive Bill O'Reilly, who hardly could be considered a friendly personality.

Barack Obama has been in debates, town halls, interviews, small group meetings for 18 months now. You can't accuse him of hiding.

Come out of your shell, Sarah Palin! Let us see past the PR! What are you afraid of?

Ever since Sarah Palin was named as John McCain's VP nominee choice, I've been irritated about it. I've been trying to isolate why. The stream of consciousness was something like this:

Who?
Huh?
Seriously?
That's how you pronounce Palin?
And who is she?
Are you kidding me?
She did what?
What a right-wing nut job!

But this nomination has irritated me beyond just that she's a reborn again religious fundamentalist who is trying to ban books and fire staffers who disagree with her and force creationism into science classes and the usual power-happy Republican.

No, she won't answer questions. We're supposed to accept that 20 months as governor of Alaska makes her a foreign policy expert. We're supposed to accept that she's really deep and well informed on the issues -- or at least enough.

No, we're just supposed to like her. We're supposed to see her, admire her beauty.

But we're not supposed to ask her questions. How dare we ask questions!

Check out Sarah Palin, the Republican Patriarchy's girlfriend!

Now before you jump all over my case, consider that it's the Republicans who are doing this to their "tough cookie". And we're supposed to buy into it. We shouldn't pick on their hockey mom.

This is serious business. This is about choosing people to lead the most powerful nation, the people who will have their thumbs on "the button."

And the Republicans just toss this woman out onto the national stage and get upset when we ask all sorts of questions! Well, she hasn't been out there campaigning like Barack Obama was, or like Hillary Clinton was. She hasn't been on the national stage like any number of conservative women who the Republicans could have picked. She's unknown.

But we're supposed to just admire her, the "hockey mom."

Well, as we learn of her history, we will ask questions, and if she can't hack it, can't even answer questions about her own obscure track record, then how is she qualified to lead this nation?

How ironic that a hurricane may postpone the Republican National Convention, especially right after New Orleans put 85 more bodies to rest, making the Katrina toll over 1800 Americans.

Heckuva job! Let's elect more of the same! (Am I angry? Me? No, of course I'm not angry!)

That's John McCain's new slogan. It makes me think of the savings and loan scandal and that Keating scandal.

How unfortunate.

And what of Sarah Palin, who's a big fan of forced pregnancy and has a bit of crap on her shoes. So much for the big corruption reformer.

But here's the clincher: She's a staunch creationist, meaning that she doesn't believe in science.

So she's all for:

Government controlled reproduction.

Government enforced personal agendas.

How appealing.

But wait, she's a woman! Oh, I'm supposed to vote for her because she's a woman! Oh, silly me!

Update: Josh Orton has some thoughts on this slogan.

Hillary has never been so appealing as she has during this Democratic National Convention. Her speech last night was sensational. Her motion to declare by acclamation Barack Obama the nominee was noble, and a powerful gesture given the potential split among progressives.

What's sad is how, by contrast, it highlights just how awful her campaign was. Really one of the worst-run campaigns I have seen in my short life.

May she become the new lioness of the Senate!

If you've been watching the cable news bobbleheads, what comes through loud and clear is that they are very afraid of this ticket. Their attempts to dismiss Joe Biden smell like fear. Their claims that somehow Hillary Clinton would have been a stronger choice seem to point up that they would have rather run against an Obama-Clinton ticket.

But Obama-Biden? The Republicans are afraid.

John McCain is increasingly confused and angry on television. Who is he going to choose as his running mate? An exorcist? A man who the state should impose religion "in the public square"? One thing for sure: The McCain ticket will be big on state-controlled pregnancy.

That's how many times richer John McCain is than Barack Obama. And yet McCain claims Obama is the one who's too rich and out of touch?

John McCain's confusion continues. No wonder he doesn't even know how many homes he owns.

John McCain says:

"Let me be very clear, I am not questioning his patriotism, I am questioning his judgement. Senator Obama has made it clear he values withdrawal from Iraq above victory in Iraq.

"He has made these decisions not because he doesn't love America but because he doesn't thinks it matters whether American wins or loses."

Yeah, that makes sense. Right, John. Ramble on.

Meanwhile, as McCain talks about the Iraq surge ("That's what this is about! That's what this is about!"), Barack Obama offers a reality check, pointing out that we should focus on the Taliban, sponsors of al Qaeda and co-sponsors of 9/11.

"As commander-in-chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban," Obama said.

He said he would add two U.S. combat brigades, 7,000 fighters and support staff, and would provide an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance for Afghanistan....

..."Six years ago, I stood up at a time when it was politically difficult to oppose going to war in Iraq, and argued that our first priority had to be finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan,'' he said. "Senator McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks."

Do you, dear reader, really thing that this election is about a tactical surge in Iraq that happened last year?

His obsession: It's the surge, stupid!

Apparently he still hasn't noticed that al Qaeda is in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

He keeps getting things all mixed up. It's sad to see what seems to be senility, or at least a bit of addled confusion. Sad ... except that he's running for president, which makes him scary.

This does not surprise me at all.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

And yet the media have been wringing their hands over John McCain's whining about all the attention Barack Obama is getting.

Yes, John McCain's friend and campaign advisor Phil Gramm was right: This is a "nation of whiners" -- except the whiners are the McCain campaign and their supporters.

When John McCain draws 200,000 (voluntary) listeners -- that's three football stadiums' worth of people -- I would expect him to get some camera time.

But I would also like to see the news media wake up to how they've been giving John McCain a free pass on a number of issues. Where is the critical view of McCain's qualifications? Does flying in a plane and getting shot down really qualify him to be President? Or even give him the advantage on strategic foreign policy? When McCain claims "I know how to win wars," on what basis?

Instead, they keep giving him uncritical time while he slings some of the wildest charges, including the claim that Barack Obama is a traitor who would deliberately lose a war for political gain.

I guess it's to be expected, considering that -- as Sam Donaldson says -- journalists aren't interested in the truth.

[T]he reason political reporters are there is not to speak truth to power. Today's truth is tomorrow's falsity. But to make those who say we have the truth-- the politicians--explain it.

That isn't journalism, it's stenography. No wonder we ended up in Iraq. The media didn't have to check facts, they just had to make sure the microphone was on.