Palin's speech:

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.

The truth:

In 2006, Ketchikan's Gravina Island Bridge, better known outside the state as the "Bridge to Nowhere", became an issue in the gubernatorial campaign. Palin initially expressed support for the bridge and ran on a "build-the-bridge" platform, arguing that it was essential for local prosperity. After the bridge became a political issue Congress replaced the earmark for the bridge with an infrastructure grant to Alaska to use at its discretion; Palin's subsequent policy was to continue construction on the road originally intended to link to the bridge while exploring less-expensive transportation between Ketchikan and Gravina Island.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/palin.track.record/?iref=hpmostpop

Palin's campaign coordinator in the city, Republican Mike Elerding, remarked, "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money."

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901

Sarah Palin = LIAR!

You're welcome, Xanthro! Any more easily google-able lies you'd like me to point out for you? There's plenty, as I am sure you know, since you spend so much time here.

Point taken.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that the Obama campaign use that as a line of attack (I happen to think they're doing a bang-up job on the "issue", as it is). Just talking aloud to my fellow progressives...

Obviously, having seen the ringer that both Obama AND Clinton have been put through, we progressives viscerally desire to see some ringing of the other side. We should be careful what we wish for.

Palin cannot, with the relative obscurity from which she was plucked, be ready to answer 80% of the questions she will be asked. She is getting a crash course in GOP electoral politics 101. She's memorizing rote answers for standard GOP base stuff, indignant responses to "character" questions (despite their willingness to denounce the Dems), and go-to demonizing/excuses for anything that's remotely technical or nuanced (e.g. healthcare).

The Democrats rightly should press for her availability to the National press, but should be careful at setting expectations too low in their rhetoric. A mediocre performance could seem like a "homerun" if the tone we set is "she won't do it because she can't handle it".

The other hard part about how we play this is all in the timing. If Palin comes out for interviews in 2 weeks (week before her debate) she might even get a pass with a poor performance if she is able to hold her own in the VP debate. Add this to the "press is mean" meme, and the minefield is packed for Biden. Not saying that he can't handle it. The down side of Palin is her horrible, on-record governing mistakes that can be used against her without ever mentioning Bristol or Trig (although you can be sure she'll mention her little miracle at least 3 times in the debate). Issue-wise, she's not in step with most of what the public believes and the reformer mantle is easily punctured by her own documented actions.

Which is why Obama ignoring her to certain extent seems like the way to go. If he engages in too much Palin specifics it looks like he's running against her and not McCain. John McCain is beatable. Palin may not be. Unless Palin's attacks get real personal, attacking her is going to have to be up to the surrogates and advertising.

More telling is Palin's sudden usefulness as a GOP fundraiser, which she'll be doing 10x more than answering any tough questions.

Sent to viewerservices@msnbc.com

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to you today to express my extreme displeasure in the elevation of David Gregory over Keith Olbermann as anchor for the remainder of MSNBC's election coverage.

I have been an avid watcher of "countdown" since its beginning in 2003. I have come to respect and admire Mr. Olbermann's tenacity, wit and ability to see through standard political talking points from both sides. He has an uncanny ability to get to the heart of an issue, regardless of party, and is extremely important to my patronage of MSNBC and its programming.

Mr. Gregory, although a fine reporter, has a tendency to repeat Republican talking points ad infinitum. His current show, "Race to the Whitehouse" seems to consist primarily of Gregory throwing out various GOP smears of Barack Obama for his panel to respond to. All GOP allegations, despite their context or validity, are presented equally as fact-based and important, regardless of truth or context. This is not what I have come to expect from MSNBC's political coverage and its role as a counterbalance to the more obviously right-wing cable news networks.

I am asking you, as a loyal and avid watcher of your network, to please reconsider your recent staff decisions regarding Mr. Olbermann. My only other alternative for political coverage (outside of "Countdown" and the new "Rachel Maddow Show") is CSPAN, but I will not hesitate to make that choice, if necessary.