...and why has McCain been palling around with those who would protect and harbor Osama bin Laden? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/02/60minutes/main4494937.shtml

Or Bush's connection to the Bin Laden family?

I would bet that Sarah Palin never even read the New York Times article in question but, rather, she read a talking points memo from a McCain handler.  But, IMO, Palin is an amateur who hasn't yet discovered where the boundaries lie and I'll also bet that before too long she's going to step into a pile of mess with her words. And it'll be fun to watch when she does...

Sarah Palin does not read anything but flash cards.

Why is such a comment so "intriguing" to the media. The implication of "palling around" is so salacious it shouldn't be mentioned in decent coverage. I guess the word decent is the separation here.

Is this the kind of VP you rightys want? You've already got one like that.didn't he do a wonderful job? maybe he bulges in different places, but it's the same pig,different blanket

You are soooo sexist for calling Palin a pig!

You are soooo pigist for calling a pig Palin!

That statement is sooooo hog-ophobic!

Kyle, forgive me, but it seems you are confused about the direction "ist" points.  If someone is said to be "sexist" by a statement, it means that that someone made a statement against women.  Not so?  Therefore, stating someone made a "pigist" statement means the person who made the original statement has slandered pigs.  ...That is, saying Palin and a pig have equality slanders pigs!  Sorry, pigs are worth much more than to be cheapened by a Palin comparison.

This may seem like an unlikely source, but you need to do some required reading: http://www.newchristianvoices.com/society/fired-up-bacon

Oink, squee!....snicker.

...and on that note, let me wish a Happy Yom Kippur to my Hebrew brethren.

Jeesh, as someone else said in another thread, this is all that the republicans have now. Rehashing tired and worn talking points about Ayers. About Wright. About Rezko. This stuff has already been debunked about a million times, and then rehashed a million times, as in, there is nothing to it. I'm sure next we'll hear about hands over hearts, and flag pins. I think the McCain - Palin campaign wreaks of desperation, and to quote Dick Cheney, "Is in its last death throes..."

It seems that my long-held respect for NPR is coming to an end.  As with too many news organizations, they fail to report the complete story.  This is being repeated all over the air, TV, and print media on a daily basis.  Jack Webb would say, "Just the facts, Ma'am."

CNN's American Morning did this yesterday as well... I was infuriated by the fact that they played Palin's "palling around with domestic terrorists" clip about 5 times before ever implying that is might not be fully true. Nor did they use it as an opportunity to be actual journalists and explain what was in the rest of the Times article. At one point, they played the clip before going on commercial break. What if that was the only thing you saw that morning? Would you be lead to believe by CNN that it was true? That they were endorsing this comment? I wish CNN et al would realize what it means to be a journalist and that their actions impact the outcome of this historic election. I'm not usually one to "blame the media" for everything, but the coverage of late has been despicable and I'm ashamed. Grow up and do your job.

Funny, Mara Liasson seems to suggest that there is actual parity in the negativity between the campaigns; in the amount and type of attacks. And, she suggests to Ari Shapiro (after he sets up her answers with an obvious question) that the timing of this particular round of negativity has started at just about the right time in this campaign; about a month out. Mary coyly chuckles as she licks her finger to check the wind direction.

First of all, many objective analysts agree that John McCain’s negative campaigning started much earlier than in past Presidential contests BECAUSE he finds himself so far behind so far from the end of this campaign. Second, most objective analysts agree that in terms of type AND kind, the McCain-Palin campaign is attacking much more negatively – much more aggressively – than the Obama-Biden campaign (notice Ms. Liasson used NO examples of negativity from Senator Biden in her piece).

Also notice that Liasson did not use the actual audio footage of campaigns stops – from just YESTERDAY – to illustrate with McCain and Palin’s own spoken words (or the words shouted at them as they tossed red meat during their campaign stops) the degree of RECENT negativity shown by the Republican ticket. Why? Perhaps because Sarah Palin herself shouting “palling around with a terrorist" would have sounded as absurd on its face as it actually is. Instead, Mara provides cover for Sarah Palin by parsing the words and setting them against the backdrop of the Keating Five documentary and other negative advertising.

Of course, these two issues are EQUAL, so long as the point of the story is to show that all negative campaigning is the same; just as this year is the same as every other year before – you know, typical Presidential pre-election “play." After all, politicians WILL BE politicians! Yuck, yuck . . .

No, Liasson would rather show fake parity in her piece, under the guise of journalistic objectivity. Rather than explain the “terrorist" comment, she’d rather just leave it hang in the air, stinking and festering like the rotted “observation" it is. So much for NPR’s sound strategy of putting issues in context! In this instance, Liasson knows, burying the lead? BAD IDEA! She said, “TERRORIST!" We HAVE to run it. We’ll just fix the fact and fairness issues in post production. Or, maybe we won’t! After all, facts have an annoying way of perpetuating a good editorial; you know, the political narrative.

As for the effectiveness of negative campaigning, Liasson is right – IT WORKS! It works, that is, until it doesn’t! But while negativity works in campaign advertising and at heavily-controlled, non-public political rallies aimed at “the base," negative attacks do not work at debates; especially at the “town hall" type debate we anticipate this evening. Debates are not simply contests in which the candidates battle each other with advertising. In debates, candidates (we presume) battle each other with words – words from their own mouths, whether staccato talking points or actual fully-formed, coherent thoughts.

That is all the more reason that Liasson should NOT have used campaign advertising as an example of negativity to introduce this story. She should have used actual words from the candidates themselves. But of course, she can’t. For that would reveal the obvious truth about who has “gone negative, why and to what degree." And it is clear to me that fake parity and faux objectivity cannot show these details effectively while journalists hide behind these techniques defending this style as “analysis."

I have read many media critics who suggest Mara Liasson is conservatively biased, as represented by her reports on NPR and by her appearances as a “News Analyst" on Fox News. I have my own feelings about that too. But that issue isn’t really germane in this case. If Liasson shows bias here, it is BECAUSE she attempts to show parity where none exists, and BECAUSE she uses FAKE objectivity as a substitute for REAL analysis. She uses these techniques BECAUSE she is afraid to tell an important story with cogent analysis – BECAUSE she is afraid that by doing so she’d be accused of bias by conservatives. How ironic is that!

To JIMMYJAMES,Jr.:  I'm afraid the "journalistic objectivity" to which you refer went out the window a long time ago.  Obviously, there are no "reporters" left in the MSM, only "analysts".  If the "analyst" is conservative that is what you get as "news".  Being a moron only compounds the problem.  

Donald Maddog:  Yeah, silly me for believing that NPR is still a source of objective journalism.  What WAS I thinking!  NPR has become the CNN of radio.  Like much of the MSM, they are risk averse.

so..... the defense, as it stands is: 'the nyt reported that the two men do not appear to be close.' case closed for me. i got my convincin' from speculation from the new york times.

how about - the nyt failed to note that things are not always as they appear.

palecon wrote:

>>how about - the nyt failed to note that things are not always as they appear.

Translation: I don't like the conclusion of the NYT, or that Palin misquoted it, so I will attack the newspaper.

As CNN and AP both reported in their fact checking, the claim that Obama is pallin around with terrorists is false.

McCain could easily have diverged from any question last night to make the Ayers accusation to Obama's face.  He did not.  The probable reason is that Obama could then refute it to a huge national audience and get it out of the way. 

McCain said with great certainty that he knew how to get bin Laden.  Why doesn't he tell Bush so we can do it now?  If McCain is not elected, will he maintain this secret knowledge?  No one seems to have noticed this other than myself.