More Proof that Palin is an uninformed idiot. link Palin: First Amendment Rights Threatened By Criticism ABC News reports: In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama. Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said. "If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media." Salon's Glenn Greenwald explains why this argument is frighteningly wrong: If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged. This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice here to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional. According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. The First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials would not be "attacked" in the papers. It is even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?
This "first amendment" statement is really one of her worst. I am sincerely surprised to hear her say that. Does she not understand the first amendment at all? Ouch. I hope this is not one of her "go rogue" ideas. The handlers could at least help her build the rest of her career if she can reign it in.
I'm pretty sure that her 'brain trust' consists of the first Dude, other family members and the rest of her wack-o network from Wasillia, accordingly it would be elitist of me to note that their understanding of U.S. Const, Amdt I is somewhat....less nuanced.
B-Bob, the woman is frighteningly ignorant and sure in her ignorance. To her, it doesn't matter if she is wrong. Why? Because anyone who says she is wrong is just wrong themselves, and if they say she is wrong loud enough and strong enough then, in her pathetic little mind, that just means they are attacking her unfairly, to the point of "trampling on her constitutional rights." Which brings us to the point of John McCain's failure in selecting Palin... that a potential Vice-President could have such an ignorance of the fundamental underpinnings of our form of government says everything you need to know about John McCain. When it came to making the most important decision a candidate can make prior to becoming President, picking a potential successor, John McCain failed. Even his supporters are coming out and saying he failed, both behind closed doors and in public. Oh, they may parse their words a bit, but when someone like Lawrence Eagleburger says Sarah Palin "isn’t up to the task of taking over the presidency in a crisis," unless she has some "on the job training," what he is really saying is that she wasn't qualified when McCain picked her and isn't qualified today. When it came to making his biggest decision before the election, John McCain failed the test, badly.
The last couple of tpm composites have been in Obama's favor. So much for a closing rush by McCain. • Gallup: Obama 52%, McCain 43%, with a ±2% margin of error, compared to a 51%-44% lead from yesterday. • Rasmussen: Obama 51%, McCain 47%, with a ±2% margin of error, compared to a 51%-46% Obama lead from yesterday. • ABC/Washington Post: Obama 53%, McCain 44%, with a ±2.5% margin of error, compared to a 52%-44% Obama lead from yesterday. • Hotline/Diageo: Obama 48%, McCain 41%, with a ±3.3% margin of error, compared to a 48%-42% Obama lead from yesterday. • Research 2000: Obama 51%, McCain 45%, with a ±3% margin of error, compared to a 50%-45% Obama lead yesterday. • Zogby: Obama 50%, McCain 43%, with a ±2.9% margin of error, unchanged from yesterday. Adding these polls together and weighting them by the square roots of their sample sizes, Obama is ahead 51.0%-44.1%, a lead of 6.9 points, compared to the 50.5%-44.2% Obama lead from yesterday. Obama's lead also increased in yesterday's Composite.
Obama will put gas in her car and pay her mortgage! Man, Obama's sure got some hard working, self-sufficient citizens voting for him... LOL Where did America's work ethic run off to? <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/381gFG4Crr8&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/381gFG4Crr8&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Random post: Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081101/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_media NEW YORK – John McCain supporters who believe they haven't gotten a fair shake from the media during the Republican's candidacy against Barack Obama have a new study to point to. Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs. ABC's "World News" had more balance than NBC's "Nightly News" or the "CBS Evening News," the group said. Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel's "Special Report" with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters, although it was dominated by negative evaluations of both campaigns. The center didn't evaluate programs on CNN or MSNBC. "For whatever reason, the media are portraying Barack Obama as a better choice for president than John McCain," said Robert Lichter, a George Mason University professor and head of the center. "If you watch the evening news, you'd think you should vote for Obama." The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls. For instance, when a voter was interviewed on CBS Oct. 14 saying he thought Obama brought a freshness to Washington, that was chalked up as a pro-Obama comment. When NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported Oct. 1 that some conservatives say that Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time, that's marked in the negative column for McCain. ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain). Hume's telecast had 39 percent favorable comments for McCain and 28 percent positive for the Democratic ticket. It was the second study in two weeks to remark upon negative coverage for the McCain-Palin ticket. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded last week that McCain's coverage has been overwhelmingly negative since the conventions ended, while Obama's has been more mixed. Meanwhile, another survey issued Friday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that television continues to be Americans' main source for campaign news, particularly the cable news networks. But there were clear partisan differences in where people turned. For instance, of the people who said they got most of their campaign news from Fox News Channel, 52 percent identified themselves as Republican, 17 percent as Democrats and 30 percent as independents, the Pew center said. MSNBC viewers interested in campaign news identified themselves at 11 percent Republican, 50 percent Democratic and 36 percent independent. The breakdown for CNN: 13 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat, 38 percent independent. The study was based on a survey of 2,011 people taken Oct. 17-20 and 24-27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WdBsv0uCT0c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WdBsv0uCT0c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Looks like McCain's time in PA is actually paying off. He's closed to within 4 in a handful of polls, and single digits in some others. It would be kind of funny if he wins PA while losing a bunch of other battleground states.
hum.... I've been reading articles showing where McCain's push seems to be stalling in PA. The only poll that I've seen where Mccain might be making some headway is Rasmussen. Pollster.com has an aggregate of 8.8 split. http://www.pollster.com/polls/pa/08..._pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=1&lines=1&colors=
I was just looking here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs_obama-244.html After Obama almost exclusively having double digit leads, McCain trails by 4-8 in 5 polls in the last few days. McCain's been spending a lot of time out there, while Obama hasn't visited at all. I imagine it's taking a toll - though I don't know if he can keep making up ground or not. McCain seems to mostly be picking up undecideds, but Obama is still holding above 50. One big thing McCain has going for him is that there's no early voting in PA, so Obama doesn't have any votes banked as of yet.
Well, I remember talking about the Mason-Dixon poll a few days ago. The thing with that poll is that the previous one had Obama +2. So in that context, Obama widened his lead in that individual poll. Biden was last in Pennsylvania on Thursday. Barack was last in Pennsylvania on Tuesday.
This is why the Palin pick was so stupid. The base would have come home, as we see the weak R's doing. He could have picked someone more substantial and less loved by the base and still picked up the base... where were they going to go? As it is, he stands little chance of cutting into Obama's numbers, but only increasing his by a small amount as weak R's hold their nose and decide they'll vote against Obama.
