Political Journal

Obama Web Address December 6, 2008

2008-12-06T13:27:00.001-05:00

Bobby Jindal For President

2008-12-06T10:58:00.009-05:00

Fast forward to late 2010/early 2011:

"We were promised change, but the change that we got is not the change we need. Bobby Jindal has a vision...His vision is what we need now."

Jindal Speculation

2008-12-06T08:15:00.002-05:00

A local TV clip speculating on why Bobby Jindal made the recent trip to Iowa.

Not Ready For Prime Time

2008-12-05T18:44:00.027-05:00

David Gregory did a competent job as Chief White House Correspondent for NBC, periodically challenging all of the President's men - Fleischer, McClellan and Snow - and at least once, the President himself.

A good reporter, though, does not necessarily make a great moderator or host. Gregory does not "engage" in the studio roles he has assumed: first, Race to the White House and currently, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. After five minutes, I'm usually reaching for the remote.

Rarely have I seen him ask the tough questions of one of his guests as he might have in a press conference. The format is often a panel of experts with Gregory serving as the facilitator. With his relatively thin resume as a host, his apparent ascension to moderator of Meet The Press may say more about the depth of talent at NBC than it does about Gregory.

Is there no one else within the news division at NBC - or for that matter at CBS, ABC, CNN or Fox - to choose from? Did NBC conduct an extensive search while Tom Brokaw provided continuity after Tim Russert's passing? While many were likely interested maybe no one was available. Or was NBC committed to staying within the family and chose Gregory as the least partisan prospect with the most journalistic experience? From the March 14, 2006 Washington Post:

When Vice President Cheney accidentally wounded a hunting companion last month on a Texas ranch, White House reporters pummeled McClellan with questions for days. "The vice president of the United States accidentally shoots a man, and he feels that it's appropriate for a ranch owner who would witness this to tell the local Corpus Christi newspaper and not the White House press corps at large?" Gregory demanded. He also scolded McClellan: "Don't tell me you're giving us complete answers when you're not actually answering the question."

At the off-camera morning briefing known as "the gaggle," McClellan tried to deflect a question by saying: "David, hold on. . . . The cameras aren't on right now." Gregory responded: "Don't be a jerk to me personally when I'm asking you a serious question." McClellan said he didn't have to yell, and Gregory said he would indeed yell "if you want to use that podium to try to take shots at me personally, which I don't appreciate."

Within hours, lots of people were taking personal shots at Gregory. Jon Friedman, the media columnist for Marketwatch.com, wrote that Gregory had become "the poster child for inappropriate, self-serving behavior."

Gregory publicly apologized to McClellan. "I thought he insulted me, but it was inappropriate to say what I said," Gregory says now.

McClellan calls the apology "an incredibly classy thing to do on his part. . . . We both have a job to do and both have respect for one another. David is a hard-nosed reporter who asks tough questions and works really hard to be fair."

If he can ask tough questions on Sunday mornings, over time he may be able to win me over; otherwise I'll be looking for the remote.

UPDATE: Apparently David Gregory's height will be an advantage as he takes the reins of MTP.

Question No. 58

2008-12-05T14:54:00.002-05:00

Apparently, Obama speechwriting director Jon Favreau has embraced Hillary Clinton.

Top Conservatives on Twitter

2008-12-05T11:47:00.003-05:00

Here is an organizational website promoting the use of Twitter for conservatives in preparation for the next election cycle, along with their action plan:

10 Things You Can Do To Build The Conservative Community on Twitter
1. Follow everyone on this list.
2. Make a point of tweeting conservatives on the list who you don't know, but you think might be interesting.
3. Use the "#TCOT" tag before tweets you think might be of interest to the entire community.
4. Tell your conservative friends who are not on Twitter to join now.
5. Do something nice for someone on the list.
6. If someone follows you, follow them back.
7. Try to keep your following to follower ratio greater than 0.85 to 1. The point of a community is to engage in a dialogue. You can't engage unless tweets flow two ways.
8. Follow the people who follow people on the list with whom you have much in common. Especially follow people on the list who are rapidly adding new followers, such as @pinkelephantpun and @nansen.
9. Volunteer to be a Project Servant-Leader or Team Member on a #TCOT Action Project
10. Propose and gain approval for a new #TCOT Action Project.

Fridays with Ziegler

2008-12-05T09:53:00.001-05:00

Nate's latest on Ziegler.

Facebook Connect

2008-12-05T09:05:00.005-05:00

Facebook has just launched Facebook Connect, providing greater ease of access to social networking sites:

Facebook Connect lets you use your Facebook ID and password to sign-in to third-party sites. It's kind of like another Web-wide sign-on protocol called OpenID in that regard, but Facebook strikes me as having far greater potential of taking off on a large scale.

The reason? It's easy to use, understand, and control -- and users won't have to do any extra work to find it or make it function. OpenID, if you're not familiar with it, lets you use a single username and password to sign-on to numerous sites. But let's be honest: How many average, non-techie-type Web users are even aware OpenID exists? Odds are, most people have an OpenID-linked account somewhere. But does the typical Internet surfer even know what it is or how it'd be used?

Facebook Connect has visibility on its side. As the most visited social network worldwide, according to traffic measurement data by ComScore, it has an audience already connected and ready to roll. And with 100-plus partners expected to be on-board within Connect's first weeks, there will be plenty of places for that audience to go. Sites like CBS, CNN, and CitySearch are already signed up...countless blogs and Web sites are sure to follow.

So far, Facebook says the sites involved in early testing reported a 50 percent jump in user engagement. For people who are really into social networking and use Facebook -- and, let's face it, that's a massive number nowadays -- Facebook Connect will offer a powerful new layer of interaction across the Web. It may not be the first system of its sort, but it could just be the first one to make a significant splash.

Open ID

2008-12-04T16:16:00.021-05:00

The innovative use of social networking sites by the Obama campaign for communication, mobilization and fundraising has set the standard for future national campaigns.

The point of all of the online gadgetry is to get people to show up for offline events. "We've tried to orient the tools less as a social network and more as a mobilization network," said Joe Rospars, Obama's online director. "We're creating opportunities for people to get out there and do things -- the campaign is election-outcome oriented."

The easy flow of information to millions of people, particularly those in the 18-29 age group (and younger, as today's 15-year old will be eligible to vote in 2012), so valuable to Obama both throughout the primaries and the general election campaign, will be even more valuable as we become even more wired. However, what happens if we become mired in the web, trapped in the "Walled Garden" as described here?

There's been a growing concern among companies operating social networks such as Facebook , MySpace and LinkedIn -- as well as the hundreds of niche sites that have sprung up -- that too many of these online hubs could lead to paralysis among users. Inevitably, a user with too many sites to visit and update will abandon some, if not most.

OpenID caught my attention because it was utilized by the Obama campaign.

OpenID eliminates the need for multiple usernames across different websites, simplifying your online experience.

As first reported by ReadWriteWeb, President-elect Obama’s website Change.gov now supports OpenID sign in for commenting on certain blog posts and sections of their site. Change.gov uses Intense Debate to power their comment who recently relaunched with OpenID support. As ReadWriteWeb wrote:

Every other major player that has announced support for OpenID has in fact only allowed accounts with their company to be used as an OpenID elsewhere - they have not allowed other OpenIDs to be used to log in to their own sites. That means Barack Obama is cooler than AOL, MySpace, Google and Yahoo!. Maybe you already knew that, though.

Intentional or not, it’s great to see OpenID continue to be built into tools used all over the web whether it be Open Source development frameworks, OS X Leopard, or hosted services like Intense Debate. Putting OpenID in front of such a mainstream audience will certainly continue pushing the community down the path of smoothing out OpenID’s user experience.

As social networking sites evolve, and as political campaigns rely upon them for communication and recruitment, ease of use will be vital to their value.

Hollywood Responds to Prop 8

2008-12-04T09:41:00.003-05:00

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

News Media Rankings

2008-12-03T21:01:00.006-05:00

A recent report by Experian Simmons evaluated media on "five dimensions of engagement" and provided rankings of news sources for their power at creating social interaction - essentially, what formats/platforms do people find compelling and worth talking about.

Not surprisingly, Americans gave news media highest marks for Social Interaction, indicating that they regularly talk with friends and family about things they see on news programs or read about in news magazines or on online news sites.

News media also get high scores for Trust, meaning that while other research has shown Americans don’t necessarily trust “the media” at-large, consumers believe that the news they personally consume provides them with accurate and trustworthy information, Experian Simmons said.

Among the TV and magazine news properties evaluated, Experian Simmons found that the most talked about news property is The Drudge Report, followed by The New York Times, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, The O’Reilly Factor and The Wall Street Journal.

Paradoxically, the study revealed that the dimensions of Trust and Social Interaction don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand, according to Experian Simmons. The most-talked-about Drudge Report scored 12% above average for Social Interaction and ranked #1 in that dimension, while scoring 10% below average for Trust, for which it ranked #46.

Louisiana NBC-Affiliate News Package

2008-12-02T22:00:00.000-05:00

Jindal To Meet With Obama

2008-12-02T21:21:00.001-05:00

Bobby Jindal attended the Governors meeting with Barack Obama today in Philadelphia.

Jindal says he wants the new administration to know that Congress has authorized billions of dollars for hurricane flood protection for Louisiana that has yet to be funded.

Jindal also says he will push for the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to report directly to the White House.

bobbyjindal.com

2008-12-02T09:22:00.003-05:00

The Jindal gubernatorial website: www.bobbyjindal.com is a good foundation from what will be a migration to a presidential run. It includes links to YouTube, Flickr, MySpace and Facebook, along with a variety of information portals, including the Action Center and invitations to join the campaign (not to mention merchandising). It is not as savvy as BarackObama.com, but more advanced than JohnMcCain.com.

Note the links to three important potential constituencies: Sportsmen, Farmers and Veterans.

Jindal 2012

2008-12-02T09:09:00.002-05:00

Bobby Jindal on The Tonight Show

2008-12-02T08:50:00.003-05:00

Here's the link to a Summer 2008 Bobby Jindal appearance (embed script was unavailable) in which he is both personable and self-effacing; a return there in early 2010 would be well-timed as the question of his bid for re-election in LA/run for the White House will be very much alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg5GWI7UKtQ

Research Opportunities

2008-12-01T12:57:00.002-05:00

Levenstein & DeCrescenzo LLP has developed four critical contacts for foundation research for the 2012 campaign. They include:

Political Consultant Roy Occhiogrosso
Internet Campaign Expert Tim Tagaris
Former Clinton White House Guy Bill Curry
CT Republican State Chairman Chris Healy

Please comment with your email contact information and indicate which expert you would like to interview and I will email you their telephone number or email address.

Press Release

2008-11-30T19:15:00.005-05:00

The (Digital) Marketing of the President

2008-11-30T16:55:00.004-05:00

The sophisticated on-line techniques used by the Obama campaign are broadly outlined in this July 2008 piece (since the details are closely held by the campaign's brain-trust):

The campaign is collecting some of the most helpful data on its own. For example, aides can track what time you open e-mails from them, and if you show a consistent pattern, they'll start sending them at around that time of day. "The marginal benefit of sending some people an email at 2 o'clock vs. 3 o'clock vs. 4 o'clock might not make sense [at first]," said Michael Bassik, a Democratic consultant with MSHC Partners, the firm that did John Kerry's online advertising in 2004. "But once you start getting an e-mail list that's 3 million, 4 million, or 10 million people, increasing the returns for a fundraising e-mail by 5 or 10 percent means additional returns of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars."

If you're one of the 1 million people who have a login on Obama's social networking site, they know how often and when you visit, and they can use that to gauge how committed you are to the campaign. A few months ago, the campaign sent out a three-page survey asking people about their voting habits, how often they go to church, which groups and issues they identify with and whether they've given money to political candidates in the past. The point of all of the online gadgetry is to get people to show up for offline events. "We've tried to orient the tools less as a social network and more as a mobilization network," said Joe Rospars, Obama's online director. "We're creating opportunities for people to get out there and do things -- the campaign is election-outcome oriented."

Digital Reach

2008-11-30T16:27:00.003-05:00

From brandrepublic.com:

The success of Barack Obama's election campaign has been in part credited to a 21st-century digital media strategy driven by David Axelrod, the newly elected president's chief strategist.

Axelrod oversaw an electoral campaign that successfully enlisted hard to reach parts of the US electorate such as young voters, African-American and Latino voters, and first time voters, through an all encompassing digital campaign, which placed a heavy emphasis on social media through websites such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Axelrod and Obama's high-profile campaign manager David Plouffe, who made appearances in many of Obama's YouTube videos such as the one below, used text messages, the internet and a network of 1.5m volunteers, to overpower John McCain's Republicans in a series of battleground states.

>

Plouffe attempts to connect “personally” with voters, while also delivering a controlled message to them about the campaign’s new Keating Five documentary and inviting supporters to participate in their get-out-the-vote strategy.

The Malaise of a Medium

2008-11-30T14:17:00.006-05:00

Locally, we have an example of the impending closing of two small daily newspapers and a collection of weekly newspapers, as reported here and here, as a collection of legislators are exploring ways to possibly save them with state intervention. These papers have suffered through their owners' profit aspirations at the expense of their editorial products (massive staff cuts). The parent company's stock price closed below $.01 per share on Friday.

In the Comments to the second linked article is the gem from Jim:

The newspaper is going the way of the horse and buggy. The internet is the new place for news. However, the impending doom of these newspapers is happening much faster due to the poor quality of these publications. There simply was not enough local coverage. Not enough quality unbiased reporting. The critical factor in keeping these newspapers open longer is creating a strong link to the internet. The Journal Register Co. has failed miserably over the years at this...If the JRC was smart, they would invest (heavily) in their web presence, retain their local reporters, and focus their ad sales on internet sales.

In light of evolving on-line reader preferences and the declining economics of traditional newspaper publishing, on-line citizen journalism, similar to the Westport, CT paper referenced in the Poynter article is a great example to what 21st century community journalism should aspire.

Bobby Jindal 2012

2008-11-29T08:09:00.004-05:00

Counterpoint

2008-11-24T12:29:00.012-05:00

Here is the response from WTMJ to Dan Shelley's article Secrets of Talk Radio:

We are surprised and saddened that a former employee, who worked with us for ten years, would choose to attack our talk shows hosts and company in this manner. Neither the station nor our hosts were offered a chance to comment on the claims made by the author. Newsradio 620 WTMJ stands by Charlie Sykes and Jeff Wagner and will continue to give their listeners the opportunity to share and participate in the best local talk programming in Milwaukee.

In great detail, here is Charlie Sykes response on the station's website. He concludes his defense as follows:

And here is where Dan exposes his hand: he obviously did not actually listen to what I said on my show. He did not hear what listeners of my radio show and viewers of my television show saw and heard.

In fact this issue that Shelley chose to highlight as an example of all that wrong with talk radio is actually is an example of just what Shelley says does NOT happen on conservative talk.

That’s what I call irony.

Every day we come to work looking not to enrage our audience, but to engage them. We do this by presenting a different (conservative) perspective on the news of the day. We try to inform them by searching out interesting and compelling stories and points of view. Our listeners don't come to us to decide WHAT to think... they can make up their own minds; what they want is for us to help make them think in different ways by having intelligent conversations with our listeners (and occasional guests).

People tune in because they know that there is more than the point of view spoon fed them from the mainstream elite media. They tune in to hear issues they care about addressed; they tune in to hear common sense; and to realize they don't have to simply accept the liberal line. That is the power of talk radio and its appeal. It is obviously a power that liberal elites regard with fear and loathing. And, apparently, it is a voice they are willing to use the power of government to silence.

Sykes, quite methodically, puts forth arguments to attempt to refute all of Shelley's claims. Somewhere between the two of them is the truth, though Sykes seems to have presented a sanitized version of events that just might not wash with anyone except a conservative talk-show host and his minions.

Zogby Won't Poll Again

2008-11-24T11:32:00.007-05:00

As a result of backlash to John Ziegler's controversial documentary, Zogby has refused to conduct a McCain voter poll:

“I am happy to do a poll of both Obama voters and McCain voters, with questions that I formulated and sponsored either by an objective third party or by someone on the left, in tandem with a John Ziegler on the right — but poll questions that have my signature,” Zogby said.

“I believe there was value in the poll we did,” Zogby added. “I also believe it was not our finest hour. This slipped through the cracks. It came out critical only of Obama voters.”

Ziegler responded: "I am shocked by John's statement that he would do another poll but not an exact duplication. What is the point of that? Not their finest hour? This a was great poll. This didn't fall through any 'cracks,' they just got scared. ... The point of the poll was for my documentary on the media's impact on voter knowledge."

Nate Silver had both the Politico story and this one from The Wall Street Journal.

Not everyone sees the world through John Ziegler's lens.

Thank You Sarah Palin

2008-11-24T10:57:00.005-05:00

(See this The Caucus entry and/or kevindayhoff.blogspot.com for a news release about this PAC and upcoming media release.)

The production looks like a parody, but apparently it is sincere.

Opinion & Commentary as Entertainment

2008-11-24T09:08:00.012-05:00

To be fair (and balanced?), there is an "entertainment quotient" that is important to the success of news programming that leans left (Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show immediately come to mind). In conservative quarters, they are certainly disparaged as much as the left ridicules the right (see David Frum's last appearance on Rachel Maddow).

Rush Limbaugh, embracing his critics in Media Week (August 2003), said

"I combine two elements: irreverent humor and serious discussion of issues," Limbaugh, who doesn't know when he'll stop told Media Week. "People tune in for both. But the key is having credibility. This has led to critics saying I am just an entertainer. I'm proud to be an entertainer. This is showbiz. At the same time, I believe everything I say."

Olbermann often refers to him as a comedian.

And from the Ziegler Atlantic article:

John Ziegler is not a journalist—he is an entertainer. Or maybe it's better to say that he is part of a peculiar, modern, and very popular type of news industry, one that manages to enjoy the authority and influence of journalism without the stodgy constraints of fairness, objectivity, and responsibility that make trying to tell the truth such a drag for everyone involved.

Does Bill O'Reilly routinely feature Dennis Miller on his show for two reasons, one obvious and the other subtle? The first, to add to the entertainment quotient of The O'Reilly Factor (if you still find Dennis Miller entertaining), and the second, to distinguish and defend O'Reilly as a serious newsman: I am the authority - he is the comedian.

John Ziegler Revealed

2008-11-23T21:21:00.013-05:00

Last week’s Nate Silver-John Ziegler exchange was well-timed for our purposes, as Nate’s linking to the nearly 14,000-word, exceptionally-annotated 2005 Atlantic article provided further insight into “what’s under the hood” of conservative talk radio (automotive-only metaphor intended). The end of this passage provides a succinct characterization of conservative talk radio’s audience:

Who exactly listens to political talk radio? Arbitron Inc. and some of its satellites can help measure how many are listening for how long and when, and they provide some rough age data and demographic specs. A lot of the rest is guesswork, and Program Directors don't like to talk about it.

From outside, though, one of the best clues to how a radio station understands its audience is spots. Which commercials it runs, and when, indicate how the station is pitching its listeners' tastes and receptivities to sponsors.

For instance, one has only to listen to Coast to Coast With George Noory's ads for gold as a hedge against hyperinflation, special emergency radios you can hand-crank in case of extended power failure, miracle weight-loss formulas, online dating services, etc., to understand that KFI and the syndicator regard this show's audience as basically frightened, credulous, and desperate.

Conservative talk shows seem to focus on issues, narratives and rants that assuage the fears of their listeners, who tend to tune-in either because they are frustrated or highly-susceptible to manipulation. For those who fall into the “credulous” camp, it must be the “willing suspension of disbelief” that allows otherwise thoughtful, rational people to believe the hyper-hyperbole that is the daily grist for this audio mill. The car-crash quality of much of the debate is simply too compelling to look (listen) away.

Ziegler’s misanthropic flashes invariably drew him to repeatedly work for “evil, evil” people or companies - apparently they were drawn to one another again and again. His is an unsympathetic character both in and out of work in an unsympathetic, though highly-successful, media platform.

Nate Silver: Did Talk Radio Kill Conservatism?

2008-11-20T12:16:00.005-05:00

The latest posting by Nate addresses the trouble with John Ziegler, a former talk-radio personality, as the launching pad for his hypothesis that talk-radio helped derail conservatism. He quotes from an April 2005 article in The Atlantic, where the author describes what makes talk-radio tick:

Naturally, in order to be even minimally interesting, your remarks should be intelligible and their reasoning sequential—a listener will have to be able to follow the logic of what you're saying—which means that you will have to know enough about your topic to organize your statements in a coherent way. (But you cannot do much of this organizing beforehand; it has to occur at the same time you're speaking.) Plus, ideally, what you're saying should be not just comprehensible and interesting but compelling, stimulating, which means that your remarks have to provoke and sustain some kind of emotional reaction in the listeners, which in turn will require you to construct some kind of identifiable persona for yourself—your comments will need to strike the listener as coming from an actual human being, someone with a real personality and real feelings about whatever it is you're discussing.

Nate goes on to distinguish between stimulation and persuasion, suggesting that somewhere along the way, conservative talk-radio became mostly sizzle, with little steak.

Chuck Hagel Tells It Like It Is

2008-11-19T10:29:00.010-05:00

I've been a fan of Chuck Hagel for a long time. He has impressed me as a no-nonsense, straight-talking, earnest politician who has been the real "maverick" of the Senate. He was featured in the November 3 New Yorker:

Even after McCain became the presumptive nominee, in March, Hagel, asked repeatedly on the Sunday-morning talk shows whether he was going to endorse him, remained noncommittal.

In Washington, the men’s friendship was well known, and unsurprising. Both were hard-driving, politically conservative, hot-tempered, and humorous. They had served in Vietnam and were known as independent thinkers, averse to Party orthodoxy. And although they could be self-deprecating, they had a penchant for righteousness that did not endear them to many colleagues. McCain had campaigned in Nebraska for Hagel in 1996, during Hagel’s first Senate race, which he won in an upset against Ben Nelson, the former Nebraska governor (and current Democratic senator). A photograph in Hagel’s office shows him newly elected, with the five other senators who were Vietnam veterans: McCain, Bob Kerrey, Chuck Robb, John Kerry, and Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in the war. Cleland, seated in a wheelchair, has made a joke, which they all seem to be enjoying. But Hagel and McCain didn’t become close until, about a year and a half later, McCain read a story about Hagel and the Nebraska gubernatorial race in Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper. As the article recounted, Jon Christensen, the onetime front-runner in the 1998 Republican primary, had attacked his opponent with a harsh negative mailer in the final days before the election. Hagel and other Party officials in Nebraska, who had said that they would remain neutral, scolded Christensen and declared that his tactics “embarrassed Nebraska.” Christensen lost by a large margin. The story quoted Hagel as saying, “The most dangerous element of our political future in this country is candidates who debase and degrade the political process by straight-out lies and misleading spots on television. It’s a cancer to our system.” Hagel told me that McCain came to his office to talk to him about the article and said, “You know, I’m really proud of you for doing that. Not many people would have done it.”

Hagel never did endorse McCain, nor did he endorse Obama, though his wife did. Hagel is reportedly under consideration for a cabinet post in the Obama Administration, either as Secretary of Defense or Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Yesterday, Hagel had criticism for Rush Limbaugh and the cacophony he and his right-wing zealots relentlessly spread. Addressing a group at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies:

"We are educated by the great entertainers like Rush Limbaugh," said Hagel, sarcastically referencing the talk radio host who once called him "Senator Betrayus." "You know, I wish Rush Limbaugh and others like that would run for office. They have so much to contribute and so much leadership and they have an answer for everything. And they would be elected overwhelmingly," he offered. "[The truth is] they try to rip everyone down and make fools of everybody but they don't have any answers.

...the American people don't like what is going on... they want us to start doing what leaders are expected to do, address the problems, find some consensus to governing. Get along. There will be disagreements, sure... but in the end we can't hold ourselves captives to this raw, partisan, political paralysis."

Chuck Hagel rides the real Straight-Talk Express.

Nate Silver is the Gift That Keeps On Giving

2008-11-18T20:54:00.015-05:00

My interest in this story began this morning when I read Nate's latest post on fivethirtyeight.com. I began thinking about it and looked through a book that I read this past summer titled Just How Stupid Are We? since John Ziegler's premise is two-fold:

Obama supporters were poorly-informed about Obama because the liberal media did not do their job (this implicitly suggests the conservative media didn't either since it is impossible not to surf through a right-wing zealot at some point during the day) and that they are generally not very bright.

A lack of basic knowledge about our government is pervasive (on both sides of the aisle), and Shenkman contends the problem starts in our schools, not in the media....but I digress.

Ziegler, from the cabal of conservative talk radio, is out to discredit the election of Obama with of his web site and documentary, and is attempting to give his "research" credibility by having a Zogby poll back it up. Nate Silver has called him on it, citing the effort as "push polling." Both the clip from the documentary and the Fox interview are worth watching. If you don't have disdain for Ziegler after reading and viewing, the story gets better.

Zogby issued a statement today defending their polling, and Ziegler agreed to be interviewed by Nate Silver, issuing an F-Bomb himself. The interview is worth reading (maybe twice) as Ziegler proves to be as arrogant as both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (he would probably be flattered).

NS: Would you consider yourself well-informed
JZ: I’d consider myself extremely well-informed.

NS: Who are the two senators from South Dakota
JZ: Thune and, uh, Johnson.

NS: Very good. South Carolina?
JZ: Go f--- (sic) yourself. I'm done with this interview if you're going to ask me stupid questions like that. Obviously I know who Lindsay Graham is.

Enough said.

Digging for the News

2008-11-18T10:02:00.008-05:00

As a follow-up to our discussion last evening, here's a web-based news team in San Diego doing original reporting that is being followed by traditional news organizations:

As America’s newspapers shrink and shed staff, and broadcast news outlets sink in the ratings, a new kind of Web-based news operation has arisen in several cities, forcing the papers to follow the stories they uncover.

Here it is VoiceofSanDiego.org, offering a brand of serious, original reporting by professional journalists — the province of the traditional media, but at a much lower cost of doing business. Since it began in 2005, similar operations have cropped up in New Haven, the Twin Cities, Seattle, St. Louis and Chicago. More are on the way.

Their news coverage and hard-digging investigative reporting stand out in an Internet landscape long dominated by partisan commentary, gossip, vitriol and citizen journalism posted by unpaid amateurs.

UPDATE: Matthew Yglesias' take on this, along with some interesting comments.

FiveThirtyEight on the Media

2008-11-17T07:03:00.004-05:00

Nate Silver's most recent post comments on

...the arbitrary and largely ineffectual nature of the fact-checking process employed by the mainstream media.

...the blogosphere serves as the fact-checkers that the mainstream media is too negligent to employ.

He asserts that emerging new media institutions do a much better job of vetting stories than the established MSM.

The Transition

2008-11-15T14:52:00.016-05:00

Committed to a smooth transition of power, the White House Transition Project is a vast resource of information; under the Plum Book link is the following lament:

Every four years and after an election the government publishes a compendium of positions the new President will need to fill. The 2008 Plum Book has arrived on that schedule. WHTP makes it available by download (pdf): download here.

Unfortunately, now is too late. After extensive experience with presidential transitions, the WHTP has consistently recommended that the Plum Books come out prior to the national conventions so that the campaign transition planners can begin developing strategies for how to blend their policy agenda and their personnel agenda.

Interestingly, Barack Obama came under criticism this past summer for moving forward with the same type of planning that previous presidential candidates had embarked upon, and the criticism was not challenged by the media (the links below each video will take you to research by Media Matters on the presidential transitions from Jimmy Carter through George W. Bush):

In addition to change.gov, the Obama transition has a wikipedia entry.

Change.gov

2008-11-15T11:18:00.011-05:00

Barackobama.com has evolved into change.gov, hosting an impressive amount of information about the transition process, including news releases, appointments, an employment application (while many U.S. employers are laying people off, the federal government is hiring) and two pages to allow citizens to share their "American Moment" or vision for America.

For the first time, the weekly Democratic radio address that dovetails with the weekly Saturday President's radio address, has also been captured in video format, delivered by the President-Elect, to be broadcast via the transition website and on YouTube.

The campaign that embraced the internet, using its resources to communicate, attract and engage supporters and to perform the most successful fund-raising effort on the planet, is now the incoming administration that is committed to communicate and engage as a cutting-edge, 21st century trail-blazing organization.

A Synopsis of Transitions of Power 1980-2000

2008-11-14T16:55:00.010-05:00

Here are four capsules of the most recent transitions from A History of Presidential Transitions:

1980-81
Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan took the animosity they had shown each other on the campaign trail in 1980 into the Oval Office when they met during the transition period. President Carter had run TV advertisements claiming Reagan was not to be trusted with the nuclear button. Reagan had accused Carter of driving America into depression. The conversation at the White House between the two men began badly, and deteriorated from there. President Carter began by talking about national security matters. President-elect Reagan however, sat impassively, saying nothing and taking no notes. An annoyed Carter told Reagan, "The day begins early. A CIA officer briefs you at 7am." Reagan, responding only has he could, "Well, he's sure going to have to wait a long while for me."

President-elect Reagan's slights towards Carter were mirrored by the attitude of First Lady to Be Nancy Reagan towards First Lady Rosalyn Carter. During their meeting at the White House, Mrs. Reagan gave a "subtle hint" that the Carters should get out early so she could start decorating.

1988-89
John Tower, the author of the Iran-Contra investigative report, had his nomination as President-elect George H.W. Bush's defense secretary voted down 53-47 by the Senate. Among the criticisms were his ties to defense contractors and his pro-choice stance on abortion. But Tower was likely targeted for retribution by some Democrats, angered over the 1988 General Election campaign that had used negative tactics against Michael Dukakis. The issue that garnered the most newspaper space was his reputed drinking and womanizing. Tower became the first cabinet nominee to be rejected in more than 30 years. Wyoming Congressman and former Gerald Ford Chief of Staff Dick Cheney, considered a moderate pragmatist, was confirmed unanimously 10 days later.

1992-93
The 1992-93 transition is generally remembered as chaotic, unfocused and undisciplined. Clinton said in his autobiography that, "I spent so much time on the cabinet that I hardly spent any time on the White House staff." The cabinet position that caused the most time spent, not to mention public embarrassment, was the Attorney General position. President-elect Clinton's first and second choices for the position, Zoë Baird and Kimba Woods respectively, blew up due to similar reports that each had employed illegal aliens for domestic work. Clinton, determined to nominate a woman for the position, settled on Florida State Attorney Janet Reno who was sworn in on March 12, 1993.

2000-01
George W. Bush ran for the Presidency in 2000 on a campaign in part to restore "honour and dignity" to the Oval office, a reference to President Clinton's indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky in that room. His own transition meeting occurred in December 2000 shortly after the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, awarded him the General Election win and the Presidency. When President-elect Bush met Clinton in the White House the encounter had great potential for disaster, though it never materialized. Presidents Clinton and Bush went on to talk privately for an hour and dine without incident over curried squash soup and fillet mignon.

President Bush took office in January 2001, and he aimed to make a clean break from all things Clinton. However, the acrimony stemming from the 2000 Florida recount and the Supreme Court decision apparently carried over to the staffers. Reports of office vandalism and thievery made their way into the press soon after the Bush team moved in. A 215-page Government Accounting Office report released a year later, found between $13,000 and $14,000 worth of damage, including missing doorknobs and "W" keys from nearly 60 computer keyboards occurred. A Clinton spokesmen acknowledged that there may have been pranks done in jest, but attributed the majority of the damage to normal wear and tear. In the end both sides claimed vindication, but the bitterness was a symbol of the entire 2000 election.

"Reflection"

2008-11-12T14:40:00.009-05:00

With credit to Courtney for her magazine cover posting earlier today, I was impressed with this metaphor-rich front cover of the most recent issue of The New Yorker.

John McCain on The Tonight Show

2008-11-12T09:15:00.001-05:00

The Boogie Man

2008-11-12T07:21:00.021-05:00

As the Republican Party is now in a period of serious introspection, they are most-likely taking a look back as they look ahead to the mid-term elections and 2012. PBS aired an interesting biographical piece last night on the man that shaped national Republican campaigns over the past twenty-four years: Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story.

Atwater, the architect of the election of George H.W. Bush, had his hand in Ronald Reagan's re-election, the media spin of Reagan's Iran-Contra Affair, was a mentor to Karl Rove dating back to their college days and helped lay the foundation for George W. Bush's ascent to the White House. He became famous for planting false stories and spinning the press.

Atwater was the man behind two negative ads (below, the first damaging, the second devastating) in the Bush-Dukakis 1988 race. Atwater anticipated in the late 1980's that Bill Clinton would challenge Bush in the 1992 race; he hand-picked an opponent to challenge Clinton in the Arkansas gubernatorial race to begin "dirtying him up" before '92. The filmmaker contends that had Atwater been healthy, he would have run a campaign that would have resulted in a Bush victory over Clinton.

In 1989, Lee Atwater was a political rock star. After masterminding George H.W. Bush’s presidential victory over Michael Dukakis, the colorful, blues guitar-playing Atwater was relishing his new role as chairman of the Republican National Committee as he redefined the role of the political operative.

Two years later, the political strategist would be dead from a brain tumor at the age of 41, cast aside by the Washington power players he’d helped create, and wracked with remorse for the tactics he'd employed in his political ascent...producer Stefan Forbes reveals new information about the meteoric rise and tragic demise of a man both admired and reviled for the controversial, sometimes racially-charged political tactics that helped elect George H.W. Bush president and inspired protégés such as Karl Rove. Through a wealth of compelling, never-before-seen footage and photos as well as interviews with boyhood friends, elite Republican strategists and political adversaries, the documentary examines Atwater’s impact on the way modern political campaigns are waged.

“[Lee Atwater] mattered in American politics,” Newsweek political writer Howard Fineman says, “because of the man he got elected, because of the party he shaped. He was very important not only to George H.W.’s victory, but to his son’s victory.”

Boogie Man traces Atwater’s political rise from his early days masterminding political victories in South Carolina. Among his triumphs was a fiercely contested battle for Chairman of the College Republicans between Karl Rove and Robert Edgeworth. Atwater lost, but mounted an appeal of Edgeworth’s victory which was ultimately decided by then Republican National Committee chairman George H.W. Bush, who gave the election to Rove.

“That was a pretty early lesson for Karl Rove from Lee,” says Joe Conason, a journalist for The Nation and Salon.com, “that you could play the hardest of hardball and get away with it.”

Boogie Man recounts how fellow South Carolinian Sen. Strom Thurmond took an interest in Atwater, tutoring him in the use of highly emotional wedge issues such as abortion and crime that would help Republicans win over disaffected working class voters to a largely pro-business agenda. Says Atwater intimate Tucker Eskew, “resentment became the future of the Republican party.”

In the documentary, viewers hear from numerous journalists and politicians who say Atwater’s use of scurrilous rumors, push polls and other dirty tricks propelled him onto the national scene, where he became assistant to Ed Rollins, campaign manager for Ronald Reagan’s 1984 election.

“A lot of people told me he wouldn’t be loyal to me, told me not to pick him,” Rollins says. “I admired his work ethic.”

Not long after, Rollins says, Atwater arranged what turned out to be an ambush media interview in which Rollins was accused of running a dirty-tricks campaign against the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro.

“Lee had put a spear in my back,” Rollins says. “… It was just a two-year effort to destroy me. He wanted to run Bush’s [presidential] campaign.”

Boogie Man takes viewers behind the scenes of the contentious 1988 campaign, remembered for its infamous “Willie Horton” ad, which portrayed Mass. Gov. Michael Dukakis as soft on crime and easy on rapists and murderers. Among the film’s revelations is Republican operative Roger Stone’s account that while he was running the Bush campaign, Atwater said he had secretly arranged financing for the Horton ad. “[Atwater] locked the office door,” says Stone, “and he popped the famous Willie Horton spot onto a television. He said, ’I got a couple boys who are going to put up a couple million dollars for this independent.’ And I said, ‘That’s a huge mistake.’”

After Atwater was diagnosed with a brain tumor in 1990, some of his closest friends say that Atwater was terrified he was going to hell and embarked on a desperate search for redemption. “Lee really was confronting some very troubling facts,” says Eskew, “that in winning he had hurt people. Fear had been part of his toolkit. That fear came back on him.” But producer Stefan Forbes notes that his reporting reveals a more nuanced story than media accounts of Atwater’s remorseful apologies for his tactics. “Lee apologized directly to some of the people he’d hurt,” says Forbes, “but never criticized the GOP, or even disavowed negative campaigning. And his vision of politics as war would continue to affect a new generation of GOP politicians and operatives.”

Atwater aide Tucker Eskew, who went on to run George W. Bush’s war room in the 2000 campaign, says Atwater knew how to control media narratives. “Now it’s kind of rote in politics, but Lee was saying early: perception is reality. He was ahead of his time.”

“Atwater had a genius for the sticky issue—simple enough, scary enough that the media could latch onto it,” Conason says. “…[George] W. learned that the only thing that really matters is who wins.”

While some argue that Atwater’s political successes resulted solely from dirty tricks and a win-at-any-cost mentality, former colleagues say that view is an oversimplification. They explain in Boogie Man how Atwater’s keen attention to the concerns of middle-class Americans helped him identify issues to which his Democratic opponents were often tone deaf.

“It’s so much easier to blame dirty tricks than it is to acknowledge hard work,” says Tucker Eskew. “Did he give his opponents ammunition to criticize him for negative tactics? Yes. Does that obscure the fact that he outfoxed them at nearly every turn? Not to those of us watching closely.”

Former colleague and conservative commentator Mary Matalin agrees. “They had to kill the messenger because they couldn’t kill the message,” she says of Atwater's critics. “They had to turn him into the boogie man--Satan incarnate.”

“Lee Atwater made himself a figure of demonology to psych out his opponents and anesthetize people to his tactics,” says Howard Fineman. “And the sad part, some people would say, the justified part, was that the role that he made for himself literally ended up imprisoning him.”

The Elephant in the Room

2008-11-10T08:30:00.008-05:00

Reverend Wright made the list in a Washington Post piece on Saturday, titled A Few Obama Thank-Yous:

In Liberty Baptist church, my childhood place of worship, I heard it preached: "Sometimes a stumbling block can be a steppingstone in disguise."

Wright, Obama's former pastor, may have fulfilled that wise saying. Without Wright's fiery and controversial sermons, short segments of which were repeatedly aired in the media, Obama would not have delivered his "A More Perfect Union" speech in Philadelphia.

The whole affair allowed Obama to address head-on the elephant in the room -- race. Obama did it with candor and a sensitivity that reflected an insightful understanding of this American dilemma. It was a rare and reassuring performance by a presidential hopeful.

Excerpted from the speech:

I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

There is something transcendent about Barack Obama, not limited to the issue of race. He provides the promise of being able to rise above partisan politics and has persuaded tens of millions of Americans to believe in his vision for America. While I recognize the historic quality of his election, this race was not about about race because he never allowed it to be. Instead, he proved himself to be the most qualified of the two dozen or so candidates that emerged over the past two years to engage on all of the issues we face. At the conclusion of that journey, he himself fulfilled the promise of an American dream.

The Eye on Obama's Team

2008-11-10T07:43:00.006-05:00

At the 4:40 mark, the question of race in the campaign comes up, and then specificially as it related to Reverend Wright:

"There were just so many people, reporters, pundits, everybody, who said that, 'You're not gonna be able to elect a black man president of the United States. It's just not gonna happen right now.' Obviously, that had to be part of your equation in planning this campaign," Kroft remarked.

"No, honestly you had to take a leap of faith in the beginning that the people we get by race. And I think the number of meetings we had about race was zero," Plouffe told Kroft.

"Zero. We had to believe in the beginning that he would be a strong enough candidate that people of every background and race would be for him."

"The only time we got involved in a discussion of race was when people asked us about it. It was a fascination of the news media," Axelrod added.

“But you must have had some meetings on it during the Jeremiah Wright affair,” Kroft probed.

Axelrod said the Jeremiah Wright affair was probably a pivotal moment in the whole campaign. "You know, pandemonium erupted in the political community. And there was this sense that we were in crisis."

The video taped rantings of Obama's former pastor brought the issue that the Obama campaign had long sought to avoid center stage, and took them all by surprise.

"And I think we'd all acknowledged that we should've been aware of some of these tapes were available. We didn't review all of the tapes of Jeremiah Wright as we should have," Axelrod said. "And as a result we were kind of caught flat-footed on some of these tapes. But you know we should have recognized that once that happened, that race is such a fascination of the political community that it would take off as it did. And it did."

"That was a terrible weekend," Dunn remembered. "The excerpts were endlessly looped on television."

“Yeah, and the only one who was calm was Obama,” Axelrod added. The candidate called his aides and told them he wanted them to clear some time on his schedule.

"And he said, 'You know what? I'm gonna make a speech about race and talk about Jeremiah Wright and the perspective of the larger issue.' And he said, 'And either people will accept it or I won't be president of the United States. But at least I'll have said what I think needs to be said,'" Axelrod remembered.

Gibbs said there wasn't a discussion.

"If there had been a discussion, we've often joked, probably most of the people in the campaign would've advised against it," Dunn added.

"The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past," Obama said in his March 2008 speech on race.

"You know, it was a moment of real leadership. I think when he gave that race speech in Philadelphia, people saw a president," Plouffe said.

Media Reflection

2008-11-09T19:49:00.009-05:00

While the historic event of November 4, 2008 may not have heralded the post-racial era, most of the campaigning that preceded Election Day was conducted in the post-Imus era. Humor and banter based upon racial insults and negative stereotypes was exposed for what it was, racism, and it was no longer to be condoned. Media companies were challenged to present a more balanced cast of on-air talent and points of view.

All in the Family creator Norman Lear, in an April 2007 posting, offered this hope:

This could be an historic, watershed moment if American leaders in every field, in every business, were to see the opportunity as well as the responsibility to use this incident as a teaching moment, an opportunity to hold up a mirror to Americans everywhere and show them the truth of racism in our culture. And then exercise their right to clean up the areas in which they have control -- and rid them of the demeaning and the dehumanizing hostility toward race and gender.

MSNBC, the most culpable as they had been the television broadcast home of the Imus show, now regularly includes numerous African-American journalists and politicians in their coverage and analysis, including Eugene Robinson, Jonathan Capehart and Perry Bacon of the Washington Post, Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., Independent Women’s Voice President Michelle Bernard and Republican strategist Ron Christie.

A step in the right direction.

GOP 2.0

2008-11-09T07:25:00.005-05:00

John McCain's Chief Strategist Steve Schmidt provides some insight into what went wrong with the McCain campaign and what the Republican Party needs to do:

Well, I would say this. When you look at the campaign, one of the results of this campaign is the reality that public financing is dead. And the Obama campaign changed the scale of American politics by their fundraising operation, and their use of technology. Each party develops techniques, usually when they’re out of power, for the purpose of gaining power on the next election—need being the mother of all inventions. You saw Republicans pioneer direct mail in an earlier age. You saw, you know, the use of television advertising pioneered in an earlier age. You saw microtargeting—you know, the overlaying of consumer and consumer data against the voter file, earlier in the decade, to much effect. There’s been a profound leap forward in technology and from a community organizing perspective by the Obama campaign in this election. The Democratic Party is a generation ahead technologically. And the Republican Party is going to have to be competitive to catch up in a world where viral information is just as important as what might be in the network news.

GOP Looks to the Future

2008-11-08T17:02:00.003-05:00

A beta site has been launched by a "Coalition" of Republicans:

2008 made one thing clear: if allowed to go unchecked, the Democrats' structural advantages, including their use of the Internet, their more than 2-to-1 advantage with young voters, their discovery of a better grassroots model -- will be as big a threat to the future of the GOP as the toxic political environment we have faced the last few years.

Obama tapped the Internet successfully because he made it about "you" and "us" not "me" and "I." You were invited in. You were a key part of his campaign/movement. Your help was truly appreciated. Republican candidates need to grow more comfortable talking in these terms and focus less on being inaccessible objects of hero worship (the "me/I" strategy).

Because of the Internet, "us" becomes a force more powerful than any in politics. The ability to donate or volunteer instantaneously online gives the millions of "us" more leverage than even the most connected group of insiders. Only "us" will be powerful enough to fund the first $1 billion Presidential candidate. By embracing the Politics of Us, the Republican Party can rediscover its roots as the party of individual liberty and build a truly modern political army.

Imitation is often considered the highest form of flattery.

Signed. Sealed. Delivered.

2008-11-04T23:05:00.004-05:00

MSNBC just did the right thing after announcing the western states for Obama, and went silent, letting the celebration of the sea of people in Grant Park and Times Square be the proverbial thousand words.

AP just reported that John McCain called Barack Obama to concede.

We have all just been witness to history.

9:00 PM Update

2008-11-04T21:04:00.004-05:00

I am multi-tasking between MSNBC, the Fox News (yes, Fox News) live stream and updates from fivethirtyeight.com. The group on Fox has called Ohio for Obama and are resigned to the fact that while Obama hasn't reahed 270, McCain has no path to victory. Their focus, right now, is 'where does the Republican party go from here?' Frank Luntz: "The challenge for the GOP is to transcend partisanship." - that would have been good advice for McCain 6 months ago.

I Didn't Vote For Obama Today

2008-11-04T14:50:00.003-05:00

I hope this posting on Talking Points Memo touches you the way it touched me.

What a beautiful day!

Vote Early. Vote Often.

2008-11-04T09:57:00.004-05:00

An homage in Simsbury to the politics of another era.

Caveat Emptor

2008-11-03T08:51:00.023-05:00

Here are two recent headlines that followed Bill Clinton’s appearance Wednesday night with Barack Obama:

Bill Clinton heaps praise on Obama as calm manager

Bill Clinton: Obama Got Lots of Help on Economic Crisis Response

The first, from a Reuters blog posting, went on to say:

Campaigning with Obama on Wednesday, Clinton not only gave the Illinois senator his support, he heaped praise on him, describing him as a calm manager who had responded deftly to the financial crisis and sought advice from the best experts.

He talked to his advisers. He talked to my economic advisers, Clinton said, listing experts such as investor Warren Buffett and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker whom Obama consulted.

The second, from foxnews.com, also contained the sub-head:

Bill Clinton says at a rally that Barack Obama called a round of advisers during the height of the economic crisis and said, "tell me what ... to do."

…to hear Bill Clinton tell it, the Democratic nominee didn't quite have a handle on the situation himself.

Was Clinton providing a strong endorsement of Obama or a warning to America that the Democratic candidate was unsure of himself? A review of the clip below (from the 8:25 mark on) supports the Reuters reporting.

Fox went on to report, more accurately in the body of their story:

I haven't cleared this with him and he may even be mad at me for saying this so close to the election, but I know what else he said to his economic advisers (during the crisis), Clinton told the crowd at a Wednesday night rally with Obama in Florida.

"He said, 'Tell me what the right thing to do is. What's the right thing for America? Don't tell me what's popular. You tell me what's right -- I'll figure out how to sell it.'"

Clinton said when the crisis broke, Obama called his own advisers as well as those of the former two-term president, Hillary Clinton, Warren Buffet and others.

"He called those people. You know why? Because he knew it was complicated and before he said anything he wanted to understand," Clinton said. "That's what a president does in a crisis."

A reader moving quickly through the Fox site, however, might have read the headline and sub-head and have been left with the impression that Obama was not ready to tackle the economic crisis.

Ironically, a semi-literal definition of the “fox watching the hen house” may be found in Fox News’ belief that they are the only objective news source in America.

To hear the network's bigwigs tell it, it's not Fox that's being biased when it puts conservative fare on heavy rotation. It's the "liberal media" that are biased when they fail to do so. Fox's entire editorial philosophy revolves around the idea that the mainstream media have a liberal bias that Fox is obligated to rectify.

As revealed in the State of the News Media 2008 report:

Most Americans believe the news media are politically biased… Audiences are moving toward information on demand, to media platforms and outlets that can tell them what they want to know when they want to know it.

If the media is inherently biased, and people overwhelmingly understand that the media is biased, should we be concerned? Phil Grffin, president of MSNBC, was quoted in Saturday's NYT:

All of our material is based on fact — our guys work really hard on it, and the point-of-view shows make their conclusions, Mr. Griffin said. In this modern era, you’ve got a variety of places that look at the day’s events. Some you respect more than others, others you recognize as having a point of view, some you see as factual in a different way, and it all blends together into how you make your decision for what’s going on.

The burden is a little more on the individual.

This is the caveat emptor perspective: (1) With an understanding of the bias each media brings to their presentation, it is up to each of us as consumers of the news to decide which product we want (2) The free market of news gathering, distillation and reporting should over time correct whatever imbalances exist. If a media outlet creates a “bad product” their market share will suffer; it is the demand for each of the products that gives them their shelf-life.

With this in mind, beyond giving each of us what we want, media bias in Presidential election reporting has the potential to sway low-information voters who by their indifference may not recognize propaganda and rhetoric for what it is; implicit is the following disclaimer -

WARNING: What you are reading/seeing/hearing may not be accurate, may be misrepresenting the facts or may be entirely untrue. We report. You decide.

Google Metrics

2008-11-02T16:07:00.011-05:00

Nate Silver has observed a difference in Google search traffic over the past month or so between Obama and McCain. The Obama search volume (both across the U.S. and in the ten states you can link to) consistently exceeds the McCain volume in the final days before the election.

With approximately 30% of the votes being cast prior to Election Day, who are the undecided voters who might still be looking for information on the candidates? A recent Pew Research Survey Report indicates that:

A week before the election, nearly one-in ten voters (8%) remain undecided in their choice for president and there is little to suggest that these voters will move strongly to one candidate or the other on election day.

Undecided voters do clearly distinguish themselves from supporters of both McCain and Obama in their lower levels of participation and interest in this election, and partisan politics in general. A majority (51%) of undecideds do not identify with either the Republican or Democratic parties and fewer than half (48%) report having voted in the primaries this year; by contrast, 63% of both Obama and McCain supporters say they voted in a primary.

Despite their lower level of interest, the Undecideds in the poll sample are registered voters, suggesting at the very least their intention to vote.

Closing Time

2008-10-31T20:49:00.012-04:00

With the polls closing in Virginia and Florida at 7:00 PM, Ohio at 7:30 PM and Pennsylvania at 8:00 PM, we should know by 8:01 PM Tuesday just how late the night will be.

The claims by McCain’s chief pollster earlier this week of the race tightening have been refuted by a number of sources in the media, pollsters and an independent research company.

All of us at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner were in awe of the boldness of these assertions, as they, we are sure, honestly reflect the data, show a nuanced use of language and topics, and weave a story that almost gets to the conclusions that this race is opening up, unpredictable, and closing, without formally saying those things. What is interesting is that some of the findings match ours, but with a fuller picture, take us to a different close.

Nate Silver reports as of 6:40 PM tonight:

Running the numbers. Looks like they'll contain good news for Senator Obama.

So much for spending the weekend "functionally tied."

McCain's Economic Initiative

2008-10-29T18:25:00.008-04:00

As John McCain spends the last week of the campaign talking about economics, the Obama campaign just released this ad, the first criticizing Sarah Palin as VP choice. The spot has no voice-over, relying on John McCain's own words printed on the screen juxtaposed with a winking Sarah Palin. The intent of the ad is not to attack Palin, but to remind voters of McCain's admission of weakness on economic issues and to illustrate his irresponsible selection of Palin.

The Mouse Roars

2008-10-29T13:10:00.009-04:00

Apparently the Disney Co. was more interested in ABC's Wednesday night line-up than in participating in tonight's Obamathon. They offered a Thursday night slot, which Obama refused (as we have learned, out of necessity, as there is a live component to tonight's informercial). ABC is running the following to promote its programming:

Attempting to Suppress the Vote

2008-10-28T18:45:00.004-04:00

While it is unclear who is circulating this flier in Virginia, its intent is obvious. It reads, in part:

All Republican party supporters and independent voters supporting Republican candidates shall vote on November 4th as precribed (sic) by law.

All Democratic party supporters and independent voters supporting Democratic candidates shall vote on November 5th as adopted by emergency regulation of the Virginia General Assembly.

No(bama) Bias

2008-10-28T11:31:00.005-04:00

Here is an interesting piece that attempts to counter the argument that the media in general has been "in the tank" for Obama.

The myth of the pro-Obama media is the same as the myth of the liberal press, and it has been created by a standard strategy: Right-wing pundits declare repeatedly and vociferously that the media are biased in favor of liberals; centrist media pundits, who generally prefer critiques from the right because they don’t make a structural challenge to their work, concede that they have a point; and progressive critics, excluded from both the pro-establishment and the right-wing talkshows that dominate the media, go unheard.

Fair & Balanced

2008-10-28T11:08:00.002-04:00

Here's an article that frame's the media bias on the right. Please note that while it was written seven years ago, almost all of the "players" are the same today.

I searched for and found the Salon.com article that carried the Rupert Murdoch quote that preceded the article linked above:

I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel.

Murdoch contends that it is imperative for a newspaper to have a "strong point of view", while believing Fox News has been unbiased. Apparently he hadn't been watching.

Closing the Sale

2008-10-28T09:23:00.002-04:00

I wonder if this is the "short form" of tomorrow night's infomercial. Take note of the very end of the spot, immediately after "Barack Obama" is overprinted on the screen...it's not presumptive, but mildly subliminal; a crossing of the threshold.

The Branding of the President

2008-10-27T09:21:00.007-04:00

As Courtney posted yesterday, campaign advertising is essentially product positioning. In the Obama camp, the responsibility for the Obama product largely falls to David Axelrod:

Mr. Axelrod has been not only a leading face of the campaign but also an architect of the Obama message and a keeper of the brand.

What, then, is the Obama Brand?

Obama's success owes a lot, of course, to his message--the promise to pass Democratic policies by rallying a "coalition for change." But watching Obamamania over the past few weeks, I've become convinced that there's something more subtle at work, too. It's not just the message and the man and the speeches that are swaying Democratic voters--though they are. It's the way the campaign has folded the man and the message and the speeches into a systemic branding effort. Reinforced with a coherent, comprehensive program of fonts, logos, slogans and web design, Obama is the first presidential candidate to be marketed like a high-end consumer brand.

And the McCain Brand?

The man who revels in being called a "maverick" has frittered away much of the brand advantage he spent a career establishing. With a back-of-the-envelope approach to the financial crisis, he has damaged the leadership credentials his supporters admired and his opponents feared. Some polls show Barack Obama almost pulling even on the question of who would make a better commander in chief.

If the polls are right, more Americans will be buying the Obama brand than the McCain brand this year.

The Blame Game

2008-10-26T21:52:00.012-04:00

With 9 days remaining until the election, defections from the McCain camp have already begun.

Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.

Jon Kyl, the other Arizona Senator, said recently

Unfortunately, I think John McCain might be added to that long list of Arizonans who ran for president but were never elected.

With growing doubt about another McCain comeback, there is a call for a strategy shift to play a new fear card: that the inevitability of an Obama presidency could result in a Democratic trifecta a week from Tuesday, putting our nation at great peril. It has been recommended to stop spending RNC money on McCain and divert it to the Senate races in the final days.

What should Republicans be doing differently? Two things:

1. Every available dollar that can be shifted to a senatorial campaign must be shifted to a senatorial campaign. Right now, we are investing heavily in Pennsylvania in hopes of corralling those fabled "Hillary Democrats" for McCain. But McCain's hopes in Pennsylvania are delusive: The state went for Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000 and Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and McCain lags Obama by a dozen points in recent polls. But even if we were somehow to take the state, that victory would not compensate for the likely loss of Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and other states tipped to the Democrats by demographic changes and the mortgage crisis. The "win Pennsylvania and win the nation" strategy may have looked plausible in August and September, when McCain trailed Obama by just a few digits. Now it looks far-fetched.

But it is not far-fetched to hope that we can hold 45 or 46 of our current 49 Senate seats. In 1993, then-Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) stopped Hillary-care with only 43 seats. But if we are reduced to just 40 or 41 senators, as could easily happen, Republicans and conservatives would find themselves powerless to stop anything -- and more conservative Democrats would lose bargaining power with the Obama White House.

2. We need a message change that frankly acknowledges that the Democrats are probably going to win the White House -- and that warns of the dangers of one-party, left-wing government. There's a lot of poll evidence that voters prefer divided government. By some estimates, perhaps as many as 8 percent of voters consciously cast strategic votes in favor of division. These are the voters we need to be talking to now.

I'm not suggesting that the RNC throw up its hands. But down-ballot Republicans need to give up on the happy talk about how McCain has Obama just where he wants him, take off their game faces and say something like this:

"We're almost certainly looking at a Democratic White House. I can work with a Democratic president to help this state. But we need balance in Washington.

"The government now owns a big stake in the nation's banking system. Trillions of dollars are now under direct government control. It's not wise to put that money under one-party control. It's just too tempting. You need a second set of eyes on that cash. You need oversight and accountability. Otherwise, you're going to wake up two years from now and find out that a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House have been funneling a ton of that money to their friends and allies. It'll be a big scandal -- but it will be too late. The money will be gone. Divided government is the best precaution you can have."

Rush to Judgment

2008-10-26T19:53:00.011-04:00

With the election still a week and a half away, Rush Limbaugh is not wasting any time telling the Republicans what they did wrong in 2008 and who is to blame.

Now, I wish to ask all of you influential pseudointellectual conservative media types who have also abandoned McCain and want to go vote for Obama (and you know who you are without my having to mention your name) what happened to your precious theory? What the hell happened to your theory that only John McCain could enlarge this party, that we had to get moderates and independents? How the hell is it that moderate Republicans are fleeing their own party and we are not attracting other moderates and independents? How in the hell did you people figure this to happen? So the Republican Party's own strategy here not only has it backfired, it's embarrassing.

In Rushland, the only palpable reason for the defections of William Weld, Scott McLellan, Chris Buckley, Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel (and all of the other unnamed Republican turncoats) is that they are convinced that Obama is going to win and they do not want to be Washington outsiders.

By the way, we know what this is about. This is about being invited to state dinners in a Barack Obama administration. This is about the social structure of Washington. This is about style. It has nothing to do with the fact that these people love Obama's policies. They couldn't if they're paying attention. Not if they say they're Republicans. They couldn't possibly.

In a week that has seen a six-figure shopping spree, a hoax by a McCain campaign worker that had incendiary potential, revelations of dissension in the McCain-Palin camp, a neo-con call to fire the campaign and the discovery of a diva, it is reassuring to have Rush Limbaugh to put everything in perspective.

Thanks Rush.

Thanks, But No Thanks

2008-10-26T09:17:00.007-04:00

Endorsements, while usually welcomed by candidates, may in fact not sway too many voters, particularly this late in the race (Colin Powell's will likely be the exception).

It's been shown endorsements don't matter that much, except early in the game when it helps candidates raise money.

Being the favorite son (or daughter) should carry some weight, though, shouldn't it? The Anchorage Daily News yesterday announced their endorsement:

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

Biden Under Fire

2008-10-25T20:35:00.004-04:00

Joe Biden gave an interview to a local Florida TV station on Thursday, a station clearly guilty of media bias, though not the bias incessantly referred to by those on the right. This goes well beyond a tough interview, it is an attempted neo-con interrogation.

Biden handled the ambush with a mix of calm and incredulity, answering every loaded question the best way he could.

The right blogosphere is lapping this up.

The Truth Hurts

2008-10-25T16:29:00.007-04:00

Here are the Point-Counterpoint ads on taxes, the first from McCain and the second from Obama:

Two points on the Obama creative: the music bed is similar to that of the McCain ad, though it is louder and more defined, suggesting here's the real story/we have nothing to hide, and there is no voice-over, letting the facts (according to Obama) speak for themselves.

The Office

2008-10-25T16:10:00.007-04:00

Here are two ads, similar in their use of the Oval Office. The first, from Jimmy Carter's failed re-election bid in 1980, uses the Oval Office as the setting to emphasize Carter's decision-making capabilities. The second, by the RNC, uses imagery of the Oval Office to cast doubt on Barack Obama's ability to handle the Office.

Judgment & More of the Same

2008-10-25T15:38:00.009-04:00

Here is an ad that was run in the 1988 campaign by Michael Dukakis criticizing the vice-presidential selection of Dan Quayle by George H.W Bush. It speaks to the primary role of the vice-president and questions the decision-making abilities of candidate Bush.

The transcript of the spot as it ran:

(Heartbeat.)

MALE NARRATOR: The most powerful man in the world is also mortal. We know this all too well in America. One in five American vice presidents has had to rise to the duties of Commander-in-Chief. One in five has had to take on the responsibilities of the most powerful office in the world. For this job, after five months of reflection, George Bush made his personal choice: J. Danforth Quayle.

MALE NARRATOR [and TEXT]: Hopefully, we will never know how great a lapse of judgment that really was.

My simple editing of the transcript for 2008 creates an ad even more appropriate now, as McCain's age, health and Palin's lack of experience are each of more concern than were those of Bush/Quayle (Quayle was brutally criticized, even though he was a sitting U.S. Senator):

(Heartbeat.)

MALE NARRATOR: The most powerful man in the world is also mortal. We know this all too well in America. One in five American vice presidents has had to rise to the duties of Commander-in-Chief. One in five has had to take on the responsibilities of the most powerful office in the world. For this job, after five months of reflection, John McCain made his personal choice: Sarah Palin.

MALE NARRATOR [and TEXT]: Hopefully, we will never know how great a lapse of judgment that really was.

The Obama campaign chose to not attack McCain's pick directly, instead launchng this ad back in August.

Al the Shoe Salesman

2008-10-25T11:22:00.006-04:00

The Obama Campaign has found its “Joe the Plumber” in a new web ad: his name is Al the Shoe Salesman!

There are similarities, both real and imagined, between these two icons. Joe represents the American worker who is fearful of paying more taxes under Obama’s plan, as we have seen John McCain point Joe out, ad nauseam, since the last debate, not to mention Frank the Fireman, Sally the Seamstress and Bob the Butcher. Al also represents the American worker, and the Obama campaign has give him the tools to determine for himself which candidate’s plan is better for his unique financial situation.

I logged on to taxcut.barackobama.com to see for myself just how the candidates compare. Entering three sets of hypothetical situations, here’s what I found:

Annual Income $30,000
Filing Status Married Filing Jointly
Dependents 2

Obama Savings $1,000
McCain Savings $342

Annual Income $30,000
Filing Status Head of Household
Dependents 2

Obama Savings $500
McCain Savings $680

Annual Income $40,000
Filing Status Married Filing Jointly
Dependents 2

Obama Savings $1,000
McCain Savings $680

Annual Income $40,000
Filing Status Head of Household
Dependents 2

Obama Savings $500
McCain Savings $945

Annual Income $50,000-75,000
Filing Status Married Filing Jointly
Dependents 2

Obama Savings $1,000
McCain Savings $645

Annual Income $50,000-75,000
Filing Status Head of Household
Dependents 2

Obama Savings $500
McCain Savings $270

It should be noted that under the Obama plan there is also the possibility of $4,000 tax credit to pay for college expenses and a 50% tax credit for up to $1000 for retirement savings. The site does not indicate whether similar savings are available under McCain’s proposals.

This site can be an effective tool for voters who want to see for themselves which candidate’s plan might be better for them.

Al the Shoe Salesman, of course, is actor Ed O’Neill who played Al Bundy on Fox’s 1987-1997 sitcom Married With Children. He is not really a shoe salesman. There’s the other similarity, as we quickly learned, Joe really isn’t a plumber.

Civics 101

2008-10-22T19:57:00.008-04:00

John McCain said today of Sarah Palin: "I think she is the most qualified of any that has run recently for vice president."

As Caroline blogged earlier, Palin's unique understanding of our Constitution has again revealed itself. And this evening, Chris Matthews mercilessly took one of McCain's most visible surrogates back to school. The video is worth watching (Bill Burton of the Obama campaign was on the segment as well, though he quickly recognized that what was unfolding should not be interrupted.)

The RNC should have diverted some of that $150,000 to a tutor.

Owning the Air & Web

2008-10-21T10:00:00.009-04:00

Click on the map above to see a comparison of spending in the "battleground states."

With a tremendous amount of cash in hand ($150 million raised in September alone) and momentum on his side (note to Joe Biden, please think before you speak), Barack Obama has been outspending John McCain by a margin of 4:1.

Last week alone, Obama broadcast some 50,000 30-second spots on national, local and cable TV channels, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group's Evan Tracey.

To put that in context, if that much airtime was run end to end on a single channel, it would take 17 days for the reel to end.

The edge in Internet advertising is even greater, with Obama running 914 million ads on the web in September, compared to McCain's 7.8 million.

The disparity makes McCain's task of overcoming Obama's leads in many key battlegrounds that much harder. In some hotly contested areas, the advertising score is not just lopsided, it's a complete shutout.

The Bradley Effect

2008-10-20T10:32:00.031-04:00

There is much discussion among pollsters, academics and campaign veterans over the Bradley effect and what role, if any, it may play in this year's presidential election results. Does the Bradley effect really exist today? Is there the possibility of a reverse Bradley effect, where polling underestimates the planned voting for Barack Obama? A more thorough review of this may be appropriate post-election when we focus on racism, however, it is worthy of consideration as we look at polling.

Nate Silver believes the Bradley effect is a myth perpetuated by four major points of misunderstanding and confusion.

…the Bradley Effect is not an argument about whether people vote based on race. It's an argument about whether people will lie to pollsters.

He also contends it may in fact had its origins in bad polling, citing Bradley's pollster.

Keith Olbermann recently discussed it, as did Rachel Maddow (starts about 3:45 in), with their respective guests.

Sean Oxendine responds to Silver's criticism in detail, and asserts:

If he finds no Bradley effect and I find a Bradley effect, there is evidence for the Bradley effect. That doesn't mean that it is there or not – and remember, the real point of the article was to speculate on what would have to happen for McCain to win, not to prove or disprove anything -- all it means is that more research must be done.

Since polling drives the media narrative, and internal campaign polling helps determine the electoral map strategy of where to send the candidates, surrogates and advertising dollars, the potential of a Bradley effect can not be ignored.

A Few Laughs with McCain & Obama

2008-10-17T09:52:00.006-04:00

Last night's Alfred E. Smith Dinner in New York gave both candidates an opportunity to poke fun at the campaign, each other and themselves. They each showed a great sense of humor and the clips are worth watching. John McCain's praise of Barack Obama near the end of his monologue, much like his admonishment of the crowd at last week's rally, is noteworthy.

The Tale of the Tape

2008-10-16T12:06:00.002-04:00

Here's a look back on the debate we never saw:

Political Discourse

2008-10-14T07:23:00.004-04:00

Rachel Maddow conducted an interview she hadn't bargained for last night when guest David Frum indicted shows such as hers as "intensifications of some of the ugliness of tone" in the campaign (starts about three minutes in).

Frum has been a consistent and vocal critic of Republican presidential candidate John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate on the ground that Palin is unqualified to assume the presidency. Speaking of Palin's performance during the campaign, Frum has stated, "I think she has pretty thoroughly -- and probably irretrievably -- proven that she is not up to the job of being president of the United States."

Humor, sarcasm and satire all play a part in stimulating the dialogue and debate of a campaign; it is ultimately the campaign and their message, not the messenger, that bears the responsibility for the political agenda.

Sex(ism), Lies and Videotape

2008-10-13T12:19:00.027-04:00

Before the media scrutiny of the Palin wink, there was the open criticism of the Clinton cackle.

Shuster was later suspended by MSNBC for referring to the Clinton's as "pimping-out" their daughter Chelsea to campaign for her mother.

The New York Times reported in June on the charges of sexism in the coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Cable television has come under the most criticism. Chris Matthews, a host on MSNBC, called Mrs. Clinton a “she-devil” and said she had gotten as far as she had only because her husband had “messed around.”

Mike Barnicle, a panelist on MSNBC, said that Mrs. Clinton was “looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court.” Tucker Carlson, also on MSNBC, said, “When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.”

The establishment news media were faulted too. The New York Times wrote about Mrs. Clinton’s “cackle” and The Washington Post wrote about her cleavage.

Ken Rudin, an editor at National Public Radio, appeared on CNN, where he equated Mrs. Clinton with the actress Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction.” “She’s going to keep coming back, and they’re not going to stop her," Mr. Rudin said. He later apologized.

The question of sexism in campaign coverage is debated in this clip from MSNBC's Morning Joe:

Carly Fiorina (before her being exiled from the campaign) addressed sexist coverage of Sarah Palin just prior to her convention address.

(In retrospect, the decision on the part of the McCain camp to restrict the media's access to Palin had much less to do with charges of sexism and much more to do with how well they knew how little she knew.)

During coverage of Palin, MSNBC chose to frame the question that would never have been raised had the VP choice been a man:

"SOME WORKING MOTHERS WORRY THAT PALIN IS TAKING ON TOO MUCH"
"SOME VOTERS CONCERNED IF PALIN, A MOTHER OF FIVE, HAS TIME TO BE VP"

A Wikipedia search turned up an unexpected reference to Dick Morris, a former (Bill) Clinton surrogate and current Fox News contributor. Morris, with his anti-Clinton and pro-Republican perspectives, seems to be able to conveniently argue both sides of the question:

On November 5, 2007, when asked about Hillary Clinton's claim of experiencing sexism during the Democratic Presidential Primary debates in the months prior to the Iowa Caucuses, Morris commented that "when a woman wants to be President, she shouldn't complain based on gender. I'm going to go home because the big boys are picking on me. What happens when the boys in the Middle East or the boys who run Russia or the boys who run China start picking on you? Are we going to have a President of the United States saying the boys are picking on me? This is what Hillary always does. Whenever she gets under fire, she retreats behind the apron strings."

On September 2, 2008, during the Republican National Convention Morris said, in reference to personal attacks on 2008 Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and her children, that "a man would never have had to go through this." Morris elaborated that the attacks on her ability as a mother of five to balance family life and the duties of the Vice Presidential office reflected a "deep sexism that runs through our society."

From the Times article, Katie Couric said of Clinton and sexism:

Like her or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued — and accepted — role of sexism in American life, particularly in the media.

Reality Replaces Rhetoric

2008-10-11T09:51:00.007-04:00

In what seemed to be a "What have I done" moment at a rally yesterday, John McCain attempted to halt the diatribe that has begun to take over his events.

His efforts were recognized by Barack Obama at a rally this morning.

I want to acknowledge that Senator McCain tried to tone down the rhetoric in his town hall meeting yesterday,” Mr. Obama said, speaking at an early-morning rally in North Philadelphia. “I appreciated his reminder that we can disagree while still being respectful of each other. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – Senator McCain has served this country with honor, and he deserves our thanks for that.

While there is still an inconsistency in message between McCain, his surrogates, the RNC and even McCain himself, yesterday was notable as McCain seemed to embrace his earlier rhetoric about the dignity of his campaign and the tenor that he would avoid. We haven't seen this level of respect in months, and certainly not over the past week. Recognizing that the toothpaste was oozing out of the tube, both at the rallies and thanks to YouTube, McCain acted nobly, if only for a moment.

McCain was criticized in a Baltimore Sun op-ed piece yesterday, written by an author who knows him well.

John McCain and Sarah Palin, you are playing with fire, and you know it. You are unleashing the monster of American hatred and prejudice, to the peril of all of us. You are doing this in wartime. You are doing this as our economy collapses. You are doing this in a country with a history of assassinations.

Change the atmosphere of your campaign. Talk about the issues at hand. Make your case. But stop stirring up the lunatic fringe of haters, or risk suffering the judgment of history and the loathing of the American people - forever.

We will hold you responsible.

McCain seemed to heed the call.

Americans Want a Respectful Campaign

2008-10-10T18:47:00.003-04:00

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall posted this video that captures the hypocrisy of the desperate McCain campaign.

"Americans want a respectful campaign." - John McCain

Obama Uses the Economy for Political Cover

2008-10-10T14:54:00.004-04:00

Today's speech in Ohio by Barack Obama is criticized by the McCain camp (below the video).

“Instead of acknowledging the real differences that exist in this election, Barack Obama is using America’s economic crisis to deflect legitimate criticisms of himself and his record. Now, more than ever, Americans should be scrutinizing Barack Obama’s role in shielding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from increased regulation. Voters deserve a real debate about Barack Obama’s proposals for one trillion dollars in new government spending and tax increases on small businesses – when Americans can afford neither. At a time when hardworking families face uncertainty and a historic decision in November, they expect more than Barack Obama’s self-interested calls to stifle any inquiry into his record or his past.” —Tucker Bounds, spokesman McCain-Palin 2008

It wouldn't be much of a leap to replace "Tucker Bounds" above with "Homer Simpson." They should take a look at Bill Clinton's 1992 playbook: It's the Economy, stupid.

Something in the Ayres

2008-10-10T13:54:00.004-04:00

While John McCain is pushing the association card hard, and the RNC has launched a new Ayers ad, the Washington Times ran a piece yesterday that demonstrates a close personal relationship between John McCain and Charles Keating.

McCain wrote: "As you know, I am deeply appreciative of your friendship and support over the years, and I would not want to do anything which would offend you. Please accept my apology, and be assured that there will be no future repetition of this kind."

Six days later Keating sent a handwritten note back assuring McCain he has done, and can do, no wrong. "Don't be silly. You can call me anything, write anything or do anything. I'm yours till death do us part."

While the Keating Five attack was launched by Obama to blunt the Ayers attack this week, one has to wonder which relationship voters should be more concerned with: the membership of Obama and Ayres on a philanthropic board or that of two men with questionable ethics, one who was convicted after his financial house of cards fell and the other who was criticized for his poor judgement.

The RNC ad:

I'm Mad. I'm Really Mad.

2008-10-09T19:09:00.004-04:00

From Salon.com:

This incident, a question asked at a recent McCain campaign rally, has been going around the Internet today, and for good reason. It seems to sum up, in one neat package, much of the dynamic of the presidential campaign right now. There’s the fear on the right that an Obama administration may now be inevitable — and anger over that prospect — combined with the results of the McCain campaign’s recent tactics and the conversation in conservative media right now.

Here’s the exchange. A video of it, which you really should watch to fully appreciate this (make sure to note the picture of Bill Ayers that Fox News includes at the right of the screen), is at the bottom of this post.

Guilt By Association

2008-10-09T07:45:00.007-04:00

The McCain camp has launched a long (1:40) ad entitled "Ayers" to challenge Barack Obama's truthfulness about his association with Bill Ayers.

The problem with the attack is that it suggests that Obama endorsed Ayers activities from the 1960's and 70's; the faulty conclusion challenges Obama to somehow prove something that does not exist. The McCain camp might want to consider investigating the other members of the Woods Fund board, which included "radicals" like the "...publisher of the Chicago Tribune, the President of the Field Museum and the President of the University of Illinois." An understanding of the real connection should put an end to this propaganda.

In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year. At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said.

The fear card is an old Republican playbook strategy.

Did Obama Get Dissed?

2008-10-08T10:00:00.005-04:00

I noticed that McCain refused to shake Obama's hand last night post-debate as the two were meeting the audience. After a review of the videotape (nothing escapes the lens), it appears that McCain tapped Obama on the back and may have said something to introduce Cindy; Obama turned and realized his hand was to the right of Cindy and promptly adjusted.

The conspiracy theorists are already pounding the keys on this one; I don't think there's anything to it (they did shake hands just before the Brokaw-McCain teleprompter moment). Regardless, I'm not expecting any "Kum ba yah" moments between the two of them anytime soon.

Game-Changer…Not!

2008-10-08T08:44:00.009-04:00

John McCain entered last night’s debate with a game-changer in hand:

You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

Brilliant! No...wait, wait…where have I heard this before?

From the people who brought us “John McCain invented the Blackberry” and “John McCain rushed back to Washington to get the bailout passed,” we now have the “John McCain Rescue Plan.” Unfortunately, we already have that plan, as McCain’s game changer is a nuanced expansion of the $700 Billion Rescue plan that was signed into law last week. And the right is not happy about it at all.

Katie Couric interviewed undecided voters immediately after the debate; the CBS poll of uncommitted voters gave the edge to Obama, though there really was no game-changer for either candidate.

Ultimately, few uncommitted voters' minds were made up as a result of this debate, according to the poll. Immediately after the debate, 15 percent of them said they are now committed to Obama, and 12 percent are now committed to McCain. But most - 72 percent - remain uncommitted.

The Two Faces of John

2008-10-06T07:57:00.029-04:00

When the going gets tough, the tough go negative. Despite earlier refusals to engage in negative campaigning, the McCain camp launched into character attacks and guilt by association tactics on Saturday with Sarah Palin suggesting a closer than apparent relationship between Barack Obama and former Weather Underground member William Ayers. What a difference a few weeks (of negative polling) makes.

As reported on January 5 in the New Hampshire Union Leader:

McCain said he drew two lessons from the Iowa caucuses: that negative ads don't work, and that, 'If you're a person who is trustworthy, you can do well.' He also said he agrees with the "overwhelming media view" of Sen. Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic caucuses: Obama "is seen as a fresh face, and a lot of people, particularly younger ones, seem to be looking for that."

Following the negative attacks against him in the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary, John McCain said "I'm not going to take the low road to the highest office in the land. I want the presidency in the best way, not the worst way."

With rapidly declining poll numbers, political expediency has replaced a respect for history. In kind, Obama will be releasing a web attack at noon ET today. Currently, a page has posted with the headline "Keting Economics: John McCain and the Making of a Financial Crisis." The Obama camp will not be "Swift-Boated."

Commenting recently on McCain going negative, pollster John Zogby said "Voters want authenticity this year, and this is the opposite of authenticity. It's politics as usual, and he runs a very serious risk of damaging the way he's always been defined, as being above that sort of politics."

From the same article:

The unsavory reality is that negative ads tend to work. But McCain's bellicose stance toward Obama could backfire because it coincides with his campaign's decision to "double down" on his past reputation as a reformer and a "maverick," said Rodolfo Espino, an assistant political-science professor at Arizona State University. This month's Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., showcased McCain's history of bipartisan outreach and his commitment to changing Washington.

"I'm not condoning McCain's advertising and his handlers' behavior, but if you're running a campaign and you're running to win, what are you going to do?" Espino said. "All research points to the effectiveness of negative advertising."

As this recent SNL skit suggests, the campaign and its message will go wherever it needs to go to chase victory.

Interestingly, the concept of this spot originated with Al Franken, former SNL writer/cast member and current Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Minnesota. His opponent, incumbent Norm Coleman, sharply attacked Franken following the spot genesis story. Franken had been trailing by double digits and Coleman viewed this as an opportunity to widen his lead, by portraying Franken as irresponsible and dangerous. It backfired, as Franken has now taken the lead.

As the article points out: "The new poll suggests that one reason for Franken’s gain is voters’ reaction to the abrasive advertising in the campaign. The survey shows that 56 percent of poll respondents consider ads criticizing Franken to be “mostly unfair personal attacks.” Only 42 percent said the same about ads criticizing Coleman."

While negative advertising may sometimes be effective, unfounded personal attacks can backfire. With both McCain and Obama lowering the acceptability threshold, the line in the sand, if it were ever there at all, is quickly becoming a mirage.

Damage Control as Propaganda

2008-10-04T08:32:00.013-04:00

We expect a lot of our elected officials. We expect them to be honest. We expect them to be genuine. And we expect them, as we often hear the pundits say, to be "authentic." There is nothing more authentic than hearing a "seat of your pants" answer to an interviewer's question. That is what was so strikingly revealing about Katie Couric's recent interviews with Sarah Palin. Palin's responses were authentic in that they showed, without the Republican talking points, just what she does not know; thinking on her feet may not be her strong suit.

However, when she knows the questions in advance, and has time to craft an answer, she really shines. Who knew how she really felt about the Supreme Court or what she reads? And of course it was Katie's (the media's) fault for not asking the right questions. Thankfully, Fox News was there to help clarify her positions.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann often (nightly) refers with great affection to "Fix Noise"...it's a wonder his head doesn't explode.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

2008-10-03T11:27:00.006-04:00

Bill O'Reilly had a chance last night to discuss Fannie Mae
with Barney Frank. Apparently, O'Reilly is no longer seeking investment strategy from Frank.

Citizen Journalism

2008-10-03T11:03:00.003-04:00

As we have discussed in class, the internet has opened the media up to anyone with the bandwith and inclination to participate. The opportunities to add to the dialogue are plentiful; however, there are potentially dangerous risks. This morning's hoax exemplifies part of the downside to the open mic.

Victory is Ours...No, It's Ours

2008-10-02T23:12:00.009-04:00

Over the last 90 minutes, we've just seen one candidate answer the questions and another regurgitate the talking points that she has been force-fed over the past several days.

Both have claimed the victory; thankfully, only one claimed they will seize the power that is (not) structurally implicit in the Constitution, will not answer the questions asked and will not be filtered by the MSM.

The CBS poll of uncommitted voters conducted immediately after the debate gave the edge to Biden, with 98% seeing him as knowledgeable, up 19 points from prior to the debate, while Palin was seen as knowledgeable by 66%, up 23 points. Biden also wins on preparedness to be Vice-President with a 97%-55% advantage.

Today in History

2008-10-02T15:22:00.003-04:00

Here are four noteworthy Vice-Presidential Debate moments; none of the candidates credited with memorable remarks went on to victory (clips 2, 3 and 4 - Admiral Stockdale was only memorable for being unaware of where he was). They have their place in history, but were never a heartbeat away.

Ifill Shower

2008-10-02T06:14:00.021-04:00

Maybe I am naïve, but I was never certain whether Tim Russert was a Democrat or a Republican. Watching him over the years on Meet the Press, I didn’t know where he stood, nor did I really care - as a moderator his role was to facilitate the discussion with his questions. He was not the story. The controversy over Gwen Ifill as moderator has attempted to make her the story, while clearly she is not.

John McCain took the high road yesterday, praising Ifill and her professionalism, which was a prelude to light criticism from Palin and Rudy Giuliani. Outrage from the right has focused on the lack of disclosure of Ifill’s upcoming book “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” The fact that she was writing the book should have come as no surprise, as the first notice of it appeared in a Washington Times article on July 23 entitled “Smiley Faces Blog Anger.” "We have an awkward history about how to talk about race in the nation and in newsrooms," says Gwen Ifill, senior correspondent for PBS' "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" and author of "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," slated for publication early next year.

The Commission on Presidential Debates announced the four moderators on August 5, and articles about Ifill, which included references to her book appeared in the Washington Post on September 4.

Why is the right crying foul two days before the Vice-Presidential debate? Where was their criticism back in August? Or September? Presumably Jim Lehrer, Tom Brokaw and Bob Schieffer were selected for their journalistic credentials, and no less should be said of Ifill. If the right truly thought there were bias issues, they did not have to look any further than the 2004 Vice-Presidential debate, which was also moderated by Ifill. Criticism from the right followed that debate as a result of an exchange between Ifill and Vice-President Cheney:

Ifill has been criticized in the past by political commentators for her performance as a moderator -- most notably in 2004's vice presidential debate between Dick Cheney and ex-Sen. John Edwards. Edwards lashed out at Cheney's ties to Halliburton, to which Cheney responded: "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds."

Ifill shot back: "Well, that's all you've got."

Where was the outrage in August? They had four years to foment. Now, as the debate approaches and the polls are moving in the wrong direction, it’s time to “work the refs” so there is a ready narrative if Sarah Palin fails to score in the debate. If the right is right, maybe both Ifill and Palin should have been better vetted.

McCain Confident in Ifill

2008-10-01T16:16:00.002-04:00

“I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional and I think that she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly respected professional,” McCain said during an interview at the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. “Does this help…if she has written a book that’s favorable to Senator Obama? Probably not. But I have confidence that Gwen Ifill will do a professional job and I have that confidence.”

The Next Attack From the Right?

2008-10-01T11:29:00.007-04:00

As Sarah Palin and Joe Biden prepare for tomorrow night’s debate, I am keeping my eye on an item that may not develop into anything at all, or might be the next attention-diverting media attack launched by the McCain camp. Tomorrow night’s moderator, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill, is writing a book “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama” - scheduled for release in January 2009.

Blogger Michelle Malkin recently updated her posting to say that the McCain campaign did not know about the book: Fox’s Greta Van Susteren suggests that if there was not full disclosure, either Ifill should recuse herself, or the McCain camp should refuse to debate.

POST POSTING NOTE: I thought I had a scoop here until I read Colin's Trinity Bloggers post, and then to add insult to injury, his To Wit column...my face is devil-duck red!

Google

2008-09-28T20:29:00.006-04:00

Google, and all that it navigates us to, is not making us stupid. President Bush uses Google. As he famously said in a 2006 interview, "…one of the things I've used on the Google is to pull up maps.'' Enough said.

With the evolution of the Internet, reading has become a multi-media experience. The book or newspaper has morphed into a more complete information package of prose, imagery, sound and sources, with the potential to be re-written as necessary. What was once limited by the physical page is now nearly infinite, punctuated with multiple points of departure leading you to still more relevant information. What years ago might have taken hours or days of research can be accomplished in minutes.

When I was an undergraduate, there was no Google. There was no Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, there was no internet, no personal computers, no cell phones. Reading was by default ‘old school’ and research was conducted in the library. The Information Age, like no other in our history, has provided us with unlimited access to information and new mediums. The individual challenge is for each of us to have the discipline to not be distracted by every link and pop-up we encounter, while working as fast as we can to absorb as much as we can from a medium designed for maximum efficiency.

There's an ever-present Taylor's stopwatch in all of us.

So Jack, Tell Us How You Really Feel

2008-09-27T08:53:00.004-04:00

CNN's Jack Cafferty is apparently not a fan of Sarah Palin, as this posting clearly illustrates.

With the wildfire burning through conservatives like George Will and Kathleen Parker, can the experience meme that the McCain campaign wants to weave through his campaign withstand the inexperience criticism that every Palin interview invites?

The Debate Goes On

2008-09-27T08:10:00.009-04:00

The first presidential debate is over and now the debate about the debate begins. The McCain camp wasted no time editing some of Barack Obama’s remarks and launched a nearly immediate post-debate web ad declaring “John is Right”.

Imagine the powerful message that the Kennedy camp might have sent in 1960, immediately posting clips of a flu-ridden, 5 o’clock shadowed Richard Nixon after their historic debate, with a banner “Is Richard Nixon Fit To Lead?”

The New York Times has a piece that frames the contest as a meeting of generations. "One candidate cited Churchill and Eisenhower, and described George Shultz, who served in Ronald Reagan’s cabinet, as a 'great secretary of state.' The other promised anxious voters a federal budget that could be examined on a 'Google for government' and accused his opponent of having a '20th-century mindset.'"

Politico’s Roger Simon calls the debate for McCain. "But McCain seemed to get it Friday night. He certainly knew enough to try to turn his age into a plus and not a minus. 'There are some advantages to experience, knowledge and judgment,' McCain said."

A CNN poll shows Obama with the win, along with the CBS poll of undecided voters.

And the debate continues.

Mighty Maverick

2008-09-25T18:01:00.005-04:00

Leave it to Barney Frank to define John McCain's return to Washington:

"I was afraid that his dropping in here, like Andy Kaufman’s Mighty Mouse—'here I am to save the day'—I thought that would slow things down. I didn’t see any sign of our Republican colleagues paying any attention to him whatsoever."

As partisan as Frank's remarks may have been, the Andy Kaufman reference is right on target.

The Next Vice-President?

2008-09-25T10:08:00.010-04:00

Here's one blogger's perspective on the McCain campaign suspension, suggesting that Sarah Palin's Katie Couric interview yesterday was in need of a diversion. The interview in its entirety is at the bottom of the page. Katie asks the right questions and catches Sarah very unprepared.

Talking Points

2008-09-25T08:08:00.009-04:00

Who and what is driving the Straight Talk Express? Politico asks the question of professionals on both sides of the aisle: "Is the McCain campaign's decision to "suspend" campaigning and the Friday debate smart or not smart?"

With the polls shifting in Obama's favor and the economy now the number one issue in the campaign, McCain needed a game changer. The Daily Kos inadvertently received a copy of the campaign's internal talking points memo. Has the campaign really been suspended, or is the suspension part of the campaign? McCain has built a career out of being a different kind of politician; is this an unselfish act of leadership or McCain as Don Quixote?

I've been wondering when the Keating Five story was going to start to make its way into the news.

There is no question that our ecomomy is in crisis, but the "suspension" of McCain's campaign, the suggestion that tomorrow night's debate be postponed, the new proposal to postpone the vice-presidential debate (to give SP more time to prepare?) has given me my first Lewis Black moment of the campaign!

Right Turn

2008-09-24T10:58:00.008-04:00

George Will has questioned McCain now on at least two fronts, raising questions about his temperament and his decision-making abilities - "...a visceral judgment by one who is confidently righteous." An April 2008 Washington Post article earlier raised the question of temperament. A former McCain Senate colleague is quoted saying:

"His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him."

Who will the most conservative voters vote for, if they, too, become disenchanted with McCain? Bob Barr? The Barr and Nader vote in this year’s election may in fact help Obama; conservatives who pass on McCain and make a third party choice will reduce the Republican tally; in the 2004 election, 1% of the vote went to candidates other than Bush or Kerry.

Media 2008

2008-09-21T22:53:00.018-04:00

Today’s media landscape is far more crowded than it was as recently as 8 years ago, when George W. Bush was running for President with the promise that he was a “uniter, not a divider” and the Gore campaign was the first to be communicating via Blackberry. There are significantly more media choices today than ever before, both for the consumers of information and entertainment, and for the advertisers who want to reach them.

As new and developing technologies create opportunities for expansion and growth, the control (ownership) of the media, through mergers and acquisitions, consolidates into fewer and fewer media giants. A glance at five of the largest media companies in the United States can be found here. A pdf of what Advertising Age has named Media Family Tree 2007 can be downloaded by going here and then by downloading the Digital Family Trees 2008 poster (copyright protected; otherwise I would have tried to embed it). This provides a snapshot of the country’s largest media companies, based upon 2006 revenues.

2007 was a busy year for mergers and acquisitions across all media (from The State of the News Media 2008):

Two notable newspaper transactions: “Sam Zell took Tribune private in an $8.2 billion deal, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp successfully bid $5 billion for Dow Jones and its Wall Street Journal.”

Online media ownership changes: “The first three quarters saw more than 637 transactions, matching the number for all of 2006. What’s more, these deals totaled more than $95 billion in value, surpassing last year’s total of $61 billion by 56%.”

The Federal Communications Commission and its rules of ownership, which have gone through periods of tightening and relaxation, regulate the expansion of these media giants, and their fewer and fewer not-so-giant competitors, on a market-to-market basis. As stated under the heading of media ownership “The Nation’s media regulations must promote competition and diversity...” The risks are too great for the emergence of a monopoly in terms of their editorial product and the information they choose to deliver (or withhold), and the elimination of competition in the advertising marketplace.

While all forms of the news media are aggressively competing with one other to get the story out, they are also competing on the business side for the limited advertising budgets, that 1. Need to be spread over a more diverse media landscape and 2. Constrict every time our economy contracts. Ironically, the evolution of cable technologies and the 24-hour news cycle coupled with the technologies of digital media production have created the potential for a revenue vacuum, as the competition to deliver the news sometimes supplants the campaign’s need to buy air time. An excerpt from this article supports this point:

“VandeHei asked McKinnon how campaigns could “exploit the new habits of the media” (which brought a sly grin to the consultant’s face), where commercials as soon as they are released will get distributed, instantly, at no cost to the campaigns, via the twenty-four hour cable networks and Web sites like Politico.”

As the introduction of The State of the News Media 2008 clearly observes:

“… it appears the biggest problem facing traditional media has less to do with where people get information than how to pay for it — the emerging reality that advertising isn’t migrating online with the consumer. The crisis in journalism, in other words, may not strictly be loss of audience. It may, more fundamentally, be the decoupling of news and advertising.”

Along with the mergers and acquisitions, there has been a willingness to create partnerships or strategic alliances, that bring traditional print sources, such as the New York Times or Washington Post, together with cable broadcast partners to share resources (content) with a broader audience at a lower cost (it is more efficient to let the New York Times tell the story on MSNBC than for NBC to break the story).

“In broad terms, the fundamental trends transforming how people acquire news continued in the last year. More effort keeps shifting toward processing information and away from original reporting. Fewer people are being asked to do more, and the era of reporters operating in multimedia has finally arrived.”

The Major Trends in the media are identified as:

1. News is shifting from being a product - today’s newspaper, Web site or newscast - to becoming a service - how can you help me, even empower me?

2. A news organization and a news Web site are no longer final destinations.

3. The prospects for user-created content, once thought possibly central to the next era of journalism, for now appear more limited, even among “citizen” sites and blogs.

4. Increasingly, the newsroom is perceived as the more innovative and experimental part of the news industry.

5. The agenda of the American news media continues to narrow, not broaden.

The balancing act of packaging and delivering the news, while serving the public good and meeting ownership objectives for profitability is the fundamental challenge of the media, regardless of whether they are traditional or new.

Latest Release: Just the Facts!

2008-09-19T13:24:00.004-04:00

Here is the latest video installment from factcheck.org. It's noteworthy that the McCain camp went from dismissing them as a source in early August to citing them as a source (albeit erroneously) this past week.

McCain, Spain, Explain

2008-09-18T22:08:00.016-04:00

We’ve all heard the interview or read the transcript by now. Was he confused, or taking an aggressive foreign policy position? “It's Not the Crime, It's the Cover-Up” comes to mind when trying to make sense of the McCain camp’s response.

Andrew Romano of Newsweek summarizes the response in the last two paragraphs of his posting and offers two ways to look at what happened.

I’ll file this one under gaffes.

Once…Twice…Three Times A Meme?

2008-09-18T19:54:00.007-04:00

There seems to be an odd Republican talking point about our nation’s recent history of a governor winning the White House (Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush) - two different McCain surrogates made the same point today in separate interviews on MSNBC (apparently MSNBC didn’t think much of the remarks as I was not able to find either video on their site). While the focus of both campaigns and the media has finally shifted to the Economy, the wisdom of the Palin pick continues to be questioned, today from within the Republican Party by Senator Chuck Hagel.

Hearing these remarks the fist time caught my attention. Hearing the same remarks a second time made me curious. A brief web search took me to a post on a DNC blog, headlined “Record of Republican Governors as Presidents” which I was more surprised to see was dated yesterday than that it was there at all. Was the DNC posting part of an attempt to control the Qualification Narrative and were today’s remarks the Republican response? Were the remarks independent of the posting and only an attempt to futher the myth of Governor Palin’s political experience and qualifications to be next in line to the Presidency?