Let me clarify something. Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors’ lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Barack Obama’s brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan non-profits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.

What deserves derision is “community organizing” that relies of a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people and shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.

As I’ve reported previously, Obama’s community organizing days revolved around training grievance-mongers from the far left group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). The ACORN mob is infamous for its bully tactics (which they dub “direct actions”); Obama supporters have recounted his role in organizing an ambush of a government planning meeting on a landfill project opposed by Chicago minority lobbies.

So, those of you getting in said snit: unbunch your underwear.  You don't like Palin, Juliani, McCain anyway, so stop feigning outrange over a manufactured/perceived slight.  True, this is Michelle speaking and not Palin, Juliani, or McCain actually clarifying, but like that would matter to you anyway.

Stick to Palin's family; that's what all the cool kids are doing anyway.

: : : : : : : : : :

I've seen John McCain's speech this morning and I can't say I was very much impressed. Same old, same old. Frankly, even considered the VP candidate's the attack dog and the Presidential candidate is supposed to be more the statesman, I think McCain was neither. His speech was soporific and ultimately pointless. With his boneheaded decision for Sarah Palin as a VP candidate and the ultra right wing election platform of the GOP he will not appeal much to independents and undecided voters in the political center anyway. He is now firmly attached to the fundamentalist faction of his party. And with another bout of economic worries on the horizon, I really would have wanted to hear some substance.

European newspapers are time lagged a bit and some are still commenting on the Sarah Palin speech, but there are some commentaries out there about John McCain, too. I give you the usual roundup, so you can judge for yourselves.

Gerard Baker in The Times warns of underestimating the McCain/Palin ticket:

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left falls again and again into the old trap of underestimating politicians whom they don't understand. From Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to George Bush and Mrs Palin, they do it every time. Because these characters talk a bit funny and have ridiculously antiquated views about faith, family and nation, because they haven't spent time bending the knee to the intellectual metropolitan elites, they can't be taken seriously.(read more)

Rupert Cornwell of The Independent, says Palin fits the bill of Republican voters, but:

Remember, however, that she was speaking to the friendliest audience she will ever encounter – "the most exciting new Republican star since Ronald Reagan" one party strategist gushed yesterday. She had some good lines, none better than the way she drew the distinction between Messrs Obama and McCain, the former who had "used 'change' to promote his career," and the Republican candidate who "used his career to promote change".

But even her lesser lines, including her gratuitously insulting reference to Mr Obama's work as a community organiser on the south side of Chicago, were guaranteed a rapturous reception in the hall. Outside, it is another matter. (read more)

Charles Clover in his Telegraph environment weekly column adresses the green side of Sarah Palin, or rather her complete lack thereof:

Alaska's pit-bull beauty queen sneered at Obama for wasting his time "turning back the waters and healing the planet". Certainly, no one could accuse her of that.

The European press has yet to pick up on Mrs Palin's extreme anti-conservation record - that's how the Sierra Club, a non-partisan organisation, described it. Time says she is on the "far right" on green issues - further to the right than her running mate and even George W Bush.

[...]

Governor Palin, on the other hand, was described to me flatly by the head of one American environmental group as "Dick Cheney in go-go boots". (read more)

Michael Tomasky is covering the US elections for The Guardian, was in St.Paul and has listened to John McCain's speech:

Okay. I'm a liberal in my political beliefs. But I'm also an analyst. I've watched 82,000 political speeches, by speakers from far left to far right. I know a good one when I see one and I can call them as I see them - ideology completely to the side. In 2004, I thought John Kerry's acceptance speech was ghastly. I also thought, as I wrote last night, that Sarah Palin gave a very good speech. Rudy Giuliani gave a very good one too.

John McCain sounded like the vestry board chairman speaking at the church social about the success of the raffle. Or, as a colleague just put it: he looked like the guy who'd been the office accountant for 40 years giving his retirement address. After he'd eaten a little too much Chicken Kiev. (read more)

For the same newspaper, Martin Kettle says:

As Hurricane Sarah blasts through American politics, many lose their bearings and get the whole Palin thing out of proportion. That is nowhere more true than here in St Paul itself. Yes, she lit the touchpaper on a convention that had previously been a damp squib. But the overcompensation is absurd. It sometimes feels as though the selfsame people who at the start of the week were saying that Palin was certain to lose John McCain this election are now saying that she is certain to win it for - and in spite of - him.

This is madness, short-termism and loss of judgment. (read more)

And Richard Silverstein, again at The Guardian, explains why John McCain is "Kissing the Jewish Vote Goodbye".

The Economist doesn't mince it's words any more:

The moose in the room, of course, is her lack of experience. When Geraldine Ferraro was picked as Walter Mondale’s running-mate, she had served in the House for three terms. Even the hapless Dan Quayle, George Bush senior’s sidekick, had served in the House and Senate for 12 years. Mrs Palin, who has been the governor of a state with a population of 670,000 for less than two years, is the most inexperienced candidate for a mainstream party in modern history.

Inexperienced and Bush-level incurious. She has no record of interest in foreign policy, let alone expertise. She once told an Alaskan magazine: “I’ve been so focused on state government; I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.” She obtained an American passport only last summer to visit Alaskan troops in Germany and Kuwait. This not only blunts Mr McCain’s most powerful criticism of Mr Obama. It also raises serious questions about the way he makes decisions. (read more)

Well, then. John McCain's decision to choose Sarah Palin is not getting good ratings at all. It was, I believe the mistake that will ultimately sink the campaign and senior advisors of the GOP obviously fear so, too. They have switched to damage control mode. She is currently prepped for the debates with Biden, by Joe Lieberman. Where? In an undisclosed location.

This speech is similar to all the other candidate convention speeches in that if you are for Senator McCain you will think it good to great; if you oppose him you will find numerous flaws.

Mark Shields demurred after hearing other talking heads describe it as a "great speech". Shields suggested it was good to very good, but not great because McCain is not comfortable talking about himself. McCain suggested his 1996 convention speech for Bob Dole and other speeches he has made on behalf of others were much better.

On a different front, why do the nut jobs of the Democratic Party feel it necessary to interrupt candidate speeches at the conventions? It appeared to me that the same whacko who was yelling at Palin on Wednesday got back in for McCain...so you have to give her ingenuity points. Protest outside if you want, but how does it really help anything except your ego to interrupt speeches?

A solid speech, a good speech, and perhaps a good counterpoint to the energy overload following the Palin nomination...but not one that will ring down through the ages.

i have always been an admirer of john mccain because he seemed to represent something that i believe washington -- and any competitive nation -- desparately needs. someone who IS his own person, who answers to his own morals, someone who i could trust to try to do the right thing and thinks with the heart as much as he/she thinks with the mind.

in spite of obama's eloquence, inspirational nature, and sheer charisma, that was the one trump card i felt mccain held over obama.

with sarah palin, however, all doubts were removed as to who should be the next president -- barack obama.

i admire her for being ambitious and adding more cracks in that glass ceiling that clinton had already chiseled away at with 18 million of her own. i admire her for being a spirited individual who isn't afraid to speak her mind and isn't scared to get her hands dirty.

what i don't agree with, however, is this overconfidence in religion to go so far as to say that the iraqi war was an "act of god." to go so far as to say that humans are helpless and are unaccountable in the face of global warming.

these are fundamental issues that will inevitably underscore the pulse of the nation, the pulse of the world, in the foreseeable future. we NEED a president who understands the urgency of a collaborative world, despite differences in ideologies and faith. we need a president who understands that seeking alternative energy sources is an imperative, and that global warming is no joke.

i know there have been so many accusations thrown at sarah palin since her nomination about her questionable and ruthless methodologies, but i don't really care as much about palin's tactics in getting to where she is today, because i also recognize that in politics, nothing is truly as ideal as the rhetoric that echoes from our television sets. rather, for a future potential vice president who can be so naive and so singularly minded on issues as crucial as global warming, as the environment, as global collaboration and foreign affairs -- particularly with the middle east -- is something that i find particularly frightening.

and to the republicans, perhaps it is time to stop with the blatantly ugly politicking and campaigning and duke it out honorably with the "angry Left."

sorry, john - nothing personal, but you lost me when you took on palin.

Visit zazzle.com/altworld

But I won't spoil the surprise...darn it! I'm practically biting my fingers to keep from giving it all away...to keep from providing an analysis of their differences.

I hear all of this crazy talk about how a pastor/priest can sway his parish one way or another politically. This sounds like crazy talk to me because as far as I know, religion and politics are two seperate stores working for two seperate causes. Last I checked, Jesus said nothing about McCain or Obama, respectively.

To know that most of these religious voters stand against everything that I am for is a frightening thought to me, truly. I do not want to see an entire group of people who support one candidate or another because of one issue - say Obama being pro-choice and McCain being pro-Bush (yes, pro-Bush).

The reason I bring the article up is because it talked about how Obama is making steps to bring this typically religious right to his side of the playing field. Bush pretty much sealed the deal because Kerry had no idea how to bring religion into his campaign without it sounding forced. Bush had no problem with giving over to the right.

Now, I'm not saying that Obama should give in entirely. Or that he will. But he is making steps to show that the Democratic party does not stand for "party-against-religion" or the "party-that-will-never-support-religion." I'm hoping that by doing this he will be able to reach out to a substantial amount of those voters and to make them see his side and his message.

I don't know any Republicans in their right mind who are satisfied with the way things have turned out under the Bush Administration. Here we are, middle class and paying more taxes than we should while the rich are sipping Moet et Chandon. Here we are paying nearly $4 a gallon in Seattle. Here we are paying $10 billion a week for a war that many no longer believe in. Here we are making enemies we can't afford.

I think that the religious right are as open as they'll ever be to a change in the way we do things.I thought I'd never say this in my life, but thank you Karl Rove for the great advice!

Don't forget what the June 19th cover was.

This morning in the Washington Post Op/Ed section David McGrath of the University of South Alabama writes suggests that political speeches should be written by the candidates and not by speechwriters. While his use of the Palin speech smacks a little bit of the hit piece, his questions are important ones and worthy of consideration.

Mr. McGrath offers various examples of ghostwriting, and suggests that there is not only a degree of plagiarism involved when politicians fail to credit speechwriters for their work, but that it violates "a contract of honesty" that should exist between candidates for high office and voters.

Mr. McGrath focuses on candidates for office, and does not specifically mention those in office, but we can assume his concern extends to them.

It is an interesting contention. I don't know how far back professional speechwriting goes, but I have read that Sam Rosenman wrote speeches for FDR during the 1928 New York gubernatorial election.

Mr. McGrath's concern extends in directions he doesn't even realize. I am a long time member of Toastmasters International (TI). Every Spring TI conducts a knockout competition leading to the Toastmasters International World Championships of Public Speaking. Speeches have to be original creations, and materials from other sources must be cited. So...if a contestant asks a friend to edit a speech, does that detract from the originality? If a friend edits the speech, and comes up with a killer line, should they be mentioned? In TI, it is a discussion that goes on each year.

Mr. McGrath's contention is not just about work product, but subterfuge. As he says:

Psychologists, composition teachers, college admissions officers and personnel directors all know that when it comes to extracting truth and character, there is no more reliable indicator than a person's original, written words. Why, then, as we watch two finalists compete for the most important job in the world, do we tolerate their lip-syncing of someone else's creation?

Good question. My general reaction is that those pursuing or holding high office simply don't have the time to write their own stuff. Writing a quality of speech that can hold up under the scrutiny of, well, the world, takes time. There are stories attributed to everyone from Mark Twain to Woodrow Wilson that illustrate that the less time you have, or the more important an occasion, the longer it takes to write an appropriate presentation. The amount of time it takes to write a high quality speech of any length will cut into the time they need to contact voters and raise money. It is a sad commentary on our selection process, but there it is.

I am comfortable in general with the role of speechwriters...of course, I have ghostwritten a speech or article in my time. My experience is that speechwriters can only come up with the foundation stuff of a speech. It is the speaker who via editing or presentation skill adds the verve and charisma that makes the speech come alive and resound with the audience.

For example, in FDR: The New York YearsKenneth Davis writes of how Sam Rosenman carried a multitude of legal size manila envelopes full of facts and documentation he used to write FDR's speeches. FDR would take the draft, then proceed to edit the speech, brighten the language and make it his own. FDR would typically edit for style, but sometimes added his own unique perspective to make his points clearer.

One instance of FDR editing came in a speech offered in Buffalo on October 20, 1928. FDR wanted to make a point about the failure of GOP promises to labor, and used Rosenman's envelope system (this was a man who needed a laptop!) to create his metaphor:

"Somewhere in a pigeonhole in a desk of the Republican leaders in New York State is a large envelope, soiled, worn, bearing a date that goes back twenty-five or thirty years" said Roosevelt. "Printed in large letters on this old envelope are the words, "Promises to labor.' Inside the envelope are a series of sheets dated two years apart and represent the best thought of the best minds of the Republican leaders over a succession of years. Each sheet of promises is practially the duplicate of every other sheet in the envelope. But nowhere in that envelope is a single page bearing the title "Promises Kept.'" (FDR: The New York Years, page 38)

Rosenman set the foundation, FDR made it his own.

The problem I see in current speechwriting comes when the speechwriter(s) are not close enough to the speaker to understand his/her styles, concerns, beliefs, and goals. Peggy Noonan considers this in On Speaking Well, where she recounts the challenges of her time as a Reagan speechwriter.

Ms. Noonan notes that in previous times, especially under President Kennedy, the speechwriters were considered high level staff. They spent much time with JFK, were in some cases long time friends and comrades, and had a clear feel for his speech patterns, beliefs, style, and goals. They produced, he personalized.

Now? The "Communication Department" is a lower level department, and its work product goes directly to higher officials or cabinet departments to be "vetted" before it goes to the candidate/office holder. Noonan writes of the "Challenger" speech she wrote in the wake of the space shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986. She included part of the poem "High Flight", remembering that WW2 pilots carried it on a card in their jackets. She was sure Reagan would remember it, and included a partial quote, saying that morning the Challenger crew:

slipped the surly bonds of Earth...Put out [their] hand, and touched the face of God.

However, the speech had to be vetted by the NSC, where a staffer-more mindful of current tv advertisments than poetry-tried to amend the speech to read:

"reach out and touch somene-touch the face of God"

Writing is not easy, and creating written words that translate well into spoken language is truly difficult It is an art, it is a skill, and it is needed in the body politic to allow us to fully consider a candidate. THe speech writers talents are purchased by the campaign, and the intellectual property they produce is the "property" of the campaign (and as such probably not needed to be footnoted). However, the need and best method to communicate has to be balanced against the other needs of a campaign or term in office. Is a candidate better served writing a speech or going door to door? Is an office holder more effective writing a speech or being in meetings or writing other documents?

I tend to think professional speechwriting is not going away, and the real question is less how right it is than how effective it will be. The time commitments of those in camaigning or already in high office are simply too great for an individual to take the time to personally draft every speech. They have limited time, and there is so much the candidate has to do personally, and speechwriting is one of the things that can be handled, at least in part, by others.

It is my hope that all candidates recognize that speechwriters are not functionaries or hacks that can be readily discarded. A good speechwriter is a gift to be treasured and provided access so they can readily and accurately create speeches and presentations that reflect all aspects of the candidate. A good speechwriter will make the difference between political poetry and political piffle. If the writing is good, and the delivery matches the writing, then footnoting the author is not needed...their names will eventually be discovered and live on...as the likes Sam Rosenman and Peggy Noonan can attest.

Shoot, it worked for FDR and JFK, and that is a pretty good recommendation.

Those that like or want to like Sarah Palin think she did a great job last night.  Those that don't like her thought it was partisan drek.

Perhaps a non-partisan source who evaluates these speeches for a living gives the right balance:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's acceptance speech wasn't brilliant rhetoric, and she's not entirely accomplished as a public speaker, but she put herself over with slick, self-assured skill. To those in the hall and probably to millions watching at home, she came across as genuine and down-to-earth, a self-described "hockey mom" whose confidence and bravado were not exactly ingratiating but were somehow persuasive.

Hang on folks...it's going to be a bumpy ride

Oh, and "the difference between Hockey mom's and pit bulls?"

Priceless...

UPDATE: It is reported that apparently the Palin teleprompter went haywire last night, scrolling through applause breaks and consistently getting ahead of where the governor was in her speech...and yet she kept on rolling without a hitch.

Impressive.

Mc Cain

→ Un démocrate à la convention républicaine de Saint-Paul. Appelons cela l'ouverture à l'américaine. L'ancien colistier d'Al Gore à la présidentielle en 2000, Joe Lieberman, est intervenu mardi pour soutenir McCain. "Après tout, que fait un démocrate comme moi à une convention républicaine comme celle-ci?"

Al Gore

Tout simplement , "parce le pays compte plus que le parti", a déclaré l'ex-candidat démocrate à la vice-présidence des Etats-Unis. Dans le public, des militants républicains ont alors agité des pancartes où était écrit: "D'abord le pays."

Dear Americans,

The time has come to chose:

A president who has chosen (or not) to play the role of the they-say-there-is-nobody-dumber-than-Bush-but-I'll-prove-them-wrong guy or John McCain or the one who has chosen to care and be proactive and not just talk good but also do good, or Barack Obama.

It's a pity I wouldn't be able to vote in the US but do hope many of you, young Americans, will do the right choice. Support somebody who is not just talking but also acting (McCain is doing neither, so it's clear, isn't it?!)

Hear the appeal and think twice:

"He's too big for his shoes," she replied.

I assumed she was referring to the Illinois senator's pledges to: 1) end the war in Iraq; 2) make health care accessible to all; 3) put America's youths through college, 4) end U.S. reliance on oil from the Middle East and 5) create 5 million American jobs over the next decade — all while still managing to "cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families."

As a college student who relies on student loans to pay for school, as someone who hasn't been able to afford health care on my own and because I had to wait tables for two years while earning a meager hourly wage as a newspaper reporter before coming back to school, all of this financial support sounds great.

The more than 300 Obama supporters at the Blue Note Thursday sure seemed to agree. "Yes we can!" they chanted amongst banners that read "hope" and "change."

Maybe it's the cynic in me, or maybe — in an attempt to remain an objective journalist — I was consciously trying to distance myself from all of the political rhetoric. But the question keep lingering in my head while watching Obama's historic address: How's he going to pay for all this?

I certainly don't think health care premiums should break a working man's budget, and I agree, it's a shame that today's minimum wage is hardly enough to pay the rent, let alone feed a family.

But at the risk of sounding like my father, I wanted to know how the smiling senator would manage all of this "change."

Sure, we could use a portion of the $9 billion the U.S. spends each month on the war in Iraq if the troops are withdrawn, but what happens if we're attacked again while Barack's in office?

How far would an effort to end tax breaks for mega-corporations go?

How much of the bill, should someone like my father, a strictly middle class guy, a self-made man of sorts who put himself through school, be footing?

What about someone without "boots" currently who wouldn't pull themselves up by their "bootstraps" even if they had them?

Are we talking about giving handouts to the undeserved or truly helping all Americans, many of whom, admittedly, are in great need?

These are questions for which I don't have any good answers.

I'm reluctant to criticize Obama's grand ideals, but perhaps he should have spent more time Thursday explaining how he will accomplish them instead of telling us what John McCain doesn't know.

But, I guess, we've got two months for all of that ...right?

I'm with The Field's Al Giordano on this, we are setting ourselves up for a major fall:

What members of the national media don't understand - what they have never understood - is why "running against the media" is such a good strategy.

Most members of the commercial media don't want to face what everybody else knows - that as institutions go, that of "the media" is as hated or more so than George W. Bush and the US Congress.

Unfortunately, in recent days, too many bloggers and their commenters have forgotten that truth, too.

Bloggers, in general, claim to understand just how much the public distrusts the media. We bloggers have been "running against the media" from the get-go. It's one of the biggest keys to our success: that readers turn to us instead of the commercial media it distrusts. The one thing that could most rapidly destroy that for us would be if we became, in the public's mind, associated with the same sloppy arrogance which it associates with the media.

That ought to be a no brainer. But in recent days, too many bloggers and their commenters have aped the worst qualities of the commercial media in such a way as to allow the McCain campaign and the far right to lump us in with the reviled commercial media to make us, too, the receptacle of that public hatred.

It's about the "unvetted diaries," stupid.

Netroots and pro-Democratic party blogs have become the staging areas for "unvetted diaries" - some planted, no doubt, by covert McCain backers, others as sincere as they are imbecilic - that screech about McCain not vetting his vice presidential pick while behaving just as irresponsibly as their target. Too many bloggers and their commenters have jumped on rumors - about pregnancies and other matters - that turned out to be false, and have harmed the messengers' own credibility by stating them as fact.

And in cases where the front-page bloggers at websites did not engage in such boneheaded activity, but their rank-and-file diarists or commenters did, we who run our blogs have a special responsibility to step in and put things right again.

The logic in too much of the blogosphere - left, right, and other - is that if a claim is potentially damaging to the enemy, it gets shouted as "fact" far and wide, even before the claim is investigated and vetted. Beyond the already double-edged sword of preggers-gate, this occurred in recent days with blogger claims that Governor Palin was a "member" of the Alaska Independent Party (now swatted down with documents; she's always been a registered Republican) and that she "supported" Pat Buchanan for president in 2000 (she supported Steve Forbes).

Al's not talking about the stuff that is true and that are clearly related to her political (or that which is obviously related to it) judgement but about the personal attacks and the stuff that has been, in all honesty, blown out of proportion and the stuff that is pretty clearly a personal attack against Palin's family.

In addition to Al's post about the political ramifications of these attacks (which I believe are definitely solid) there is also a post written by hilzoy of Obsidian Wings which touch on the moral question of the attacks which have definitely been of a more personal nature:

I want no part of this. None at all. To those of you who think otherwise: that's your right. But ask yourself how you felt when Republicans scored points using Chelsea Clinton, who didn't ask to be dragged into the spotlight either.

As far as I'm concerned, it's fair game to consider Sarah Palin's statements about her daughter's decision, and to compare them to her own views about abortion. That's a story about whether or not Sarah Palin sticks to her beliefs when they affect her own family, not about her daughter. But it is not fair game to use her daughter, or any of her kids, as pawns in a political argument. To my mind, this extends to using her daughter as evidence that abstinence-only education doesn't work: presumably, no one thinks that it works 100% of the time, and that's the only claim to which this one counterexample could possibly be relevant. (That's why God created large-scale studies.) Likewise, I think that arguing about whether Sarah Palin is a good mother is out of line: we have no idea at all what arrangements she and her husband have made for child care, how their relationship works, and so forth. Assuming that Sarah Palin would have to be her children's primary caregiver is just sexist.

If the past is any guide, some people will respond to this post by saying that the Republicans would not hesitate to use Democrats' teenage children to score political points. That may be. Three responses: first, so what? Just because they do it doesn't mean that we should. Second, any argument for going there would have to assume that this would, in fact, be a political winner, and thus that not using it would entail some sort of political sacrifice. I am not at all convinced that that is true. Most importantly, though, there are some lines I'm not willing to cross no matter what the other side does.

Ignoring the political consequences for a moment (which I do believe are probably not to the Democrats' advantage) this is not something which would ever be acceptable to us if the Republicans were doing it to us (and before anyone jumps at me, I know damn well they have) and there is a good reason for that, it isn't right and saying that this it "serves 'em right" just doesn't measure up. I'm sorry, but I don't really care that Sarah Palin's daughter is pregnant and I also don't give a damn whether or not she ultimately gets married or not. It's one thing to attack Sarah Palin for being a right-wing extremist who believes that creationism should be taught in public schools, that women should never be allowed to get an abortion (unless they are at risk of dying), and that her own experience is completely lacking; but things like campaigning while having a five-month old (and don't feed me this crap about the baby having Down's Syndrome, because this is certainly not something that would be asked of male candidates, so whatever I think of Sarah Palin, it is definitely pretty sexist), or some DUI on her husband's record when he was in his twenties, or things which are pretty clearly in that same league.

Many of the liberal responses on the net have been along the lines of "well, do you think the Republicans would hold back on this" or "well, they had it coming" which always reminds of the basic argument behind the death penalty, the guys who did that deserved it, which always tend to ignore key things like it doesn't deter crime or that it is completely inconsistent with would own sensibilities as human beings. This argument shows that this has nothing to do with what is right or not or what is a good idea or not, and has everything to do with the fact that because they did something really bad, that gives us the inherent right to do something really bad right back.

Marching down this road does absolutely nothing to help us take back the White House and it certainly leaves us at a point where we are no better than the Republicans, which is almost inherent in the typical response to Al, Hilzoy, or myself: "The Republicans did it first".

I knew the Democrats were going to come after Palin, but I misunderstood the intensity. The Left has come after Sarah Palin in less than a week with the sheer bull rush hatred that I only saw of the GOP right going after Bill Clinton. Ms. Noonan writes:

Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing -- who is really one of them and who is not -- and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy.

She could become a transformative political presence.

So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.

And it's going to be brutal. It's already getting there.

Yep, they are coming heavy...and they are doing it in unison. It is not just the Democrats, it is the media.  Journalists like Campbell Brown seem to think they should take on the attack dog responsibility on behalf of the Obama campaign.

Then, one might ask why did the MSM did not unleash their investigative pit bulls on John Edwards when there was plenty of information out that suggested he was messing around, and this while he was still a candidate? Where was this scrupulous attention to investigative detail about the acticity of the canidate himself?  But when it comes to Governor Palin, they immediately try to sniff out whether her child is really a grandchild, and then click over to public revelations about her family.  Come on, is it really worth the New York Times devoting three columns to the pregnancy story?

Ms. Noonan also hits quite nicely on the thematics of the assault:

I don't think the most powerful attack line will be, in the end, inexperience. Our nation appears to be in a cycle in which inexperience seems something of a lure. "He's fresh, he's new, he hasn't appalled me yet!" I don't think it's age. While Palin seems to me young, so does Obama. I freely concede this is a drawback of getting older: you keep upping your idea of what "old enough" is. But only because when you're 50 you know you're wiser and more seasoned than you were at 40, or should be.

America, even as it ages, loves youth and admires its strength.

I think the left will go hard on this: Fringe. Radical. What goes on in her church? Isn't she extreme? Does she really think God wants a pipeline? What does Sarah Barracuda really mean? They're going to try and make her strange, outré, oddball. And not in a good way.

In all this, and in its involvement in this week's ritual humiliation of a 17-year-old girl, the mainstream press may seriously overplay its hand, and court a backlash that impacts the election...

Of course, there are some highly ironic aspects to this situation. When you have the GOP talking about sexism and the Democrats criticizing her abilities as a mother because she doesn't work in the home...well, the world has turned upside down.

I too think Governor Palin scares the Left, but because she actually provides a comparison for Obama.

Will people think that a partial term as a state executive is better than a partial term as a federal legislator?

Will they think being a succesful small town mayor outweighs being a community activist? Remember, there are a lot more Wasilla's in this country than there are Chicago's.

Will they consider the Parable of the Talents, and instead of deriding a state college education v. the Harvard Law Review, and truly consider what each has accomplished with their gifts

Will they do all this and suddenly start to think...maybe Obama is all talk?

I think many Democrats, who see Obama as The Man, will do this. You see, I think the Newt Gingrich's and the Bob Livingston's and the Tom DeLay's disliked Bill Clinton so much because he messed up what they saw as their perfect deal. I think that is why so many Democrats have come out so hard and fast to destroy Sarah Palin.

But as in combat and chess and other competitions, there is the risk of overextension. I said previously there is a risk that the Left will overplay its hand, and I think we are verging on that point.

It all makes tonights speech that much more interesting, and that much more important to this election.

Now enter Paul Kane of the Washington Post with this desperate hit piece:

ST. PAUL -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.

After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.

Now if you look casually, not even carefully, you will see that under the top section labeled "Covenant House Alaska," there is a sub-line of "Expansion (HD 17-32)".  Yes, folks, that is an INCREASE in funding of $3.9 million (instead of the initially proposed $5 million).  Covenant House of Alask had a budget of $1.3 million in 2006.  This budget granted them $3.9 million.  How is that a "slash" again, Mr. Kane?

My God, does Paul Kane really think we're that stupid?  Btw, is it any surprise that he contributed to this article?  Every picture and line in that article scream, "she CAN'T do it because we say so".  Excuse me, but what politician doesn't rehearse?

You stay classy, Paul Kane!

Pathetic... just pathetic.  The imbalance of standards and scrutiny here are staggering.  I hope she's ignoring most of this clap trap.

Looking forward to her speech tonight; wish she would refer to Barack as the "former State Senator from Illinois" since he's been referring to her as the"former Wasila mayor," dissing her present governorship.  You know, just keeping it classy.

UPDATED 9/4
Now the UK Mirror is reporting this as fact.  *sigh*

Heinrich 51%
White 46%

SUSA also polled the presidential race in the district:

Obama 55%
McCain 41%

I like the numbers, but something to keep in mind is that despite Heinrich's lead, White is viewed more favorably than Heinrich by about 9 points. Of course, it would appear that this doesn't show that Heinrich is viewed unfavorably, just that he isn't as well known, so these numbers are pretty good in that context. Obama's strong performance in CD-01 (as well as the coattails generated by Tom Udall) may very well be enough to push Heinrich over the top (by the way, I wish SUSA would've polled the Senate race here, it would've been interesting to see how Udall was doing here).

h/t James L.

But SWMBO is an inveterate convention watcher. She and the WMD were at the beach during the DNC, and she caught every minute possible...and last night she cajoled me into watching coverage of the RNC. While it unfortunately lived up to my expectations, it also showed me why McCain will lose this election, but also why he will win.

Why He Won't: Fred Thompson went on about how McCain will change the way things are done in DC, clean up the place, etc. Well, the GOP has been in the White House for the last eight years and had control of both houses of congress for six of those eight. I don't see how the GOP candidate can successfully run against conditions that the GOP had a big hand in creating. This is where the substitution of power for principles comes into play. The GOP has in the last eight years operated to gain power, and not to state principles.

President Bush's comments illustrated the lack of bullet points that McCain can readily roll out. He cannot pull out numbers about how many new jobs have been created, how the economy is growing at a record pace, etc. The numbers that readily catch the voter's attention and support just are not there.

Then came Joe Lieberman, and he focused on John McCain the man and how he will protect America. All well and good, and it is a fact that since 2001 there have been no terrorist attacks in the USA, but that does not give you the stat you need. For security sake, he cannot say "there have been no successful attacks, and at least 165 attempted", or something like that. And in Iraq, although it is clear that progress is being made, all progress is colored by the fact that we started that little clambake...which means that while we may be making objective progress, the subjective take on how we are doing is a whole 'nother matter.

Oh, some asides...I doubt Joe Lieberman runs for reelection in 2012, and Fred Thompson would have been better to say "eloquence is no substitute for experience, and rhetoric no replacement for a record."

On the other side of the coin, the speakers capably conveyed the image of a man who is ready to take office and lead, who has walked through the Valley of the Shadow of Death and came out in one piece. Lieberman did about as good a job as possible of making the case for democrats to cross over.

Why He Will:We also got to see Katie Couric show once again how in the bag the media is for Obama, how eager they are to land the KO shot to Sarah Palin, and the double standard they will use. As an example, I was struck by how she noted that as mayor Palin got $27 million for the town, and wasn't it it time to get the "truth" out.

Well, this is why Katie should not have left the Today Show. Besides the way she loses control of interviews, she is confusing the "facts" with the "truth". The fact is that while Mayor of Wasilla she succesfully got in 27 million dollars of federal aid. The truth is that as an elected official in a small town with limited resources she got federal aid for needed civic improvements. The money was used for building a youth center, sewer repairs, transportation needs-brick and mortar and real things the town needed. It seems to me that when Congress sets rules for getting funding, all the folks back home can do is play by the rules, because that money is going somewhere.

Then there is the whole Bridge to Nowhere thing, and how she supported it and then came in against it. If it were a Democrat being discussed, that behavior would be described as "growing in office"

I am astonished less at how the media is jumping on every little thing about Palin and her family but the hebephrenic glee with which everything is spun as indicative of something bad about someone.

American's love underdogs, and I suspect that the more the media and the Democrats go after Sarah Palin on anything other then her record in office the more people will decide to vote GOP in reaction against such behavior.

This campaign is far from over. If election day is about results, etc., then Obama has great chances to win. But if this election continues to be Palin the Pinata contest, then I think McCain's chances look better every day.

the Republican convention, Republican Vice President hopeful Sarah Palin sought to ditch the rumors that she doesn't have the experience to be a vice president and potential president as well as to quiet the rumors about her inability to run her own family.

"I'm excellent VP material," Palin explained. "I have many qualities that completment McCain's blanks, for example, a life expectancy of more than 3 years."

"I also make a very good resources administrator. Why, I have my personal attorney, Van Flein, on the state's payroll. That's a savings of $95,000 dollars alone. He will clearly demonstrate to the ethics commission that I don't mix personal business with state business."

On the Troopergate, she explained, "the fact that that damn bastard ditched my sister after she gave him the best years of her life, and still has a job, doesn't mean that I would fire the man that had to fire him. In any case, my personal attorney who I appointed as the state attorney is investigating my case to prove my innocence."

Regarding her daughter Bristol's pregancy, she commented, "Well, that just goes to prove that abstinence is the best sex teaching to youngsters. If only it was taught as the only sex option in schools. However, ma princess Bristol and the young man, Levi, that she will marry, are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of great-great-grandda McCain who has already offered them a room in one of his houses,  if only he could remember which."

Finally, Wasilla Mayor Dianne Keller, added that Palin's work as former Wasilla Mayor is almost the same as running the country. "The process for running the city of Wasilla is probably much like the process of running our country. You hand out gun licences for bear shooting, authorize mooseburger restaurants and have the Russians a few miles away."