Monday, September 15, 2008

The Ultimate Test of the Media

McCain and Palin are doing something interesting. They've apparently decided that if the media covers only controversy and that the media will not call people on lies, but dutifully report "both sides," then they're going to just lie and see what happens. They get to not only frame the debate, but take ideal positions having nothing to do with reality.

Ezra Klein wrote brilliantly about this:

The McCain campaign's decision to lie about, well, everything, really needs to be understood as more than the outcome of John McCain's consuming ambition. It is a rational and obvious response to the rules laid down by the media. Indeed, McCain's spokesperson Brian Rogers says this directly to The Politico's Jonathan Martin. "We ran a different kind of campaign and nobody cared about us. They didn’t cover John McCain. So now you’ve got to be forward-leaning in everything."

And it's true. Earlier this year McCain made poverty tours and offered policy speeches. No one cared, Obama retained his lead. It was only when he began offering vicious attacks and daily controversies that he began setting the pace of the coverage. The McCain campaign learned something important about the media: It's an institution that covers conflict. If you want to direct its coverage, give it more conflict than your opponent. And so they have.

None of this, of course, absolves McCain of what he has done. He has sacrificed his honor and dignity with astonishing enthusiasm. He has become much worse than "just another politician." He is a politician who was once more than that, and used that reputation to go lower than the rest. But the fact remains that he wouldn't be doing this, that no one would do this, if the media ignored or censured the behavior. If lies were covered as lies and an allergy to substance was treated as evidence of an unfitness to govern, the tenor of campaigns would lift. These are, at the end of the day, rational beasts, and they hunger for good coverage. The McCain campaign has found its best coverage comes from its worst campaigning. And so they are following the incentive structure laid out by the media.


I don't think it's going to work. There's too much time until the election and the evidence is too obvious.

Here's Andrew Sullivan on the Bridge To Nowhere lies:

In her speeches, Sarah Palin routinely and repeatedly uses the phrase: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." In the McCain-Palin ads, the claim is that she "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."

These are, again, demonstrable lies. Again I will cite Wikipedia, since it's the fairest summary of the facts of the case, and includes all the links for you to see for yourself:

In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform,[101] attacking "spinmeisters"[102] for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere"[101] and urging speed "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[103] About two years after the introduction of the bridge proposals, a month after the bridge received sharp criticism from John McCain,[104] and nine months into Palin's term as governor, Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, blaming Congress for not providing enough funding.[105] Alaska will not return any of the $442 million to the federal government[106] and is spending a portion of the funding, $25 million, on a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone, expressly so that none of the money will have to be returned.[101] Palin continues to support funding Don Young's Way, estimated as more than twice as expensive as the Gravina Bridge would have been.[107]

Your call.

Probably much more important is this picture:



Unfortunately, I think the "lipstick on a pig" lie and the "Obama voted for comprehensive sex ed for kindergartners" lies won't hurt them. McCain can simply stand by the "Lipstick on a pig" lie, as he did on The View, and it's not something one can really prove to be false. The sex ed one won't hurt him, because the refutation doesn't make a good sound bite. Any day talking about "sex ed" and "kindergartners" is a win for McCain.

If he is brought down by his lies, it'll be the lies about Palin. The bridge, the earmarks, and McCain's and Palin's standing by them long after they'd been revealed as lies. The Obama campaign must frame the issue: "Is John McCain a liar?" The contrast between the honorable soldier he presents himself as and the dishonerable campaign he's leading represent a great opportunity for Obama. Rove took Kerry's greatest strength and turned it into his greater weakness, and Obama has the opportunity to return the favor with the message "John McCain is dishonest and dishonerable."

15 comments:

Comrade Kevin said...

Negative reinforcement is far more potent, sells more ink and more advertising dollars.

When we can change human conduct to reflect otherwise, we will have really evolved.

Ezzie said...

I wonder when the media will finally start covering issues so that each side can return to discussing them.

Stephen said...

I was watching CNN this morning, when they were talking about the latest financial calamities (Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch). And I wondered why CNN didn't immediately segue to a discussion of the economic policies of the respective candidates.

Discussion of policy proposals can be boring, so the media don't go there. But sometimes you have people's attention — My God, the economy is in terrible trouble! — and in that context people are open to a discussion of policy proposals.

To be fair to CNN, we eventually got a "response" statement from each of the campaigns. But they could have provided a lot more substance. Instead, we get the terrible financial news at the top of the hour and then, 20 minutes later, a puff piece on Sarah Palin attracting white women voters, with footage from Saturday Night Live.

The news is too compartmentalized, as if the economic news and the election campaign have nothing to do with each other.

Stephen said...

You commented, no one can prove Obama wasn't referring to Palin in his "lipstick on a pig" remark. But here's a bizarre quote from McCain.

McCain admits that Obama wasn't referring to Palin. At the same time, he says that Obama "chooses his words carefully" and he shouldn't have said what he said.

Huh?

asher said...

Have you seen so much attention paid to a vice presidential nominee?
I want the latest gossip.

After all, Teddy Roosevelt was govenor of New York State for almost 2 years before he ran for VP and look what a mess he made of things when he took over.

However nothing beats the statement by Susan Sarandan (Janet in the Rocky Horror Picture Show)
when she said, "All I can say is that Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilot was a governor. Nuff said"

Half Sigma said...

I remember the famouns VP debate of 1988. The media was fawning over Lloyd Bentsen for days because he gave Dan Quayle a good insult.

There was no discussion about policy. The winner of the debate was not the guy who had the best ideas for the country, but the guy who had the best insult.

Random said...

Ezra Klein makes at least one important point in his first couple of paragraphs, which I've seen elsewhere phrased like this - the media this year have only been interested in talking about Barack Obama, so the only way the McCain camp was able to get coverage was by... talking about Barack Obama. This is hardly the McCain camp's fault (as Klein has the decency to quote and confirm it certainly wasn't their preferred way of doing things, they were forced to do it to gain some traction), but the fact that it seems to be working is a classic example of how the media can be so biased that they actually damage the guy they can be trying to help (another example is in the way the blizzard of Palin stories seems to be having no effect other than to generate sympathy for the candidate - the public are not foolish, and do notice this is the same media that found little newsworthy about Tony Rezko or Bill Ayers).

As for quoting Andrew Sullivan as a reliable source on, well, anything - is he still peddling smears about how Trig Palin is really Sarah's grandson and she should have a DNA test to prove it, or has The Atlantic finally shut him down on that one? I have no idea why people still treat Sullivan as a respectable commentator, the man has been truly disgusting since Palin was picked.

On the more general point of "Bridge to Nowhere" though. Yes it's true Palin was for it before she was against it - but if it's a lie to say she can take credit for it not going ahead, then why did the Alaska Democratic Party credit Palin for killing the bridge on their website until the page was pulled after she was nominated as VP? And that's ignoring the sheer chutzpah of the Democrats criticizing Palin for being a late convert to the cause when their ticket is headed by two men who not only never opposed the bridge, but even voted against an effort to cut the funding for it and redirect the money to Katrina relief efforts!

Some other thoughts (and I apologise for how long this post is getting) - "lipstick on a pig". Yes, this is a common phrase and taken in isolation (which is how it is almost always portrayed) I understand how it might look as though the McCain campaign is stretching when they say Obama was referring to Palin. however, Obama's full quote is as follows -

"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 gonna stink."

So in two consecutive sentences we have disparaging references to old age and lipstick. Are you really saying it is wholly a coincidence that the Republican ticket is headed by a 72 year old man and a woman who only a week or so earlier had made a lighthearted and well publicised analogy about lipstick? I thought Obama was supposed to be too good with words to make that sort of slip. Unless it wasn't a slip.

Look, I have a theory about why this is causing so much grief. The liberal left (amongst which I most definitely include the media) had a plan for how this campaigning season was going to go. It was supposed to be an inevitable victory for the Democratic candidate, and the perfect scenario for that victory would have included the Republicans nominating a decent, civilised candidate who would go down to a dignified but emphatic defeat, thereby proving the worth of the Democrat who beat him. In John McCain they thought they had the perfect candidate for that scenario - a man with a genuinely impressive track record, respected across the political spectrum and with a record of disdaining some of the rougher tactics that had been used in previous campaigns. According to the script McCain was supposed to run a lacklustre campaign, be emphatically defeated and concede with dignity and all the while allow Obama to look young, vigorous and idealistic by comparison - a bit like Bob Dole versus Bill Clinton. This is why McCain received some genuinely favorable coverage and commentary early in the year as he came back from the dead to win the Republican nomination.

The only problem with this is that no one considered that McCain had not signed on to that script, and that as an old warrior he would never go into a battle with the objective of securing a dignified defeat. That McCain would fight like a junkyard dog to win, ruthlessly going after his opponents weak points, simply never occurred to his opponents. Combine that with him picking a VP candidate who can compete with Obama in the youthfulness and charisma stakes (and beat him in the newness stakes - Obama has after all been the new kid in town for four years now, it's about time somebody else came along) and Obama picking a VP candidate who is almost as old as McCain and far more "DC establishment" and you have a scenario where it is no longer inconceivable that McCain could win this thing. No wonder the left is howling, and lashing out desperately trying to find something - anything - that could stick.

Jewish Atheist said...

Random, the guy's lying his ass off.

Ezra Klein's point was that the media covers controversy, not policy. It had nothing to do with how the cover Democrats vs. Republicans. The media sunk both Kerry and Gore by refusing to focus on policy and both went down with hardly a fight.

As for the Bridge to Nowhere lie, you responded in three ways: by attacking Andrew Sullivan, by talking about the Alaskan Democratic Party website, and by an extremely disingenuous attack on Obama and Biden.

Distract, distract, distract! Ad hominem, tu quoque. Here are the facts, again, if you want to address them:

In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" platform,[101] attacking "spinmeisters"[102] for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere"[101] and urging speed "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[103] About two years after the introduction of the bridge proposals, a month after the bridge received sharp criticism from John McCain,[104] and nine months into Palin's term as governor, Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, blaming Congress for not providing enough funding.[105] Alaska will not return any of the $442 million to the federal government[106] and is spending a portion of the funding, $25 million, on a Gravina Island road to the place where the bridge would have gone, expressly so that none of the money will have to be returned.[101] Palin continues to support funding Don Young's Way, estimated as more than twice as expensive as the Gravina Bridge would have been.[107]

And it's not only that she lied about it and he lied about it, but that they CONTINUE to lie about it after it's been clearly revealed as a lie. Usually candidates wait until right before the election to lie like this -- it's a bold strategy, but I think it's going to really cost him. It goes against his main strengths: honor and being a "straight-talker."

As for the lipstick on a pig thing, all I can say is: really? You honestly think Obama meant Palin is the pig and McCain is the fish? You think not only did he mean that but that it's so obvious he meant that it's clearly a lie?

The full quote:

John McCain says he's about change, too. Except -- 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 some -- the same thing, something different. But you know, you can -- you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig. You can wrap up an old fish in newspaper, but it still stinks.

Now it's kind of funny that you think your candidates so obviously resemble a pig in lipstick and an old, stinky fish that he must have been intending that, but you have no basis for that in the quote.

And those aren't McCain's only lies! The sex ed one is particularly shameless, then there's the Palin earmark one, the one about how Obama's going to raise middle-class taxes, etc. These aren't borderline, oh they're kind of untrue lies, they are out-and-out I-just-don't-give-a-shit lies.

No wonder the left is howling, and lashing out desperately trying to find something - anything - that could stick.

Please. It's the right lashing out. The left has not seriously gone after his past infidelity, his age (only a little,) his temper, or anything else like that. They're focused on his policies and his RIDICULOUS VP pick and they're telling the truth.

McCain is focusing on anything but Obama's policies, and lying his ass off in the process.

Random said...

"As for the Bridge to Nowhere lie, you responded in three ways: by attacking Andrew Sullivan, by talking about the Alaskan Democratic Party website, and by an extremely disingenuous attack on Obama and Biden."

I'm not sure what the lie is supposed to be here. Is it that Palin is lying when she claims to have to have killed the bridge? If that is so then why was even the Alaska Democratic party prepared to credit her for killing it until she got the VP nod (note: evidence that contradicts an assertion is only a "distraction" if you're determined to believe something regardless of the evidence)? You'd be on stronger ground to claim that she exaggerated her role in the bridge's demise, but politicians do that all the time, and it's not what's being claimed here anyway. Seriously, the claim that Palin killed the bridge was uncontroversial in Alaska until she got the VP pick and it became essential for the left wing smear machine to find something - anything - to attack her with.

As for Sullivan - yes, I will make no apology for claiming he is no longer a credible commentator and that citing him only discredits any argument you are hoping to make. Or do you approve of his disgusting obsession with spreading unfounded conspiracy theories about the parentage of Trig Palin?

And as for Biden and Obama - I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out that if you are going to criticise Palin's position on the bridge then it behoves you to make sure that your guy's position wasn't a great deal worse before parrotting their attack lines. Taking outrage at Palin's conditional support for the Bridge (she was for it when it cost about $200M but changed her mind as the price doubled) whilst being relaxed about Obama and Biden's unconditional support for it (they even voted against axing the funding when it was proposed the money could be better spent on helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina) is somewhat hypocritical at the least.

"As for the lipstick on a pig thing, all I can say is: really? You honestly think Obama meant Palin is the pig and McCain is the fish?"

I don't claim to know what Obama thought. I am claiming that if you look at the whole quote and not just the pig in lipstick line then his claims of injured innocence look a lot less credible, and the McCain camp's interpretation of what was happening is sufficiently plausible that you have no grounds for characterising it as a lie.

"The sex ed one is particularly shameless,"

The only problem with that is that the text of the bill Obama voted for is available online. Obama claims that all it would have done is show kindergarten kids how to recognise sexual predators. However consider this extract -

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology."

That's what Obama voted for - teaching 4 year olds (in an "age appropriate" manner of course) what syphilis is, how you catch it and how to protect against it. How that doesn't count as sex education, I have no idea. Yes the McCain camp is exaggerating in implying he was a key force behind the bill - but given the amount of times Obama voted "present" on controversial stuff the fact that he actually voted in favour of this tells us something - but Obama is also misrepresenting the situation (or lying if you prefer as that seems to be the word of the day) in claiming all he voted for was teaching kids how to recognise and avoid sexual predators.

"then there's the Palin earmark one"

You'll have to run that one by me again. Is that the claim that Palin is lying about being opposed to earmarks, despite the fact that in one of her earliest speeches as governor she warned Alaska that the state had to wean itself off federal cash, and has succeeded in reducing the figure from $350M a year in the last year of her predecessor to $190M now? The funding gap BTW was filled by increasing taxes on the oil companies that make so much money out of Alaska - I would have thought that was something you would have approved of.

"The left has not seriously gone after his past infidelity,"

Yeah, right. Because such an attack would look *so* credible coming from the party of Bill Clinton. The fact that McCain has (unlike Clinton) acknowledged his failings in this regard, repented of the damage caused and remains on good terms with his ex-wife is presumably irrelevant?

"his age (only a little,)"

Well, that's one word for it. Tell me, if you think the attacks so far are so minor what do you think of the recent Obama add which mocks McCain as being so doddery and out of touch that he doesn't even know how to work a computer, when, as is well known, the real reason he can't work a computer is because the bones in his hands and arms were broken so many times by Vietnamese torturers that he no longer has the manual dexterity needed to use a keyboard? Is it a distraction? A lie even? Or merely a disgusting smear on a disabled veteran? Or is it perfectly acceptable because it's your guy doing it this time?

Jewish Atheist said...

Random:

I'm not sure what the lie is supposed to be here. Is it that Palin is lying when she claims to have to have killed the bridge?

She said that she said "Thanks, but no thanks," implying that she turned it down. She did not. She actively supported it and then when it became a political albatross, canceled the bridge and kept the money.

As for Sullivan - yes, I will make no apology for claiming he is no longer a credible commentator

His credibity is not even relevant here! I just posted his quote of a heavily-sourced wikipedia article. Which you have still not responded to.

Taking outrage at Palin's conditional support for the Bridge (she was for it when it cost about $200M but changed her mind as the price doubled) whilst being relaxed about Obama and Biden's unconditional support for it

The outrage is that Palin is lying to our faces about it, not that she supported it.

You'll have to run that one by me again. Is that the claim that Palin is lying about being opposed to earmarks, despite the fact that in one of her earliest speeches as governor she warned Alaska that the state had to wean itself off federal cash, and has succeeded in reducing the figure from $350M a year in the last year of her predecessor to $190M now?

No, it's that McCain said she took no earmarks as governor, when in reality she took plenty.

. Tell me, if you think the attacks so far are so minor what do you think of the recent Obama add which mocks McCain as being so doddery and out of touch that he doesn't even know how to work a computer, when, as is well known, the real reason he can't work a computer is because the bones in his hands and arms were broken so many times by Vietnamese torturers that he no longer has the manual dexterity needed to use a keyboard?

You really believe that? How much typing do you need to do to use the internet?

Random said...

"His credibity is not even relevant here! I just posted his quote of a heavily-sourced wikipedia article. Which you have still not responded to."

I rather thought I had. I never disputed that Palin supported it whilst running as governor and turned against it when the costs spiralled out of control. I even acknowledged she's probably exagerrated the scale of her opposition to it. I merely pointed out that the fact that she was the one who administered the coup de grace to it used to be undisputed by anyone - including the Alaska Democratic Party - until she became VP nominee and thereby her claiming credit for killing it is hardly a "lie".

BTW if we're in the business of calling on people to answer questions they're avoiding, can I ask you - again - if you think Sullivan's campaign to get a DNA test to establish Trig Palin's parentage is legitimate political commentary or squalid smearmongering that discredits him as a serious commentator?

"No, it's that McCain said she took no earmarks as governor, when in reality she took plenty."

Chapter and verse, please? Because all the coverage I've seen is getting the question of normal requests for federal spending (which are perfectly legitimate) and earmarks (which are more than a little sleazy) hopelessly confused. The fact remains however that Palin as governor has consistently opposed her state's addiction to federal money and has fought to wean Alaska off the taxpayer's teat, cutting the sums received by almost 50% in 20 months. This isn't a "lie" either.

"You really believe that? How much typing do you need to do to use the internet?"

Oh classy, JA. do you really want to go down that road? But if you want an answer here's an article in the Boston Globe from 2000 (i.e. long before the current controversy), relevant quote -

"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes." (my emphasis)

And here's slate.com from the same year commenting that despite his disabilities McCain was the most tech-savvy of that year's candidates.

Face it, your guy made a stupid and squalid mistake and one which honest people would recognise as being in a completely different league to Sarah Palin shading the timeline on when she was opposed to the bridge to nowhere. It's not something that Obama fans seem to be terribly worried about though. Seriously - if you guys want to be taken seriously when you take the moral high ground about alleged lies, you need to be a bit more offended when your guy descends into the gutter as well.

Jewish Atheist said...

Random:

I rather thought I had. I never disputed that Palin supported it whilst running as governor and turned against it when the costs spiralled out of control. I even acknowledged she's probably exagerrated the scale of her opposition to it. I merely pointed out that the fact that she was the one who administered the coup de grace to it used to be undisputed by anyone - including the Alaska Democratic Party - until she became VP nominee and thereby her claiming credit for killing it is hardly a "lie".

But that's all tangential. The subject at hand is whether she lied when she said that she told them "Thanks, but no thanks." She clearly did. That's just a fact.

BTW if we're in the business of calling on people to answer questions they're avoiding, can I ask you - again - if you think Sullivan's campaign to get a DNA test to establish Trig Palin's parentage is legitimate political commentary or squalid smearmongering that discredits him as a serious commentator?

I don't think it's legitimate at all to demand a DNA test. I don't think that rumor should be posted at all in the absence of evidence, and you'll note that I never posted it. As for discrediting him as a serious commentator, no, that's ridiculous. Doing one thing wrong doesn't mean that everything else you do is worthless. Sullivan has been one of the most interesting voices speaking out against what the Republican party has become.

Chapter and verse, please? Because all the coverage I've seen is getting the question of normal requests for federal spending (which are perfectly legitimate) and earmarks (which are more than a little sleazy) hopelessly confused. The fact remains however that Palin as governor has consistently opposed her state's addiction to federal money and has fought to wean Alaska off the taxpayer's teat, cutting the sums received by almost 50% in 20 months. This isn't a "lie" either.

McCain said on The View that she took no earmarks as governor. She did. It's either a mistake or a lie, and it would be a pretty huge mistake.

"McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes." (my emphasis)

I did not know that.

Face it, your guy made a stupid and squalid mistake and one which honest people would recognise as being in a completely different league to Sarah Palin shading the timeline on when she was opposed to the bridge to nowhere.

Obama's ad was at worst insensitive (assuming he knew or should have known that McCain couldn't type) and misleading. Palin's repeated and ongoing line "I told them, 'Thanks but no thanks" is a lie. There is a difference. Also, Palin's lie is at the center of her campaign, while Obama's ad about McCain and computers was a one-off.

Anonymous said...

On Obama's lipstick-pig comment:

Sure, it could have been about a policy or whatever.

But did you hear the HUGE applause coming from the (liberal) audience when he said that?

So mean.

random said...

"The subject at hand is whether she lied when she said that she told them "Thanks, but no thanks." She clearly did. That's just a fact."

Hardly. It's a politician exaggerating her resume to impress voters at worst. It's not fundamentally different to Barack Obama claiming credit for a stimulus plan that he had at most a peripheral involvement with - in fact it's arguably less serious, as Palin did at least kill the bridge, but Obama didn't even turn up to vote for the stimulus package he's now claiming as his own work. And as lies go, it's not even in the same leage as Obama's scurrilous attempt in a Spanish language ad to link McCain to Rush Limbaugh on immigration when in reality the two men can't stand each other, with differences over immigration being a large part of the reason why.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not seriously seeking to beat up on Obama over this - as I've been trying to say with reference to Palin, this is just the sort of thing that happens in campigns and you shouldn't get too worked up about it. Maybe I have lower expectations of politicians than you do, but at least they're more consistent.

"McCain said on The View that she took no earmarks as governor. She did. It's either a mistake or a lie, and it would be a pretty huge mistake."

It was a mistake, as the McCain camp freely admitted a matter of hours after the interview in question. Palin was opposed to earmarks, but couldn't cut them straight away because Alaska was so dependent on federal funding that it took time to find alternative sources for the cash. She has nevertheless manage to almost halve Alaska's dependence on federal funds in her 20 months in office. And it's hardly a huge mistake - the sums in question were in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars range, which is hardly a rounding error in the federal budget.

"Obama's ad was at worst insensitive (assuming he knew or should have known that McCain couldn't type) and misleading."

He should have known. As I've demonstrated the information has been in the public domain for at least 8 years now - and unlike the Obama campaign, I do not employ anybody full time to go over John McCain's record. But they certainly know now, so I have a question - if it really was an honest mistake, have they apologised yet?

"There is a difference."

There I agree. There certainly is a difference between a politician stretching her resume on the one hand and mocking a disabled veteran on the other.

"Obama's ad about McCain and computers was a one-off."

Obama has been making digs about McCain's age for months now. Remember "losing his bearings" and indeed "old fish"? He's also had problems in dealing respectfully with women who get in his way - my personal favorite was his reference to Hillary's "periodic" emotional outbursts (another reason why I was less than fully prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on the lipstick on a pig remark, BTW). Face it, the guy lacks grace under pressure.

Jewish Atheist said...

Hardly. It's a politician exaggerating her resume to impress voters at worst.

BS. There's no exaggeration here. It's 100% lie.

About this McCain computer stuff -- didn't this whole thing start when McCain mentioned that he was learning to use the internet? If he can learn now, why couldn't he learn 5 or 10 years ago?

Obama has been making digs about McCain's age for months now

I think age is fair game. I was just talking about the computer issue.

That's hilarious (-ly offensive) about the "periodic" outbursts -- I hadn't heard that before.