Colorado . . . hmmm.

If Colorado is the new Florida (and God help us if we end up with another Florida-2000 situation), then isn't this bad news for Republicans?

By the time Western voters get out of work and head to the polls, the race usually seems decided. I see a lot more potential for media interference with Western voter turnout when calling the Eastern races. If the battleground is Colorado, then what happens if one side has 3 hours to prepare the battleground before the other side arrives for the fight?

Testing what's really important.

All of this to do about the so-called Bush Doctrine is telling us more about Charles Gibson than Sarah Palin. "How do you define the Bush Doctrine" isn't a foreign-policy pop-quiz gotcha, it's a media buzzword question. Bush hasn't come out and said "Here it is: My Doctrine!" The only people are defining it are columnists. No wonder Charlie (ha) was so affronted.

Implicit message: It's not enough to be familiar with and have opinions on your foreign policy positions. You have have to be familiar with and have opinions on the media's foreign policy positions.

And, of course, the fact that media doesn't know its own foreign policy position is immaterial.

Why should Charlie know what he's talking about? It's not like he's running for vice president!

Palin!

Good speech. For all it was hyped as a win it-or-lose it night, she was great, but not earth shatteringly so. She is a gifted politician. I think she struck the right balance between talking about herself, McCain, and Obama, with just a wee bit of Biden (through the Delaware comments). [ETA: Not Delaware, Scranton. I think it was Rudy who mentioned DE.] At first I thought she was going to overdo the folksy small-town talk, but it was a good fit within her overall theme of reinforcing the differences between the tickets. Worst part of the speech - the foreign policy pop quiz (Caucasus, Venezuela, blah blah). Best part - she went on the offensive! The bit about the Obama-Georgia-UN Security Counsel gaffe was great!!

As for the commentary, I watch PBS (Cox Cable sucks). Jim Lehrer seemed pretty neutral. David Brooks was much better tonight. Either he genuinely thinks she did a good job or he's smart enough to anticipate the backlash against the media and distance himself from the Palin lynching. Peniel Joseph's commentary was interesting, even though I disagree with him for the most part.

I'd never paid any attention to Mark Sheilds before this convention, but I stand by my original impression that he seems like a pissy little bitch, and not a very clever one at that. Gwen Ifill looked like she was drugged at the end - take a nap, Gwen! - and I think her bitter tone when talking about the Obama attacks are going to be indicative of the overall media reaction. That faux-hurt clucking over poor Barack's feelings is not, I don't think, going to play well overall.

B+ for Sarah
C- for Jim Lehrer and Co.

Now I'm angry.

NBC and CBS didn't even AIR Fred's whole speech? Despicable.

How irritating is Fred Thompson. . .

. . . for not giving speeches like this in his own run:

To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history-making nominee for president. History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.

Lol. I also particularly liked this part:

Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax "businesses." So unless you buy something from a "business," like groceries or clothes or gasoline . . . or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business," don't worry . . . it's not going to affect you.

As for the other speakers,

Bachmann: Irritating.
Laura Bush: Very good.
Bush: Classy.
Lieberman: Surprisingly effective.

I really liked Lieberman's point about bipartisanship. If your goal is to be post-partisan, to heal the country of its divisiveness, why would you vote for the candidate who is ranked the #1 most extreme liberal over the candidate who regularly goes against big ticket conservative positions (climate change and immigration), who approached a Democrat to be on his ticket in 2004 and seriously considered adding one to his in 2008? I don't think bipartisanship is necessarily a virtue, but Obama would have us believe it is. Who is he kidding about being "bipartisan" here? I have yet to actually hear an answer about this from an Obama supporter, but I truly would like to know.

I watched on PBS, which was great because the talking heads were kept to a minimum. It was funny watching David Brooks make everything into a backhanded compliment. Way better than Mark Shields, who was a really nasty piece of work. [ETA: I'm not the only one who thinks so.]

Finally - I got to talk to Hugh Hewitt on the air today! Now I have something in common with Lileks! Yay for me.

Women and Children First!

I cannot believe the insinuations the Dems are making about the Palin family. First the comments about whether the veep can adequately parent a newborn. Then they say that her 17 year old daughter birthed her new son (because Downs happens at such high rates in 17 yo vs. 44 yo, right?) . In doing so, they are committing slander per se against a seventeen year old girl who has not, of her own volition, ever made any attempt to seek the spotlight.

Now the ever-disgusting Alan Colmes claims that Palin didn't get proper prenatal care, gets caught in that disgusting bit of misogyny, and blames his spineless (failed) cover up to "vile" "conservatives" who "invade" (apparently visiting a public website is an invasion now). Proving he still doesn't get it, he says that his position can be summed up as follows:

I love how everyone keeps trying to accuse Alan of accusing Princess Mooseburger of birthing a mentally retarded child on purpose. He asked a judgement question about a 7 month pregnant woman who just had her water break GET ON A 12 HOUR FLIGHT TO GIVE BIRTH after giving a 30 MINUTE SPEECH instead of doing the SENSIBLE THING AND STAYING PUT WITH A DOCTOR.

Because who are you, Sarah Palin, mother of four and expecting your fifth, to decide what's appropriate for your body and your son, because ALAN COLMES and his hateful commenters know better than you about your body and your pregnancy. How dare you suggest otherwise, you uppity freak.

Disgusting. It's almost like the party that's going to save women's "reproductive freedoms" is trying to keep her down because of her uterus. I'm starting to understand why lefties get so emotional on social issues - it's not a great feeling having the villagers with pitchforks coming for my uterus. Apparently reproductive freedom extends only to the freedom to kill - not the freedom to breed.

At least Colmes didn't try to pretend he gave a crap about Trig Palin. Because we all know he's thinking that she should have just killed him in the womb anyway. That, to me, is the more salient judgment question.