Anybody else watching this ABC interview?

She doesn't answer the questions!!

This is all a very unfortunate series of events.

Look, people, to call someone a liar presupposes there exists an "objective" reality where there are facts like "the sky is blue" and "one plus one makes two." This is, of course, a deeply discredited view, as all reality is a political construct.

By placing the Palin narrative (and more broadly the McCain campaign meta-narrative) within an equally invented "reality" structure, the media is unfairly privileging one view point of view over another.

This is, of course, deeply, deeply sexist.

When I see Eric Cantor speaking, I think..smarmy...

Not to suck up to TPM *too* much . . . but you know, the push-back we've seen on tv today would be impossible without liberal blogs.

How do you suppose people like Joy Behar and Norah O'Donnell became conversant with the fine points of Alaskan earmarking?

"Talking Points Memo." The name says it all.

[Also, a big shout-out to Matt Yglesias, who has been emphasizing that fact-checking by itself is useless unless it *guides the larger narrative*. That point has been incredibly powerful in shaping the coverage this week, I believe.]

O'Donnel gets it wrong and I don't understand how she could still not understand this. Congress killed the specific earmark for the Bridge. Sarah Palin campaigned on the possibility of getting that earmark back. The question of whether or not she gave the money back, which is what O'Donnell focused on, is completely beside the point. The point is that what Cantor was 180 degrees away from what actually happened. She didn't reject the expenditure. Congress did, long before Palin was even elected Governor. I don't understand why journalists keep mangling this simple issue. Its highly annoying.

Obama only up by 3 in NJ? WTF is up with that" And Frank is up by 11? I live in the Garden State. I have no doubt that Obama will win this state. As Kos has always said, NJ voters hate all their politicians but they hate GOP politicians more. But the fact that 80-bazillion year-old Lautenberg has an 11-point lead at this pint - and that's a lead I believe - but Obama only has a 3pt lead is little disconcerting. Don't get me wrong. Obama will win NJ and he doesn't have to spend extra money here in order to win. But this bodes poorly for other states. Living here, I know we have our fair share of folks whose racism isn't much different than the racism you find in the deep South. They will not vote for Obama simply because he's black. I think Palin made it easier for folks who were uncomfortable voting for a black guy to clearly break from Obama and vote for a women and say, "see, I'm not prejudice" Again, Obama ain't gonna lose NJ, but 48-45 bodes poorly for other states where Dem victories aren't so easily assured.

Pardon my wishful thinking but I don't think Nora O'Donnell sufficiently debunked the idiot congressman.

I'm convinced more than half of the American electorate or either too dumb, too busy or too reckless to take notice the Palim sham.

Because there is some naivete still left in my heart, I hope media will put their own businesses first and realize the risk of keeping Palin a heart beat away from the Presidency.

If not the public, the Gibson interview should make it abundantly clear to the MSM think tank, how grave and dangerous it is to allow Palin a heart beat away from the Presidency.

Pardon my wishful thinking but I don't think Nora O'Donnell sufficiently debunked the idiot congressman.

I'm convinced more than half of the American electorate or either too dumb, too busy or too reckless to take notice the Palim sham.

Because there is some naivete still left in my heart, I hope media will put their own businesses first and realize the risk of keeping Palin a heart beat away from the Presidency.

If not the public, the Gibson interview should make it abundantly clear to the MSM think tank, how grave and dangerous it is to allow Palin a heart beat away from the Presidency.

Pardon my wishful thinking but I don't think Nora O'Donnell sufficiently debunked the idiot congressman.

I'm convinced more than half of the American electorate or either too dumb, too busy or too reckless to take notice the Palim sham.

Because there is some naivete still left in my heart, I hope media will put their own businesses first and realize the risk of keeping Palin a heart beat away from the Presidency.

If not the public, the Gibson interview should make it abundantly clear to the MSM think tank, how grave and dangerous it is to allow Palin a heart beat away from the Presidency.

I'm seeing a trend here. It's starting to look like the McCain campaign has pushed their luck a bit too far with the press and they're starting to get called routinely on their lies. It's either that the lies are just too obvious, or that the press isn't taking too kindly to being attacked by McCain, or maybe both.

This morning I saw Harry Smith slap down Rudy Giuliani on the CBS Early Show. Rudy was complaining about the kind of foreign policy questions that Palin was being asked and he said that Obama was never asked questions like that. Harry jumped on it and said "That's not true," that Obama had been getting questions like that for the past 19 months. Rudy insisted and Harry kept telling him he was wrong until he finally stopped.

Could you imagine that? Journalists trying to get at the truth? Who ever heard of such a thing?

"You know I think the proof, the proof is in the pudding,"

How dare he call her fat!

I'd like to see people remain calm and focused, dammit.

Some of you have a tendency to fly off the handle from time to time.

What's so maddening about this kind of stuff is how easy it is to knock it down.

Imagine Charlie Gibson, instead of going with "but you campaigned in favor of the Bridge to Nowhere" had said: "You keep saying, 'I told Congress, thanks but no thanks.' When did you do this, and how? Did you send them a memo/letter, make phone calls, or hold a press conference to announce to Congress that you didn't want the bridge? Can you tell us how you communicated to Congress that you didn't want that bridge for Alaska?"

Now, THAT would be a true moose in the headlights moment, because it's unspinnable. You either have the documentary evidence that you did what you've been claiming you did, or you don't. And in Palin's case, we know that she don't.

They are sticking to a story that is proved false many times a day now.

Please let the Republicans continue in their stubborn insistence on this talking point.

Dear God, please make them ever more stubborn: make them cling to this horse-poop story all the way to November.

This is an extremely edifying little puppet show, is it not, colleagues ?

Well, Charlie, the thing of it is, Charlie, that he said puddin', not pudding, Charlie. And, Charlie, that makes it a fine way to end the week with a laugh, Charlie. Do you agree, Charlie? Because, Charlie, puddin' is funny. Charlie?

Time to take these Republican bastards down, NOW.

Has it occurred to anyone that Palin is the Imelda Marcos of Earmarks

That was not a grilling. It was a light toasting.

Exposing John McCain's Lies -- Pass it on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk

Are we finally pulling back the Curtin on the Wizards of Oz?

Since the McCain team want to keep on expressing outrage at Senator Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark about John McCain's economic proposals, then shouldn't all "Hockey Moms" and women in general, be completely outraged at Sarah Palin?

After all, Sarah Palin, in a national TV address, declared that Hockey Moms were just lipstick wearing Pit Bulls.

Sarah Palin called a group of young mothers; "Pit Bulls".

Where is the feminist outrage?

It may have been at best a light toasting, but personally I didn't expect even that much and I'll take it.

It beats the bullshit of the last 7 years all to hell.

I'm grateful for small miracles.

It may have been at best a light toasting, but personally I didn't expect even that much and I'll take it.

It beats the bullshit of the last 7 years all to hell.

I'm grateful for small miracles.

If there is one single lesson to be taken from this campaign season, it is that Republicans will, evidently, fall in line behind any candidate or issue, regardless of their individual merits. The sad parade of right wing pundits making the rounds to defend Palin's lack of knowledge about basic foreign policy or McCain's outright falsehoods have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republicans are party loyalists first and foremost.

If there is one single lesson to be taken from this campaign season, it is that Republicans will, evidently, fall in line behind any candidate or issue, regardless of their individual merits. The sad parade of right wing pundits making the rounds to defend Palin's lack of knowledge about basic foreign policy or McCain's outright falsehoods have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republicans are party loyalists first and foremost.

This is a great example of how incompetent, or maybe risk taking, McCains campaign team is.

They pull an ace out of their asses (Sarah Palin) ,or more than likely James Dobson pushed her up there. Then they vastly overplay the Palin card with all sorts of embellishments and half truths.
Now they are on defense explaining, and re-explaining her record and her new found positions.

Give things a little time, like say about a week or two, and Palin will be brought back to earth (the round one not the flat one she believes). Her undoing is coming at the hands of McCains camp due to their inexperience and poor judgement.

If there is one single lesson to be taken from this campaign season, it is that Republicans will, evidently, fall in line behind any candidate or issue, regardless of their individual merits. The sad parade of right wing pundits making the rounds to defend Palin's lack of knowledge about basic foreign policy or McCain's outright falsehoods have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republicans are party loyalists first and foremost.

I believe the eye of the storm has passed. The MSM is begining a discernible shift that questions Mccain's biggest strength his "honor". In a bizarre way I think Palin has done Obama a big favor. Instead of crusing to victory on the basis of turnout and a constant 3 to 4 point lead in polls he and his campaign have been forced to get on message stronger and go harder after Mccain. Avoid Palin she is a shiny object but not the real issue. Mccain is. The view was a perfect example of how to use the man's greatest weapon against him. His "honor" is in tatters and Obama does not need to be dishonest in hammering that. Mccain is a liar and a serial one to boot. The lies have poured forth. The ads on this are easy. The headlines run across the MSM gamut. Judgement is the hammer and lies are the nail. The coffin is out of touch, do anything, say anything to win grave Mccain leapt into to win at any cost. The meme is there and I have faith it will be accepted. The MSM will love it, "POW honor questioned!" "Has Mccain sold his soul to win." Palin will recede and Mccain will be off message defending himself. Republicans will scream foul and will brow beat the press to no end. There is a risk of course but given all the evidence Mccain has provided I believe it is minimal.

PALIN FAVORABILITY

DATE FAV UNFAV NO OPINON
13-Sep 49% 40% 11%

This is a great example of how incompetent, or maybe risk taking, McCains campaign team is.

They pull an ace out of their asses (Sarah Palin) ,or more than likely James Dobson pushed her up there. Then they vastly overplay the Palin card with all sorts of embellishments and half truths.
Now they are on defense explaining, and re-explaining her record and her new found positions.

Give things a little time, like say about a week or two, and Palin will be brought back to earth (the round one not the flat one she believes). Her undoing is coming at the hands of McCains camp due to their inexperience and poor judgement.

Repugs really do not like truth and facts to get in the way of their choreographed talking points.

I wish I had invested in "Botox Stock" There has got to be a run on the market for all the "Republican Talking Heads" so they can keep a straight face trying to support all their lies McCain/Palin keep coming out with.

I think they keep "Reporters in an issolation chamber between interviews so their interviews are not contaminated by "Facts'.

With the RNC running on the "Lie, Cheat and Steal" ticket, they have become immune to the usual rhetoric of today's TV news interview. Take for example this interview. Here we see a man- clearly cornered in his own lie- wriggling his way out of the pliable grip of his interviewer by resorting to the wingnut playbook (start reciting some babble from a college-level poli sci text book and then swing it around to score one final blow for McCain/Palin before your interviewer gets another chance to speak)

News networks that want an Obama-voting viewership (only more than HALF the country) need to arm their anchors with tools for cutting through this age-old strategy. Here are some helpful phrases for them to keep handy when interviewing wingnuts:

"That's not at all what I'm talking about."

"You're not listening to me."

"Can you be more specific?"

"What are your sources for that claim?"

"Stop yelling."

"Answer the question or this interview is over."

It's fun. You try it.