...Obama and Biden should be screaming from every rooftop that unemployment reached 6.1% for August. 84,000 jobs lost in August, as well. (Link from BLS at sig.)

I'm sure the resident trolls will find a way to blame Sandy Berger for that (h/t to someone hilarious yesterday), but that's an issue that the Repubs have completely ignored. (Probably because they have to.) The Democrats should be all over it, because it's an issue that actually affects Americans. It's certainly more important than Sarah Palin's stint as PTA/Hockey mom (which appears to be all the GOP has right now).

...is to continue the same policies which caused the economic downturn in the first place?

Brilliant!

At some point - and it might not be for 100 years - the Republicans are going to have to admit that trickle down does not work for anyone but the top 5% (if that). They're going to have to be up front about the fact that their entire economic strategy is to screw everyone who isn't them (the intent all along). There are people who would still vote for them - the kind who make $20 an hour and consider themselves in the top 5%. (Those people also think that our government is "small" under George Bush.)

Tax cuts for the wealthy stuck around during Clinton's presidency. The myth about Democrats and taxes is in the in the same category as the myth that Obama is a "far leftist."

The Republicans just exploit the lies, because people will believe them. And, when it comes down to it, money rules all. If they want to win, Obama and Biden need to be talking about the economy - in very specific terms - all the time.

Can you please provide an in-depth, sourced (by raw data) discussion of how Republican economic policies help the overall economy, rather than the top, say, 5% of earners? I've been asking around about that, but I can't get a straight answer. Rather than making conclusory statements that the "other guy's" policies don't work (or trying to tank the economy in order to prove that you're right), it would be much more beneficial if you explained how yours do. (Of course, Obama's plan would cut taxes for the middle class MORE than John McCain's plan would, but we can leave that out for now, since I think your theory rests on cuts for the wealthy. Back in the day, they referred to it as the "horse and sparrow" theory.)

By the way, "While teenagers accounted for most of the earlier increase, the job losers in August were mostly over 25 and college educated as well as high school graduates." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/business/economy/06econ.html?bl&ex=1220760000&en=911c9604f792c501&ei=5087%0A

Sarah Palin is all smiles and encouragement as she addresses the Alaska Independence Party Convention. She even uses one of Sh**ter's favorite lines, "Keep up the good work".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

-- Kitt

There you go.

It's already been established by voter registration records that she was never a member of the party. Her husband, however, was. (I believe I read that he registered with them twice. Of course, my own grandmother accidentally registered American Independent instead of Decline to State. It happens a lot. Maybe he was confused?;) )

But, she is TIED to them by virtue of her address and her comments, as linked by Kitt. Why on earth would she even do that? It's certainly not a part of the Governor's duties.

Barbara Boxer's latest email contains video of the Daily Show's skewering right wing hypocrites with regard to Palin. It's hysterical - a must see. (Link in sig - takes you to a page of Boxer's PAC site where the video is embedded.)

Barbara obviously sees the value of the Daily Show's use of the Repubs words against them. (They hang themselves, but Stewart's commentary makes it even funnier.)

And Samantha Bee interviewing people who just can't bring themselves to use the "c" word:

http://tinyurl.com/57h98g

-- Pedinska

That was a classic. I also liked the lady who said that Sarah Palin was proving that "anyone could be Vice President." And, I can't leave out the guy who said, "She's qualified! First, she's good looking." Lord have mercy.

This is from the AP Article on the subject: "The change reflects tensions between the freewheeling, opinionated MSNBC and the impartial newsgatherers at NBC News." (Link at sig.)

"Impartial newsgatherers"? Please. On the other hand, the "newsgatherers" part is right, I suppose. As Glenn has documented, the Brian Williamses of the world think their job is merely to report whatever they're told and never address or question it.

On another topic, let's not pretend that Chris Matthews is to the left what Bill O'Reilly is to the right (I've seen at least one or two comments asserting that). I can see people comparing Olbermann to O'Reilly, but Matthews is hardly some sort of mouthpiece for the left. Glenn's documented that many times as well.

This one's from the WSJ:

"At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation." (Link @ sig.)

It's at the very bottom of an article about the Bridge to Nowhere which, interestingly, is still getting play. How many more times do you think the McCain campaign will tell this lie? Will this be the last time it's reported? Will it just become a "fact" as far as the electorte is concerned? Is it already too late to erase?