I was reading the Repub guy at Politico's blog and he had an post up about Palin and her where abouts last night. She was at an Irish pub in Philly with 450 supporters watching the debate on TV.

It went on about all the loutish protestors (100's) outside booing her and calling out insults. "Hey Sarah, I can see Alaska from my house on Walnut" type stuff.

I had no idea this was going on, I kind of felt the same way I did when I heard about the protests Dubya met on his inauguration day, well after the fact. Kind of shocked.

Palin is out of her league. She's used to being popular, liked, the pretty one, and if not, being able to punish the person that isn't supportive. This is a whole new world, and one that she can't control. This may be the real reason she is off her game...if that is what her problem is.

I remember Hillary being protested when I heard her speak in the early 90's and it was hateful, but she's always been an activist, has taken positions that rile up people.

Palin, not so much. In fact she backed right down on the librarian being fired once people stood up to her, after it wasn't popular.

p.s. Denning, you make perfect sense, it seems Obama played it just right even if we were frustrated that he didn't yell at McCain for all the crap that he was spouting.

On the $700 Billion Plan Obama supports letting the tax payers pay for it, while McCain thinks that we should make Wall Street fix their own mess.

Wow. When did McCain say that? Cool, I hate the deal, think it sucks and was pretty upset when both candidates supported it last night.

I thought McCain answered "Sure" and shrugged when pressed if he'd vote for the peice of crap by Lehrer.

McCain can change his mind, it's not like he's been held accountable for his multiple positions he's taken previously on this mess.

p.s. I really do hate the bailout bill, feel the Dems are being rushed, and now the Repubs are rushing with "improvements" like government backed insurance.

That's like asking State Farm to go down to Galveston today and offer all the homeowners that lost their homes flood insurance that works retroactively. The banks will still get the $$$ from us taxpayers since we are the ones backing up the insurance, all this does is add another layer. The banks will get the insurance and promptly apply for the $$$.

They all need to slow down.

If, and that's a big if</>, Iran was suicidal and wanted to have their country wiped off the face of the earth, that is what they would do. There would be swift retaliation, no one, including Iran, doubts that.

Why don't we worry about Pakistan the same way? There are many radical Islamists in that country. Some probably hate Israel, including some in the military and some in power. The Pakistani military has now been authorized to repel us at their border, by force if necessary, but somehow we aren't all shaking in our boots fearing a nuclear armed Pakistan. I'm not sure of the sophistication of their delivery systems, but that kind of technology can be bought, just like their scientist, Khan, sold his nuclear know how abroad.

p.s. Uncle Fester, it's only an objective, unbiased article when it is titled "The Mac is Back" or written by the likes of Byron York. It's funny, I didn't read Joan's article as if she was wearing her reporter hat, I read it as if she was voicing an opinion. I guess that's only okay for the other side...

I did think you linked to Jonathan Martin. You didn't, you linked to Roger Simon. Sorry for that.

Here's another article from Politico's main page. It reads like Joan's article.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14006.html

It's titled McCain on the Offense, Obama plays it Cool.

Here's a clip:

Obama’s answers were crisp in places, a bit wandering in others, but always aimed at what he seemingly defined as his imperative for the evening: not to land hard punches on McCain but to reassure people about his own knowledge and poise in the realm of foreign affairs.

In the end, McCain sounded most often like a trumpet, Obama more like a violin.

Who was more effective depended mostly on the ear of the listener. At first blush, the post-debate analysts and commentators did not settle on any consensus choice for a zinger line or embarrassing blunder (though sometimes that consensus takes time, and a day or two of cable shows and newspaper columns, to emerge).

p.s. credentials don't get rid of bias, Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs both have great creds, so does Paul Krugman.

You are being disengenous.

I understand "balance" and so do you, you didn't quote Politico's roundtable assessment, you picked their RW "point of view" guy to give his opinion and then said it was from the "unbiased" Politico.

That's like pulling a quote from Pat Buchanan or Glenn Beck and attributing to the "liberal" MSNBC or CNN news crew.

I'll leave you to it.

Virtue, Politico may present both sides of an issue, but Jonathon Simon does not.

He is their "Republican" guy, like Ben Smith is the "Democrat" guy. Kind of like Hannity and Colmes. You don't even have to read their article to know where they will stand.