The coverage begins on the election myths....

Chris Cillizza does a nice job in tackling some of the myths that surrounded this recent Presidential election and the media hype that began before November but that some have continued to try to promote. I recommend heading over to read, 5 Myths About an Election of Mythic Proportions. Here are the basic 5 myths, he provides detailed reasoning related to each as a part of his writings:

1. The Republican Party suffered a death blow.

2. A wave of black voters and young people was the key to Obama's victory.

3. Now that they control the White House and Congress, Democrats will usher in a new progressive era.

4. A Republican candidate could have won the presidency this year.

5. McCain made a huge mistake in picking Sarah Palin.

Number 4 is the only one I'm not sure I agree with him on. If the media bias had not existed, had there either been a different Republican or had McCain found a way to "inspire" more absent the boost he got from parts of the base from Palin, it would have been possible for a Republican to win, especially against Obama. Luckily for the Democratic candidate many of the things that could have created questions in the minds of the average voter were not covered by not only the media but the Republican party.

The financial crisis helped Obama, that was something that was not predicted when we went through the whole who had a better chance of winning, Obama or Clinton, but that the Democratic party was able to much better capitalize on. It would have been hard for any Republican candidate to convince voters that his or her party deserved four more years, but it was possible.

It's just Biden being Biden...

Media pointing out other media is being biased? It happens, Kirsten Powers. We all know had Palin uttered she had "three words" for what the nation needs: "J-O-B-S" the howls would have been everywhere about how stupid she was and how this demonstrated she was not vp material. What is important is trying to figure out exactly what Biden's remarks on Sunday were about. Powers states:

The outakes of his Sunday remarks don't begin to capture the magnitude of what he said. After warning the crowd that there would be some sort of international incident - Biden could think of four or five scenarios - he told the donors: "We're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

What does that mean? Obama's election would provoke an international incident because of his inexperience and even Obama's biggest supporters won't be reassured by his response?

Then there were Biden's predictions on the economy: "I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? . . . Why is this thing so tough? . . . I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point, because you're going to have to reinforce us.

"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision.' "

Of course it's become campaign material, Palin mentioned it on the campaign trail and as this shows, McCain is too. While Barack Obama is presenting the "it's just Joe being Joe" thinking, supposedly chiding Biden with, “I think Joe, sometimes, engages in rhetorical flourishes.” Is this okay?

It'd be nice if the media would play the whole clip, but according to Breitbart.tv that was not done. They state the audio clips shared were from San Francisco and not from Seattle, they also have the real audio that I think people should listen to. Decide for yourself if this was just rhetorical or not.

The B-Cast also covers this story...

I am not a bitter, ignorant, racist, old dried-up feminist cat-lady

There are two schools of thought, either there are a good number of former supporters of Hillary Clinton who are voting for John McCain or there are scores of Republicans on the internet pretending to be former Clinton supporters who are going to vote for John McCain.

I know personally that these supporters exist, both male and female, who state they can not vote for Obama under any circumstance.

For those of you who have missed all of the reasons "why" this one post, Clinton Supporters Never Say Die is one you might want to read, especially if you read the 140 comments. It's in the comments where statements like the title of this post can be found. You'll see some Obama supporters make threats, some state that those not voting for Obama must be Republicans and you'll see a variety of men and women who say they were Clinton supporters stating why they are not voting for Obama along with some who are stating why they are. Some of the comments are angry, some are not.

I recommend reading the piece and the comments, but some examples from each mindset:

Obama is simply not qualified for the position he seeks. Clinton was. Those Clinton supporters shifting their support to McCain/Palin are doing so because they represent the centrist middle ground of this country and will likely accomplish more good than Mr. Obama could ever hope for. It's a question of competence, experience, and an ability to get the job done. It's time to drop this foolish voting based strictly on the party line. These people are not leaving the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has left them.

The operative word in this article is RNC. The 11% for McCain and supposely was for Clinton before are liers. Most likely, Rush's listeners. If you are for Clinton, there is no way you are for Palin. Very different views on all issues. Also, if Mc/P are elected, there will no longer be a chance for Clinton whether they did a good job with the country or otherwise. If good, Mc/P would continue for 8 years, if bad, no one would vote for a woman any more. So, do not be fool. Those who said they were for Clinton and now for Palin are closet republicans.

I would hope that women who supported Hillary and all Democrats would stick together and vote Obama into the White House. You do remember her speech at the convention? The Obama/Biden ticket is what we have whatever your feelings about the Obama - Hillary primary. What we are voting for are Democratic principles. Of all elections, this one will count in terms of the direction our country is heading. If you can rise above your disappointment and support Obama, then in 2012 we can decide whether to replace him with HIllary if she still wants it. I cannot imagine the alternative under a McCain/Palin ticket. Please keep your eyes on the issues this year. For your children, for your country and for our planet.

For all the supposed "Hillary Supporters" who cannot vote for Barrack, keep this in mind: Hillary will never win, not now, not in 2012, not in 2016 without the Black vote. If you sabbotage Barrack's chance, we will never forgive you...ever.


All you Obama people on here, especially the AA's that threaten not to vote for Hillary if Obama loses. It will not be Hillary's fault, nor will it be her supporters fault if he loses. Have you checked out his record,(he doesn't have one) you have no actual idea of what went on in the caucuses, you have no idea of the deal that was cut during the break of the RBC committee meeting, you have no actual idea of what went on with the roll call vote at the convention, you are listening to the media and believing everything they say about the annointed one, and yes he was annointed. You had to have actually been involved in the process, not just out here blogging. As an elected officer of the Democratic Party, I assure you that there were things that went on, that if you were really a true Democrat you would be outraged over too. This is not a matter of the Democratic Candidate, this is a matter of retaking the REAL Democratic party back. These people in control of our party now, are not the Democrats who really stood for the rights of all Americans, they are just out for themselves and control of our country. This beyond Hillary Clinton, we have passed that stage, now we are fighting for actual Democracy.

The misspelling of Barack's name and any other grammar errors are from the comments as directly taken.

The sexism just keeps coming...

I've read quite a few articles in the media that I've taken issue with as far as sexism during the course of the primary and now the presidential election season. One of the worst articles I've seen from not only the words used, but the image selected is this one The Sexy Puritan written of course by a white male who lists on his website as his bio for 2007:

2007—Tom publishes The Abstinence Teacher, a novel about sex education, soccer, and the Great American Culture War; has hours of fun googling the phrase, "Hot Christian Sex." Reverend Ted Haggard pronounced "completely heterosexual" by fellow minister.

In my reading of a variety of articles about the candidates this year, I don't recall a time when in the same article about a presidential or vice presidential candidate, mention was made of such things as anal sex, fisting and masturbation.

Before some of you even attempt to justify this, this issue is larger than just the sexism directed at Palin, while I understand and support the letter sent out by The New Agenda part of the reason there is such a lack of respect for our nation and our elected officials is articles like this.

Some of you decry the lost of standing that the United States has lost in the world, that we are no longer respected or considered a super power, is it any wonder? The sexual objectification that created the whole Obama Girl who practically drools over "wanting Obama" sending the message that what matters is the sex appeal further confirmed by the Rush Limbaugh's out there calling Palin a "hot babe" as well as his comments that people would not want Hillary to win because they wouldn't want to see a woman get old before their eyes as President. The labeling of Palin as a MILF or a VPILF, t-shirts of Palin on her hands and knees with McCain behind her with his pants down with the caption "Drill Baby Drill" and we wonder why other nations or even some of us have no respect for the office of president.

The partisan insults that degrade the office extend beyond a mere disagreement based on ideology, how can any of you who insult one side expect if your candidate wins to restore that respect? When you then include the additional rampant sexism that has increased rather than decreased, if we don't start doing something soon as far as saying enough is enough, how much lower will this go?

Sorry Thomas, facts do not matter...

I have to honestly admit, some of the people I share citizenship with in this nation of ours scare me. When I read pieces like the one written by Thomas Sowell, Do Facts Matter, the answer is a resounding no. It's not just related to presidential politics, a good number of those who vote really have no clue and do not take their vote responsibly.

I'm not talking about people who are overly partisan, I'm talking about the average American who barely watches the news or reads much of the news that bases their opinion on short sound bites or campaign advertising rather than based on facts.

Time and time again I'll start talking with someone about one issue or another, and I'll raise a point, to which they respond, "I didn't know that." Yet, without knowing that they've made up their minds?

One recent example, we have a casino issue on the ballot here in Ohio, Issue 6, where if approved only one casino will be able to operate in the whole State of Ohio and the dollar amount of revenue promised decreases if any of the current Indian Tribes trying to open Casino's wins their efforts. The ad wars on this issue have both sides using misinformation, every single person I've talked to in person about this issue did not realize that by voting for this ballot issue any other casino opening anywhere else in the State would be illegal and would require that ballot issue to be repealed. Most of them state, "I think we should have a Casino here and it's about time, so that's why I'm supporting Issue 6." When you then tell them what will really happen? They are dumbfounded...

Frankly, I'm not a fan of casinos, so for those that never want one up here, the smart vote would be yes on Issue 6 but I have a problem with one part of the state dictating what the rest can do. We keep pushing people to vote, yet I really have to wonder, if they don't have the motivation to vote on their own or to be informed, how are we really making our republic better?

Irony...at it's finest...

Now this meets my definition of irony, here on this blog I am often taken to task as well as at times attacked for not supporting Obama and not being "liberal enough." Yet in the letter of opinion pages of my daily local newspaper, it's stated that by mere virtue of the name of this blog, that:

Ms. Ward states this effort to register the homeless is 100 percent nonpartisan. Yet she writes a blog called the Liberal Common Sense and the Glass City Jungle. I cannot help but feel that there would be some heavy liberal influence put on the homeless to vote a certain way.

In a similar registration drive in Ohio by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, an investigation is under way into voter-registration fraud in assisting the low income and homeless in registering to vote.

I don't think I've ever been compared to ACORN...I am pretty certain that despite the mention of Liberal Common Sense that the gentleman has never visited here.

:-)

Obama supporter says "he's not an idiot"

The "New secret weapon" of the campaign is Lilly Ledbetter but what's ironic is comments like this:

First someone tries to point out the truth:

Okay, let me see if I have this right. Senator Obama voted in favor of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have extended the time period for filing suits against the employer based on sex discrimination; but he pays his female staffers thousands of dollars less than he pays the men. And Senator McCain, who opposed the bill (although not present for the vote), pays his female staffers slightly more than the men. Yet his campaign advisers want to highlight the candidates’ differences on this issue. I am confused…

Here's one of several Obama supporters:

jbjd #7-
poster # 10 is giving the kindest scenario to say your allegations are unsubstantiated and therefore “hearsay” - there is also the very likely possibility that these allegations are just made up- otherwise this would have been news by now.
NIce try, jbjd, but sorry, Obama is not only too principled to condone something like that, he’s not an idiot.

— Posted by shelley

Here's the truth Boston Globe and confirmed by CNS Now, despite my disagreements with the Obama campaign, I've never called him unprincipled nor an idiot.

However Shelly? You just did...

Considering this story has been out there since June, it's interesting that none of the other media sources have bothered to report on it. Blogs have been, so what have we learned? Questions raised on blogs relating to this issue gets ignored by the mainstream media, BUT questions raised on blogs concerning if Palin's daughter Bristol was really Trig's mother? They get MSM attention. No media bias present at all...Though I can't help wondering what Lilly Ledbetter would think about the candidate who she just endorsed if she knew the very thing she was willing to go to the Supreme Court over, he does not support enough to do in his own office...would she still say:

"There is only one candidate who has stood up for women like me. Who has consistently fought to help women who are working hard every day for our families and aren't being paid fairly. That's why I'm proud to endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. The priorities of the Obama-Biden ticket are clear. Senator Obama and Senator Biden will stand up for families like mine."

Obama wants supporters to verbally attack neighbors...

Think I'm joking? I'm serious:

In Elko, Obama tried to anticipate his critics and called on the crowd of about 1,500 to sharpen their elbows, too.

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

The choice of the word "ambassadors" is an interesting one, typically you would think of an ambassador as:

an authorized messenger or representative

Considering the economic experts do not agree with Obama that his plans will lower taxes, unless you are one of those that believe eliminating a tax cut does not create a tax increase, it's something that Obama has said repeatedly that is a part of his campaign platform. Nor does it seem that a majority of Americans believe that Obama will not raise taxes, as Chris points out:

In the Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted earlier this month, more than half of those tested (51 percent) said that if Obama was elected federal taxes would go up; compare that to the 34 percent who said taxes would go up in a McCain Administration. The New York Times/CBS News poll released last night echoed the findings of the Post survey. Forty-nine percent said they believed their taxes would go up if Obama was elected president while 34 percent said their taxes would rise if McCain wins in November.

Obama wants his supporters to lie to you, he will increase taxes, why they continue to play games rather than be honest is just as disturbing as him telling people to get in their neighbors faces and argue with them. His plans for health care are based on eliminating a tax cut, which will increase taxes. He's gone on the record as also supporting increasing the wage cap on Social Security, which will increase your taxes. He's gone on record as stating if you are a CEO, you will pay more in taxes.

Anyone with the slightest amount of common sense realizes that if businesses pay more taxes, they will increase prices which means this whole naive line about how it will not cost the middle and the lower middle class more is plain unadulterated bullshit. Democrats believe you can't handle the truth, there are only two options out there, cut government spending or raise taxes. Even Fact Check has stated that some of Obama's comments were "worthy of a ref's yellow flag."

The reality is, if you want universal health care, if you want the programs that Obama is promising, you will pay more one way or the other, either through direct tax increases or as a result of someone else's taxes being increased. Many would still think it was worth it, and the honesty? Would be refreshing...it might just make people believe that maybe Obama really was different...

Cindy McCain gets the Condi Rice treatment...

It's hard to take this stuff seriously anymore. Look at the picture that CNN decided to use for Cindy McCain. It's the same thing they've done over and over again, pick an unflattering picture for those they don't like and a good one for those they do.

CNN's not alone in this, but seriously, how petty has this whole thing gotten?

I lost total faith in CNN when I discovered that they are selective when it comes to what comments they allow to be posted. If you make reasonable arguments and are not pro-Obama? Your comment does not get posted a majority of the time, which means it appears they are purposely creating the impression that people who comment at CNN are anti-McCain. They only select a few posts of the opposing view.

It's a fight to the death!

Well, apparently it is to some, Locked in a political death match with 52 days to live, the presidential campaigns went nuclear on what looked to be a quiet Saturday, with stumping curtailed because of Hurricane Ike's catastrophic overnight hit on Houston.

Then some advice, that similar to what Mark Penn stated? Clarence Page will be ignored too. Or worse...called bitter for pointing out that Obama is not winning over hearts anymore.

Issues? Well not everyone is convinced that Obamanomics will work and some feel that the continued Great Depression comparisons are skewing public opinion. Then there are those who dare to ask the question, how much will this all cost if Obama is elected and gets Congress to agree with him, but Greenspan says we can't afford McCain's tax cuts, no mention of Obama's...For that you have to go here.

While all of this is happening, McCain is stated to be up by 20 with of course the ever present Abortion will end if John McCain is elected. Which anyone who watched Whoopi make her slave comment? Could hear what McCain stated...but the fear factor worked for Republicans so it's the Democrats turn to see if they can make it work for them. It's why you hear more reasons why you should not vote for John McCain than why you should vote for Obama. That said, it's being pointed out that Obama is more optimistic than McCain is.

Focusing on the media by some is still happening, such as this scathing look at some of the media and what the end result has been. Though the media is angry and apparently many are bitter since the topic of the mistake Obama made in not picking Hillary has been repeated:

"Obama sacrificed a stronger ticket by rejecting Clinton. Absent Hillary, the contest between Obama-Biden and the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin is throwing the Democrats into disarray. The consequences of Obama's veep decision appear mostly to favor McCain. And if Obama had picked Hillary? Here are a few of the differences.

"No Palin. Okay, McCain might have picked her anyway. He was looking for a running mate who would help him shake up the campaign. And Palin has delivered spectacularly on that. But choosing her would have seemed far less of a game-changer had Obama picked Clinton. Palin would have been merely the second female running mate in 2008. And her appeal to those who had voted for Clinton in the primaries would have been reduced if not nullified altogether . . .

" Ohio and Pennsylvania. Republicans figured these states, notably Pennsylvania, were all but goners if Clinton won the Democratic nomination. Even as veep, she'd have had a favorable impact. When she was passed over by Obama, Republicans jumped for joy. Ohio, which a Republican presidential candidate has to win, now leans McCain. Pennsylvania, which is crucial to a Democratic candidate's chances, has become a ripe target of opportunity for McCain.

Some have suggested Whoopi's question to John McCain about if he won would she become a slave again was one of the stupidest statements yet. I'm not sure about that anymore, I think this one might be the topper, directed at Palin:

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

Though it'd be hard to pick anymore there have been so many gaffes out there it's hard to keep track...

Shocking revelation...ABC cut parts of Palin's answers...

I recommend reading the full transcript of what was cut out, though I don't think it's totally accurate from what I watched as to what was cut out, if you watched, you'll know what parts were cut out.

It's disappointing to say the least that ABC allowed selective cutting and editing of some of the answers that Palin gave as well as removed some of the context to her answers.

It's an industry standard to not include the whole interview, but ABC does not mention that parts of the interview have not been included or that parts of answers were edited out.

Part in bold so that some of my friends who like to make assumptions don't miss that part.

But wait!!! There's more Fox News

:-)

Fair on Whoopi but Foul on Randi Rhodes...

If you visit Bretbart.tv there are two video clips that have gotten quite a bit of attention in the blogosphere. One is where Whoopi Goldberg asks John McCain if she has to worry about being a slave again. Some have tried to suggest that this was a valid constitutional question, but it's hard to argue that this wasn't an over the top scenario. I personally call this one fair to criticize Whoopi on though some have gone too far.

Then...Randi Rhodes of Air America makes a statement about Sarah Palin that some have suggested implies she thinks that Palin would sleep with teenage boys.

I'm having a hard time making the jump to that conclusion considering the audio that's been shared. If she said something prior to that or after that, that would be one thing but in the context of what was provided? That accusation to me was over the top as well. I personally feel this one would qualify as a foul, meaning it's not fair to make this one an issue, and some have gone too far in their commentary directed at Rhodes as well.

Want to judge for yourself? The two videos are below...

whoopi slavery
by dollarsandsense123

Media and blogs say "McCain finds it tough without Palin"

Who writes the headlines? McCain didn't have it rough because Palin was not there, it had to do with Obama supporters who disrupted the event.

What possible difference could it have made if Palin would have been there? What'd they think she was going to do? Shoot the Obama supporters? Put them in time out?

From the lipstick on the pig bruhaha and bad reporting like this? The media and some of the blogs out there have done a really bad job in trying to present anything close to the truth.

Keyes tried it, Romney tried it, now McCain on Obama and sex ed

Evidently the McCain campaign believes in recycling, recycling campaign attacks...What's interesting is why Dionne is outraged and gives the impression that this is a new low...it's not.

Romney went there when he was campaigning and so did Alan Keyes in 2004. The fact checking that Dionne recommends written by Margaret Talev pales in comparison to the work done by the Boston Globe on this topic back in July of 2007. It makes me wonder if journalists use google, since it's out there and pretty darn easy to find.

But let's dig deeper, what it does say that some are concerned about is:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS.

The rebuttal of why that should not be a concern is the section that states:

(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.

This means, yes Obama voted for the bill, but it does not state that sex education will be taught to kindergarten students without the consent of a parent. Nor does it state what type of sex education actually constitutes "age appropriate" sex ed for that age level but, it's clear it's not what the latest McCain ad makes it out to be.

Using abortion as the scare tactic...the under lying power struggle and reality

Friday I received a mailing from the Ohio Democratic Party's Campaign for Change, it's message was to make women afraid that if John McCain were elected that we would not be able to have an abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, because that is the Republican Party Platform so the card said. It didn't address the economy, or health care or education, the mailing focused only on abortion and birth control. They've even created a website that says McCain’s Rigid Pro-Life Stance Poses A Serious Threat To Women. Then yesterday I got another one, different photos, same basic message...

It made me as a woman feel as if the Democratic party was focusing on my vagina, they assume my main concern was abortion and birth control, since these mailings were sent to women only. Believe it or not, there are Democrats out there, especially ones who are Catholic (like me) who have a stronger position against abortion than I do. Didn't anyone stop to think how this type of ad might actually accomplish the opposite? In previous and recent conversations with those I come into contact with on a regular basis, one thing all agreed on is that both parties use abortion as a propaganda tool, why is that? I have a theory, even considering men lead the ticket, the Democratic Party has been described as the "mommy party" and the Republican Party is the "daddy party" (Yes even with a woman VP) and yes, this is Lakoff inspired.

If we take this to the most basic reproductive aspect, man wants his sperm to implant, that's why there are millions of sperm against one egg. Those of us who are Catholic laugh about every sperm is sacred yet there is a grain of truth to us being taught that the main function of sex is for procreation, not recreation. Reproductive choice and the decision to have or not to have an abortion is one of the few things in this world that a woman has the ability to decide whether her partner agrees or not. He doesn't want a baby she does or the opposite, he wants the baby she doesn't, makes no difference. I think you can see where this creates what I believe is a subconscious power issue, where eliminating a woman's choice, gives the man his power back. Should he decide to "honor her" with his sperm then it's up to nature (or God) not her if a child is a result of it. The creation of reliable birth control gave women power over their sexual and reproduction choices, it started us on the path of wanting to be equals...

Ah...but what about women who are not pro-choice? Most of them come from a religious standpoint to that topic, procreation is a gift from God. Anyone who has read the bible knows the focus on barren women who were "blessed" from God with the baby they had been long denied. While I'm sure there are women out there who do not believe in abortion under any circumstance, I've yet to meet one in person, even those who consider themselves pro-life believe that abortion should be allowed if the health of the mother is in danger and some feel in cases of rape or incest.

The sexual/reproduction power struggle between men and women has existed before this country did. Though each party has staked out a general position on this issue, the reality is there are Republicans who are pro-choice and there are Democrats who are pro-life. It's not "the" voting issue for quite a few people out there despite the attention it gets.

Beyond all of that though, a good number of the women I come into contact with on a regular basis are not focusing on abortion or birth control as their main reason to vote for or against someone. To be brutally honest, many don't have the luxury of worrying about that aspect, they are focused on financial survival. How are they going to put groceries on the table, how are their children going to get a better education, which utility bill should they pay since they are behind on both, their child is sick, where is the money going to come from to not only take them to the doctor but to fill a prescription, etc., most of them are so emotionally drained they are not worrying about birth control. At the end of the day, sex is the farthest thought from their mind, they are worried about how are they going to get through the next day.

If this is the way that the Obama campaign is planning on reaching out to this particular voting block? It's not going to work. They want real answers, they want real plans and they want to know how things are going to be paid for. They want someone who will appear to really understand their struggles, they already have learned that by the time you wait for government to do something? You'd be starving or homeless.

True or not true, some saw Clinton as someone who understood them, true or not true some see Palin in that same light. They want someone who will represent them, and missives like this trying to use scare tactics about abortion and birth control just confirm for them that the Democratic Party doesn't get it.

Another Obama promise broken...

Remember this:

Obama told reporters that "people's families are off limits, and people's children are especially off limits." He said it has no bearing on Palin's performance as governor of Alaska or what kind of vice president she would be. Obama denied anyone in his campaign was responsible for spreading rumors about Palin, and added that anyone caught doing so would be fired.

He didn't mean it at least not so far...

I already knew that there were staffers who were involved on email lists that not only did not point out what Obama said but helped suggest smear lines of attack on Obama but this one is public and a bit harder to pretend isn't happening.

Obama didn't say he would demand a "well written apology" he said he'd fire the person...Which goes to show? You should not promise something that you can't keep. When people wonder why I have such a hard time supporting Obama, watching the hatred from people I used to respect, watching them engage in the same type of smears that they railed against when it was done to Obama not even counting what happened to Clinton...makes you realize that you either have to take a moral stand or become one of them...All that keeps happening is I keep discovering more reasons why I can't vote for Obama.

She's a witch! Release Palin to the Journalists!

Reading some of my friends trying to make an issue of the fact that Palin and the McCain camp is not interested in playing the media's game made me think of this video clip after being sent an email to "Release Sarah Palin to the Journalists"



I'm just waiting for someone to claim she turned them into a newt.

As I've commented in several places so far, the media is sexist, the media has made it very clear that they support Obama, Obama has gotten more coverage than McCain to the point even the Daily Show pointed that out. Now magically after all of that, suddenly McCain's campaign is supposed to help the media help Obama? Why would you do something that has no benefit to your campaign? Who would be stupid enough to do that without it being on their terms?

Sides, anyone who has watched Palin just one example knows she's not quite the newbie that needs weeks of preparation. Maria Bartiromo was impressed with her...

If the goal is to keep creating situations where people step up to defend Palin and to point out that the other side and the media is wrong? They're doing a great job...People will admire Palin for standing up to the media, and the other side is just playing into their hands...

I tried to post a comment on Jill's blog unfortunately her commenting seems to not work properly.

Now Obama needs women...

Funny how things work out that way, To counter Palin, Obama to dispatch female surrogates, the only problem with it is this.

If it's pandering for McCain to have picked Palin, then wouldn't it also be pandering to send women since it's felt that you as a male can't "handle it"?

This creates the impression that women aren't intelligent enough to avoid being pandered to, by either side...McCurry is right, not to mention, sending out other women, especially Clinton will just remind former Clinton supporters of why it's not her who is the presidential or vice presidential candidate.

"What McCain has done with Governor Palin's nomination is aim right at a demographic that Obama needs to address quickly — non-college educated women," said Mike McCurry, a former spokesman in the Clinton White House. "They need to maximize Biden's ability to reach out to them, but at the end of the day it is Obama who has to get that very, very critical group."

59% of voters not affiliated with either major party favorable of Palin

Interesting data for those of you who follow/believe in polling out there came out earlier today on Sarah Palin by Rasmussen Reports (Curtsy to Clinton Democrats site for the link). I don't think it's surprising that more Republicans than Democrats had a favorable opinion of her, I also have not changed my position on polls not being much more than fun to discuss and only a true indication of those polled. That said, two interesting parts of the polling:

59% of voters not affiliated with either major party had a favorable view of her, which is the very base that will determine this presidential election and "fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans believe that most reporters are trying to hurt Palin’s campaign, a fact that may enhance her own ratings" and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for McCain/Palin.

Which is exactly what some of us tried to point out was possible if the blogs and the MSM was seen as being overly in attack mode.

Fact Checking the Presidential candidates speeches

It will come as a shock to no one that both McCain and Obama took creative license with some of what they said.

Some of the fact checking that has been done USA Today.

For even more precise fact checking, on Obama's speech.

On Palin and others who spoke Wednesday.

I dream someday of the day when BOTH parties will provide information that is without spin...