Interesting editorial in the Anchorage Daily News, seems someone would like to ask Palin a number of questions about her political career in Alaska.

http://www.adn.com/opinion/v-printer/story/520272.html

I particularly like this one: In spring of 2004, the Daily News reported that you cited family considerations in deciding not to try for the U.S. Senate: "How could I be the team mom if I was a U.S. senator?" What was different this time as you decided to run for vice president?

The humor of it all, which adds to the laughable "experience" factor, is of course summed up perfectly by the second editorial which questions the sprinting ability of a porcupine. You can't help but chuckle.

Why is the media so hesitant to call Palin a liar? She's lied about basically everything so far. She's got a lot a' splainin' to do!

Oh and that WSJ story is excellent. FINALLY a news organization is checking on the garbage the McCain camp is spitting out.

All I ask for out of political journalists, whether it works in candidate's favor or not, is to fact check claims made by either campaign.

This whole "1 billion of earmarks requested by Obama"... oops turns out it was only 300, while Palin was over 700, the largest in the country.

Foot in mouth McCain?

To follow up on the per-diem issue, there's a well-informed diary on dKos pointing out that per diem is taxable unless it covers travel "away from home." If Palin failed to report the per-diem income Alaska paid her for staying home, then it's not just cheesy, it's tax evasion.

Can't get this to post as a blog. And sorry that I don't know how to embed the links. I'll post this here and then post links in a comment:

Sarah spins straw into gold. She seems to have figured out every way to do it. Pork for Wasilla. Pork for Alaska. And now this: 55% of her time as governor (so far) has been spent in her own home. Time for which she claims a per diem. (h/t AKmuckraker)

Till now the Alaskan taxpayer has been hoodwinked. But soon it could be the American taxpayer. Just think about it. And likely, if she gets to move up from gov to Trophy VP, she'll raise her rates. The per diem will go up! Now I just did a little calculation. Adding in one day for leap year, I get 804 days (rounding up). Let's suppose she charges a per diem of $200 per day. That's $161, 000 - rounding up. ($40,000 per year to eat in her own home!) Now... of course she might charge more!

Spinning straw into Gold. That's Sarah for you!

She spun some gold for Wasilla and Alaska. And she spun some gold for herself.

Tell Sarah it's time she stops spinning. And takes her hand out of the till

I'd still like them to continue the liars line. Besides being true, it does what one should do - goes after the opponent's strength. Then again, it looks like the media is running that line anyway..

Just to underline the obvious: the education ad is actually designed to woo back some of the Palinophiles.

Palin's positives are highest among women with children at home, according to Nate Silver at 538. The strategy here is partly to talk about education, but also -- even more basically -- to show McCain being mean to kids, and Barack playing with his own children. Tug at those heartstrings!

And for those who are wanting Obama to attack, I think he did a pretty good job yesterday, calling them "shameless." Current lead on the political ticker so it's not just the liberal blog readers seeing it.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

The Mainstream Media finally getting fed up a little?
(And I can't see a link to this anywhere)Article on Time's web page, Alaskonomics,

which is pretty biting, starting off with:

"Sarah Palin thinks she is a better American than you because she comes from a small town, and a superior human being because she isn't a journalist and never lived in Washington and likes to watch her kids play hockey."

And ends with:

Why is a windfall-profits tax good for Alaska but not for the U.S.? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? People in Alaska are better than people in the rest of the U.S. They're more American. Although there are small towns and farms and high school hockey teams in the lower 48, there are fewer down here, per capita, than in Alaska. And there are many more journalists and pollsters and city dwellers and other undesirables who might benefit if every American had the same right to leech off the government as do the good citizens of Sarah Palin's Alaska.

The WaPo story should definitely be used in a large-scale assault on Palin's maverick/reformer image.

While I have been urging for a much tougher approach to take on McCain/Palin, I don't think Obama should be doing too much of that or else he will look unpresidential and desperate. Let Biden do it. Let other high-profile surrogates do it. Let the ads do it.

I love the smell of backlash in the morning.

but Obama needs to be going after McSame for running a campaign based on lies that presumes American voters are too stupid or ignorant to see through his bullshit.

I think so too and that's what he's doing and something happened - it all shifted - they're getting real about CinderSarah.

Maybe someone did hear my prayers to the universe -

Regarding the WaPo story, I don't care about the Per Diem, there's a lot of travel involved in the job but what concerns me is why are the taxpayers paying Palin's family also? Most reputable politicians who want to take family members on official trips will reimburse the taxpayer costs out of their own pocket or out of their campaign funds, they don't try and stick the taxpayers with the bill. Hell, if I want to take my wife along on a business trip I have to pay her costs myself, why are the Palins any different than me?

I recall seeing her first-dude hubby standing right on the stage with her for most if not all of her campaign appearances -- and no baby in his arms either.

Let's all forward those questions to Charlie Gibson. And send him the Porkypine editorial, too.

1 db

Why did it take so long for this stuff to get any traction? It's almost like the media sits around waiting to see if the story has legs before they decide to look into it.

Three points (in 3 posts)
Attacking Palin on her personal choices is politically absurd. Democrats suppport women having a career AND motherhood. And one reason she is viewed so favorably is because many women, and men, too, admire her being both mother and politician. A more appropriate approach is to complement her on showing that a woman can be a mother and have a career and then pivot to say:
1. Its too bad that most Republicans think she shouldn't.
2. Its too bad that Republican economic policies that she and Sen. McCain want to continue make it so difficult for most working mothers.
3. Its too bad that she and Sen. McCain think that women shouldn't be able to sue when it counts over pay discrimination.

Second post
On education, one of the issues which got me supporting Obama in the primary campaign, I think that he has chosen this as his issue to cite where he is challenging his party. He cited it in his appearance on ABC Sunday morning and his support of merit pay and charter schools, etc. does put him at odds with many in the party. He will use this in the debates when asked where he differs from his party and is challending them. And it is important. It is also a very important issue if we are to make sure that all of our citizens can compete in the new global economy. Too many students are being failed by our educational system and never get the opportunity of success that many of us have. And he can point out that the Republicans really offer nothing but vouchers. This will really help with moderate swing voters.

trickle trickle trick.........

the trickle will turn into a stream......

info about hubby now coming out......

she will be off the ballot by november....

bummer.

Good ad. Hits on key issue differences.

I am all for a concerted effort to puncture McCain and Palin's maverick/ reformer images. However, Team Obama has to be precise in their accusations and has to dramatize their claims so everyone can see how ridiculous McCain/Palin are. Eg.1. She is not exactly not against the bridge to nowhere. What she has never been against is the earmark money for the bridge. It's the wasteful earmarks, not the bridge, that is the issue. And from this distinction we can raise a real criticism of Gov. Palin: If she is not for the bridge but she was for the earmarks for the bridge, what does it say about her? Eg.2. Team Obama has to highlight how wasteful Palin's earmarks have been, using per capita figures. This will enable them to counter effectively Palin's accusation about Obama's earmarks (she was using per day figures, which is obviously misleading).

It's good that Team Obama has started calling McCain/Palin liars. However, this is not good enough and if they don't do it skilfully, it might backfire. After all, people are easily tired of political fights and hate to be arbiters. To convince people that lying is a real problem, they have to be able to see the damage that lying could do to them. To drive the point home, therefore, Team Obama needs to link McCain/Palin's persistent distortion of facts to Bush/Cheney's persistent distortion of facts and how this "same old politics" has led to "failed policies", such as the Iraq War.

I am also wondering what Hillary Clinton was thinking when she kept praising Palin's VP bid. She will be mistaken if she thinks that she will stand to gain if Obama loses the election. If Palin becomes the VP, she will become Clinton's biggest nightmare four years from now if Clinton decides to run again (Clinton will be 64 when an experienced Palin will be 48. Palin will most likely be a wartime VP or even a wartime president. How is Clinton going to unseat a wartime female incumbent?). I honestly think that Clinton's best hope now is do her best to elect Obama, then push through her signature health care proposal. She will then be remembered as the politician (and yes, a woman politician) who has changed the health care landscape of this country.

Obviously it is not good to misspell challenging in a post on education.
Anyway, thirdly, on the campaign itself. To return to a tie in Rasmussen today, Obama must have been ahead by at least two points in last night's polling so McCain's bounce may have run its course and without getting as high as Obama who got to 51 in Rasmussen. Rasmussen is a good one to compare pre-conventions because of the leaners/non-leaners. At the beginning of the Dem convention, it was 44-44 w/o leaners and 46-46 w/leaners. Today it is 46-46 w/o leaners and 48-48 w/leaners. This makes sense in that both conventions have enabled the candidates to turn their leaners into non-leaners, while getting some undecideds into leaners, but Obama got more undecideds into leaners earlier and he can get them again in the debates whereas McCain may have gotten about all he is ever going to get.
Furthermore, with yesterday's state polls, at the height of McCain's bounce, Obama has enough EVs to win. Many were concerned about Michigan,but Obama is running about 3 or so points ahead of his national numbers)(w/McCain bounce), which is basically where Kerry ran in Michigan ahead of his national numbers(it was 51-48 for Kerry in Michigan in 2004). If Obama wins nationally by 2-3 points he should easily win Michigan by 5-6 points. Finally, convention bounces happen because the candidate/party has the whole stage. No one is there to point out that there is no there there as in McCain's acceptance speech. Obama will be able to show that in the debates and I still think that the debates may get Obama to as much as a 6 point victory in the end, say 52-46.

Obviously it is not good to misspell challenging in a post on education.
Anyway, thirdly, on the campaign itself. To return to a tie in Rasmussen today, Obama must have been ahead by at least two points in last night's polling so McCain's bounce may have run its course and without getting as high as Obama who got to 51 in Rasmussen. Rasmussen is a good one to compare pre-conventions because of the leaners/non-leaners. At the beginning of the Dem convention, it was 44-44 w/o leaners and 46-46 w/leaners. Today it is 46-46 w/o leaners and 48-48 w/leaners. This makes sense in that both conventions have enabled the candidates to turn their leaners into non-leaners, while getting some undecideds into leaners, but Obama got more undecideds into leaners earlier and he can get them again in the debates whereas McCain may have gotten about all he is ever going to get.
Furthermore, with yesterday's state polls, at the height of McCain's bounce, Obama has enough EVs to win. Many were concerned about Michigan,but Obama is running about 3 or so points ahead of his national numbers)(w/McCain bounce), which is basically where Kerry ran in Michigan ahead of his national numbers(it was 51-48 for Kerry in Michigan in 2004). If Obama wins nationally by 2-3 points he should easily win Michigan by 5-6 points. Finally, convention bounces happen because the candidate/party has the whole stage. No one is there to point out that there is no there there as in McCain's acceptance speech. Obama will be able to show that in the debates and I still think that the debates may get Obama to as much as a 6 point victory in the end, say 52-46.

"The Bridge": It's not just Palin flip-flopped on the bridge, being for it and then against it, but even when she became "against it," she was for keeping the money (as WSJ reports).

All the women who are praising Palin. As a woman, let me ask you all one question: Palin wants women who are raped to pay for the KIT themselves. Common ladies, I know some of you are voting because she is woman. For the love of God, I ask you all to look at the issues and not the person. Her views are scary. God help us!!

Howdy,

I'm a longtime lurker, and I really value TPM and its commenters because they don't insult my intelligence. However, can we not feed trolls like SFC Wallace? He clearly has a lot of time on his hands, and I just get worn out wading through his inane comments and all of the responses to them. I realize it's fun to slam a winger, but there are so many smart commenters here that get pushed into the background by the sheer posting volume of this guy. I don't want him banned or silenced or anything, but maybe just stop egging him on? He can troll somewhere else to get the attention he needs.

Back to lurking, keep up the great work TPM!

Jeffro

I was sexually assaulted in 1981, and I would have been LIVID if, at the ER, they told me I would have to PAY to have a rape kit done.

This is a FACT

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt

The city of Wasilla DID this. In fact, the article in the Alaska Frontiersman linked to contains several quotes from Police Chief Fannon, the Palin appointee.....after she fired Stambaugh for disloyalty.

arggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Oh, and on McCain and independents, it should be obvious that independents are the group that is going to do the most convention bouncing since they are not fundamentally attached to one party or the other. And, re Rasmussen, it may also be that some "independents" who already supported McCain and were republicans in the last election may now be more willing to call themselves republicans, which may increase party ID proportion of GOP to Dems when Rasmussen next revises that, but not really change the vote for McCain vs. Obama because they are already McCain supporters. Presidential election years tend to harden people in their partisan choice so that some "independents" start identifying as Dems or Reps instead.