Media is impotent on judging conservatives

Anyone who watched Sarah Palin gaffe and stumble her way through Katie Couric's Q&A had to be horrified.

It was a cringe-inducing performance that went largely unnoticed in the mainstream media. Wolf Blitzer, when pressed by his angered and beloved colleague Jack Cafferty to "not make excuses" for Palin, said dryly "it wasn't her best interview."

Wasn't her best interview? Are you joking? I am an avowed Palin-hater and even I was uncomfortable, and I even *gasp* kind of felt sorry for her. She was sweating it out and could be seen looking down at least twice, trying to avoid the look of the whimsical, pitying face of Katie Couric who had to be wishing it was over even more than Palin.

But the mainstream media (except Cafferty and a brilliant SNL spoof) largely paid no attention to it. Even Chuck Todd, who many Republicans accuse of being "in the tank" for Obama, wouldn't come out and say the truth: That Sarah Palin looked, at best, terribly off the mark, and at worst, disqualified herself from the vice-presidency in a five-minute interview. Even George W. Bush has punched through more articulate and navigated responses!

In short, the media will not say that McCain played politics by wanting to bow out of the campaign and not debate, and the media will also continue to blindly refuse to acknowledge Palin's astonishing lack of understanding on any substantive issues. Period.

It's the economy, stupid!

I would have been surprised to hear McCain's comments about a strong economy, but he has made similar remarks at least a dozen times since January.

That's why yesterday, when in Florida, he said "the economy is fundamentally strong", my only worry was that the American public would be suckers for a promise from the same party that got us in this mess in the first place.

Actually, it's not the Republicans who got us here from what they did, it's what they DIDN'T do.

While I do not understand the economy's nuances and twists, I think I get the basics: De-regulation leads to corporate greed, no oversight means no one plays by the rules, and shipping American jobs overseas is not a good way to boost the "fundamentals" of the economy (which is what McCain "clarified" yesterday-- that the American worker is the base of our economy).

Actually, consumer spending-- not work ethic-- accounts for a great deal of our economic growth, 2/3 of our growth from what I've read.

So, if people aren't spending, our economy dies. How can people spend if their banks, their stocks, their homes, their loans, their jobs, and their credit cards are sinking and failing? The short answer: they can't, and that's why it's all about the economy, stupid!

McCain/Palin or Palin/McCain?

Since the announcement (or annointing) of Palin as the veep for the Republicans, I have been awed by the hype that surrounds her.

Without mincing words, let's face an obvious fact: Palin's popularity comes from her being a pretty, conservative mother-figure, and far less about what (little) she has done in an obscure state's political world. The reason she is a big deal is because she has five cute children and she is a "newbie" on the political scene.

What does this say about McCain as the "maverick"? Unfortunately for McCain, nothing much. Apparently his credentials as a scrappy, independent-minded Senator have done little for his popularity. In fact, the only time he has been consistently ahead of Obama in the polls (albeit by 1-3 points in most cases) is post-Palin.

The fact that he has only escaped the ranks of the 40-percentile since he announced his running mate says pathetically little about his abilities to convince the general public that he is the right man for the job. He has, for better or worse, been a household name for over 25 years and a media darling for about 10.

To tout Palin as the Savior of the Republican Party is almost certainly premature (undoubtedly she will not escape unscathed from this stormy election season). But to say anything other than her being the Savior of the McCain bid for presidency would be dismissing her integral role as... a hockey mom.

Did Sarah Palin win it?

Before I watch the talking heads spin her speech into an unrecognizable mess, I am stricken by two things: her bold and zesty attacks against Democrats (I heard the audience bellow a surprised "Oooh," as in "Oooh, no she didn't!" at least three times) and her unwaivering support for McCain.

Although both of these things were expected, few expected her to do it so well. Further, the incredible volume of strange oversights in her selection process (she met McCain only twice, the "Troopergate" scandal, belonging to a fringe Alaskan-Separatist group, her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy) was seemingly dwarfed tonight by uproarious applause from the Republican faithful. It is doubtful that even Republican insiders expected so much out of a "hockey mom" with a rather annoying voice.

So, why did she seem to do so well?

The main reason has nothing to do with her.McCain had so many people who were lined up on his "short list", it was hardly short at all. McCain was tracking women, a diverse group of current and former governors, pro-choice Senate veterans, business leaders, and any combination therein. In a word, he needed one thing: change.

In a broader context-- whether McCain/Palin is victorious or not-- the fact that the Republican vice presidential pick is the exact opposite of current and recent Republican leadership shows a broad and unanimous desire from the American people for "change" (a word I've counted used no less than 25 times in my casual viewing of the convention).

And we all know who the first man was to promise change this year... Let's hope the American people remember that.