Stu Blog

About Sarah Palin CBS news wrote “the candidate who has been criticized for having a bunker mentality when it came to the national media can now lay legitimate claim to being more accessible than either Joe Biden or Barack Obama.”

They also pointed out “Though she often turns the “mainstream media” into a punching bag on the stump, Palin clearly enjoys interacting with reporters. She seems to relish the opportunity to demonstrate that her breadth of knowledge far exceeds what she offered to CBS News' Katie Couric in a series of interviews that were marked by vague, often convoluted answers to straightforward questions.”

This last comment about enjoying her interaction with reporters, seems to support the idea that the campaign has been holding her back against her will.

Link

And now, ABC news as well:

“Oh, how things change. In the first few weeks after Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., named Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., as his running mate, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee immediately became the most accessible of the four candidates…But that has all changed… The Delaware lawmaker has not fielded questions from supporters since a September 10 rally in Nashua, NH at which he said that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, might have been a better vice-presidential pick than him. And he has not held an arranged press avail since a September 7 flight to Kalispell, Mont.”

No press availability since September 10th?? How does it take until late October for the media to start pointing this out?

“Conversely, while Biden has an apparent embargo against fielding questions from his traveling press corps — and from his supporters — his once-reclusive Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, has become increasingly accessible, perhaps more so than any of the four candidates.”

Yet another example of how the media has one way to treat Sarah Palin and one way to treat nearly everyone else on earth.* It's the same issue, the same level position, Biden's been MIA for a longer period of time (and I would add, has achieved a gaffe-to-word rate that far exceeds Palin, and maybe anyone else in political history)-and his faults have largely been ignored. (Except for by the Obama campaign, who are correctly scared to death of him.)

Link

*I should note that ABC's Jake Tapper, who filed this report, has been an exception and has done a very solid job overall throughout the election cycle.

Glenn went over some of the reasons why Colin Powell said he endorsed Barack Obama on Meet the Press:

“I think he is a transformational figure”
“He is a new generation coming”
“Because of his ability to inspire”
“Because of the inclusive nature of his campaign”
“Because he is reaching out all across America”
“Because of who he is”
“His rhetorical abilities”
“He has both style and substance”

Apparently to Powell, this is “the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.”

Huh?

I'm not one to care about who endorses who, and I don't think endorsements generally matter that much. This probably is about as big as they get, and I still don't know if it will change too many people's minds at this point.

More importantly though– shouldn't democrats shun Powell's endorsement? I mean, reject it out of hand. This is THE guy who “lied” to you about WMDs. Remember that?

This is THE guy who presented the “lies” to the U.N. that brought us into this “illegal war.” Why would you want an endorsement from that guy?

Some have tried to make the case that Powell was forced to lie because of pressure from above (evil Dick Cheney, George Bush, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, Aliens, etc) but wouldn't that even be worse? A decorated general that puts office politics above soldiers lives?

Sure, you can say that some democrats, even those who were on key committees were “duped” (as ridiculous as that argument is)–but you can't say that about Powell. He–by your definition–lied to get us into an illegal war.

In reality, I think Powell is a genuine hero, who acted honorably with the best information he had at the time. But you can't have the “they lied, troops died” argument AND “the Colin Powell endorsement proves Obama has the experience and judgment to lead” argument. It's one of the two.

By accepting Powell's nod, democrats who made accusations about “lying” to get us into war are basically admitting they were wrong. Considering the endorsement is more directly valuable to their political gain today, I'd guess they'll be happy with the trade off.

“At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives,” McCain said in a radio address. “They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's just another government giveaway.”

—

The media had a problem with this logic, saying McCain wanted to do the same thing:

—

McCain, though, has a health care plan girded with a similar philosophy.

He proposes providing individuals with a $5,000 tax credit to buy health insurance. He would pay for his plan, in part, by considering as taxable income the money their employer spends on their health coverage.

—

These people don't understand what redistribution of wealth is. Here's the major difference between Obama's long series of ideas and McCain's healthcare plan.

McCain takes my money, and then hands it back to me.

Obama takes my money, and then hands it to someone else.

McCain's tact on healthcare is closer to an accounting issue, to give you the same tax benefit for buying your own insurance that you would get if your employer gave it to you.

Obama is saying “Let me decide who has too much, and who has too little, and then I'll even it out. That will be better for everyone!”

You might like that philosophy, but it's not at all comparable to McCain's health care plan.