And it's about damn time the MSM started asking hard questions...

AMEN! As Carville might say - that dog don't bark no more. It is, in fact, the GOP that is using the Palin's private family issues as a shield against legitimate issues about Palin's public record.

Just a quick defense of Sully. I didn't see him pushing the story per say, but rather blasting the campaign for not just releasing any viable medical document (e.g., birth record) to crush it once and for all.

We need to hold the campaigns to a higher standard than just their 'word'. I think that's what Sully was driving at with this simple example. How hard is it to produce a birth record?

Much like the Bounds/Campbell interview, the campaigns should come to expect any statement to be backed up.

Go Sully . . . ! ;-)

If the McCain/Palin was really concerned about these baby switch smears, then why didn't they release medical documents to quash them once and for all instead of violating Bristol's privacy on the national stage?

Give me some effin credit from stoking the Bristol Palin story.

A yellow card to Steve Schmidt
for simulation.

Eric, I disagree about Sullivan. Demanding that any political candidate certify -- in order to answer an internet rumor -- that her child is her own is ridiculous and insulting. If the "accusation" was made by a political opponent, maybe.

OTOH, the Bounds/Campbell interview was beyond appropriate. Hers were legitimate questions, and her smirking cited by critics was a legitimate reaction to Bounds' blatantly obvious determination NOT to answer a fair question. (He "responded" to the question, though, without answering it.)

The Republicans are running against the news media. Its a favorite target, and attacking it produces good results with the flock of cretins who can't tell fact from opinion.

The "story" about Trig supposedly being Palin's grandson strikes me as the equivalent of the Obama birth certificate "controversy." A borderline-fantastic scenario based on nothing but speculation and not worth dignifying with an official response. I can't fault the campaign for not releasing medical records there.

That said, everything else that's come up about Palin, from her earmark two-step to the attempted book-banning to the Jews For Jesus karmic whammy, are fair game and more than a little hilarious.

Kevin wrote, It turns out there are limits to what Saint John can get away with after all.

For five and a half years he was confined under extreme limits, so he should be allowed to get away with anything at this point.

In all seriousness, I'm really surprised that the McCain camp hasn't tried to play the POW card in the Palin controversy.

Will the Press continue to Eat McCain's poo and call it chocolate?

That's the question!

Just minutes ago, Rush Limbaugh stated that liberals hatred of children is shown by Obama's support for infanticide and by the "liberal" media's relentless attacks on Bristol Palin. Liberals are hoping that the media coverage will cause her to miscarriage.

"Bloggers and open platforms continue to publish riskier--and risque--material, some of it unfit for family consumption, some of it false, salacious and reckless, some of it true, relevant and damaging, a portion of which is picked up by the traditional press.

* Strategy: confound and collapse all distinctions between closed editorial systems (like the newsroom of the New York Times), open systems (like the blogging community DailyKos.com) and political systems, like the Democratic party and its activist wing. Whenever possible mix these up. Conflate constantly. Attack them all. Jump from one to the other without warning or thread. Sow confusion among streams and let that confusion mix with the resentment in a culture war atmosphere."

Other strategies we will see utilized in the Palin/McCain culture war are featured in:

'The Culture War Option For The Palin Convention'
by Jay Rosen, Huffpost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-rosen/the-culture-war-option-fo_b_123483.html

I'm waiting for someone in the MSM to ask Palin about how effective she thinks "Abstinence Only" program works! And also about her new slogan for teen mothers everywhere "Life Happens!"

+1 for the article using the phrase "EATING YOUR OWN DOG FOOD"

-1000 for the fact that the writer seems to be clueless as to what the phrase actually means. (In this case it would mean that the McCain campaign *would* be using it's own "product" of the "experience required" to vet it's own campaign, which it clearly is NOT doing...)

The more appropriate phrase would be "a dog returning to it's own vomit" (Which is also more picturesque and grotesque! But since this is motherjones, and THAT phrase is a religious "proverb" well... nuff said.)

Or you could buy this t-shirt: "My Parents Taught Me Abstinence and All I Got Was a Baby Bump" http://www.cafepress.com/sppabst.300428826

VPILF

alibubba says: "Demanding that any political candidate certify -- in order to answer an internet rumor -- that her child is her own is ridiculous and insulting."

Fair enough, and I see your point . . . . . to a point. But, the problem with this line of logic (what is and isn't ridiculous or insulting) is who draws the line?

Right now we have the McC campaign stating that 'everything' is over the line, and 'any' question is insulting to Palin as a woman, Alaskan, reformer, hunter, etc. etc.

So, I would rather that we error on the side of campaigns expecting to back up everything . . . . . rather than nothing.

Isn't this just standard practice? When faced with a number of negatives they choose the most outlandish one and blast away as if all questions were equally outlandish and scurrilous rather than address each issue one by one.

Isn't it equally riduclous and insulting to release the details of your 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy to deflect attention from an Internet rumor?

"I can't speak for the National Enquirer, but I've seen virtually no questions about Trig Palin's parentage in the mainstream press"

It's been discussed on NPR, Kevvy. And Kewwy, here it is at the LA Times blog, Top of the Ticket. I don't know the relationship between that blog and the Times itself, but it seems pretty damn official.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/the-palin-state.html

Kev, you're the d00d with lexis/nexis.

"So, I would rather that we error on the side of campaigns expecting to back up everything . . . . . rather than nothing." -- Eric

I understand and respect your points, Eric. I think any claim or position a campaign makes or takes needs to be backed up. I just feel differently about being pressured to respond to a specific rumor.

To me, "rumor" is the key word. The rumor that Sarah Palin's baby isn't hers was not an Obama charge, and wasn't brought up by Palin or the McCain camp. There was, especially in retrospect, no reason to "answer" it. Just my opinion.

Reminds me of the old story about LBJ when he was running for office in Texas. According to the story (which may not be true), LBJ suggested his campaign charge that his opponent was a "pig fucker."

His aides were shocked, and explained that they had no evidence at all that such was the case. LBJ responded: "I know it. I just want to hear him deny the charge."

... who's the better actor? McCain strategist Steve Schmidt or all those soccer players who flop to the ground and pretend to be near death whenever a defender comes anywhere within a yard of their shins?

I'm not persuaded that very much of what he's doing is acting. The anxiety on the part of the McCain folks looks painfully genuine, and it's due in equal parts to the facts that a) they didn't do their homework, and they're being called to the front of the class to present it, and b) they simply aren't accustomed to being on the business end of this kind of media scrutiny. Vicious as these little Rove-lets are, they're hardwired to create these kinds of media feeding frenzies for other candidates, not respond to them, themselves.

It's entirely possible that we may be headed for a full-scale meltdown before this is over.

A little OT but I've not seen mention anywhere in the media(s) comment on the cynical stagecraft involved when Palin and her family were introduced to the world by McCain in Ohio. There stood the sad faced Bristol with the baby in her arms and a large towel covering her five month bump.
One boggles at the back stage plotting that went on to pull this deceit off. It was only after the Enquirer (can you believe it again) said they were breaking the story that the Palin's came clean on the pregnant situation.
I really feel for that young woman. And what about the younger children? How is this power quest circus impacting them?
Does everyone believe this line of question out of bounds?

Is anyone else getting a kick out of the irony regarding Palin's daughter's pregnancy? They want to dispell rumours that she gave birth to a child by letting everyone know that she's pregnant now. Not much difference that I can see; either she was giving birth to a child out of wedlock four months ago or she's giving birth to a child out of wedlock 4 months from now... If they thought it was supposed to be a non-issue, that's a really bizarre way of doing it.

Past that, though, I think most people will see the McPalin ticket for what it really is; an attempt to pander someone more qualified to give interviews to People magazine than discuss the serious issues in depth. I'm quite sure that she'll have the talking points down, but I think the Dems really need to nail down specifics in the debates instead of relying on only hyberbole. That's where we can really trump them, and show what experience really means.

The problem with the “rumor” is there are so many things that make one turn around and say, huh?

Case in point, the curious quote of Bill McAllister, a seeming respected journalist who was HIRED by Governor Palin in August as one of her spokespersons. His credentials are here.

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=5686540

Here he is as quoted in the Alaska Daily New on Monday after it was announced that the daughter was pregnant.

“…McAllister said he found out this morning along with everybody else. I said people might find that hard to believe.

“I guess they can call me a liar then, but that’s the truth.”

Again, he said the only time he talked to Palin about it was when she approached him and said rumors about Bristol weren't true.

“I didn’t know anything about it. The only conversation I had with the governor about it was so long ago, that I don’t think it was true at the time.”

He said he doesn't remember when exactly Palin talked to him about it, but that it was when the Legislature was still in session and before we knew Palin was pregnant -- news that broke on March 5….”

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130204

McAllister’s on the record quotation says that the Governor tried to knock down rumors of her daughter’s pregnancy in late February or early March. But that story is mutually exclusive with the announcement that her daughter is about 5 months pregnant today.

5 months back from today would put the conception date around April 1. The family could not have know for at least sometime after, (missed period or pregnancy test) so a reasonable assumption would be May 1 at the earliest that 'rumors' were going around.

There is a big 2 month problem in the timeline.

Perhaps he's retracted or explained, but if so I've missed it.

Steve Schmidt is reacting the way any narcissist does when faced with the losing end of any situation - they lash out.

These maggots are used to winning winning winning. And they're damn good at it. McCain, their BFF, their maverick - allowed his campaign to shut off their access. I think they suspect (maybe correctly), that McCain didn't pick Palin but just doesn't care anymore what his longtime friends and associates think. ("Can I just be made president already? Do whatever you have to do.")

I think the scrutiny of Palin, the new aggressive questioning of McCain surrogates, and the refusal to back down - is probably the media finally asserting themselves against Rove's team of jackbooted footsoldiers (Schmidt, Nicole Wallace) - and I wouldn't be surprised if these have been deliberate strategic corporate media decisions to undermine Palin. The media has been bullied for eight straight years by these people, and now their beloved McCain has been enveloped by the dark side.

Not all, but a lot of conservatives - neocons and moneycons in particular - have been silent or publically skeptical about Palin. I don't think these folks are very comfortable with old-timey bible-revival sessions themelves.

Like most of you I saw the video of Campbell Brown pressuring Tucker Bounds for an example of when Sarah Palin ever actually made a decision about the use of the Alaska National Guard. He couldn't answer and instead of letting the little shitte spin she kept after him. He ended up looking like a fool. After wards the McCain campaign protested that she had "gone over the line." Apparently a journalist should never insist on an answer from one of McCain's spokes people.

Whining is an art form for the McCain campaign. What a bunch of cry babies.

Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy speaking honestly about Palin, did not know microphones were on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

Team McCain strategically wants to talk about scandal topics (e.g., pregnancy, children, etc) because the facts of Palin's political background are shallow and right-wing nutty. Typically Rovian head fake.

P.S. Love the new site.

Have some of you not looked at the Kos article about Trig? I know it isn't well researched, but that many photos can't be lying. The family photo with Bristol sporting the supposed baby bump is said to far predate the situation, but the arguments are compelling and coupled with the other photos, showing Palin at seven months pregnant with a flat stomach and sleek build, I think are worth treating as more than just a rumor. I'm sure the on the ground vetting team is spreading GOP and beer money all around Alaska to cover this up if it IS true, so why aren't medical records an appropriate request, especially if there is nothing to hide?
And don't argue the 'family privacy' thing because this is about ethics and honesty and if that family privacy thing is so valid, how come Bill Clinton even had to testify about his blow jobs from Lewinski? Didn't it cause hurt and embarrassment for Hillary and Chelsea? I guess only phony Christian families deserve privacy in times of tawdry scandal. Give me a break!

Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy speaking honestly about Palin, did not know microphones were on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

-- Angellight

*****

This is GREAT! Where did it come from?

That was great!

Facinating that Rush is pushing the "media is going to cause Bristol to have a miscarriage" line. Because, of course, there is really no evidence of how pregnant the kid is now (or if she is at all, actually) and if no baby appears before, say, mid February, then its certainly not beyond possiblity that the original story is true. What about the timeline problem pointed out by PJ? Of course, if Bristol was flamboyant enough about her non-abstinant behavior, its possible that there may have been rumors both then and now, but I'm just sayin'....

SOCCER PLAYERS? What the hell are you talking about? What kind of American are you Drum?

Basketball floppers!

Peggy Noonan r.e. Palin: "It's Bullshit."
This is great. Everybody needs to hear it. Also suggest little Peg stays off small planes.

But was she ever a POW? That seems to be the only experience that matters in McSame land. Or has she ever been Miss Buffalo Chip?

You forgot one. See: http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-louise-palin-lied-about-her.html

Palin engaged in resume padding by saying she'd visited Ireland (as proof of her foreign policy expertise). In reality it was merely a stop over to refuel.

Excellent point. I had been wondering why they had to do that.

National Enquirer now claims they were the ones who forced Palin's hand, but can we really believe theM?