Hey Folks,

So school got busy and my blog fell by the wayside. I am gonna make it up to you. I’ll post everyday or every other day until the election. In return you got to promise to make comments so that I know I am not just writing for my dad and my girlfriend. Deal?

Here is a great article from theroot.com

Will White People Riot?

By Wendi C. Thomas | TheRoot.com

Ridiculous question? Then stop asking it about black people.

Oct. 20, 2008–

“Would black people riot if Sen. Barack Obama didn’t win the election?” That was the question a white man in Memphis recently asked a racial reconciliation group with which I am involved.

After five years of being a columnist for the daily paper in Memphis, I wasn’t surprised by the absurdity of his query. Many whites still labor under the illusion that black folk act en masse and that if you ask the right one, you can get the official position of some 40 million people. If a few of us get angry, that logic allows, it must surely result in a riot.

Riot because we didn’t get our way? Please. Black people have more than their share of experience with disappointment and dashed dreams. (See: King, Martin Luther; Evers, Medgar; Chaney, James.) Matter of fact, I’d go so far as to say we’re experts in making the best out of a losing hand.

The reply to the curious white gentleman: “No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win.”

But soon after getting this man’s e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an “Obama” sticker on the toy’s head to a campaign event.

That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?

Not all white people are McCain supporters. (See primaries, Iowa.) Not all black people are backing Obama. (See Negroes, self-loathing. Just joking.)

But there is a small but vocal segment of white Republicans who just might have an aneurysm if the next occupant of the White House is a black man.

If the polls are accurate—and Obama wins—will these few angry white people make good on their oral declarations? And will those who stood by them silent, join them? With dreams deferred, can angry whites do what Langston Hughes taught us—to let it fester like a sore, even to let sag like a heavy load? Or will the dream of a perfect streak of white men in the White House, if deferred, cause white people to explode?

Might they torch stores and overturn cars? Or worse, will angry whites take out their disgust on black people by, say, denying loans, or jobs or housing? Burned-out stores and cars, that’s unsettling. But the damage angry whites could inflict if they really go off—that’s scary.

Will angry white people riot if Barack Obama wins the election?

There may be some people who think this is an absurd question. I honestly don’t know. But it is no more absurd than asking it about blacks.

Wendi C. Thomas is the metro columnist for The Commercial Appeal. She’s been a writer or an editor for The Charlotte Observer, The (Nashville) Tennessean and The Indianapolis Star. Among her many journalism awards is her 2008 induction into the Scripps Howard Hall of Fame for her opinion writing.

I found this great article by Jay Cost of realclearpolitics.com, it’s amazing this guy is only a grad student.

October 03, 2008

Nebraska and Maine?

I noted with interest stories today discussing McCain and Obama opening up campaign offices in some far-flung places: McCain in Bangor, Maine and Obama in Omaha, Nebraska. Maine and Nebraska do not have reputations as swing states, so what the heck are these guys up to?

Part of it is to head off the possibility of something like this occurring:

What you see here is a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College. So also is this:

What happens when there is such a tie? We go to Amendment 12, which states:

The person having the greatest Number of [Electoral College] votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

That’s right, the House of Representatives - which acquitted itself so beautifully over the last week! - gets to make the choice, but with a twist. Each state gets one vote. That makes things a little dicey, for both campaigns.

For McCain, the problem is obvious: the Democrats control the Congress. Not only that, but they currently control 27 of the 50 state caucuses. The GOP controls 21 and 2 are split.

But Obama has a problem here, too. In this scenario, McCain will have won more states, which means that to win, Obama will have to convince some Democrats to vote against their states. A few unfortunate souls would probably have to vote against their own districts. In 2004 George W. Bush won 255 congressional districts to Kerry’s 180. A 269-269 tie like this implies that McCain will probably have won more districts than Obama, which would complicate matters for the Democrat.

Why is it that Maine and Nebraska are relevant to this scenario? Most states allocate electors on a winner-take-all basis. Maine and Nebraska do, too - but they also dole out electors depending upon who won which congressional districts. If McCain were to win Maine’s second district, he’d get an elector. If Obama were to win Nebraska’s third, he’d get an elector. That could make the difference.

That would be especially helpful because here’s how the Vice-President is selected.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

Again, the same tension would exist. Biden would have more Democrats. Palin would have more states.

Note that the House picks the President, the Senate picks the Veep. That means it’s possible to see a split in the executive branch - one party wins the top job, another wins the second job!

So, a spare elector from Maine or Nebraska could be quite useful.

Who won the debate? That is the all important question. From my own personal vantage point, no one won, which someone pointed out means Obama won. By virtue of being ahead, a tie means he is still ahead. McCain has been desperate for a game changer, and he didn’t get one at the debate.

Of course, the pundits are pundits, and actual voter reaction is most important; so here it is:

CBS Insta Poll: Obama 39%, McCain 25% and 36% not sure who won

MediaCurves.com: Independents gave Obama a 61% to 38% win.

CNN: Obama “did better” 51%, McCain “did better” 38%. Men even split. Women Obama 59% to McCain 41%. (Maybe as my classmate pointed out McCain in HDTV is not pretty)

Insider Advantage: Obama 42%, McCain’s 41% and 17% not sure who won.

And of course, Sunday’s Gallup Tracking Poll: Obama 50%, McCain 42%

Things the pundits said that I think are important:

Pat Buchanan (Also, how did this right wing yahoo/semi-racist warm his way into my heart with his charmingly unbiased reporting) recalled that while working for Reagan, the cowboy did not do that well in a debate against Mondale. But as the media buzz grew people’s perceptions of Reagan’s victory grew to above 80%, despite Pat’s belief that Reagan was terrible. So expect this again and forever.

John McCain visibly could not stand Obama. McCain never once looked Obama in the eye.

McCain got angry a few times, repeatedly told Obama he didn’t understand, and appeared flummoxed. Not to mention, McCain kept referring to how old he is. While Obama stayed calm and was not afraid to agree with McCain. Possible perception being that McCain is an angry old man with a temper (we have heard this before).

When Obama gave his laundry list of things he believes McCain was wrong about, McCain retreated to talking about how he stands up for wounded veterans (a point having nothing to do with Obama’s complaints). At some point he will be perceived as hiding behind the flag.

McCain’s best moment was when he said the next president won’t have to worry about winning the war in Iraq, but instead when and how we leave. This is an extremely good mantra for his campaign.

Obama did not do well on the Iran issue. And the exchange about Henry Kissinger was silly.

My thoughts:

McCain really did look grumpy, angry, insert various adjectives he needs to avoid here. Substantively though, he did rather well especially considering the first third of the debate was on the economy, the subject he has failed to talk about correctly for quite some time. On the flip side, Democrats don’t do well on foreign policy, the next two debates won’t be on foreign policy, and Obama avoided damage.

McCain was constantly on script and Obama was not. McCain said Obama just doesn’t understand, and yet Obama seemed to understand foreign policy quite well.

McCain’s views of the crisis in Georgia are horrible (please see my post on the CIAR panel on the conflict).

Obama missed the opportunities to point out that we still haven’t found Osama, at least not in a clear way. Just say, “Where is Bin Laden?” and say it a lot. Also, Obama’s stance on Iraq is becoming increasingly convoluted. He is trying to explain that McCain was wrong to want to go in there in the first place, but he can’t reconcile this with the success of the surge. He should point out that McCain advocated for the surge under the pretext that it would give the Iraq’s the opportunity to come to a political solution, but no political solution has come to pass.

Obama’s best moment was when following John McCain’s explanation of how the dead soldiers bracelet that he wears around his wrist proves he understands the troops better, Obama replied, “You know John I have a bracelet too…”

So basically, if stylistic issues matter, Obama probably won by a lot simply because McCain would not condescend himself to make eye contact with Obama. On the other hand, if substance matters it was a draw and both sides should be kicking themselves for failed opportunities to win.

Finally, John McCain was born before the Depression ended (1936). So when at the beginning of the debate he said that this financial crisis was the worst in his life time, he either incorrectly remembered when he was born or has come full circle and now believes that we are royally screwed.

Up next, Joe “I have foot in mouth disease” Biden v. Sarah “Every time I open my mouth I cause a crisis” Palin in what will undoubtedly be a glorious if not cringe worthy circus side show…Sweet!!!

Is it really the media’s job to give advice?* When I think back on all the things I have said about politics, all the things I thought so and so should do, I realize how poorly informed I am to make these assessments. Is the press really that much more informed. You turn on the news and some pundit will hold up a chart and say McCain must do this or Obama must do that. Who doesn’t have advice for these guys?

The more important question is who is actually qualified to give this advice? Pretend you are Obama or McCain. You need advice, whom do you turn to? I bet the answer isn’t one of those people on TV and I bet it isn’t even a journalist from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard or what ever? I realize that I personally would be looking to a political scientist or a sociologist or a psychologist. Basically, I would want someone with actual charts, actual figures, actual correlation coefficients, and actual degrees.

For example, the data shows that campaigns only have a minimal effect on voters. Elections are decided on the margin; so I guess it’s still worth spending the near billion dollars net the two campaigns will spend. More important than campaigns to voting are changes in party affiliation, the state of the economy, and incumbent status. Furthermore, statistics show that the things that actually predict election results are voter enthusiasm and the so-called “right track wrong track” poll, not these silly national polls that get all the reporting (although if you must, the Gallup Tracking Poll is the best followed by SurveyUSA).

So I am really bored by this substanceless, numberless, and meaningless opining that I read every day. Maybe the reports should…you know….report! If Obama lays out his economic plan, publish it as a bullet point explanation. If McCain explains what he will do in Iraq, give it to me. But saying Obama needs to show he is stronger or McCain needs to act younger - Not helpful.

These reporters have minimal basis for what they are saying. RealClearPolitics blogger Jay Cost put it best when he said that the media reports in a bubble. They are political junkies, reporting for other political junkies. Gaffes only matter to political junkies, unless the gaffe really shows poor policy (McCain saying the economy is strong when Lehman Brothers fell is not a gaffe but a reflection of his inability to understand the economy). Cost points out that the race is currently tied because most of America hasn’t plugged into the race yet. We still have two months left of this, and people don’t start watching until the debates. If you are outside of the bubble, these opinions and advice and gaffes and counter-gaffes are all static.

I contend that actual reporting and actual explanations of the policy would show through and beyond the static, and prove helpful to those who haven’t tuned in.

*To avoid calls of plagiarism this article was inspired by Christopher Beam’s Slate article on the same topic but from the standpoint of how the advice is dumb, where I am made that reporters are wasting their time.

So last week I went to The Cornell International Affairs Review’s (CIAR) panel discussion on the conflict in Georgia that erupted when Russia moved into Georgia’s separatist South Ossetian and Abkhazian regions. The speakers were Eastern European expert Valerie Bunce (You should take her post-communist transitions class) and Irakli Kakabadze, a visiting scholar and participant in Georgia’s independence movement, known as the “Rose Revolution.”

What shocked me was how biased the US media coverage was. Georgia is one of Bush’s closest allies and, as Bunce explained, one of the only places in the world that likes him. The fact is that this conflict was not all Russia’s fault. The US helped provoke this, and the Georgian president helped provoke this. At the end of the day, Russia did invade a sovereign nation and that is bad. Russia’s doing this was ultimately stupid because, as both Bunce and Kakabadze pointed, out Russia has over 80 potential separatist regions.

This talk was a strong reminder of the dangers of basing a state upon ethnic or religious affiliation instead of intellectual understandings of freedoms and rights.

Here is a bullet point summary of what I learned:

• From Bunce
  • This conflict is not local but the US and Russia pissing each other off
  • The started when Georgia sent forces to the separatist regions to defeat militants
  • Georgia is tied closely to Bush and Cheney, and they were pressured to act
  • Saakashvili knows he couldn’t keep these territories, but provoked the war to package their loss in a politically beneficial way
  • The Russians invaded because they were pissed off at the West and think NATO is trying to destroy their national sovereignty
  • Putin just needed to show he still has regional sovereignty
  • Saakashvili wanted to keep power and save face as did Putin; so this staged violence helped both of them
• From Kakabadze
  • Saakashvili has abandoned democracy and has embraced Bush’s neoconservative world view…oh and McCain’s comments were stupid and unhelpful
  • Saakashvili had come to power in the democratic Rose Revolution, but as Lord Acton said, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”
  • Saakashvili wants to join NATO because war is profitable…The Military Industrial Complex
  • “How did America produce both Bob Dylan and George Bush?”
  • The US stopped giving civil society support, but instead sent lots of guns and guns tend to get used to kill people
  • We should create peace zones, which the European Union Secures
    • It will protect the West’s oil pipelines
    • It will prevent NATO’s reach and make Russia feel safe
  • We need more UN, fewer police states

The media is a bunch of pansy pussies with useless degrees that prove they are too scared to get on the front lines and do something. Or at least this is my assessment of the near total free card the press gave the GOP last week.

When the media got attacked by Palin and McCain they should have defended themselves (Joe Klein did, he is excused from this indictment). There is nothing biased about reporting on things. Instead they reported on whether or not they are biased. This, in addition to being a ridiculous exercise in self aggrandizement as the media now believes that they are the story, is also a waste of time.

Watching the Republican convention was like attending a lecture on logical yoga. I watched with astonishment as Mitt Romney (a governor from my hometown of Boston who while governor championed gay rights, universal healthcare, and the expansion of abortion rights, but now apparently is against all that) a man of unimaginable wealth from the upper reaches of a society none of us could ever imagine of obtaining explained that the problem with government is East Coast elites. I am from the fucking East Coast and I can tell you he is the damn East Coast elite. Mitt Romney is the sail boating, croquet playing, elite clubbing, namby pamby bullshit he spent last week attacking. Apparently my econ teacher is wrong and if A=B and B=C then C doesn’t equal A. Following in these footsteps Mike Huckabee explained that all the issues we have had in the past 8 years is due to “European Ideas.” I didn’t realize George Bush went to college in Europe!!! Yes folks, the RNC proved that at times indifference curves do intersect.

The problem is that for the past 8 years the GOP has controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress. Yes the past 2 years the congress has been democratic, so Palin’s little attack about them being the do nothing congress might have been valid except that they did many things which were either vetoed or filibustered by the Republicans. So the GOP has controlled government, A=B. Then the country went to shit and he all lost our jobs, our security, our rights, and our economy. This was largely due to actions by the government be it an expensive war following huge tax cuts or the PATRIOT Act (yes it is all capitals because it is an acronym for something it is pretending to be). So the government has created our problems, B=C. And there is of course the theme of the McCain campaign C does not equal A. The mind boggles.

Instead A apparently equals liberal government despite not actually being in charge, European ideas, the teachers union, community organizers, and of course the media. Oh the media!!! When will you learn how not to destroy our government despite a complete inability to make any governmental decisions. Forget this notion of liberal media bias. The only out and out biased media source is FOX NEWS. They are the media. They are conservative. But the media has a liberal bias. Again C does not equal A. The rest of the media gets caught up trying to prove themselves unbiased and never actually reports anything.

I heard numerous lies this past week that the media never touched on:

1)      Obama will raise taxes on the middle class. He won’t – he will only raise tax on the top 5% or those making well over $250,000 (basically Mitt Romney and Cindy McCain)

2)      Drilling for oil will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It won’t — we only have 3% of the world’s oil supply.

3)      Drilling for oil will reduce the price of gas. It won’t — we won’t see any new oil hit our tanks for 7 years if we start drilling today.

4)      Drilling for oil will reduce the price of gas even though we won’t see it for 7 years because the fact that there will be new oil will scare prices down. It won’t because OPEC, which gives the world most of its oil, is a monopoly and monopolies set the price and they do not listen to Congress when deciding this price.

5)      John McCain is for developing alternative energy. Even if he is he has a funny way of showing it, The NYT reported last week the McCain has deliberately not voted the past 8 times for federal funding for the development of more solar and wind power.

6)      Obama is against nuclear power. He isn’t. He is for it although he probably shouldn’t be because one day we are going to destroy a part of out country with that stuff and I bet you it won’t affect Romney’s or any of McCain’s houses.

Basically folks, A does equal C. And if the media is too cowardly to point it out when attacked by the GOP then they are working in the wrong profession.

I don’t mind if the Republicans provide their own alternative vision for the future, especially if they truly want a Party that moves away from the policies of Bush. But I do mind their attempts to rewrite history and blame Bush’s errors on the very people who were trying to stop him.

Wow…Palin reminded me last night why I never played hockey, the parents are too vicious. That was one hell of an attack dog speech. She even called her self a dog. She came out swing. If you are any of the following Palin attacked you for not putting country first: Obama, the Obamas, Biden, the media, a democrat, a liberal, a San Franciscian, a Hollywoodian, an East Coaster, a Gay, a Muslim, a Jew, someone who can’t skin a moose, Caption Spock, etc.

I have two thoughts. One, I am not sure being angry and hateful and vengeful towards others is really an effective tactic. What if, God forbid, democrats actually do love their country? What if San Francisco actually loves this country? What if love for country is not really a questionable thing? Beyond being divisive it is insulting. Last night Palin looked like she was going to lead the convention out into the streets with touches and pitch forks laying waste to anyone from St. Paul to Hollywood. At first I thought Country First was a good pitch for, “John McCain, the maverick, who stood up to his party and put country above the elephant.” But he first had to allow 3 days of the party he once fought. I have come to realize ‘country first’ means Obama and all democrats are unpatriotic. Yet again Bush steals McCain’s message.  

The second, thing I would like to point out is that Obama in his convention effectively turned the tables. Obama, and the democrats, effectively learned how to attack the Republican’s. Leading up to the convention day after day McCain would attack Obama’s energy plan, his speeches, his supposed love of arugula (I’m more of and endive man). Obama was constantly on the defensive. Then Obama figured it out and started attacking first. He started putting McCain on the defensive. Then McCain forgot how many houses he owned and then Palin’s family had some babies-mama’s problems. The point is when you listen to the entire Republican convention they have been on the defensive. They are not talking about their policies. And more importantly they are not guiding the debate they are responding to the debate.

The reason this matters is conventions are the best time to gain or pick up ground. If you are on the defensive no matter how nasty Palin’s words were they were still within a narrative shaped by Obama.

I hear that McCain tonight promises to put forward some policies. This would be a good idea because right now they are not playing their own game.

After skipping day 1 of the RNC to watch Hurricane Gustav, thankfully, miss New Orleans, the RNC’s first two days became one.

Notes about the RNC: The first thing that I noticed was the simplicity of the stage, especially when it is compared to the flash and glamour of the DNC’s stage. The stage of the RNC is really minimalist and frankly kind of ugly. This is of course either stupid or brilliant. It either feeds their armature at govt image or feeds the image they want to create of the Dems as elitist. My guess is the second.

The script is not really but kind of surprising. McCain hates the culture wars. That is why the Dems in the Senate like him. McCain has always been lukewarm about the issue of abortion and frankly doesn’t like talking about it. He isn’t a social conservative but he has no problem voting that to expand his base. Palin is a culture warrior. Since adding her to the ticket we are now back in the culture wars.

Abortion, the gays, religion, blah blah blah let’s fight…

With this comes the tactics of Bush and Rove that McCain back in 2000 despised. They will attack Obama’s patriotism and every Democrat’s patriotism…a la ‘country first’. Then they will attack the media for being biased. Now the media is biased in a sense. Fox News is biased, MSNBC is in part biased, and various people on CNN (Glen Beck and Lou Dobbs) are biased. But Wolf Blitzer, Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric? Give me a break.

John McCain says the coverage of Palin is sexist and biased. Yes the biased people have taken sides. But McCain claims the non-biased people are now biased. This is crap. They are vetting Palin because that is what reporters do. They did it to Obama…a la Rev Wright…and Palin gets no special treatment.

I leave you with Joe Klein of Time Magazine’s words or McCain’s attacks:

September 3, 2008 2:04

Angry Amateurs

Posted by Joe Klein

The story of the day out here in Minneapolis is the McCain campaign’s war against the press. This has been building for some time. Those of us who have criticized the candidate–and especially those of us who enjoyed good relations with McCain in the past–have been subject to off-the-record browbeating and attempted bullying all year. But things have gotten much worse in recent days: there was McCain’s rude, bizarre interview with Time Magazine last week. Yesterday, McCain refused to an interview with Larry King, for God’s sake, because Campbell Brown had been caught in the commission of journalism on CNN the night before, asking McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds what decisions Sarah Palin had made as commander-in-chief of the Alaska national guard. (There was an answer that the unprepared Bounds didn’t have: she had deployed them to fight fires.)

So what’s going on here? Two things. McCain is just plain angry at us. By the evidence presented in the utterly revealing Time interview, he’s ballistic. This is a politician who needs to see himself as the man on the white horse, boldly traversing a muddy field…any intimations that he’s gotten muddied in the process, or has decided to throw mud, are intolerable.

The second thing is more insidious: Steve Schmidt has decided, for tactical reasons, to slime the press. He wants the public to believe that there is an unfair–sexist (you gotta love it)–personal assault going on against Palin and her family. This is a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from the very real and responsible vetting that is taking place in the media–about the substance of Palin’s record as mayor and governor. Sure, there are a few outliers–and the tabloid press–who have fixed on baby stories. That was inevitable….the flip side of the personal stories that the McCain team thought would work to their advantage–Palin’s moose-hunting and wolf-shooting, and her admirable decision to have a Down Syndrome baby. And yes, when we all fix on the same story, whether it’s a hurricane or a little-known politician, a zoo ensues. But the media coverage of the Palin story has been well within the bounds of responsibility. Schmidt is trying to make it seem otherwise, a desperate tactic.

There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is “a task from God.” The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

 

So as the campaigns and the media tries to figure out how to weather hurricane Gustav it looks like the GOP has another storm heading their way.

From Reuters…poor girl…

To rebut rumors, Palin says daughter, 17, pregnant

Mon Sep 1, 2008 12:02pm EDT

By Steve Holland

ST. PAUL (Reuters) - The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.

Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin’s five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.

“We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us,” the Palins’ statement said.

“Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support,” the Palins said.

The Palins asked the news media to respect the young couple’s privacy.

“Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates,” the statement concluded.

MCCAIN KNEW

Senior McCain campaign officials said McCain knew of the daughter’s pregnancy when he selected Palin last week as his vice presidential running mate, deciding that it did not disqualify the 44-year-old governor in any way.

In the short period since she was announced last Friday, Palin has helped to energize the Republican Party’s conservative base, giving the McCain camp fresh energy going into the campaign for the November 4 election against Democrat Barack Obama.

McCain officials said the news of the daughter’s pregnancy was being released to rebut what one aide called “mud-slinging and lies” circulating on liberal blog sites.

According to these rumors, Sarah Palin had faked a pregnancy and pretended to have given birth in May to her fifth child, a son named Trig who has Down syndrome. The rumor was that Trig was actually Bristol Palin’s child and that Sarah Palin was the grandmother.

A senior McCain campaign official said the McCain camp was appalled that these rumors had not only been spread around liberal blog sites and partisan Democrats, but also were the subject of heightened interest from mainstream news media.

“The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama’s name in them, is a real anchor around the Democratic ticket, pulling them down in the mud in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their ‘campaign of change,’” a senior aide said.

(Editing by Howard Goller)

Palin winning Miss Wasilla qualifying her for the Miss Alaska contest.

Maybe John McCain is a genius and Palin was just what the doctor ordered, but on the surface it seems super dumb to me.

The pick of a completely inexperienced politician from Alaska has certainly changed the tenor of the debate. But not in McCain’s favor. It turned the Media’s focus to his age. A 72 year old man who has battled skin cancer and general oldness could die at any moment. And as the constitution explains this upgrades the VP to the P. So McCain becomes president, his skin cancer returns, he dies, the runner up for Miss Alaska is the next president.

That has been the narrative in the News. Suddenly this election has become a referendum on President Palin. The news has all but killed off McCain. He wanted a game changer and instead he gave us a reason to question his ability to stay alive if president.

So naturally there must be another reason for this. I think it’s a Republican scheme to destroy affirmative action. For the first time in the history a woman was actually selected for a job devoid of any ability simply based on her gender, and the results are horrifying.