In an article about how Democrats are supposedly unloading on McCain's VP pick and are "intensifying their attacks on Sarah Palin," Politico included reference to the fact that on Tuesday Obama derided the McCain-Palin reform rhetoric by saying, "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig."
But even Politico conceded that comment was not targeted at Palin personally. (i.e. Obama certainly was not calling her a pig.) So why would Politico include that quote in an article about "personal attacks" on Palin?
We're not sure why. But we do know Politico got a Drudge link out of the deal.
Steve Benen wonders why CNN can't just tell the tale?
MSNBC's David Shuster to NBC deputy political director Mark Murray:
Sarah Palin again repeating that line about 'thanks but no thanks' on the bridge to nowhere, despite all the media reports that said she actually supported the bridge. She's claiming again about the plane being on eBay although in fact it wasn't sold on eBay. Explain what the political benefit could be for Republicans to essentially say "you know what, we don't care what the media thinks, or says, we're just going to have her repeat these lines anyway."
Seems like it's about time for the media to start asking if there is a political danger for Republicans if they keep lying, doesn't it?
This time from an update posted at washingtonpost.com, headlined, "Palin Defends 'Bridge to Nowhere' Claims."
If only that were the case. Rather than Palin defending her Bridge claim by actually engaging with reporters about the issue, readers discover that Palin on Tuesday simply repeated, yet again, that she opposed Alaska's infamous Bridge to Nowhere. In truth, she did not.
But you know what? She's going to make that claim on Wednesday and Thursday, too. That's not going to be a case of Palin defending her Bridge claim, that will be Palin simply regurgitating her Bridge claim. The press ought to distinguish between the two.
And boy, is McCain relieved.
Salon's War Room details the carnage from Papa Bear's sit-down with Obama. Specifically, the host's spin on taxes.
Ezra Klein explains the lunacy of horserace journalism -- and how it creates its own reality:
McCain "won" yesterday's day of campaigning because a poll conducted last week showed him in the lead and that led reporters at places like Politico to write about his advantage which in turn led The Politico to render the objective judgment that McCain won the day because they framed their coverage in a way that was favorable to him. During that same day, Sarah Palin showed she didn't know how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac worked, which could have generated a lot of coverage and given Obama the day, but that's not what The Politico decided to emphasize.
Media Research Center's analyst on Rachel Maddow's new MSNBC gig:
Not only is the damage already done, the damage continues. I mean, not only are they keeping these people on for an hour a night, they're adding this lesbian Air America radio host, Rachel Maddow, on every night.