Above: that horribly mangled & awkward Oath of Office.

NBC and ABC say the flub was Roberts’, while the AP says it was Obama’s.

Chris Wallace wonders:

Click here to view the embedded video.

But calm down, though.

Language Log parses:

“In the embedded clause of the oath, the adverb faithfully is properly positioned after the auxiliary will (1). If you miss the adverb as it is placed in the official wording, you have two more chances for inserting it in a coherent fashion: placing faithfully after the verb execute (2) or placing it at the end of the clause (3):

that I will 1 execute 2 the office of President of the United States 3

Roberts does indeed miss his opportunity to put faithfully in position 1, perhaps thrown by Obama repeating the opening phrase of the oath earlier than he expected. In Roberts’ first attempt, faithfully ends up in clause-final position 3. Obama seems to realize that the placement is wrong, but repeats the first part of the clause all the way through to the verb: that I will execute. There’s no possibility of getting faithfully back to position 1 at this point, but Roberts gets as close as he can by placing it in position 2, immediately after the verb, in his second attempt. Obama ignores the self-repair, however, and ends up repeating the misplaced version that Roberts originally supplied, with faithfully in clause-final position 3.”

Click on this link to learn about another botched oath; the world - or a presidency - didn’t end there, either.

ABC asked Obama about it last night; read what he had to say here.

FURTHER READING: Newsweek’s Dahlia Lithwick on the connection between the Bible used yesterday, two Presidents, & two Supreme Court justices.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

(Illustration credit here)

One of the great things about Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish blog is he often makes a great point using a minimum of sentences, as he does here:

“Does Pajamas Media believe that the future of journalism really belongs to Joe The Plumber? Or that this is really worth publishing? It seems to me that the right is still culturally disoriented. If they are still promoting Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber and Ann Coulter and culture-war resentment as their core message, they are obviously in deep denial about what this election really meant. If their only unifying theme is hatred or reified “elite liberals”, they are doomed.

This denial - this calcification of the worst of the right in the last eight years - is the real danger to Republicans. What they need is a grappling with the public policy issues at hand, and an imaginative constructive, conservative approach to them. But the posturing is so much easier, isn’t it? And still, one presumes, really lucrative for a tiny few.”

Calcification: just the right word.

I often pay attention to what this particular segment of the right is saying, & it constantly seems as if their raison d’être is to have something or someone to villify. & Sullivan’s right in pointing out that this has been so entrenched for so long that there are many out there who don’t yet (& may never) recognize what time it is.

To wit:

Click here to view the embedded video.

An added element to this psychology, I’ve noticed for at least the past 6 months, has been the embrace of a kind of identity politics & victimhood which many on the right have for years - & appropriately - used as fodder against the left. & no, they don’t seem to recognize this either.

It has to be someone’s fault. There has to be a scapegoat responsible for the mess we’re in.

Folks, the clash of cultures/values/whatever still exists.

But it’s been heartening to see with this past election that enough people have realized that there are far bigger priorities to tackle at the moment, & that it’s more important to find common ground than to point out differences.

Michael Weiss makes a great point on this score, too:

“The inevitable fallout when a PR neutron bomb like this goes off always puts me in mind of the Wolf and Sheepdog cartoon series Warner Bros. used to run. You know the routine, provided your childhood wasn’t stunted and deprived: two permanent adversaries clock in each day and exchange morning pleasantries (”G’day Ralph, G’day Sam”) before setting to their predictable work. The so-called “liberal elite” must snigger and snark about a duplicitous, posturing everyman who shilled for John McCain pretending he has any credentials whatsoever to be a war reporter. Conservative populists must then rail against said elite, citing the duplicity and unabashed political bias of the “MSM” (that’s mainstream media to you laymen), while claiming that Joe represents a silent majority of Americans and is thus every bit as entitled to cover the Gaza conflict as are, say, Wolf Blitzer and Ted Koppel.

Lost in the melee is the graver question of whether or not a time of war is a time for cultural point-scoring. There is simply no way that PJM didn’t prefigure the tongue-in-cheek headlines that would follow this announcement, which has unintentionally vitiated the blog network’s stated purpose of standing up for Israel. Joe’s become the story, if not the spectacle.”

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

This little clip was sent as a “Christmas present” by the chairman of the RNC, who defended it even though many in the GOP have (rightly) distanced themselves.

It seems like Barack Obama’s not fitting the traditional “liberal attackable mold,” standards of which were set so high by Bill Clinton, Al Gore & John Kerry. That has -apparently- left many in the GOP struggling to find a way to attack.

Well, I’m here to help.

Let me just offer this clear & easy to understand bit of advice for those who are looking for ways to be a naysayer:

When in doubt, don’t call attention to the fact that he’s black.

He knows it.

You know it.

Everyone in America knows it.

Pointing out his skin color - in any way - says a heck of a lot more about you than it does him.

& heaven knows there are - & will be - plenty of things with which to criticize the man. Have patience.

This is not to say you should ignore his skin color, not at all. But -particularly- Republicans, listen: if you still wish to be viewed as a relevant political force in this country, you should take my advice & just leave it alone. You can notice it all you want, but don’t ever think you’re going to win anybody to your side by pointing it out.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

I was out for much of last week & therefore missed much of the hoo-ha surrounding the president-elect’s choice of pastor Rick Warren to read the invocation at his inaugural.

For those (likely very few) of you who have not heard yet, Warren is a preacher whose stance against homosexuality runs contrary to the views of Barack Obama.

But that didn’t stop Obama from the invite:

Click here to view the embedded video.

..even though the move has angered folks on both the right & the left.

My 1st thought about this is that we’re likely seeing a microcosm of what we’ll see over the next four years. It’s, in its own way, a “Nixon-in-China” moment. It’s interesting to watch to see who gets uncomfortable.

My 2nd thought is that you’d never-in-a-million-years see a President-elect McCain extend such an invitation to someone perceived to be a foe of “his sides” “religion.”

It’s a shrewd move. & not just for Obama. (Read my post from earlier this year highlighting an excellent article on Warren’s role in a “new evangelical movement” here.)

E.J. Dionne thinks so too:

“Although I support same-sex marriage, I think that liberals should welcome Obama’s success in causing so much consternation on the right. On balance, inviting Warren opens more doors than it closes.

The always-curmudgeonly Richard Cohen, though, thinks the move is a wrong one:

“I can understand Obama’s desire to embrace constituencies that have rejected him. Evangelicals are in that category and Warren is an important evangelical leader with whom, Obama said, “we’re not going to agree on every single issue.” He went on to say, “We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.” Sounds nice.

But what we do not “hold in common” is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.”

But I think Melissa Etheridge, who happens to be gay, married, & with children, puts my thoughts about the matter best:

“Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world’s attention. We have the capability to create change, awesome change in this world, but before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure, there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They don’t hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.

Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.”

My take: Warren & Obama both are to be commended for their attempts to try to see all people as human beings, not just “friends or enemies,” which we have seen far, far too much of in the last 8 years. It’s a move in the right direction.

But I want to go on the record here as saying that I strongly disagree with Warren’s views on the nature of homosexuality & how society should treat homosexuals.

The arguments that allowing gays to marry is a “slippery slope” - “what’s next? man marries sheep?” - are ludicrous. How many people have you seen advocating their right to marry a sheep?

But Etheridge gets closer to what I believe is the truth in the matter, & why I’m confident that by the time I leave this mortal coil gays as a whole will be more a part of the American mosaic is this:

“Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.”

It has long been my experience that a person who doesn’t know anyone who is gay is far more likely to be “homophobic” than someone who does.

I hope it doesn’t surprise you that a number of homosexuals work at NewsChannel9. & I also hope it doesn’t surprise you that these employees orientation is accepted & treated as no big deal. Know why? Because each of these individuals are individuals. Just like you & me, they come down with colds .. wonder what they’re going to have for dinner .. complain about high gas prices .. etc, etc, etc. Thinking about a gay person’s sexuality comes into play in the workplace about as much as thinking about a straight person’s sexuality - meaning, it pretty much doesn’t. & that tolerance is no accident - it’s because exposure to people who favor their own gender demonstrates to you on a daily basis not their differences, but their similarities to you in many, many ways.

That’s my take, & you’re free to disagree with me in the comments. But this is all to say that while I did vote for Obama, & disagree with Rick Warren’s stance on homosexuality, all Americans with all viewpoints deserve a seat at the table.

It’s a move in the right direction.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

[Above: me before the tree, Christmas Day, 1977. photo by my father]

I’ve celebrated Christmas as long as I can remember.

But there’s a part of the season these days that always bums me out, & that is people who try to make a point of saying “Merry Christmas.”

Now, I’ve long been a believer of the phrase “Merry Christmas.” As a writer for a newscast, I’ve tried to evenly & fairly distribute the words “Christmas” & “holidays.”

“Making out your Christmas list…”

“Doing their holiday shopping..”

etc.

I’ve never made a concerted effort to use only one phrase or the other.

And it absolutely drives me CRAZY to hear ads (& oh, do we ever hear a lot of ads in this business) that constantly do the watered-down Kool-Aid “Happy Holidays.”

A lot of folks have interpreted the actions of corporate culture as an actual assault on their Christian culture.

“I don’t know, I guess people are trying to be politically correct, but I don’t know what’s wrong with saying “Merry Christmas!”

The mayor of Cleveland, Tennessee even gave one of our reporters a button that said that. “We think it’s okay to say ‘Merry Christmas!’”

Well, listen.

I have a distaste for political correctness as much as the next person.. which is why, to the folks who think there’s a “War on Christmas,” I say:

You’re the ones who are over-the-top politically correct here.

You are the ones thrusting your victimhood on the rest of us, who just want to celebrate the season in peace.

Ask yourself: have you personally spoken with someone who says they feel uncomfortable when someone says ‘Merry Christmas’ to them? I would bet dollars to donuts that your answer is ‘no.’

Your anger (if you need to feel anger during the season, which, in my view, you shouldn’t) should be directed at the corporate culture, which is (wrongly) diluting the message in an effort to get every last dollar it can, as opposed to some non-Christian ‘boogeyman’ who’s trying to ruin your holiday.

Think you should say ‘Merry Christmas?’

Then say it! & be done with it!

The only person who has the power to ruin your holiday is the person you see in the mirror.

The last straw for me, in this ‘dumb controversy’ came with this story:

“For a second year, the grassroots campaign of five Ohio women to urge people to eschew “Happy Holidays” and instead opt for “Merry Christmas” is under way.

“I don’t know why it’s politically incorrect to say ‘Merry Christmas,’ ” said Joanne Brown of Poland, Ohio.

Members of the small group, all from northeast Ohio, say they want people to know it’s OK to say “Merry Christmas.” Last holiday season they raised $2,800 to put up four billboards to reverse what they claim is a negative trend.

The red and white signs carried the messages “I miss hearing you say Merry Christmas” and “Why have you stopped saying Merry Christmas?” Both were signed, “Jesus.”

…

Between 2007 and 2008, the “Merry Christmas Billboard Ladies” have taken in around $6,000 in donations — enough for seven billboards, according to the Youngstown Vindicator.”

.

$6,000.

A recent survey found that the average American family is spending $616 on Christmas this year.

So that means - let’s be drastic here, & cut that avg. cost in half - the money raised for these stupid billboards could have provided a Christmas to almost 20 needy families.

I find that obscene.

& what do you think Jesus would say to the women above?

It’s my belief that He would say “why are you wasting this money when people need help?”

Researching this story, I found this sermon from a Lutheran minister in Texas from 2006, that I think illustrates my point:

“…there are different kinds of power, most of them are quiet, unassuming, and actually more powerful. Jesus did not seek the limelight, he did not seek to be first, or popular, or influential. He didn’t try to get to some level of achievement and then use his power. He worked from wherever he was, to do whatever he could. On the road, in a person’s home, down by the lake. He used his power and made a difference in the inconspicuous places.

Someone once asked Leonard Bernstein, the celebrated orchestra conductor, “what is the hardest instrument to play?” Without a moment’s hesitation he replied, “Second fiddle. I can always get plenty of first violinists. But to find one who plays second violin with as much enthusiasm, or second French horn, or second flute, now that’s a problem! And yet if no one plays second, we have no harmony.” Think about that for a minute. The ones who make the music have harmony, are the second violins, second flutes, second French horns. They are the ones with the power to make the music what it is. Without them, there is no spine-tingling richness, no drama, no resolution of chords.”

What’s more, 2nd fiddles don’t feel the need to put up billboards or hand out buttons.

Anyway, kids, that’s the story of the dumbest Christmas controversy of them all. Rather than decry your victimhood, you should spread the true meaning of Christmas by reaching out to help those less fortunate than you.

Merry Christmas, etc. from Vote08

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

To his credit, Zach Wamp did not follow others in his party in attacking Obama’s past cocaine use during the presidential campaign.

You’re about to learn the reason why.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Rep. Zach Wamp is looking to defuse the political impact of a past that included a cocaine addiction by emphasizing a “second chance at life” he received after he quit using drugs 25 years ago.

Wamp, a Chattanooga Republican who wants to run for governor in 2010 if former Senate Majority Leader Bill First stays out of the race, brought up his past early in a speech to a Republican gathering in Nashville last week.
He told the group he partied too much when he got to college and that he “crashed and almost burned.” But Wamp managed to kick his drug and alcohol habit and was elected to Congress about a decade later in 1994.
Wamp says he would use the governor’s office to advocate physical, mental and spiritual health - especially among Tennessee’s children.
.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

George Will:

“Because liberals have been even less successful in competing with conservatives on talk radio than Detroit has been in competing with its rivals, liberals are seeking intellectual protectionism in the form of regulations that suppress ideological rivals. If liberals advertise their illiberalism by reimposing the fairness doctrine, the Supreme Court might revisit its 1969 ruling that the fairness doctrine is constitutional. The court probably would dismay reactionary liberals by reversing that decision on the ground that the world has changed vastly, pertinently and for the better. [...]

If reactionary liberals, unsatisfied with dominating the mainstream media, academia and Hollywood, were competitive on talk radio, they would be uninterested in reviving the fairness doctrine. Having so sullied liberalism’s name that they have taken to calling themselves progressives, liberals are now ruining the reputation of reactionaries, which really is unfair.”

Steve Benen reiterates my thoughts on this non-issue from last week:

“I haven’t the foggiest idea what compelled George Will to write such nonsense. It’s not only ridiculous, it neglects to mention to the reader that no one is seriously trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

TNR’s Marin Cogan recently wrote a great piece, noting that she couldn’t find anyone on the left who really wants to reinstate the policy. Cogan explained, “The prospect of being in the opposition often brings out the worst in conservatives — paranoia and self-pity.”

In fact, Will ignores the point, because it would make his column appear ridiculous, but let’s keep in mind that Barack Obama doesn’t want to see the Fairness Doctrine brought back, and both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have said this isn’t going anywhere in either chamber of Congress. We’re talking about a liberal campaign that exists only in the overactive imaginations of paranoid conservatives.”

.

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

From ScotusBlog, which keeps track of recent actions on the nation’s highest court:

In a brief order, the Court, as expected, turned aside a New Jersey voter’s plea for the Court to determine if President-elect Barack Obama was qualified to run for the White House — that is whether he was a “natural born citizen.” The stay application came in the case of Donofrio v. Wells, Secretary of State of New Jersey (08A407). This marked the second time in recent weeks for the Court to turn aside such a challenge; the first came on Nov. 3, in Berg v. Obama (08A391). The Court, in neither instance, gave reasons for turning down the applications. In neither case did the Court seek a reponse, thus indicating it had little interest in either or had found them to be completely without merit.”

Emphasis mine.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

“President-elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn’t pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better.

Demonization, guilt by association, and the politics of fear did not triumph, not this time. Let’s hope they never will again. And let’s hope we might now assert that in our wildly diverse society, talking and listening to the widest range of people is not a sin, but a virtue.” - GOP whipping boy Bill Ayers, on his “relationship” with Barack Obama, in today’s New York Times

Personally, I think Bill Ayers would love to think he’s more important/relevant than he actually is, yet still hasn’t –not by a long shot– come to terms with the implications of his past activities.

But despite that, to say that the GOP inflated his importance in this past election would be an understatement.

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

The leftward blog Crooks & Liars is using several examples of hateful, divisive speech overheard on talk radio to (apparently) make a case for why we need to see a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

(Read about the Fairness Doctrine’s history here.)

I have some recommendations & thoughts for both sides of this debate:

This whole debate is stupid & pointless.

1. If you find yourself offended by what you hear on the radio, who or what is stopping you from changing the channel?

2. Whatever program a radio station airs is based on conditions in the marketplace, not on an idea of ‘balance’ or ‘fairness.’ A station will more often than not keep or drop a particular radio program based on its ratings, not on the content of any particular host.

3. To those who spout this fear that the Fairness Doctrine is coming back (Mark Levin is one I hear bring this up quite a bit) or those who constantly gripe about ‘bias in the media’ - you, in my eyes, are no different or better than those who complain about the vitriol on right-wing radio.

4. Boy was this debate ever relevant, say, 20 years ago. Look around you. The internet has revolutionized what we think of as ‘media.’ Do you honestly think that the government is capable enough to pull off imposing some kind of restrictions on the internet in any remotely efficacious way? I didn’t think so.

4a. & that’s why this whole argument is so, so moot. The internet is the great equalizer. That has a far greater impact than any government attempt to regulate ‘fairness’ on the (old or new) airwaves, TV, radio or the internet. Don’t like what you hear, see or read? Start your own radio station! Think the media’s biased? Then get your own website & tell it like it is! Come on in, the water’s fine.

There is a literal mountain of issues that deserve far more attention right now. Let’s put this ‘dumb controversy to bed,’ OK?

Here’s a blog dedicated to keeping the Fairness Doctrine from returning.

FURTHER READING: Michael Medved has a piece in USA Today that challenges an entrenched conservative talk radio subculture:

“The great power of the medium involved its ability to change minds — but that requires drawing significant numbers of listeners who don’t already agree with you.

Some radio stars view media debate as a form of warfare, though the ultimate purpose of war involves the total destruction of the enemy. The most effective broadcasters in the Obama Era won’t try to destroy anybody. But we should make an impassioned effort to convince everybody.”

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

From the LA Times:

“The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen,” Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. “Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression.”

Apparently the tanking of the real estate market, record losses in the auto industry, and massive failures in the banking and investment industry have very little to do with our problems. The economic system is collapsing, Rush wants us to know, because it anticipates the tax increases Obama has pledged on capital gains and for the highest income earners.

But maybe that shouldn’t be so surprising, because radio’s Biggest Big Man also assures us that the Democrat welcomes “economic chaos” because it gives him “greater opportunity for expanded government.” In a time when the nation calls out for cool leadership and rational discussion, Limbaugh stirs the caldron, a tendency he proved in a particularly grotesque way last week when he accused Obama’s party of plotting a government takeover of 401(k) retirement plans.

“They’re going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is,” Limbaugh woofed. “Trust fund, my rear end.”

A slight problem with Limbaugh’s report: Obama and the Democrats have proposed no such thing.

The proposal, in fact, emanated from a single economist, one of many experts testifying to a congressional committee.

The president-elect has thus far shown as much interest in taking over your 401(k) as he has in moving the capital to Nairobi. (If you look hard, you might find that one somewhere out there in the blogosphere, too.)

To broadcast such a report — so drained of context as to constitute a lie — would be a shameless act at any time. But Limbaugh needlessly stirred the fears of the millions he holds in his thrall — making the 401(k) thievery sound like nearly a done deal. Shameless.

As any former addict will tell you, the 1st step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. When Rush starts recognizing the reasons his party - on its own - lost this year, rather than pointing the finger of blame, we’ll know his recovery has begun.

& not to worry - I’ll be listening.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

In the past two weeks, this is hands-down the most frequently raised “rumor” about Barack Obama that I’ve gotten from callers - & today an e-mailer, who wants us “to look into this birth certificate” question.

It’s extremely easy to punch holes in the logic of this argument, & in addition to the Clinton reason (see below) I’d also like to ask you to ask yourself: if it’s true, why isn’t John McCain shouting it from the rooftops?

Tenika, a Vote08 commenter, writes:

Came across a web site that details a suit that has been filed by an attorney, with the defendant being Barack Obama, his aliases, and the Democratic national Committee among others. The suit claims Obama is not eligible to run for office. Here is the web site:

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

Wonder why the media isn’t all over this one?”

Because, Tenika, the claims that Obama is not a true natural-born citizen has been proven to be false.

Read more on the topic at Snopes.com here & here.

Snopes is a site that we at NewsChannel9 constantly check to verify an e-mail rumor. It has not let us down yet. & while I check the site for truth-telling about the presidential campaign, it’s also a valuable resource for finding the truth in non-political claims. We stake our reputation on it.

Here’s another point to ponder on this topic, though. I think all sides of the political spectrum can agree that Hillary Clinton was relentless in her campaign to beat Obama in the primaries.

If this issue had any merit whatsoever, do you have any doubt that she would have used it back when she had a chance to win?

EARLIER ON VOTE08: “A Man, A Plan, McCain, Panama” (March 19th) - a post that looks at the invalidity of similar claims against McCain - that he’s not a natural born citizen because he was born near the Panama Canal.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Simply put:

No.

& I’m speaking as a person who has faithfully watched her weekly wrapup of political news on PBS, “Washington Week in Review,” for the past several years.

Conservatives are targeting a book Ifill plans to publish on election day, which is called “The Breakthrough: Politics & Race in the Age of Obama.”

Many critics, I suspect, think the title alone is da(rn)ing enough.

But - again, as someone who’s been an Ifill fan for years - I have to tell you that if there’s anything she’s most passionate about, it’s the political process in general.

“Washington Week in Review” has always been a great behind-the-scenes account of the week’s developments, & it has far more to do with what forces are at work & why than it has “who won” or “this guy’s better.” I suspect that anyone criticizing her hasn’t taken the time to actually check out Ifill’s television career.

Gwen Ifill is no Sean Hannity.

& Gwen Ifill is also no Keith Olbermann.

The latest wire copy on this story reveals that the man at the top of the GOP ticket has no concerns:

GWEN IFILL: CONSERVATIVES QUESTION IMPARTIALITY FOR DEBATE
NEW YORK (AP) - Gwen Ifill says anyone who thinks she might be biased in some way toward Barack Obama’s campaign should watch tonight’s vice presidential debate and see whether she is doing a balanced job. The PBS journalist will moderate tonight’s debate between Democrat Joe Biden (BY’-dehn) and Republican Sarah Palin tonight in St. Louis. Some conservative bloggers have been complaining that she may not be fair to the GOP because she’s writing a book that contains material on Barack Obama. Ifill says she hasn’t even written her chapter on Obama for the book, which isn’t due out until well after the election. Ifill says has a long track record in journalism and that should speak for itself. In an interview with Fox News, John McCain didn’t seem worried about any bias. He said Ifill is “a highly respected professional” who “will do a completely objective job” moderating the debate.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Like many controversies of this sort, we can glean far more about the accuser than the accused.

To wit:

1. Conservatives are nervous about Palin’s upcoming performance. But if you believe she’s the right candidate for the job & can hold her own, you should not be afraid that she’ll wilt at the first sight of a tough question.

2. Conservatives are trying to keep Ifill from being tough. See point #1.

3. The plans for this book have been out for weeks, so it’s suspect that this all-of-a-sudden is an issue 48 hours before the debate.

4. This has been denied by many conservative commentators, & I’ll take them at their word, but it’s undeniable that Ifill’s race is a subtext of this whole controversy. “Why, she’s black - why wouldn’t she vote for Obama?” This is similar to those who would never vote for a black person being able to conveniently cover up their prejudice by asserting (falsely) that Obama is a muslim. As far as I can see, the topic of her yet-to-be-released book seems to be more of a recognition of how far politics & race have come since the Civil Rights era. Why is it wrong to write a book about that?

5. I watched PBS exclusively during the conventions. Ifill was all over the place, & was equally fair, gracious & probing of people from both sides of the aisle. The woman is a fair journalist, & I stake my 15-year reputation as a NewsChannel9 producer on it.

6. Don’t think for a second that Ifill thinks she’d be able to get away with demonstrating any biases she has going into this debate. It’ll probably garner more viewers than the 1st presidential debate did. & average viewers can sniff out bias a mile away - take it from me.

Once again, to Palin supporters: have confidence that your candidate will be able to handle Ifill’s questions, regardless of what you think her biases might be.

& I confess I have to agree with Marc Ambinder, who writes:

Come one, come all, as the media chases this story down the rabbit hole.

It’s a little bit depressing. And predictable.

Smearing a journalist for the sake of smearing a journalist. Guilt-by-racial association.

Gwen Ifill seems to be writing a legit book… its title reflects an undeniable truth: Obama heralds — and represents — the new black political power structure.

Covering this as a “Republicans worry that” versus “media defends” story isn’t intellectually honest. Republicans aren’t actually worrying. They’re pretending to worry in order to divert attention from the content of tomorrow night’s debate.

The proper response of Ifill’s friends should be eye-rolling, not defensive-crouching, as the latter just feeds the conflict even more.

And it’s kind of insulting to Gov. Palin… as if she’s going to crumple in the face of a moderator who might not be sympathetic. I’ve been watching previous debates. Palin can handle a tough moderator.

Democrats can be guilty of this sort of thing too — in a way, the Ifill-mania is just a more egregious version of working the refs, but Republicans have patented this art.”

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Tenika, a Vote08 commenter, writes:

Came across a web site that details a suit that has been filed by an attorney, with the defendant being Barack Obama, his aliases, and the Democratic national Committee among others. The suit claims Obama is not eligible to run for office. Here is the web site:

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

Wonder why the media isn’t all over this one?”

Because, Tenika, the claims that Obama is not a true natural-born citizen has been proven to be false.

Read more on the topic at Snopes.com here & here.

Snopes is a site that we at NewsChannel9 constantly check to verify an e-mail rumor. It has not let us down yet. & while I check the site for truth-telling about the presidential campaign, it’s also a valuable resource for finding the truth in non-political claims. We stake our reputation on it.

Here’s another point to ponder on this topic, though. I think all sides of the political spectrum can agree that Hillary Clinton was relentless in her campaign to beat Obama in the primaries.

If this issue had any merit whatsoever, do you have any doubt that she would have used it back when she had a chance to win?

EARLIER ON VOTE08: “A Man, A Plan, McCain, Panama” (March 19th) - a post that looks at the invalidity of similar claims against McCain - that he’s not a natural born citizen because he was born near the Panama Canal.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Way to go, Bill!

He’s 100% right in the clip above.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Well, do we all feel better now, as American voters?

Has the discourse of the political campaign gone where you want it to go?

A friend of mine said today “I haven’t felt this angry at the campaign [meaning the race in general] since Hillary Clinton made the RFK assassination gaffe.”

I’ve said all I wanted to say on the whole stupid “lipstick on a pig” topic here & here, but there’s one thing I’d like to add.

If I had a nickel for every time someone came up to me & said this, I’d be richer by $1:

“You know, when I heard that line from Obama, I thought, wow, he really slammed Sarah Palin! & then I looked up the full quote, & I realized that was not what he meant.”

Again, for the record, Obama said this:

“John McCain says he’s about change too and so I guess his whole angle is ‘watch out George Bush - except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education, policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics - we’re really gonna shake things up in Washington.’ that’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing, something different. But you know you can’t - you know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can (cheers) You can you can, wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after 8 years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing. It’s time to bring about real change to Washington. And that’s the choice you’ve got in this election.”

& yet the news media is only playing “you know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

The lessons to be learned here are

1. Context is everything.

2. Do your homework.

3. Pay attention.

No matter whom you support, the stakes are high.

& we all deserve better.

In honor of today (& at the behest of my boss), I’m inaugurating a new category: “Dumb Controversies.” Let’s hope I don’t have to use it much more.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

What do you think?

EARLIER on VOTE08: “Lipstick Lunacy“

ALSO: Is this “controversy” (using the term extremely loosely) damaging to Obama? Not if he plays it right:

“Obama can make this idiotic non-story work for him by repeating the line over and over again. As Mickey Kaus muses, in the extremely unlikely possibility that Obama intended people to think of Sarah Palin, the quip is deviously “brilliant” in “memorably undermining three of her central virtues at once… 1) Attractive 2) Anti-pork 3) Non-Bush anti-Washington reformer.” And I’ll add a more important 4) this may be the best opportunity Obama has to get the media talking about which candidate really does offer a change.

Think about it. All Obama needs to say is, “Recently I compared John McCain’s ideas about changing Washington to putting lipstick on a pig. John got all upset by this. Apparently he thinks putting lipstick on a pig is enough. I’ve tried to look at it from his perspective, but I’m sorry, all I’m still seeing is a pig. Now, if he wants to argue that you can put lipstick on a pig and make it not a pig, that’s a debate I’m happy to have.”

The folksy, self-parodying language is important, because it communicates to voters that Obama thinks this is a big joke, and he’s having fun with it, while still making a real point. If McCain and Palin respond to that by whining again about sexism, they’re going to look like thin-skinned, humorless, and cynical. Obama’s surrogates could hammer that home: “The idea that this has anything to do with women is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton is a tough leader. When John McCain used the exact same phrase about her, she didn’t throw a tantrum.”

Sensing that they’re losing traction, the McCain camp will have to shut up and move on. But Obama won’t let them. He’ll use the line every opportunity he gets, forcing the media to make “he’s still saying it” part of the story. And since the sexist angle will already have played out, maybe they’ll start arguing about whether McCain really is putting metaphorical lipstick on a metaphorical pig. Regardless of what they conclude, the fact that it’s been repeated over and over again on the news will trigger an automatic response in voters minds: When John McCain says “change” think “lipstick on a pig.”" - Daniel Radosh

FURTHERMORE!

I’ve had my ear to the ground trying to find out what folks who work here at the NewsChannel think about this story. The ones I was specifically interested in getting opinions from are a) not paying as close attention as I am to the race, b) female & c) generally undecided.

Here’s what I’ve heard:

“When I first heard it I thought, Shame on Obama. But after thinking about it a little I realized that he was using a metaphor, not referring to Palin.”

“Come on, give me a break. It’s not like their side hasn’t used that phrase.”

“I just see it as just another way to attack Obama. He wasn’t referring to Palin.”

What are you hearing about it? Post a comment!

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Goodness gracious, the GOP in the last 12 hours have been in a tizzy! & all over the use of the word lipstick? Give me a break.

Let’s start from Sarah Palin’s line in her convention speech:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Flash-forward to yesterday, when Obama used this line on the campaign trail:

Click here to view the embedded video.


I didn’t realize the phrase “lipstick on a pig” is now off-limits.

It’s certainly a phrase that the current nominee has used in reference to Hillary Clinton in the past:

Click here to view the embedded video.

& of course the right wing has had no problem whatsoever making further connections to Hillary’s supposed ‘porcine’ roots:

So what gives? I thought the GOP was supposed to be against political correctness!

Palin supporters, it’s time to make a choice, because you can’t have it both ways.

EITHER

Sarah Palin is a victim of sexism on the campaign trail, & her opponents are shameless in exploiting it!

OR

Like Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin deserves to be treated just like the big boys on the campaign trail, & that means attacks on her are fair game.

& no, I don’t view this ‘lipstick’ line as a slam against her. If the tables were turned, & it was Obama & a female running mate campaigning after two terms of an unpopular Democratic president, do you think McCain would hesitate to use the ‘lipstick on a pig line?’ Watch his clip above one more time before you answer that question.

Also, let’s see.. is the U.S. economy still doing poorly? Yes.

Is Osama bin Laden still alive? Yes.

Could I go on about what issues are really important in the campaign? Yes.

Here’s hoping both sides can get back to discussing the future of our country.

I can’t wait to hear what you think about it! So post a comment now! All viewpoints are welcome (including those that disagree with what I’ve written above!)!

UPDATE:

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) - Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is accusing John McCain’s campaign of “lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics” in claiming he had made a sexist comment against vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
Obama on Wednesday called the Republicans’ criticism of his use of the phrase “lipstick on a pig” a “made-up controversy.”
On a campaign stop Tuesday, Obama criticized McCain economic policies as more of the same from the Bush administration. He said: “You can put lipstick on a pig … it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still going to stink after eight years.”
McCain’s campaign has accused Obama of “smearing” Palin in “offensive and disgraceful” comments.

UPDATE#2: Watch his comments here.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

On the stump in Pennsylvania, a voter asked Barack Obama about what he was doing in the picture above.

Read the full “pool report” after the jump.

Hat-tip to Time magazine’s “the Page:”

EVENT: Obama Stop at the Heidelberg Family Restaurant (Robesonia, PA)

Lots of color from Sen. Barack Obama’s stop at the Heidelberg Family Restaurant this Sunday morning, but most interesting was an exchange he had with Republican Margaret Miller, 66, of Newmanstown.

She and her husband Warren were some of the last people Obama greeted during his 35-minute visit (some fun color from that below). Mrs. Miller told Obama she wanted to ask him one question.

“May I ask you a question? I’m going to ask you why you didn’t salute the flag,” she said.

“That isn’t true,” he said, explaining the “e-mail that’s being sent around” (featuring a photo from Tom Harkin’s Steak Fry in Iowa last summer) is inaccurate when it claims he was dissing the stars and stripes.

“What happened was, we were singing the star-spangled banner and the flag wasn’t in front of me, the flag was behind me,” he said, adding that he was was looking at the singer and that he “always” honors the flag.

“I had to ask,” Miller said.

Mr. Miller told Obama he was “disturbed” by new gun control passed in Philly, and the senator responded the city has “a real problem” with gun violence and “We’ve got to get better background checks.”

Obama said it was nice to meet them, then told the Millers, “God bless you,” before moving on to the next table.

Later, Mrs. Miller told your pooler she had seen the flag photo on TV and that she was satisfied with Obama’s answer: “If it’s true, I’m alright.”

Still, “I won’t vote for a Democrat,” she said.

Mr. Miller said he prefers Obama over Sen. Hillary Clinton but also is a Republican.

“I’m a Christian and I have to go with the person that holds those things, because I feel that the Lord will put in who he wants. I don’t see any of them that are really serving our country the way we need it to be served,” Mrs. Miller told the pool.

Other newsy items - Obama greeted each diner patron, apologizing to most for the “fuss” and for interrupting their breakfasts. There was a bit of a fuss as the pool was shuffled around tables and behind the counter at the order of Secret Service, as Obama staffers tried to get us out of the way of the waitresses scrambling to deliver breakfast orders.

He asked nearly everyone their name, what they do for work, and questions such as “how is business these days.” Several voters brought up high gas prices.

Milford Hauck, also of Newmanstown, greeted Obama, who asked if he and his wife had come from church. Obama told him he had just come from the church in Lebanon and Hauck responded he was “glad to see you believe in the church.” Carolyn Hauck said she will vote for Obama Tuesday.

What do you think? Post a comment right now!

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Here we go again. A man in Nashua, New Hampshire has filed a lawsuit claiming that John McCain was a naturalized citizen because he was born back in 1919 (or whenever, we’re not checking) at a military base near the Panama Canal.

From the article:

Fred Hollander’s suit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court, asks a judge to order McCain to withdraw, and the GOP to nominate someone else. The Constitution requires that only “natural born” citizens hold the presidency, a term on which the Founding Fathers did not elaborate. A McCain campaign spokeswoman says the issue was raised in 2000, when McCain last ran for president, and it was deemed ridiculous. New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen declined to comment on the merits of Hollander’s arguments, but said, “We appreciate Mr. Hollander reminding voters that Senator McCain’s family has been in service to this nation since literally the day John McCain was born.” The “natural born” question has surfaced before, but has never been decided definitively by U.S. courts. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican nominee for President, was born in Arizona three years before it became a state, but lost the general election to John F. Kennedy.

Folks, give this issue a rest. It’s highly likely that any court looking at this issue will rule in McCain’s favor; otherwise, what kind of message does that send to the children of U.S. military members serving around the world? That their children don’t deserve to be eligible for the nation’s highest office? Please.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Time to hear from you!

LOVES FEEDBACK & COMMENTS! & they’re coming in more frequently. We sincerely appreciate it.

After the jump, a look at what some of you have said about topics brought up in our recent posts. Feel free to comment on these comments!

Geraldine Ferraro matters about as much as Michael Dukakis. Or Dan Quayle. -Melydia
I am a calm rational person and still support Sen. Thompson. If you MSM blowhards keep bringing up his name(whether a childish poke or ignorant bliss) then it sounds like Sen. Thompson made an impact that you just can’t let go of. The “dumb masses” of America are left with their plate and have to swallow what is there. Months worth of primaries instead of one SUPER Tuesday and this is what we are left with?no thank you GOP! -Ray
I run a blog that is aimed at the urban crowd and as a black man I’d like to go on record saying I don’t think Geraldine Ferraro is racist at all. At least not in the way we generally think of a racist. She see Barack being black as an advantage and not a disadvatage. In a way she is right. His race does get him noticed but in all honesty it is not going to help him get elected at all. One of the other writers over at Highbrid Nation says Geraldine Ferraro is evil not racist, lol. He might not be too far off. - Mike Belgrove
I think that she would probably not be in politics personally if she weren’t married to Bill Clinton. Law, yes, politics, no. I think that if she is the nominee, her marriage to a former president will be more of a liability and an asset. I worry that he will be sticking his nose in issues and unable to allow her to lead on her own. Not because she is a woman, but because Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton. This is from someone who voted for him twice-we do not need him back in the White House, especially in a quasi role. I think Hillary is an independent thinker and is capable of doing things on her own, and I have respected her for it. However, I think she is the wrong candidate for the Dems because she has so much baggage from when her husband was in office. -Liz
I truly want Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee. I think he is the only person who can bring America together. I don’t want to fight with people on the other side. I am FED UP with the bitter partisanship in Washington. I think the Super Delegates know that Obama has brought out people and would bring them to the election. If Hillary doesn’t stop her attacks on Obama, I can see someone challenging her when she somes up for Senate re-election in 2004. -Elizabeth Anderson
In reply to the Clinton’s ad: “It’s 3 AM and the phone is ringing. Is it the president’s husband calling for a ride home?”Someday whoever gets elected president is going to have to act like a grownup. Ask yourself, “Which candidate do I want to act as an adult in the White House?” -Jim
It seems that we have already seen what Clinton can do with the health care plan that she was in charge of when her husband was the president. It really made a mess of everything and nothing got done then. She can’t do all she wants to do because she doesn’t let other people help also. -Margaret
Huckabee as the vice-president would help McCain become the President in November. -Lee
Yessir! Sonny Perdue would make a great counterbalance to Captain John McCain’s (play on words here, RE: Captain Queeg.) When things were uptight, call in Sonny. When The Captain was in the middle of a flashback, get Sonny to throw him to the floor and knock some sense into him.Republicans a minority in the Senate? Sonny could let ‘em have it with his gavel from the high chair. If Hillary got to talking “down-home drawl” with him, Sonny could “out down-home” her in an instant.Problems with the Senate Majority Leader? Let’s go quail huntin’! “Be sure to wear your hunter orange so’s I can see you.”…And there’s nothing better than grits and gravy served to a Yankee-transplant-mainstream-media-feller.All this in a Southern Republican! How sweet it is! (Or would be…) -Jim
Thanks again to all who are making the what it is! & keep those comments coming! This is a platform for your voice just as much as anyone else!

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

It’s a sourdough roll filled with salami, roast beef, provolone and pepperoncini.

Fitting, as Geraldine Ferraro provided quite a bit of red meat for the Obama campaign earlier this week, in a news cycle that ended late yesterday (see post below this one).

has some links to what (if any) fallout there is for both the Clinton & Obama campaigns, & the Democratic party for the general election, after the jump.

In case you need catching up, the New York Times has the latest on the Ferraro brouhaha here.

Ferraro spoke with Ann Curry on NBC last night shortly after her resignation:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Obama was featured on Good Morning America talking about the issue this morning.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Turnabout’s fair play. The always-readable Karen Tumulty of Time Magazine puts the magnifying glass on exactly how much “experience” Hillary Clinton gained by being First Lady for 8 years.

Reactions from certain circles of the Democratic party were of shock & horror. Eric Deggans“If Clinton wins this way — basically encouraging working class white people and women to turn on Obama through race-based attacks — the young people and black folks who were so excited about this election will stay home in November and John McCain will be president. Because nobody plays wedge issues and the fear game like the Republicans.” writes,

There’s also this 9-minute tirade from Keith Olbermann from last night:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Ferraro does have her defenders. Slate’s Mickey Kaus writes “Why doesn’t Obama just say: “I think being black helps me in some ways, and hurts me in others. I’m running on my record, on the issues, on my ability to do the best job as President for all Americans, etc.”–and tell his campaign aides to leave it at that?”

Does this controversy put a damper on the supposed “Democratic Dream Team” rhetoric? David Broder of the Washington Post argues here that it had no chance of happening anyway.

& Republicans in all this? Loving every moment of it, of course! Another win for the party, as this whole issue of race was raised without them having to step into it themselves later this year. RedState writes, “..you know what? This makes me happy. Were the GOP to do something like this, the media would be screaming racism. They will never, however, say that about the Clintons — or at least not too loudly. That would shatter their well built myth that the GOP gets ahead by playing on racial fears, when in fact that’s the playbook for the DNC.”

What do you think? Time for your voice to be heard - regardless of your race or gender! Post a comment!

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08