Bush, Obama, and McCain are all nominally in favor of increasing the occupation of Afghanistan, increasing raids into Pakistan. Regardless of who wins the upcoming election, we seem destined to sink deeper into the Afghan quagmire.

-- casual_observer

This is an important point; thanks for bringing it up. Initially, this story made me get a little fired up on behalf of Obama, but then I realized that electing Obama isn't going to help this particular situation.

I think we're just a nation who enjoys war. No mainstream politician (and, despite the cries of the right, Obama is no far left anything) is going to change that. (See: Clinton, Bill)

McCain has voted less than Obama.

-- Arne Langsetmo

One of my favorite stats about McCain: He is the most absent Senator for the 110th Congress, beating the number two, Tim Johnson, who has been home recovering from a brain hemorrhage, by a substantial margin. (63.8% to 48.7%)

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

...she then started firing some of her own. The more she talked the more she reminded me of that poor, lost soul from the beauty pageant, was it one of the Misses Carolina? The one who went on a painful ramble about our education helping South Africa...with maps??? Or something.

-- Pedinska

She was the one who kept referring to "The Iraq" and nonsensically repeating the phrase "such as" over and over. (Link in sig.)

I really can't wait to watch the Palin interview now. :)

Jinx! :)

I remember it as the first one who said jinx punches the other in the arm and says, "you owe me a coke." So, I guess you owe me a coke. I prefer diet. ;)

GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

Palin is a moron. To try to claim that, by virtue of the fact that she happens to be governor of a state that has oil reserves somehow makes her capable of handling foreign policy...

Unfathomable, unfathomable, unfathomable, unfathomable, unfathomable, unfathomable, unfathomable, unfathomable,

unfathomable, unfathomable.

And, Kitt, root beer it is!

Raum says,

Many liberals are belittling the choice, suggesting that as a mother of five children -- including an infant with Down syndrome -- she has neither the time nor the experience to become vice president.

I bolded "nor the experience" because the way he's framed the issue is interesting. Apart from the false assertions he makes, he's appears to be trying to put any discussion of her experience-level (which has nothing to do with how many children she has) off limits by inexplicably tying it to the her family issues. (I'm not sure how he even reaches the argument - that "liberals" are claiming she didn't have time to gain experience because she was raising a family?)

Based on that construction, then, any discussion of her experience-level becomes "sexist" or an "off limits" discussion of her family when, in fact, her lack of experience is, perhaps, the most relevant issue when it comes to her ability to serve as VP. Just see her Gibson interview for evidence of that.

These tactics in trying to take any discussion of Sarah Palin's credentials off the table are so transparent. These people are clearly aware of her many limitations, which is why they're so defensive.

If the AP article had been about Gutman's comments, and had discussed them in depth, including the context, then fine. Those comments were fair game (and, I thought, in poor taste). But, the bottom line would be that ONE Obama fundraiser made a particular comment. Raum, if honest, would also have to cite to the Obama campaign's unequivocal rejection of the statements. Readers then get to draw their comments from the actual facts.

But, this is what Raum said (with my emphasis):

Many liberals are belittling the choice, suggesting that as a mother of five children -- including an infant with Down syndrome -- she has neither the time nor the experience to become vice president.

One does not equal "many" even in GOP land. (Nor am I sure that that the above is exactly what Gutman said.)

Even if tiberius' story did meet the challenge posed by Atrios (and I'd love for Glenn to weigh in on whether he thinks Gutman's comments are in line with what Raum described - I don't think it's as clear cut as everyone here does), it doesn't fix the problem with Raum. First, again, one does not equal MANY.

Second, Raum clearly didn't know about Gutman's statements when he wrote his article, or he would have cited them. He didn't even cite them after the fact. His claim was completely unsourced and, as far as he knew, fabricated. The Gutman article doesn't do squat if Raum didn't know about it when he made the claim. Lack of journalistic integrity, QED.

So, tiberius may not care about Raum, but for the rest of us who do care about the posts on which we comment, Glenn's point is still intact. (The hyperbolic "not even one!" stuff probably isn't helpful, because it's really hard to prove a negative, but the argument still exists that Gutman's comments AREN'T evidence of Raum's point, I suppose.)

The AP article claiming that liberals made this argument was written on September 2. Gutman appeared on that show 3 or 4 days later -- on Sept. 5 or 6 -- so it is pretty unlikely, to put it mildly, that that was the basis for the AP article.

-- GlennGreenwald

Thanks Glenn. *smacks forehead*

I asked Karen to give examples of how Glenn makes a case but doesn't have to prove it. I hope the irony of her failure to prove her own case isn't lost on her.

(As a side note, I find her reference to Glenn as "Glennzilla" to be utterly unprofessional. It's very petty and childish, and hardly helps her credibility.)