Completely Unnecessary

You know, I was really thought the best part of election night was the promise of never hearing from Sarah Palin again.

It seems I was wrong - as the McCain camp is going to try like hell to lay his political disaster at her feet. (Plus, she wanted to give her own concession speech - ick).

So, now, we’re going to have days - if not weeks - of back and forth. This means we’re going to have to keep hearing from Sarah Palin, since objectivity demands right of response.

And some of the allegations are pretty absurd - that she didn’t know Africa was a continent or the three countries of NAFTA. Her response to that was pretty smart, actually:

Asked about the Fox report that she did not know the NAFTA members or that Africa was a continent, Palin said, “If they’re an unnamed source, that says it all. I won’t comment on anyone’s gossip based on anonymous sources. That’s kind of a small of a bitter type of person who anonymously would charge that I didn’t know an answer to a question. So until I know who’s talking about it, I won’t have a comment on a false allegation.”

But what I find interesting - and, god help me, I’m defending Sarah Palin - is the type of Palin quotes the media prints. General journalistic practice is to ‘clean up’ colloquialisms and misspeaks. There have been numerous debates during the Bush II presidency over just how much clean up is appropriate, given his frequent mangling of the English language.

The idea is that politicians often speak off the cuff, and this sometimes makes their sentence structure awkward for print media. With Palin, however, the print media seems content to leave clean up alone.

ABC used these quotes:

“I don’t think anybody should give Sarah Palin that much credit, that I would trump an economic, woeful time in this nation that occurred about two months ago, that my presence on the ticket would trump the economic crisis that America found itself in a couple of months ago and attribute John McCain’s loss to me,” Palin told reporters in Arizona Wednesday.

“Now, having said that, if I cost John McCain even one vote, I’m sorry about that because John McCain I believe is the American hero. I had believed that it was his time. … He being so full of courage and wisdom and experience, that valor he just embodies, I believe he would’ve been the best pick, but that is not the Americans’ choice at this time.”

The first paragraph has a completely redundant clause, the repetition of which only makes her seem like an idiot. An ellipse after ‘credit’ and then picking up with, ‘that my presence…’ would have been sufficient. And I know they’re content using ellipses because they do it in the second paragraph.

As for that second paragraph, they’re doing two things. One is not helping her out with commas, such as around ‘I believe’, which would help readers break her sentences down. It reads as though it’s just pouring out of her mouth. Secondly, ‘He being so full of courage…’ should have been edited to start the sentence with ‘Being…’.

And I think it would have been edited if a different politician were being quoted.

Look, Sarah Palin is not particularly well-spoken. But if you transcribe the long, roundabout sentences used by most politicians - and I’m looking at you, Joe Biden - word for word, they all sound like idiots.

I’m not going to go so far as to accuse the media of belittling Palin in a sexist manner, but it’s clear they don’t like her. She’s going to be a punching bag for months - and she’s certainly earned some of it.

But Palin’s right, if she’s being accused of something, the media shouldn’t be attributing it to anonymous sources. The ABC story I’ve read doesn’t use a single attributed quote.

And most of the article is reporting on what other media outlets have reported with anonymous sources. It’s a media feedback loop - ABC reports what NYT and Newsweek reported, and, put through enough cycles, it’s legitimate news without ever having been attributed to a named source.

Obviously, the best way to deal with this is to ignore Sarah Palin and never interview or talk about her again.

Vaguely Related

• Brooks on Palin’s Debate Performance
• The Toxic Mess on Main Street - The VP Debate

I managed to read the announcement of a Grant Park rally on election night just before going to class today. I’m not usually much of a star-struck type (seeing Maxine McKew notwithstanding), but I was like, OMG!!!!! I am SO there!

It’s a bit embarrassing.

But in that tingly way.

Anyway - the election is just kind of saddening me at this point - what with the ‘terrorist’ chants, dead bears, Palin’s possible $150,000 wardrobe and the like.

It’s, like, time to vote already - let’s get on with it.

I suppose it’ll be interesting to see if Michelle Bachmann (R-MN6) loses her seat after the latest in a series of silly comments out of her.

And it was nice to see McCain supporters fight back against the racists in their midst (via Megan at Jezebel).

But, you know, Bush is still enacting annoying things like giving federal money to orgs that only hire people of one faith, despite that being totally against the rules.

And the media is focusing a lot on that Iraqi puppy, Rachet, and him going to his girl in MN. It’s a charming story, but the amount of money and press attention showered on a dog instead of, say, the Iraqi people or the troops is kind of depressing.

Well, that was useful. That got rid of some of the links in my browser. I swear some days that’s the only reason I blog - to clear out links that I’m too lazy to post to del.icio.us.

That’s how much you mean to me.

Oh, and since we’re soooo close - if you have a line on Obama tickets… yes, please!

Vaguely Related

• Palin Abuses Her Authority, McCain His Responsibility
• McCain Gets Lots Done Before Debate

I complain a lot about the gender-based coverage received by women candidates. Overly effusive physical description is one the most prevalent ways in which this gender-tagging occurs.

So, I feel it’s important to call out the media when they gender-tag men, too.

Levi Johnston - Bristol Palin’s fiance - isn’t a candidate, but is apparently important enough to interview.

Johnston is described first as ’soft-spoken’, a frequent gender-tag, but the AP’s Adam Goldman doesn’t stop there:

Johnston, a Wasilla heartthrob, said he wanted to set the record straight.
…
Johnston is an avid hunter. He’s dark haired, tall and muscular, sports a bit of stubble and drives a red Chevy Silverado truck. He’d be the perfect cover for Field & Stream.

Erhm, can someone check Goldman’s notebook for heart doodles? That’s insane.

This is one of the weirdest stories I’ve read in a while. The interview apparently occurred in Levi’s driveway, providing the reader with less of a portrait of Johnston, than concerns about the AP’s stalkiness.

And it’s written in a peculiar, extremely colloquial tone:

He’s bagged bears, sheep, elk, and caribou. Some of the antlers are scattered about his yard. Last July on a caribou hunt he lost a “promise” ring that Palin had given him. He said he decided to tattoo her name on the finger and not bother with more rings because he’d just lose them anyway.

Asked to describe his feeling about the Republican Convention, Johnston replied, “At first, I was nervous… Then I was like, ‘Whatever.’”

That feeling also seems abundant in his attitude toward the democratic process, of which he’s unwittingly become a part; Johnston did not register to vote in this year’s election.

Well, that’s what we learned in our ‘rare interview with The Associated Press’ - I just hope Johnston’s mother doesn’t have to call the Wasilla police to get Goldman off the lawn.

Vaguely Related

• The Toxic Mess on Main Street - The VP Debate
• Privacy and Publicity at the GOP Convention

Troopergate investigation finds ‘duh‘:

Gov. Sarah Palin abused the powers of her office by pressuring subordinates to try to get her former brother-in-law, a state trooper, fired, an investigation by the Alaska Legislature has concluded. The inquiry found, however, that she was within her right to dismiss her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, who was the trooper’s boss.

Meanwhile, more and more stories are coming in about the whipping up going on at McCain/Palin events - some of it bordering on race-baiting. In one particularly disturbing incident:

Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric’s questions for her “less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.” At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, “Sit down, boy.”

Megan at Jezebel has a good rundown (with link list at the bottom), so I won’t list them all here.

McCain and Palin have not discouraged this behavior from their supporters. Instead Obama’s campaign got the blame today:

McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers adds in another statement: “Barack Obama’s attacks on Americans who support John McCain reveal far more about him than they do about John McCain. It is clear that Barack Obama just doesn’t understand regular people and the issues they care about. He dismisses hardworking middle class Americans as clinging to guns and religion, while at the same time attacking average Americans at McCain rallies who are angry at Washington, Wall Street and the status quo.”

I’m not even sure that ‘irresponsible’ can describe this behavior (and the dog-whistle response). John McCain used to be better than this. He’s the head of his party and an authority figure; failure to denounce it is tantamount to endorsement.

If someone gets hurt - and I’m thinking most the media people at these events - it will be on McCain’s shoulders.

Vaguely Related

• Navigating the Sarah Palin Daughter Pregnancy Scandal
• Legitimate Concern on Palin

[Updated below.]

On the day the Wellstone Bill was finally signed into law, Minnesota’s making me nervous.

Today’s SurveyUSA poll shows McCain with a 1% lead in the Humphrey/Mondale state.

It’s only one percent, I know. Here’s why that troubles me: Al Franken has been making inroads into Norm Coleman’s lead in the Senate race, but hasn’t been able to close the gap.

The most recent polling has Coleman with a ten point lead on October 1. The race seems to be trending away from the Democrat, and McCain might be able to ride Coleman’s coattails.

Franken might not be the best candidate (he’s a comedian and has been hit or miss with the tone of his campaign), but it’s hard to argue against Minnesota being a changing state.

In 2000, Gore won handily and the state handed the Green Party a large enough percentage to get them on the ballot.

Then 2002 happened. Tim Pawlenty won the gubernatorial election after the progressive vote was split between three strong candidates: a Dem, a Green and an Independent. Wellstone died nine days before the election, and the combination of the backlash at the memorial and replacement candidate Mondale’s mild campaigning style handed Coleman the election.

Minnesota Dems have had six years to organise to win back Wellstone’s seat - and their lack of success in this department has more to do with a gradual reddening of the state than Franken alone, I’d argue.

Minnesota’s been making me nervous for awhile now, though I didn’t add it in to my maps the other day. McCain’s pulling out of Michigan is going to allow him to put more resources into Wisconsin and Minnesota.  Wisconsin polling (and its proximity to Illinois) makes it seem pretty safe, but I think it’s time to start looking at the map without Minnesota.

Luckily, it doesn’t factor so long as Obama wins VA, CO, MI and PA. That still brings in 272.

[I know that lots of other electoral math has Obama way up - well into the 300s. After 2000 and 2004, I'm just a nervous, glass-half-full kind of bunny. I'm trying to be very conservative in what I think Obama will win.]

It just shouldn’t be this close. I guess it’s more the symbolism of Minnesota - this is, after all, the only state to go Democratic in Reagan’s 1984 rout.

And it would prove the Republicans right about their ability to take the state - they had their convention there for the same reason we had ours in Denver.

Kind of makes you wonder what might have happened if McCain had chosen Pawlenty instead of Palin. Might have really changed up the map.

Update: 538 notes that a STrib poll has Franken up 9 points versus the SurveyUSA’s 10-point Coleman lead. Nate argues that both polls are untrustworthy. I’d say, it shows that MN is anybody’s guess.

Also, speaking of 538 - they’re arguing that one of Nebraska’s electoral votes might be in play. (Maine and Nebraska split their votes). That’s incredible to think about…

Vaguely Related

• As McCain Implodes, Think of a Senate 60
• This Week’s Historical and Vice Presidental Detritus

David Brooks weighs in on Palin’s debating techniques, and - as another testament to my studious work avoidance - I read his column.

Palin did great(ish), etc. Until:

With a bemused smile and a never-ending flow of words, she laid out her place on the ticket — as the fearless neighbor for the heartland bemused by the idiocies of Washington. Her perpetual smile served as foil to Biden’s senatorial seriousness.

I always have to look up ‘bemused’. I’m convinced that it should mean ‘vaguely confused amusement’, and fully expect that one day it will magically appear in the dictionary as such. So I keep looking.

Luckily, double clicking on any word on nyt.com brings up a definition of that word. So that’s how I know that, according to Brooks’ publication, Palin was:

So lost in thought as to be unaware of one’s surroundings: absent, absent-minded, abstracted, distrait, faraway, inattentive, preoccupied. Idioms: a million miles away. See ability/inability, awareness/unawareness.

Man, I agree with everyone these days!

Brooks goes on to ask, “Where was this woman was during her interview with Katie Couric?” Yes, because the antidote to ’senatorial seriousness’ is definitely what need on the Republican ticket - again.

And, finally, I can’t believe you’re going to make me go there, but all right:

…Palin broke no new ground, though she toured the landscape of McCain policy positions with surprising fluency… She was surprisingly forceful on the subject of Iran (pronouncing Ahmadinejad better than her running mate)…

If we’re really using pronunciation as the barometer of foreign policy depth, then her ‘mispronunciation’ of General McKiernan as “McClellan” certainly doesn’t bode well.

I mean, I don’t think it matters, but clearly Brooks must be worried about our policy in Afghanistan under a McCain/Palin Administration.

Dude, she can call Ahmadinejad ‘Joe SixPack’ for all I care, so long as she demonstrates an actual understanding of the world and its issues.

But - despite her folksy charm and well-rehearsed answers (and excellent pronunciation of words not ending in ‘g’) - that understanding is something she clearly lacks.

Vaguely Related

• The Toxic Mess on Main Street - The VP Debate
• Privacy and Publicity at the GOP Convention

Cathy rightly points out that Palin’s mic capture as she walked out on stage now totally makes sense.

The first thing she said was, “Can I call you Joe?” It must have been the set up for the ‘Say it ain’t so, Joe” line. Her handlers must have told her to ask so she wouldn’t sound insolent later.

Gawker is right to call that moment her ‘failed cute’ - as she tried to mix Black Sox baseball, Reagan and goshdearnitdagnabit. It’s clear that the thing was planned…. and then poorly-executed.

Oh yeah, and followed by a reference to Joe Biden’s wife going to Heaven. His second wife, of course. Ouch - way to not know anything about your opponent; I don’t think she’d be that crass.

Postscript - from the States (and deep into the scotch), Avi notes that ‘this election is a referendum on the collective intellect of America, for the rest of the world.’

Too true.

Vaguely Related

• This Week’s Historical and Vice Presidental Detritus
• The Toxic Mess on Main Street - The VP Debate

It’s affecting Wall Street.

What?

Well that was… interesting.

The one moment that really stood out - except for the Wall Street thing and the ‘our freedoms!’ - was Biden choking up talking about his son. It was the one moment of the debate that really seemed true and not prepared.

Speaking of prepared, you could really tell when Palin switched onto her talking points. Which was most of the time.

I loved her answer about whether or not John McCain supported what Obama and Biden want to do with home loans. She quickly said ‘no’ and then moved on to energy policy. I get the feeling she had no idea what McCain does or does not think about that plan.

She looked terrified at first, but held onto the third act of the debate pretty well. Joe Biden occasionally looked like he wanted to reach over and put his hands on her (and not in a sexy way), but - aside from one loud intake of breath and a ‘whaaa’ face during her answer about the surge strategy in Afghanistan - he kept it under control.

There’s an art to deflecting the question and answering what you wished you were asked, but Palin’s not very good at it. It’s supposed to be subtle, so that you don’t notice. Palin’s gear changes are not smooth - she more or less just blinked at the housing question and then launched into energy policy. I had my own ‘waaaa?’ face.

Gwen Ifill was maybe a little nervous about that whole book thing and accusations of bias on her part. She really didn’t follow up on a lot of questions or, for instance, make Sarah Palin actually answer what she was asked. I expected Ifill to be tougher. Oh well.

As for the closing arguments - erhm, what was that from Palin? She did such a good job of memorizing her talking points and then the close was… weird. I guess it’s because she really gave her close in the question before, but… oh look, whatever, Obama’s gonna win.

Oh yeah, I also really liked when she said, “John McCain’s the man we need to leave… lead.” I completely agree with the first part of that sentiment.

Vaguely Related

• Brooks on Palin’s Debate Performance
• Say It Ain’t So, Joe

Apparently John McCain has pulled out of Michigan - stopping both his TV and direct mail campaigns.

Michigan is still in the toss-up category on a lot of electoral sites, but I guess McCain’s internals show it a bit differently. 17 electoral votes is a lot concede with a month until the election. The morale inside the McCain camp must be terrible.

I’ve been playing with different scenarios that put Michigan in the red column, so it’s nice to know I don’t have to do that anymore.

No debate liveblog today - probably. (Dry your eyes). I’m out to the burbs for some pay tv action - no staid, informative SBS debate wrap up for me! No sir, I’m watching Wolf in all his glory. My debate day will have Beard!

To occupy yourself in the absence of my nonsense - try Palin Bingo.

Vaguely Related

• Palin and Couric - Sarah’s No Leo
• An Ode to Lieberman

Palin’s widely anticipated stuff up on Supreme Court cases aired tonight.

The governor believes Roe v Wade should be left to the states because she’s ‘a Federalist’, but also believes there’s an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution.

I’ll leave that contradiction aside because I don’t care about Palin’s stance on abortion (and her verbal roulette in that clip probably doesn’t explain it that well anyway).

The anticipation had to do with Couric’s follow up. Palin notably couldn’t think of any other Supreme Court cases with which she disagreed - other than nameless ones that should be left to the states.

But as Jezebel commenter, lacey in ak, points out, at least one decision should have occurred to the governor. Perhaps Palin might have remembered that she filed an amicus brief in Exxon v Baker and then released a statement complaining about the decision.

That last part happened in June.

In other news, in the Senate today the bailout was strangely attached to the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Bill. Ezra Klein explains:

Tax bills have to originate in the House of Representatives. But the current thinking is that the Senate should pass a bailout bill to increase pressure on the House. So they needed to find some piece of legislation that had already passed the House but had not yet passed the Senate.

The 25 Nay votes are a strange mishmash of Senators from both sides of the aisle. It’s probably not often that Russ Feingold finds himself voting with Brownback, Sessions and Inhofe. (Also means that Feingold voted against the Wellstone bill, which must have killed him.) Dole made a bid to hang onto her Senate seat with her ‘no’ vote - who knows if it’ll work.

And, finally, the corruption trial of Senator Ted Sevens (R-AK) continues apace. Today, friend and renovator, Bill Allen, testified that while Stevens asked for an invoice, it was clear that Allen should never bill the senator for work done to ‘the chalet’.

Apparently Allen and Stevens were such close friends that they:

used to go to “boot camp” in the desert Southwest - where they would walk around, eating little and drinking only wine, “trying to get some pounds off.” [ADN via Mudflats]

I have no idea.

(Sounds pretty awesome though…)

Vaguely Related

• Ted Stevens’ Trial - Already Amazing
• Palin and Couric - Sarah’s No Leo