Nervous GOP convention watchers must love to see articles that begin like this:
"Republican officials say their radically curtailed convention offers a big political opportunity for the party to redeem itself on the competence issue - and for John McCain to step out of President Bush's shadow once and for all."
Was just swell.
CJR reminds us that even though the press dedicated endless hours and column inches to speculating about who McCain's VP picke would be, they all pretty much missed the story.
Apparently if Republicans write enough angry letters about a Politico piece, Politico will print the letters and make them the lead item on its website. (Who knew?)
That's exactly what Politico just did. After it published a tough Saturday column by Jim Vandehei and John Harris suggesting McCain's VP pick was an act of desperation, on Sunday the duo returned and turned over all kinds of Politico real estate to angry Republican readers, reprinting letter after letter after letter explaining why Palin was a fantastic choice.
It looks to us like a classic example of Beltway journalists being so easily spooked by conservative critics.
Ian Welsh at FDL takes a look. (But hey, there are only 15,000 j's in town, right?)
Actually the sub-head to the Post's Palin article today:
"Fellow Maverick Survived McCain's Thorough Vetting Process, Aides Say"
Our only question is, did the aides say she survived the vetting process and call her a maverick? Or did the maverick part come courtesy of Post editors. Honestly, it's hard to tell where one team ends and the other begins.
To file his reaction to the GOP convention. On Sunday, Broder was deeply disappointed that Obama's convention speech did not really represent change; that it was more of the usual partisan attacks.
Who wants to bet that "maverick" John McCain's convention address will contain a laundry list of partisan attacks and Broder will not dissent?
LGF is a right-wing blog that traffics in lots of nonsense. And Saturday was no exception. It created an online buzz within right-wing circle when, through some supposedly nifty defective work, it raised the possibility that the Obama campaign might be behind a new website spreading misinformation about McCain's new VP pick, Sarah Palin.
Lots of LGF's right-wing blog friends jumped in, linking to the site and condemning the Obama campaign for pushing dirty tricks, while LGF excitedly updated the story all day. And that's why, as part of its round-up of blog reaction to the Palin pick, the Times' political blog, The Caucus, made mention of LGF's mini-investigation: "Some conservative blogs are undergoing an investigation of their own into who exactly is behind a Web site that mischaracterizes Ms. Palin's views about gay rights."
And that was how the Times blog post ended. What the Times left unsaid was that by mid-afternoon LGF's dubious charge had already been debunked, which LGF itself sheepishly admitted in an update: "There is apparently no connection between these attack sites and the official Obama campaign."
Question: Why didn't the Times put the LFG goose chase in context and note that all the hot air turned out to be yet another righter-wing blogger charade? After all, that was the news.
Steven Benen has the round-up.
Brooke Gladstone at NPR still has one: "They got in the way of the story because they made themsevles the story."