SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.

--------------------------------------------- 

Our next subscription drive will be in October.  However, readers are invited to subscribe at any time.  Subscriptions are voluntary, but are critical to keeping us going.  Subscribe in the right-hand column.

--------------------------------------------

Answers to last week's "Current Question" are here.  The new "Current Question" is here, in the right-hand column.

--------------------------------------------

OUR AUDIO COMMENTARIES HAVE BEGUN.  TO LISTEN, GO HERE.

Our audio clip for today, October 2, is now up.

We will be blogging throughout tonight's vice-presidential debate.  The debate starts at 9 p.m. ET.  We'll start our commentary a little earlier. 

THURSDAY,  OCTOBER 2,  2008

UPDATE AT 11:14 P.M. ET:  I'm getting the sense that the Democrats realize they've had a bad night.  Sarah Palin redeemed herself, became the Sarah of the convention again, and connected with the average American.  I don't know what Tina Fey will do with this, but I'd like to find out. 

UPDATE AT 10:54 P.M. ET:  A Frank Luntz focus group at Fox gave the debate to Palin, and clearly was impressed by her.  Luntz said that the polls will change.  I'm feeling better about this. 

We'll now begin our blogging during the vice-presidential debate, which is taking place in St. Louis.

9 P.M. ET: The vice-presidential debate is about to begin.  We'll be on live.

9:05 P.M. ET:  Biden speaks first.  He attacks the economic policies of the Bush administration.  Apparently, there was no Congress.  I didn't know that. 

9:09 P.M. ET:  Sarah speaks.  Very fluid.  Doing well.  Makes a gentle attack on the Democrats.  Sounds informed.  A very different Sarah than we saw in interviews with anchor types.

9:13 P.M. ET:  Caught Biden sneering at Palin.  Not good.  But also not good that Palin ducks Biden's charges that McCain is an anti-regulation extremist. 

No one is winning this debate right now.  But Palin isn't losing it.  She's coming off as aggressive and reasonably knowledgeable.

9:20 P.M. ET:  Biden just gave a forceful statement on health care.  He was knowledgeable, if boring.  Can't deny that he knows his stuff.  But minute by minute, he's getting more aggressive, and I hope we see the obnoxious Biden pretty soon.

9:24 P.M. ET:  Sarah is holding her own.  She tends to avoid specifics, and to get vague, but she's forceful and confident.  However, the pattern of not answering questions specifically is starting to hurt.  Biden comes off as knowledgeable, but Palin comes off as more passionate and committed.

9:30 P.M. ET:  Sarah begins to falter.  She just won't deal with the issues presented by the moderator, and keeps going back to the subject she knows - energy.  The audience wil notice this, but she makes up for it with a fluid, confident approach.  I hope it works.

9:34 P.M. ET:  They're now dealing formally with energy.  Palin is knowledgeable, whereas Biden recites the global-warming mantra.  Palin is winning this one.  When she knows the subject, she's great.

9:41 P.M. ET: They're on foreign policy.  Palin gave a good answer on Iraq, and now Biden is speaking.  This is his area.  He speaks with authority.  But Sarah answers well.  She's holding her own on Biden's turf.  That's the key.  Palin is not embarrassing herself.  No one can laugh at her now.

9:52 P.M. ET:  Anyone familiar with the facts knows that Biden is stretching them on foreign-policy issues.  You'd think Barack Obama was a super hawk.  But Biden knows the details and Palin is not a great authority.  But again, Sarah isn't sinking.  Right now she's rambling a bit.  She went off the track just a little, and she seems in unfamiliar territory as they get into the subject of nuclear weapons.  I wish they'd get back on turf that she knows well.

Biden is winning this brief section of the debate because he knows so much.  He's pouring it on.  I have to admit that he's effective.  This is the weakest part of the debate for Sarah.

10:03 P.M. ET:  Biden's authority in foreign policy, despite an erratic and often disappointing record, is showing.  But Sarah is now striking back.  She hasn't got Biden's weight, but she's standing up well to the pressure. 

10:15 P.M. ET:  About 15 minutes to go.  The impressions have been set.  No one is winning, but Sarah - who's the main attraction - is coming off respectably.  I would imagine that polls might show Biden as the winner because, without question, he has a more authoritative image.  But Sarah has the ability to speak to the hearts of the average citizen.  Look, you just never know what impact she has.  Of the two people up there, she's the more fascinating.  You want to hear more from her.  Biden, very knowledgeable, sounds like a Washington pol.

10:25 P.M. ET:  The debate is winding down.  The characteristics of the candidates continue.  Biden knows his stuff, but is Washington.  Sarah doesn't have the details at hand, but has a sincerity and understanding of people.

Biden is now attacking McCain, and is effective.  On balance, he simply comes off as a pro, and we'll have to see how that plays.  As I've said, I think polls might show him as the winner because of that polish.  He's been around the block.  But Sarah is not disgracing herself.  The McCain campaign has not imploded tonight, which was the fear.

10:32 P.M. ET:  The final statements have been given.  Sarah was fine, but I'm afraid Biden was a little more polished.

QUESTION:  Were any minds changed tonight?  I doubt if there'll be any significant shifts.  I think Sarah was helped by a fluidity and sense of comfort.  Biden wasn't obnoxious.  Beyond that, let's wait for measurements of public opinion. 

FIGHT

Posted at 8:11 p.m. ET

Discussion-show host Mike Scully (http://WWW.WVOX.com) alerts us to an excellent piece by Peter Kirsanow at NRO Online's "The Corner."  Kirsanow shows how to put a little fight in the GOP, something that's lacking these days.  Like many conservatives, he's disgusted by the marshmallow behavior of his fellow Republicans:

The refrain from most of the GOP talking heads over the last twenty four hours concerning Gwen Ifill's role during the VP debate is that she's a fine journalist, who, now that the fact of her book is public knowledge, shouldn't be precluded from moderating the event. Heck, it may even work to Palin's advantage because Ifill will be under intense scrutiny to be fair and balanced.

This rationale points to the GOP's ( and, to some extent, conservatives') nearly wholesale capitulation to liberal media dominance and is one of the reasons the GOP base find themselves so frequently dispirited: no objection, no fight, no pushback to a howling conflict of interest.

Well said.

So many times we see Republicans act "gentlemanly" and turn the other cheek —to what end? It simply emboldens the media toward even greater bias. How does that serve the interests of the country? Democrat fingerprints are all over the current financial mess; Dodd and Frank were integral to the debacle, yet the GOP does nothing to counter the prevailing narrative that this is a McCain—House Republican problem—and McCain's poll numbers plummet.

The party has become, for some reason, pre-Reagan.  It will pay the price. 

The conclusion of McCain's convention speech exhorting us to "fight, fight, fight" has been quickly forgotten. There's no honor in failing to challenge brazen media bias and distortion.

But, you know, there are friends, Washington pals, some good reporters at lunch...

The GOP seems to depend on Rush Limbaugh to correct the record, and query where we'd be without him? But the GOP better start doing it's job and forthrightly, aggressively challenge blatant media transgressions each and every time they occur. The economy's at stake. Success in the war on terrorism is at stake. The Supreme Court is at stake. Do your duty. And part of that duty is not meekly surrendering to rank media bias.

And that's a rallying cry I can believe in.  Wake up, McCain crowd.

October 2, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 5:10 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:  Stocks fell sharply on Thursday as concerns about the tightening flow of credit and the worsening economy outweighed the prospects of a quick passage of the government’s bailout plan.

COMMENT:  The Dow was down 348 points.  The bailout is no cure-all.
 

POLLS

Posted at 4:43 p.m. ET

The four trackers out today tell the same story.  Slight gains for Obama, building on an already solid lead.  Rasmussen:  Obama up seven; Gallup:  Obama up five; Battleground:  Obama up five; Hotline:  Obama up five.  Other "standard" polls released in the last day or so have Obama up anywhere from three to nine points.

The situation is tough for McCain, but not impossible.  However, press bias is, in my view, playing a controlling role in the contest.  The press can keep a story alive or kill it, and it will keep the economic story alive, no matter what happens.  Should Sarah Palin do poorly tonight, that could be milked.  The press tastes blood, and wants more.  We have never had a situation quite like this. 

You get the sense that McCain is demoralized, having taken a body blow from the financial chaos, which, by coincidence I'm sure, happened to occur right at the moment when it could hurt him most.  When McCain gets demoralized, he stops fighting.  The wind is taken out of him.

The voter reaction to the economic convulsion is utterly irrational.  Democratic mortgage policies had far more to do with this trauma than Republican mismanagement.  Some of the "statesmen" in Congress who were applauded last night for their work on the bailout package were the same ones responsible for the mess.  But the media won't report it that way.

The Republican cause depends immediately on Sarah Palin.  A triumph by her tonight could restart the McCain effort.  And because the public would see it, the press couldn't do much to destroy it.  But a failure might be fatal. 

Tune in.  We'll be blogging throughout this crucial night.

October 2, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 4:28 P.M. ET:  From The Politico:  John McCain is pulling out of Michigan, according to two Republicans, a stunning move a month away from Election Day that indicates the difficulty Republicans are having in finding blue states to put in play.  McCain will go off TV in Michigan, stop dropping mail there and send most of his staff to more competitive states, including Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. Wisconsin went for Kerry in 2004, Ohio and Florida for Bush.

COMMENT:  Actually, Obama pulled out of a couple of states recently, and no one described it as a stunning move.  Michigan was always problematical.  It isn't only the economy, it's the Detroit vote.  This election is tough, but it's not over.  There's more than a month to go.

UPDATE AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  From The Politico:  Hours ahead of the vice presidential debate, Sen John McCain (R-Ariz.) criticized the selection of PBS' Gwen Ifill as moderator because she is writing a book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama."  “Frankly, I wish they had picked a moderator that isn’t writing a book favorable to Barack Obama — let's face it," McCain said on "Fox & Friends." "But I have to have to have confidence that Gwen Ifill will handle this as the professional journalist that she is. ..."

COMMENT:  Nice that McCain finally noticed there was a conflict of interest, in contrast to his pandering-to-Gwen statement yesterday.  And her professionalism is a bit of a joke.  She's an intense partisan who's misused her position for years. 

UPDATE AT 9:48 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen, just out, shows a seven-point lead for Obama, the largest ever Rasmussen has shown in this election year. McCain also scores his lowest favorability rating, 52 percent, since June. 

COMMENT:  The election is clearly Obama's to lose.  If present trends continue, and I hope they don't, he can have a landslide victory that will give him unprecedented momentum in January - a young, heady, inexperienced man becoming president at a critical point in our history, boosted to power by a press that will not criticize him.  The pressure on Sarah Palin, tonight, is enormous.

UPDATE AT 9:03 A.M. ET:  Some grim polling news.  The Battleground tracker, which had John McCain up two only four days ago, now has Obama up five, consistent with other polls.  I don't know what gives with this poll.  The swing of seven points in so short a time doesn't feel right.  I wonder if they're adjusting their methodology.  We'll await Rasmussen, about half hour from now.  (UPDATE:  Apparently Battleground has indeed adjusted its methodology, accounting for the change.  See here.  Thanks to reader Carl Hardwick for the alert.)

UPDATE AT 8 A.M. ET:  From Real Clear Politics.  The McCain people are pushing back on some of the latest, depressing polls:

McCain pushback on Florida polls: "Our polling shows us up 7. My guess is they over sampled blacks and under sampled Cubans.

McCain pushback on Q-polls: "These polls are laughable. We hope Obama thinks they're true. The national tracking is clear: Some polls have us down 2%, some 4, some as high as 6. How could you have national numbers like that, but have those kinds of numbers in three of the largest, most competitive states in the country? These states are bellwethers because they closely mirror national demographics. Given the volume of campaigning in those states, we expect that they are close to the national track - if not tighter."

At least someone in the McCain camp is fighting. 

THE MOMENT

Posted at 7:18 a.m. ET

We've said before at Urgent Agenda that the word "crisis" is overused.   Ronald Reagan used to ridicule the crisis-every-minute crowd, noting that most problems roll into a ditch long before they reach you. 

With that in mind, though, we have to be concerned about the current moment.  Today may well be the most important day of the current presidential race.  Sarah Palin's performance in tonight's debate may well determine whether John McCain's campaign can be relaunched again, as it was when she was first selected, or whether it will sink into mutual accusation, backbiting and fading numbers.  Never has the performance of a vice presidential choice been so crucial - largely because it reflects on the person who made that choice.  Expectations for Palin are low.  We hope for a surprise.  We need one.

It is perhaps symbolic of the absurdity of the moment that the proceedings will be presided over by one Gwen Ifill.  I'm reminded, as I am often, of Humphrey Bogart's line in Casablanca:  "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine."  Of Ifill we can say:  "Of all the journalists in all the news outlets in all the world, they picked her."  As we noted here yesterday, Ifill has a huge conflict of interest - she is publishing a book on inauguration day whose sales depend on Obama being elected.  And yet, she is chosen to moderate a debate that may determine if that result will occur.  As Greta Van Susteren wrote, in law that would cause a mistrial. 

And yet, the profession of journalism seems unconcerned about Ifill's conflict of interest, and Ifill's haughty dismissal of public concern - see yesterday's last story below, "Ms. Ifill Regrets" - is symbolic of the slipshod standards of our time.  Why couldn't they simply pick someone else to reassure us that the debates will be held to the highest standard, not the lowest?  The first person who should ask for a switch of moderators should be Barack Obama.  That would be change we can believe in.

This occurs against a backdrop of economic trauma.  It occurs against a din of threats, some of them dire, coming from abroad.  None seems as important to our journalistic guardians as whether Sarah Palin once accepted a small gift as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

Victor Davis Hanson, the resident historian of the age of terror, sums up brilliantly the condition in which we find ourselves.  With all due respect to the Gipper, some of these problems don't seem headed for any available ditch:

Ancient thinkers from Thucydides to Cicero insisted that money was the real source of military power and national influence. We've been reminded of that classical wisdom these last three weeks.

In a manner not seen since the Great Depression, Wall Street went into panic mode from too many bad debts. The symbolic pillars of American monetary strength for years -- AIG, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Shearson-Lehman and Washington Mutual -- in a matter of hours either went broke, were absorbed or were reconstituted. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed like the house of cards that they were.

And, the implications:

Allies trust that the United States is the ultimate guarantor of free communication and commerce -- and they want immediate reassurance that their old America will still be there. In contrast, opportunistic predators -- such as rogue oil-rich regimes -- suddenly sniff new openings.

We've seen the connection between American economic crisis and world upheaval before. In the 1930s, the United States and its democratic allies, in the midst of financial collapse, disarmed and largely withdrew from foreign affairs. That isolation allowed totalitarian regimes in Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia to swallow their smaller neighbors and replace the rule of law with that of the jungle. World War II followed.

We are seeing the result:

It was no surprise that an emboldened Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again last week called for the elimination of Israel. He's done that several times before...

...And he spouted his Hitlerian hatred in front of the United Nations General Assembly -- in New York, just a few blocks away from the ground zero of the Wall Street meltdown...

...Flush with petrodollar cash, a cocky Iran thinks our government will be so sidetracked borrowing money for Wall Street that disheartened taxpayers won't care to stop Tehran from going nuclear.

Hanson is right.

At about the same time, a Russian flotilla was off Venezuela to announce new cooperation with the loud anti-American Hugo Chavez and his fellow Latin American communists. The move was a poke in the eye at the Monroe Doctrine -- and a warning that from now on the oil-rich Russians will boldly support dictatorships in our hemisphere as much as we encourage democratic Georgia and Ukraine in theirs.

And more...

The lunatics running North Korea predictably smelled blood as well. So it announced that it was reversing course and reprocessing fuel rods to restart its supposedly dismantled nuclear weapons program.

Our historic role:

The natural order of the world is chaos, not calm. Like it or not, for over a half-century the United States alone restrained nuclear bullies, kept the sea lanes free from outlaws and corralled rogue nations. America alone could provide that deterrence because we produced a fourth of the world's goods and services, and became the richest country in the history of civilization.

Finally...

Should that heart of American financial power in New York falter -- or even appear to falter -- then eventually the sinews of the American military will likewise slacken. And then things could get ugly -- real fast.

And who will we choose to lead us through this chaos?  We will decide a month from Saturday.  Will we choose a devoted, if somewhat eccentric public servant whose dedication to his country cannot be questioned?  Or will we choose a kid from the Chicago machine whose dedication to his own ambition also cannot be questioned?  On that choice will depend our fate for the next four years. 

October 2, 2008.      Permalink          

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1,  2008

UPDATE AT 9:52 P.M. ET:  The Senate has just passed the bailout bill, which goes to the House.  The senators are now standing around microphones praising each other, and complimenting their wonderfulness.  I am moved to tears when I realize the greatness of these brave men.  Who were Jefferson, Adams, and Lincoln compared to these boys?  Yes, I'm being cynical.   

MS. IFILL REGRETS

Posted at 9:02 p.m. ET

Gwen Ifill, master journalist and Washington monument, has condescended to comment on the controversy surrounding her participation in tomorrow's vice-presidential debate.  To review, it has been revealed that Ms. Ifill is writing a book, to be published on inauguration day, dealing with black politics in the age of Obama.  The book could be huge if Obama wins.  It could sell three copies if he loses.  One publishing authority estimated that Ifill has about $350,000, or more, riding on the outcome of the election.  And here she is moderating a vice-presidential debate.

The term is conflict of interest.  In the real world that's serious.  In journalism it seems to be a minor issue.

NEW YORK (AP) - PBS journalist Gwen Ifill, moderator of the upcoming vice presidential debate, dismissed conservative questions about her impartiality because she is writing a book that includes material on Barack Obama.

Ifill said Wednesday that she hasn't even written her chapter on Obama for the book "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is to be published by Doubleday on Jan. 20, 2009, the day a new president is inaugurated.

Let me get this straight:  We shouldn't worry because she hasn't written the Obama chapter yet?  Yeah, that makes sense - if you're 12.

"I've got a pretty long track record covering politics and news, so I'm not particularly worried that one-day blog chatter is going to destroy my reputation," Ifill said.

The problem, my dear, is your reputation. 

"The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I've done my job."

By that time the damage will have been done.  And, by the way, how do you define your job?  I hear silence.

Ifill said Obama's story, which she has yet to write, is only a small part of the book, which discusses how politics in the black community have changed since the civil rights era. Among those subjects is Colin Powell, secretary of state in the Bush administration.

The book is called "Breakthrough:  Politics and Race in the Age of Obama."  And Obama is a small part?  Why is his name in the title?

The host of PBS'"Washington Week" and senior correspondent on "The NewsHour" said she did not tell the Commission on Presidential Debates about the book.

That should disqualify her right there.  Nothing more need be said.

Ifill questions why people assume that her book will be favorable toward Obama.

"Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?" said Ifill, who is black. Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, "I don't know what it is. I find it curious."

How do you respond to anything that silly?  And why aren't journalists held to the same ethical standards as other public figures? 

This diminishes the journalistic profession.  It can't be diminished much more this year.

October 1, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 4:17 P.M. ET:  John McCain has now commented, marshmallow-style, on the Gwen Ifill dustup.  I said earlier at Urgent Agenda that he should not ask her to withdraw, despite her obvious conflict of interest, because then she'd be turned into a martyr, and a racial one at that.  McCain wisely has not asked her to pull out.  However, his comment was entirely too deferential, something he has a habit of doing: 

Fox's Carl Cameron asked John McCain today if he thought that PBS journalist Gwen Ifill should recuse herself from moderating Thursday's VP debate in St. Louis.

"I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly-respected professional," McCain said.

"Does this help that if she has written a book that's favorable to Sen. Obama?" McCain asked. "Probably not."

I would have preferred something more neutral, rather than the "highly-respected professional" bit.  She's highly respected only by some.  I would have preferred McCain expressing annoyance that he had not been told about Ifill's book deal, but that it was too late to make a change and that the public would judge.

I want Ifill to be seen as the damaged goods she is.  Rush is shouting it out.  A bit more shouting from the McCain side would have helped.

POLLS

Posted at 3:42 p.m. ET

The polls seem to have stabilized.  The problem is, they've stabilized with McCain in the worst position since Obama's Democratic convention boost.

Today's trackers:  All four are out.  The only surprise is Gallup, which has Obama up four, as opposed to six yesterday, and eight the day before that.  However, please note that Gallup's tracker has a reputation for swinging more widely than others.  We reported earlier that Rasmussen has Obama up six, no change, Hotline five, with Obama down one point, and Battleground two, no change.

Three other polls, completed on September 29th, have Obama up four, six, and seven points. 

So, with all these numbers, what can we say?  Obama is probably up around five points nationally.  However, so many states were so close before this latest runup in Obama's numbers, that some have tipped into his column.  The Real Clear Politics electoral college estimate has Obama up 86 EVs (electoral votes). 

Caution:  These are just snapshots.  Some of the polls reflect conditions over the weekend.  Some of the state polls may even extend back into last week. 

So much depends on the vice-presidential debate tomorrow night, moderated by leading Obama supporter Gwen Ifill.  It will be seen as a referendum on John McCain's judgment.  If Sarah Palin bombs, there could easily be a further slide in the polls, possibly making the election out of reach for McCain.  But if Sarah holds her own, McCain can begin the climb back.  If she triumphs, and puts the focus back on McCain's "brilliant" choice, anything is possible. 

The election is a calendar month from Saturday.  We can't know if economic conditions will settle down.  And we can't know if Al Qaeda has some gift waiting for us.

Interesting times.

October 1, 2008.      Permalink          

BULLETIN AT 10:07 A.M. ET:  From Greta Van Susteren:

I confirmed for us here on GretaWire: the McCain campaign did NOT know about Gwen Ifill’s book (I think I told them when I made my efforts - emails about midnight - to find out!) I am stunned….the campaign (actually both) should have been told before the campaign agreed to have her moderate. It simply is not fair - in law, this would create a mistrial. 

Big story here, if the McCain camp exploits it.  They should be very loud about this today.  They've been treated outrageously.  Ifill should offer to withdraw as moderator of tomorrow's vice-presidential debate, but won't.  The McCain people, though, should not try to force her out.  Gwen Ifill has been deceptive, and is now damaged goods.  If she tries to trip up Sarah tomorrow night, it will show.  In a way, this whole thing is good news for McCain.  The press bias is obvious.  The deception is obvious.  They can use this moment.

UPDATE AT 9:47 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen's tracker is out, and shows Obama with a six-point lead.  He's been up in this poll five or six points for six days.  Rasmussen says the race has stabilized. 

COMMENT:  This lead is impressive, and can lead to an electoral-college landslide.  But it's a lead that can be overcome.  A lot is riding on the vice-presidential debate tomorrow night.  If McCain can finish the week four or so points behind, with a month to go to election day, he can turn this around.  But he's got to come out fighting and stop being just one of a hundred senators.

FRED ON SARAH

Posted at 9:03 a.m. ET

I've always liked Fred Thompson.  He wasn't at his best as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, but he's a feisty, clear-headed commentator who writes and speaks his mind.

Here, going against the current conventional "wisdom," he makes a compelling case for Sarah Palin.  I'm glad someone did it.  Agree or disagree, he makes some excellent points, and gets in some deserved swipes against the political and journalistic establishment:

When John McCain selected Governor Sarah Palin, as his running mate, the Democrats and their far-left constituency let out a primal scream that could be heard from sea to shining sea. How dare he choose someone that they and their pals in the media had not had a chance to vet (i.e. libel, slander, and otherwise and otherwise eviscerate). Ah, but it was not too late. These seekers of “a new kind of politics” poured torrents of malicious abuse upon her and her family.

Plane loads of scandal mongers, lawyers and other truth seekers became more numerous in Alaska than the polar bear, as they rallied local Democrats and disgruntled Republicans to their cause.

Love it already, don't you?

Here was a woman who chose to have children and a career. Aging Washington socialites weighed in with newly discovered sensitivity for mothers with careers outside the home. Here was a woman who became upset because her ex-brother-in-law had tasered her nephew and threatened her father. The Democrats and their friends had to save the country from a woman like this.

And, more good stuff...

For a while there it seems the fact that so many uninformed yahoos (average people) love her was going to drive the main stream media nuts. They had a hard time grasping the fact that people like her because she is precisely the kind of politician that everyone has been saying they’ve wanted.

But they didn't want her, Fred.  She's a threat to their world.

Naturally, there was a backlash to the treatment of Governor Palin and cooler-headed critics have largely concentrated on what they claim is her lack of qualifications. Of course much of the criticism of her qualifications reveals the application of the same old double standard. Less accomplished governors in times past have been considered to be perfectly “well-qualified” as VP picks.

Glad someone brought that up. Fred quotes Palin critic David Brooks as wondering whether Sarah has the prudence for high office.  He counters:

One can hardly disagree with the desirability of our leaders having the qualities that Brooks describes (putting aside the question of how many of our leaders who are not Sarah Palin have demonstrated these qualities). But there are other important qualifications, such as will, courage, and determination. Frankly, an infusion of these qualities into our body politic is desperately needed – not just to raise hell with the establishment, but to speak the hard truth about unpleasant choices facing our country. To push for choices that will, in the long term, benefit our country, our children and our grandchildren. In other words, things which “prudent” leaders are all too often reluctant to do.

Ah yes.  Wasn't "prudence" the rallying whisper of Bush 41, who left no fingerprints?  Finally...

Wall Street and Washington were full of people who were “qualified and experienced” in the field of finance. Sen. Barack Obama, for one, has a great deal of experience in the housing field. So do many of his closest advisers. I would have traded some of that experience for a few more leaders with less experience and more courage to buck the establishment and tell the truth about what was happening.

This brings me back to Governor Sarah Palin, and why I say that courage and political will are at the very top of the “qualification” requirements for today’s leaders. So the question is, how does Sarah Palin compare on that score with Biden and Obama, for that matter? Very well, I’d say.

Oh, do I wish the McCain people could write like that.  Or think like that.

Unleash Fred.  Maybe he should be coaching Sarah. 

October 1, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 8:16 A.M. ET:  First tracker of the day is out.  Battleground has Obama up two, same as yesterday.  We await Rasmussen, later this morning. 

NOTE AT 7:41 A.M. ET:  Another classic of biased reporting.  Please go to the New York Times website and compare the pictures of Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, printed side by side.  Biden looks the determined statesman, standing, vigorous, making a point.  Palin is sitting down, looking clueless and vacant.  Sarah may not be the greatest interviewee on Earth, but she's proved in her career that she's sharp, capable and respected.  Not by The Times, though.  These side-by-side photos are entirely inappropriate.

OUTRAGEOUS

Posted at 7:14 a.m. ET

I'm so glad that Drudge has made this his major story this morning.  If this isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.  It turns out that Gwen Ifill, the PBS "journalist," and moderator of tomorrow's vice-presidential debate, has a book coming out on inauguration day titled "The Breakthrough:  Politics and Race in the Age of Obama."  Clearly, that book is vastly more valuable if Obama wins.  In addition, Ifill's behavior on the air in covering Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the GOP convention was the subject of complaints to the PBS ombudsman.

I've looked at Ifill's work for years.  An objective reporter she is not.  I recall that, after radical leftist Cynthia McKinney lost the Democratic nomination for her congressional seat one year, Ifill went on the air, two nights in a row, to talk about "groups," read that Jews, who financed her opponent.  She never once mentioned that McKinney had been heavily financed by Muslim groups.  She's that kind of "reporter."

Greta Van Susteren discusses the conflict-of-interest issue at her website, here:

Here are questions for you: is it a conflict of interest since she is writing about Senator Obama and wants her book to sell (i.e. make money)? Should she be moderating the debate this Thursday?

My answer: it all depends on whether she disclosed it to the McCain - Palin campaign and they said ok. Or if the book is not friendly to Senator Obama, then the same disclosure to him and ok from him. That is the way it is done in the legal business — called full disclosure. (I suppose, regardless of friendly or not to either candidate, full disclosure to both was necessary. ) Otherwise? it is a conflict of interest and the offended ticket should pull out of the debate…or she should. By the way, it could be a book about an important issue …but that does not take away the issue of conflict.

Well, the book certainly won't be unfriendly to Obama.  So the question is, "What did the McCain team know and when did they know it?"  If they knew about this conflict and still approved Ifill, they're too incompetent to be alive.  If they're learning about it now, they should be in an uproar.  But I doubt if they will, because Ifill is African-American and, you know, they don't want to make an ugly scene.

Sometimes you make an ugly scene.  This is an outrage.  Ifill should withdraw herself, but I can't imagine her doing so.  It would make it look as if she did the right thing only once exposed.  After all, she knew she was writing this book. 

The story must be played.  If Ifill moderates, people will look at any slight toward Sarah Palin very differently if they know of Ifill's conflict. 

The level of in-the-tank-for-Obama journalism going on has been stunning.  This one is in a class by itself.

You can hear my audio commentary on press bias by going here. 

October 1, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 6:55 A.M. ET:  From The Hill:   The billionaire financier George Soros, a major Democratic financial backer, is floating his own rescue plan among Democratic lawmakers who are uncertain what to do in the wake of a surprise defeat of a proposed $700 billion rescue package proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
Soros has outlined his plan in an opinion editorial in the Financial Times and circulated a concept paper among decision-makers.  Specifically, the liberal philanthropist has proposed that government funds should be used to recapitalize the American banking system by purchasing equity in banks and investment firms.

COMMENT:  Watch this one very carefully.  Soros is a shadowy international operator and a hard leftist.  Any proposal of his should be suspect .  It may go nowhere, but it would seem to lead to government control over private institutions.  Soros is the first man Barack Obama went to for financing when he started his presidential campaign.  I'm not liking this.

"What you see is news.  What you know is background.  What you feel is opinion."
    - Lester Markel, late Sunday editor
      of The New York Times.

SUBSCRIPTIONS:

Subscriptions to URGENT AGENDA are voluntary.  Why subscribe to something you're getting free?  To help guarantee that you'll continue to get it at all.  Subscriptions sustain us.  Payments are through PayPal and are secure, but you do not have to sign up for a PayPal account.  Credit cards are fine.

FOR A ONE-YEAR ($48) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

FOR A SIX-MONTH ($26) SUBSCRIPTION, CLICK:

IF YOU DON'T WISH A SET SUBSCRIPTION, BUT PREFER TO DONATE ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO SUSTAIN URGENT AGENDA, CLICK:

SEARCH URGENT AGENDA:

POWER LINE:

It's a privilege for me to post periodic pieces at Power Line. To go to Power Line, click here.

To link to my Power Line pieces, go here.

THE CURRENT QUESTION

This space will regularly raise questions that relate to the news, but transcend daily headlines.  The idea is to stimulate talk about basic issues. Our last question asked: 

Last week we asked,

How would you explain to an angry, disillusioned foreigner why Barack Obama lost the election?

You can view the answers here.

NEW CURRENT QUESTION

How should Sarah Palin be used for the remainder of the campaign?

If you'd like to send us your thoughts, click:
response@urgentagenda.com
(Please stay within two or three paragraphs.  We try to print every reply, if space allows.  Place your name at the end of the message if you wish your name published.  This question will stay up through Sunday.)

CONTACT:

YOU CAN E-MAIL US, AS FOLLOWS:

If you have wonderful things to say about this site, if it makes you a better person, please click:
applause@urgentagenda.com

If you have a general comment on anything you see here, or on anything else that's topical, please click:
comments@urgentagenda.com

If you must say something obnoxious, something that will embarrass you and disgrace your loving family, click:
despicable@urgentagenda.com

If you required subscription service, please click:
service@urgentagenda.com

FAVORITE SITES

Power Line
Faster Please (Michael Ledeen)
OpinionJournal.com
Hudson Institute
Bookworm Room
Bill Bennett
Red State
Pajamas Media
Michelle Malkin
The Weekly Standard
The New York Sun
Real Clear Politics
The Corner
City Journal
Gateway Pundit
American Thinker