Book Review - Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin and the race of a lifetime

I was pleased to be offered an opportunity to review the paperback edition of Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime as part of TLC Book Tours virtual tour.  I read the hardback edition when it was released in January, tantalized, as were most, by the juicy revelations leaked  in the days leading up to the release.   On January 11, 2010, I mentioned having stopped at several book stores trying to pick up a copy of the book; it was sold out everywhere.  For political junkies, Game Change was the equivalent of the latest Harry Potter release, sans the wands and costumes.

Witches, however, were in abundance, at least as we found them in the pages of Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's insiders' accounting of all things campaign 2008.  On the path to elect a candidate with a paper-thin resume, two women Palin and Clinton, were burned at the stake in the press while a third, Elizabeth Edwards, is revealed to be an insufferable shrew.  We've come a long way haven't we ladies?

Halperin and Heilemann reveal Obama to be the improbable beneficiary of a plot among senior Democrats to stop a Clinton nomination.  Democrats such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were fearful a Clinton nomination was one salacious report of a Bill Clinton affair away from implosion.  Indeed, the Clinton campaign was reported to have established a "war room" devoted to containing the threat of yet another adulterous scandal that could derail a Clinton candidacy.  Ironically, the greatest threat to Clinton's candidacy was another love affair entirely; the soppy adoration among DC insiders and the bulk of the liberal media is evidenced by the absence of "dirt" delivered to the authors in their extensive "deep background" interviews with over 200 beltway insiders.

That the failed McCain candidacy frequently targeted Sarah Palin as a scapegoat for an inadequate campaign strategy and an uninspiring candidate has been widely reported from election night onward.  For this reason, I found revelations about Palin, as reported by these same insiders, the least interesting and least surprising in the book.  Oddly enough, it is Hillary Clinton who emerges as the most intriguing and sympathetic personality.  Accounts of Bill Clinton's anger and frustration as he was painted a racist because he criticized the media fairy tale that was Barack Obama, foreshadowed how most would be treated if they dared criticize Obama as well.  Details of the strain and frustration experienced by the Clintons during the primary to the tenuous alliance with Obama in the days post election are worth the price of admission alone here.

Halperin and Heilman include new material in the latest paperback release.  In an afterward they opine on the political futures of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.  The authors give further pause to those hoping Hillary might make another run for office.  Besides facing an age barrier, Clinton we are told, hates Iowa.  I find talk of a viable Biden candidacy laughable particularly when a second term for Obama seems far from a sure thing at this point in time.  Palin, of the three, has the benefit of time on her side.  We'll all be waiting to see what she does in coming days.  One thing is assured, however, Palin will never be the beneficiary of the laudatory coverage Barack Obama received, nor will she find senior Republicans conspiring to see her elected over the supposed frontrunner.

Reading the book again, in preparation for this review,  I found the book every bit as interesting as it was back in January.  I found different passage more intriguing, particularly after the November midterm elections.   Admittedly, I am a political junkie who finds the details of the improbable election of Barack Obama intriguing on many levels.  With a $10 price tag for this latest paperback release, Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime seems like a great gift choice for the political junkie on your Christmas list.


Tweet

Settlement reached in Palin V Gawker

Scroll down for updates to this post

Days after Sarah Palin and her publisher Harper Collins scored a major win  over the mean team at Gawker, we learn a settlement has been reached.   Alas, there won't be a TSA screening  for Gawker at the hands of Sarah Palin any time soon.  While some may be disappointed the attorneys at Harper Collins won't get to rifle through the junk in Gawker's trunk, this is still a major victory for team Palin.

Reading between the lines of the statements by both sides, we can piece together key pieces of the settlement between the parties.  Gawker has agreed to keep the infringing material off its website and will not post the material at any time in the future.  Erin Crum, a spokesperson for Harper Collins gives us insight why Gawker readily agreed to this point:

Ms. Crum said that a federal judge said that Gawker had published a “substantial portion of the book” and that it had “not used the copyrighted material to help create something new but has merely copied the material in order to attract viewers.” 

The judge was obviously well acquainted with the findings of Harper & Row V Nation Enterprises.  The language reported by Crum sounds remarkably similar to words used by Justice O'Connor when she wrote of The Nation, "went beyond simply reporting uncopyrightable information and actively sought to exploit the headline value of its infringement, making a "news event" out of its unauthorized first publication."  

Crum points out the judge said Gawker had not used the material to create something new.   In a famous 1994 Supreme Court ruling found the transformative nature of the use to be a chief indicator of fair use.  Justice Souter wrote, "The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use."   I am going to go way out on a limb here an guess the judge was unlikely to be persuaded that gawking gave new meaning or expression to Palin's book.  Gawker was going to lose.

Crum declined to comment whether there had been any financial settlement had been reached.  Does anyone ever disclose terms of a financial settlement?  There was probably some financial settlement.

Compare and Contrast the wealth of information weighing in favor of Palin and Harper Collins vs the meager but belligerent spin from Gawker:

Remy Stern, editor in chief of Gawker, said in an email: “HarperCollins’ decision to file suit against us and seek a temporary restraining order generated a good deal of press for Ms. Palin’s book in advance of its publication. Now that the book is out and destined to appear on the bestseller list, we’re pleased that Harper Collins proposed settling this case as is, this avoiding lengthy litigation for both sides.”

So maybe Gawker thought Palin was going to have a hard time showing the infringement undercut the marketability of her book.  Palin's book is going to do very well but there was a case to be made a couple million gawkers gawking at nearly 10% of Palin's book online for free was going to cut into some sales.  Note however, Stern makes a point of mentioning Harper Collins proposed settling the case as if going to trial was going to be a bigger loser for Palin than it would be for Gawker.  It would certainly be expensive for both.  Perhaps Palin found having her rights as an author protected while Gawker ended up covered with egg a nice outcome.  That Maureen O'Connor wagged her sorry finger in Sarah Palin's face only to have it turned on herself likely added a sense of emotional victory as well.

While an extensive probing of Gawker's junk might have provided further embarrassment to an organization that richly deserves it, Palin and her publisher would have been open to charges they were using her copyright to bully a bully.  Unlike the many copyright holders who abuse their copyright to extract a settlement when they have no reasonable claim, Palin's original question "Isn't that illegal" has been answered with conviction.

She protected her constitutionally afforded right as well she should.  She may have gone further than most in sheltering those who believe fair use is a right worth protecting as well.   Bill McGeveran, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, notes fair use is "fragile enough as it is."  Protracted litigation might have served the purpose of undermining its legitimacy further:

As with illegal music downloaders who try to stretch fair use to cover outright piracy, extravagant claims of fair use for large-scale leaks of significant chunks of a book risk undermining the perceived legitimacy of those rights.

Though McGeveran appears to be no fan of Palin, he laid blame for that potential outcome at Gawker's doorstep.  While I would love to have seen Gawker probed in a way they so richly deserve, there does come a point when winning a battle leads to losing the war.  As with all things Palin, the media attention generated during a battle between her and Gawker would be astounding.  McGeveran concern is a legitimate one I am afraid.

Settling the case so soon after the judge issued the injunction may serve to underscore the point sites like Gawker and Palingate can't use someone's unreleased book to generate page hits for their pitiful websites.  As copyright expert Ron Coleman wrote, "[h]ating someone doesn't mean you can infringe her copyright." This is a huge victory particularly when the left feels perfectly entitled to probe Palin's uterus so why should they stop to consider they are not entitled to her book as well.   I would add that is was particularly satisfying to see mean girl Maureen O'Connor get schooled by a woman she believed was her intellectual inferior.  All in all, that's not a bad days work for Sarah Palin.
Linked by The Other McCain - Thanks!

UPDATE : Via Memeorandum
Galleycat has the full statement from Harper Collins. Judge Grisea read Gawker the copyright infringement riot act it seems:

On Saturday afternoon, Judge Thomas Griesa of the US District Court in Manhattan entered a temporary restraining order against Gawker. In an opinion issued yesterday, Judge Grisea stated that “the purpose of the copyright law is to prevent the kind of copying that has taken place here.” Judge Grisea’s opinion also said that Gawker “published what amounts to a substantial portion of the book” but “essentially engaged in no commentary or discussion”, and that it had “not used the copyrighted material to help create something new but has merely copied the material in order to attract viewers.” Immediately after the hearing, Gawker removed the offending pages from its web site as the Judge ordered.

Read the rest as they say.  I hope Maureen O'Connor has taken a moment to read those links she asked Sarah Palin to read.  If she hasn't, Judge Grisea seems perfectly willing to walk her through it.

Also blogging: Cubachi at Hot Air and cross-posted at Cubachi.com

Heh, Jim Treacher delivers a shpanking commenting on Gawker's meager yet belligerent spin:

That’s right, sweeties, you meant to do that. To help her sell books. Because if there’s one thing Gawker is good at, it’s selling books. Oh wait no never mind.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/24/world-war-three-averted/#ixzz16Dsi1idi
Tweet

Did Gawker read those fair use links they suggested Sarah Palin read? UPDATED- Judge orders Gawker to pull pages

UPDATE: Via Palin TV Judge orders Gawker to pull pages 
11/22 - Linked today by Human Events thanks to John Hayward aka Doc Zero for the link!
Scroll down for updates:


I saw this lawsuit coming a mile away.  Sarah Palin expressed concern that excerpts of her new book were posted on the pernicious pages of Gawker before her book hit the market this coming Tuesday.  Far from taking the concern of a copyright holder seriously, Gawker did what they do best and mocked her concern:

[Sarah: If you're reading this—and if you are, welcome!—you may want to take a moment to familiarize yourself with the law. Try starting here or here. Or skip the totally boring reading and call one of your lawyers. They'll walk you through it.]

So let's go there since Gawker has kindly invited us to familiarize ourselves with the law, shall we?  The first link goes to Wikipedia which actually does a reasonably good job summarizing the complexities of the fair use exception to copyright law.  Since she linked it, I have to wonder if Gawker's writer Maureen O'Connor took a moment to familiarize herself with the law?  It seems to me the answer would have to be no.

In the opening passage explaining "fair use" Wikipedia notes:

Fair use, a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

Ms. O'Connor may have read just that far and figured she was offering plenty of commentary and criticism on Sarah Palin's unreleased book America by Heart : Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag.  No need to worry right?  Not exactly.  If we venture on the second link Ms. O'Connor cheerfully supplies we find this nasty warning in the opening paragraph: "Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court."  So it seems that Sarah Palin skipped the boring reading part and did what Ms. O'Connor and Gawker should have done, called a lawyer. Exercising her exclusive right to her original expression, which is provided in the Constitution, Palin and her publisher are now going to walk Gawker through a lesson on the murky nature of the fair use exception.

Fair use is an affirmative defense, meaning the burden will rest upon Gawker to prove their use of Sarah Palin's work (that has not yet hit the market) was fair.   Stanford law outlines the four factors and explains each in detail at the links:

1. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use
2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken
4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market

Fair use is based on common law so the judge will use case law as precedent when weighing the four factors. There is a lot of case law to consider but a key case that seems relevant here is Harper & Row V. Nation Enterprises.  Wikipedia summarizes: "Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that fair use is not a defense to the appropriation of work by a famous political figure simply because of the public interest in learning of that political figure's account of an historic event. 

Moreover, there are key findings in the Harper & Row ruling that point to problems Gawker will encounter in mounting a case for fair use and gives a sense how the four factors are applied:

(d) Taking into account the four factors enumerated in § 107 as especially relevant in determining fair use leads to the conclusion that the use in question here was not fair. (i) The fact that news reporting was the general purpose of The Nation's use is simply one factor. While The Nation had every right to be the first to publish the information, it went beyond simply reporting uncopyrightable information and actively sought to exploit the headline value of its infringement, making a "news event" out of its unauthorized first publication. The fact that the publication was commercial, as opposed to nonprofit, is a separate factor tending to weigh against a finding of fair use. Fair use presupposes good faith. The Nation's unauthorized use of the undisseminated manuscript had not merely the incidental effect, but the intended purpose, of supplanting the copyright holders' commercially valuable right of first publication. (ii) While there may be a greater need to disseminate works of fact than works of fiction, The Nation's taking of copyrighted expression exceeded that necessary to disseminate the facts, and infringed the copyright holders' interests in confidentiality and creative control over the first public appearance of the work. (iii) Although the verbatim quotes in question were an insubstantial portion of the Ford manuscript, they qualitatively embodied Mr. Ford's distinctive expression, and played a key role in the infringing article. (iv)

The fact that Sarah Palin's book has not yet made its public appearance weighs heavily in favor of Sarah Palin.  Gawker published photographic copies of pages of the book, well beyond what might have been deemed necessary for criticism or commentary, for the sole purpose of allowing their readers to Gawk at them and mock them.  Gawker took Sarah Palin's original copyrighted expression when they could have substituted their own words to express the ideas contained in the book but who would gawk at that?  They also appear to have been either too lazy or so blatantly antagonistic they didn't even bother to whittle down the amount copied to a key phrase or sentence here or there.  Again, they just wanted the reader to gawk at 21 pages of Palin's work before it had a chance to hit the market.

Some have argued that Gawker's use of Palin's protected expression does nothing to undercut the marketability of the book. The Harper & Row case involved a cancellation of a contract with Time Magazine that effectively took $12,500 from the pocket of the author, former President Gerald Ford, and the publisher. There is no such cancelled contract here but we read in the Supreme Court decision a cancelled contract was not the only loss considered:

More important, to negate a claim of fair use, it need only be shown that, if the challenged use should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Here, The Nation's liberal use of verbatim excerpts posed substantial potential for damage to the marketability of first serialization rights in the copyrighted work.

So how widespread might Gawker's use become?  Gawker posted the pages on November 17, 2010.  This was also their highest traffic day this week:

The number of people who saw the pages since Wednesday is fairly easily determined.  There will be an expert or two who would be willing to testify what a couple million Gawkers might do to sales of Palin's book.

The costs to Gawker for infringing on Palin's work don't stop there:

The legal penalties for copyright infringement are:

Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits.
The law provides a range from $200 to $150,000 for each work infringed.
Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs.
The Court can issue an injunction to stop the infringing acts.
The Court can impound the illegal works.
The infringer can go to jail.

That is starting to look like a pretty expensive day poking fun at Sarah Palin.  As I write this however, the greatest evidence that Ms. O'Connor didn't read the links she provided or take her own advice and contact a lawyer, suddenly comes to light.  Gawker has just now reduced the copied material significantly.  I am guessing a lawyer saw a whole heap of trouble Ms. O'Connor and Gawker did not.  It doesn't pay to skip the boring reading or the call to the lawyer does it Ms. O'Connor?

Related:
Hot Air  notes Palin exercised her exclusive right to post an excerpt from her own book on Facebook.  Skip Gawker and go read her there.

UPDATE: The AP reports:

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Saturday ordered Gawker Media to pull leaked pages of Sarah Palin's forthcoming book "America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag" from its blog.

The injunction prohibits Gawker from "continuing to distribute, publish or otherwise transmit pages from the book" pending a hearing on Nov. 30.

That the judge issued the injunction does not necessarily mean Palin will prevail, but it does prove that Palin had a substantial case that merits a hearing.  An injunction is issued to prevent further damage to the copyright holder.  I tend to side with those who are exercising a fair use claim as a general rule.  It is often the copyright holder who uses the law to silence critics or more importantly carve out larger niches for their work in the marketplace.  Nevertheless, I see no reason to give Gawker the benefit of the doubt here; their infringement  seems egregious, lazy and blatantly stupid.

UPDATE II:  The Other McCain has an exclusive copy of the restraining order - Also an email from a source familiar with the case noting this was a big win for Harper Collins attorneys.


Many many thanks to Jim Treacher at the Daily Caller for linking this post and to Stacy McCain whose link here made this post visible.  Welcome Daily Caller Readers and The Other McCain readers too!


More to come on Memeorandum
Thanks to Anne Leary for linking
Internet Scofflaw links with "Refudiated"
NewsRealBlog in the headlines
The Slatest at Slate links too
Tweet

Sarah Palin brings star power to my backyard - UPDATED

Sarah Palin spent the day here in my neck of the woods yesterday, bringing her considerable star power and enthusiasm as she helped to raise money for a local Christian school. I was fortunate to be able to attend Palin's speech as the guest of a friend who teaches drama at the school. It was an exciting night. Palin spent ample time discussing the role of faith in public life and stressed the importance of educating the younger generations on civics to preserve American exceptionalism and love of liberty. The press coverage, however, focused on Palin's teaser of an opening comment:

After an alumnus of the private school, north of Doylestown in Bucks County, finished an uplifting performance of "God Bless America," she coyly asked him, "Would you like to sing that at an Inauguration?"

You can hear Daniel's amazing performance of "God Bless America" at the 26 minute mark in the UStream video below.  Palin's remarks begin at the 38 minute mark:



It should be noted that Palin's opening teaser is followed by a more circumspect answer to the $64,000 question whether she intends to run for president.  At the conclusion of a question and answer segment, Palin was asked by the school's chancellor, Dean Whiteway, if she would like to take the opportunity to make an announcement and absent that would she describe the criteria she would use to make a decision to run.  Palin seemed taken back by the question and answered "Goodness gracious, I'm speechless."  She went on to say that it would take "prayerful consideration and polling of my family."  She elaborated saying, "“I wouldn’t do it just to shake it up, just to cause people in a competitive primary to have to debate and articulate what their solutions would be for the country.”  She stated with certainty, "I would be in it to win it."   She concluded her answer with, " I would certainly have to put a lot more thought into it than what I could give you today."

I haven't found video of Palin's answer to the chancellor's question.  The segment was conducted primarily by students and was not permitted to be videotaped.  The tone of Palin's answer was decidedly guarded, in my opinion.  Whether Palin has not fully made the decision to run or she is not yet ready to declare is anyone's guess and will likely fill the pages of many news reports in coming days.  Personally, I thought she was being more candid in her response there than in her opening statement which was intended to rev up a crowd that was clearly already in her corner.

Most of her opening was intended to be humorous as she relayed stories about Bristol loading up her truck and moving to Beverly .... Hills that is.   She touched on all the factors that weighed against Britol's decision to participate in "Dancing With the Stars."  She chose this anecdote wisely, in my opinion.    The story led to Palin relaying Bristol's inspiring conclusion that she would be criticized regardless of her decision and that "she might as well dance."   This set the tone for Palin's remarks to an audience of committed Christian students and their families as she discussed the challenges of preserving the role of faith in the public square.  Palin stressed the importance of courage as those who speak of the unifying quality of faith and belief in God face certain criticism.  She returned to Bristol's statement here saying, "like Bristol said, 'you're going to be criticized anyway, might as well dance.'"

Palin was asked several different questions by students that generated interesting answers.  One student asked which women inspired Palin.  I expected that Palin might answer as she did in the 2008 election but Palin didn't mention Hillary Clinton.  Palin chose Margaret Thatcher as a woman who inspired her, commenting on her grace and courage.  Palin also mentioned her own mother, though not a public figure, she was a source of inspiration to Palin as a woman and mother.  Palin also was asked about her own faith and how she balanced that in public life.  Palin mentioned the criticism here again but concluded that she could not imagine how she, or anyone for that matter, would survive in politics without faith.  The students asked great questions and Palin answered them thoughtfully.  I particularly enjoyed seeing her interact and respond to the students in this segment.

Palin's largest applause line came during her segment with the students.  She was asked by a young girl what was the one thing she would do as president.  Palin answered without hesitation, she would repeal and replace ObamaCare.  The audience erupted in applause as she elaborated, "This takeover of one-sixth of our economy, this Obamacare, is the mother of all unfunded mandates."   Our newly-elected Congressman, Mike Fitzpatrick, was in the audience.  His presence symbolized the strength of opposition to the health care law he promised to work on repealing and replacing as well.

I have to comment that after seeing Sarah Palin live it is truly stunning how unfairly she is covered by the media.  I have written about her unfair coverage at some length on this blog so I certainly shouldn't be surprised by it.  It was still an experience to see this series of photos from the event posted by the Allentown Morning Call.  Each photo captures Palin's expression as she spoke last night, yet I don't recall noting any of them.  At one point a man with what had to be the biggest camera I have ever seen parked himself on the aisle right next to us and shot photos continuously.  It was a bit loud and distracting.  Notice in the pictures above I caught none of that with my new Canon SX130.  Palin is never depicted with a halo behind her head either, unlike someone else we know.  Just sayin.

Memeorandum  has a thread on a "faux cookie" controversy Palin supposedly generated with her visit as well.  Palin, wasn't baking a controversy  from thin air as reports might suggest:

Sarah Palin is calling Pennsylvania's plans to issue new guidelines limiting the number of sweets allowed in classrooms: "a nanny state run amok".

"I look at Pennsylvania and I think of sweets - I think of Hershey. Then I think, how dare they ban sweets from school here," said Palin.

Before her Bucks County speech, she tweeted that she intended to bring the students cookies to make her point about "laissez faire government."

"I brought dozens and dozens of cookies. I had to shake it up for you guys, especially the press okay."

Politico reports Palin was responding to a report that has since been retracted while ABC notes, "The Pennsylvania Board of Education expects to vote on the new guidelines this spring. Again, these are just guidelines - not a legislative order."  As a parent whose children attended public school here I can say that restrictions on what parents are allowed to send to school have become increasingly prohibitive over the years.  I was always one of the mothers who ended up being homeroom mom and by the time my children were out of elementary school the list of items and activities that could be brought in the classroom for parties was extraordinary.  Palin's comments were not lost on this audience of Pennsylvania parents I can assure you.    Cookiegate is a controversy baked in the minds of the media hoping to discredit her I fear.

The event concluded when two students presented Palin with a lovely parting gift.  In the picture slideshow above you will see a lovely white teapot crafted by a teacher at Plumstead. This was surely a "good and perfect gift," wouldn't you say?

UPDATE:  Hot Air has video via Palin TV of Palin's answer to the school chancellor and Palin TV has a partial video of the Q&A.


Tweet

Sarah Palin can see Zimbabwe from her house

Exhibiting a "more sophisticated knowledge of monetary policy than any major Republican this side of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan," Sarah Palin calls on Chairman Ben Bernanke to cease and desist his "pump priming," in a speech delivered to a trade association yesterday. The effect of quantitative easing or pump priming has been disastrous in Germany and Zimbabwe in the past, leading  to a devalued currency and hyperinflation.  The Wall Street Journal notes Palin calls for real and sustained growth as she elevates discussion on monetary policy debate:

Stressing the risks of Fed "pump priming," Mrs. Palin zeroed in on the connection between a "weak dollar—a direct result of the Fed's decision to dump more dollars onto the market"—and rising oil and food prices. She also noted the rising world alarm about the Fed's actions, which by now includes blunt comments by Germany, Brazil, China and most of Asia, among many others.

"We don't want temporary, artificial economic growth brought at the expense of permanently higher inflation which will erode the value of our incomes and our savings," the former GOP Vice Presidential nominee said. "We want a stable dollar combined with real economic reform. It's the only way we can get our economy back on the right track."

This praise for Palin's knowledge of monetary policy from the Wall Street Journal stands in stark contrast to criticism from from another Wall Street Journal reporter who seems not have read his own paper.  Sarah Palin delivers a masterful rebuke as she wonders, Do Wall Street Journal Writers Read the Wall Street Journal :

So, imagine my dismay when I read an article by Sudeep Reddy in today’s Wall Street Journal criticizing the fact that I mentioned inflation in my comments about QE2 in a speech this morning before a trade-association. Here’s what I said: “everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher.”

Mr. Reddy takes aim at this. He writes: “Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact.” Really? That’s odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy’s own Wall Street Journal titled “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.”

The point is not whether grocery prices have risen significantly in the past year as Mr. Reddy counters.  Consumers will feel the real time effects of inflation as the Fed undertakes the risky measures that may or may not have any real effect in unclogging the lending pipes to spur a temporary economic growth.  As Palin notes, "if it doesn’t work, what do we do then? Print even more money? What’s the end game here? Where will all this money printing on an unprecedented scale take us?"  

History tells us all this money printing takes us to Zimbabwe.  Former governors and current housewives will be among the first to see Zimbabwe from their homes.

Also blogging:
Anne Leary - Palin on Point on the Fed. WSJ: Sophisticated Knowledge
Palin pops a persistent meme bubble at POWIP
Hot Air  has more
This topic currently at the top of Memeorandum as well.

Related: Palin Pushes New Ratings Service: Sarah's Scores

cross posted at Potluck
Tweet

Journolist: Trashing Sarah Palin

What's a group of liberal journalists and activists to do when faced with the unexpected pick by the Republican nominee of a little-known maverick Governor from Alaska?   Trash her of course, the question is how:

But in many other exchanges, the Journolisters clearly had another, more partisan goal in mind: to formulate the most effective talking points in order to defeat Palin and McCain and help elect Barack Obama president. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.

The conversation began with a debate over how best to attack Sarah Palin. “Honestly, this pick reeks of desperation,” wrote Michael Cohen of the New America Foundation in the minutes after the news became public. “How can anyone logically argue that Sarah Pallin [sic], a one-term governor of Alaska, is qualified to be President of the United States? Train wreck, thy name is Sarah Pallin.”

Not a wise argument, responded Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. If McCain were asked about Palin’s inexperience, he could simply point to then candidate Barack Obama’s similarly thin resume. “Q: Sen. McCain, given Gov. Palin’s paltry experience, how is she qualified to be commander in chief?,” Stein asked hypothetically. “A: Well, she has much experience as the Democratic nominee.”

“What a joke,” added Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. “I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale.”

Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama’s “non-official campaign” would need to work hard to discredit Palin. “This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away …… bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant …. I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama].”

Hey, what if we say she was a sexist pick?:

Chris Hayes of the Nation wrote in with words of encouragement, and to ask for more talking points. “Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get,” Hayes wrote.

Suzanne Nossel, chief of operations for Human Rights Watch, added a novel take: “I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.”

Mother Jones’s Stein loved the idea. “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket,” he wrote.

Another writer from Mother Jones, Nick Baumann, had this idea: “Say it with me: ‘Classic GOP Tokenism’.”

There is a lot more, so please read the Daily Caller's report.  It has been repeatedly pointed out that these attacks are not particularly newsworthy as many on the list are opinion journalists and have no obligation to follow "ethics" prescribed for straight-news reporters.  While this may be true, at least one well-known journalist,  presented ideas generated in the listserv as their own:

Time’s Joe Klein then linked to his own piece, parts of which he acknowledged came from strategy sessions on Journolist. “Here’s my attempt to incorporate the accumulated wisdom of this august list-serve community,” he wrote. And indeed Klein’s article contained arguments developed by his fellow Journolisters. Klein praised Palin personally, calling her “fresh” and “delightful,” but questioned her “militant” ideology. He noted Palin had endorsed parts of Obama’s energy proposal.

It all seems quite dishonest doesn't it?  If there is truly nothing wrong with a group of opinion journalists sharing their ideas on the best strategy to tear down a Republican nominee why not acknowledge it openly?  Why go to lengths to present ideas from like-minded colleagues without attribution as your own?  The truth is these elitist opinion-makers know full well the general public is not likely to make the distinction between opinion and straight reporting.  After all, how much unbiased reporting has the general public actually been exposed to in their lifetime?

In the case of Sarah Palin these early coordinated attacks shaped the opinions of a public that held few if any preconceived opinions about the second woman to be nominated to the position of Vice President.  Is there any doubt these private discussions where over 400 liberal journalists and activists discussed what points they would stress and which they would minimize shaped the outcome of this election?




Read more:
Liberal Bias - What Liberal Bias?!

My Take on the Daily Caller Journolist Revelations

Put Your Emails Where Your Mouth Is

Election '08: Virtual High-Fives and Online Obamagasms for Journolist

Journolist: Aiding and Abetting THE Narrative

If the Sherrod story can last one more day
Memeorandum

Joe Klein sees sedition like Haley Joel Osment sees dead people - It's everywhere

This video is making the rounds in the blogosphere. Normally I would skip a post on something so widely available but since this involves Joe Klein, I can't resist.  One of my earliest posts on this blog involved the sorely misguided Mr. Klein who can't seem to find a subject he is not willing to completely change his mind about if it suits his politics.  When I last took on one of Mr. Klein's absurd accusations he was accusing Sarah Palin of leading a party of nihilists.  Klein was outraged she dared to interfere in a difficult end-of-life discussion with his father.  Evidently Sarah Palin's death panel statement was directly targeted at Mr. Klein's aging parents who were going to be robbed of end-of-life counseling thanks to Palin's "obscene" statement. Oh the drama.

In an appearance on Chris Matthews Sunday show,  Joe Klein dragged his drama queen garb out of mothballs to take on Governor Palin once again.  This time he accused her of sedition.  He threw in Glen Beck on his seditious bandwagon just or good measure.  Holy time warp Batman, when was the last time someone was charged with sedition?  Actually it wasn't that long ago, Joe Klein sees sedition like Haley Joel Osment  sees dead people.  It's everywhere.

John Heilemann of "Game Change" fame can't wait to take a whack at the sedition pinata.

"And Joe's right and I'll name another person, I'll name Rush Limbaugh who uses this phrase constantly and talks about the Obama administration as a regime," Heilemann said. "That phrase which has connotations of tyranny. And what's so interesting about it to me, to get to Norah's point - what is the focus, what is the cause of this? You think back to 1994, there was Ruby Ridge. There was Waco. There were triggering incidents. There's been nothing like that. The only thing that's changed in the last 15 months is the election of Barack Obama. And as far as I can see, in terms of the policies that Obama has implemented, there's nothing."

Heilemann also suggested that the alleged up tick in militia activity is a result of the Obama presidency. Klein said it was not only the Obama presidency, but that he was "African-American," and had "Hussein" as a middle name, along with the "scary" economic crisis.

"Two are two things going on here and one thing is certainly that," Klein said. "One thing is he is African-American, but that his name is Barack Hussein Obama. The other we've had a very scary economic crisis. And when people get scared, they get defensive and they get a little crazy."

Speaking of getting a little crazy, woah.   Has anyone checked the water at MSNBC?  Rush let Heilemann have it with both barrels:

Okay.  So did you hear what Heilemann said?  Heilemann said, "There haven't any triggering incidents here. There's nothing to explain why the tea party people are so angry," except they're not that kind of angry, Mr. Heilemann.  They're just a little ticked off that the country has been stolen and the economy's been destroyed for two or three, four generations.  They're overtaxed.  The country is not what it was.  He even goes on to say there wasn't any triggering incident like Waco. Did Mr. Heilemann inadvertently step in it there, calling Waco a triggering incident for McVeigh?  Well, who was Waco? (doing Clinton impression) "Uh, you have to go ask Janet Reno the attorney general about that, I had no idea we were going to launch those tanks in there.  You have to ask her.  Heh-heh-heh.  Don't bother me.  Where's Monica?" 

Glenn Beck "felt like a horse stepped on his chest," when he heard Klein's craziness.  I can only imagine what Matthews Sunday show will be like after November.  They'll need to tape it in a padded cell.

SRLC Coverage Livestream Sarah Palin's speech

Nice Deb is representing the Potluck bloggers at SRLC in New Orleans. Follow the link to her day 2 coverage. She has great photos and coverage from last night's events including Liz Cheney's speech here. Ed Morrissey is liveblogging over at Hot Air. Stacy McCain has an interview with Governor Gary Johnson and lots of pictures including one of Sarah Palin, or a reasonable facsimile posing with her favorite blogger.

Watch live streaming video from srlc at livestream.com

Liz Cheney and Highlights from SRLC

Liz Cheney gave a great speech tonight at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. The Right Scoop caught the highlight of a speech filled with zingers aimed directly at this administration and as you will see the media wasn't spared.



Via Memeorandum
Coverage of the conference contains some novel criticisms from the media. Politico couldn't resist the opportunity to remind readers of Bush's failures during Hurricane Katrina using the New Orleans setting as an opening:

Five years after President Bush's failed response to a natural disaster in New Orleans deeply damaged his party's credibility and helped sweep them from power, top Republicans speaking to supporters in New Orleans tonight made no mention of Hurricane Katrina.

The post notes the city has rebounded but the population remains 75% of what it was 10 years ago. Having my roots in upstate Pennsylvania I remember the devastation of Hurricane Agnes in 1972. Thirty seven years later the city is still a shadow of its former self. That's quite a testimony for the Democratic leadership and economic policies that have had control of government there ever since. New Orleans Democratic Mayor Ray Nagin hands off keys to the city to Mary Landrieu's brother Mitch but it is Bush who continues to be tied to the failures of the city during a time of crisis.

Politico ends the post with two quotes I am sure were intended for irony:

"Nothing makes people more convinced of the rightness of conservative causes than seeing the alternative in action," said Cheney.

Said Watts, "History’s going to be kind to George W. Bush."

Well Politico really nailed the right with those quotes.  Consider me mortally wounded and moving on.   On a positive note CNN continues its' shock and awe strategy of covering the news from the right without bias.  CNN reported on Sarah Palin's dinner out in New Orleans in the private dining room at the acclaimed John Besh restaurant August

Palin shared a meal with Cathy Maples, a Huntsville, Alabama resident who bid $63,500 in an online last September to win a dinner with the governor. The proceeds of that auction went to Road2Recovery, a charity that assists wounded veterans. Besh donated the cost of the meal to the cause.

The chef, himself a former Marine, served several of the courses and shared stories of his service in the military, according to the aide. Palin and Besh also chatted about Hurricane Katrina's impact on the city - a topic that went unmentioned during the opening night of the SRLC on Thursday.

Ok we'll be waiting for Politico to post an update with the news that Sarah Palin discussed the impact of Katrina on the city.  Waiting, and waiting and waiting.  

While you're waiting, The Other McCain and Nice Deb are covering the conference live.

Palin on "The Tonight Show"

I think you could say Palin had the audience in palm of her hand as she opened "The Tonight Show" for Jay Leno.  Palin took to the stage and tried her hand as a stand up comic.  This is featured in the clip but here are the highlights:

Hello. Thank you, Jay. Thank you.  I'm  so happy to get to be here.  This is a thrill of a lifetime really. And Alaska, being so different from Los Angeles. Here when people have a frozen look on their face, I find out it's Botox.  (Laughter.)

It is so beautiful here, though, so warm and beautiful. Back home, ooh, it was freezing. It was 5 degrees belowCongress' approval rating.....

Shaun White on the show. Oh, what an amazing athlete. I watched him do a double McTwist 1260, and the only other people to do a double McTwist 1260 was last week: the White House on healthcare.

Palin and Leno discussed more serious topics as well.  Palin commented on the media's treatment of her family, her controversial decision to campaign for John McCain and the tea party movement.  Palin made a stop, while in Los Angeles, to the set of "American Idol," though she didn't appear on camera.





Via Memeorandum

The Mitt Tour

Via Memeorandum
A few highlights from Romney's visit to the Letterman show. Mitt managed to have a congenial visit with Letterman which is no small feat for a Republican.  Romney warns Letterman not to be too critical of Sarah Palin, "she has a rifle."  She may have a rifle but Leno brought her out as a ratings nuclear warhead for his first week back on The Tonight Show.   I think Letterman might regret his treatment of Palin and her family when he sees the  head-to-head ratings tomorrow.


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Next, we have a clip showing Mitt's stay on the "The View's" "not so cozy couch"." ABC's Teddy Davis paints this visit as quite a bit more contentious than it comes across on this clip. He highlights an exchange between Joy Behar, Barbara Walters and Romney focusing on Romney's criticism of Barack Obama and the World Apology Tour (see first video embedded beneath the jump)  Davis suggests, in an editorial note, the segment calls to mind John McCain's visit to The View during the presidential campaign. Clearly the ladies of The View didn't give Romney the love and adoration they poured on Obama but I wouldn't say this was quite the "bone pickin" they gave John McCain either .

I have also added another highlight from the same show including a rather surprising comment from Joy Behar who declares Scott Brown and Mitt "hunky" I don't recall McCain getting the hunky praise though I seem to recall Barack Obama got a little love from the ladies on his good looks. Speaking of love, ABC reviews Romney's book and notes a stark contrast to Sarah Palin's memoir. Of course Mitt wasn't writing a memoir, he was writing a policy book, so apples and oranges there. The review ends with something of a prediction:

If history is any guide, however, Romney stands a decent chance of getting his party's nod. Although he was hurt last time by questions about his authenticity, Republicans have a long tradition of nominating second-time candidates: think Richard Nixon in 1968, Ronald Reagan in 1980, George H.W. Bush in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996, and John McCain in 2008.

I think we should let the Republican voters pick their candidate and there will be plenty of time for that after the midterms. The View videos are embedded beneath the jump.

Chris Wallace Clears Up Eye Roll Drama

On Monday's "Morning Joe" show Joe Scarborough decided that Chris Wallace had rolled his eyes after interviewing Sarah Palin. Scarborough went on to declare the supposed "eye roll" was meant to signal to Wallace's friends that Palin "isn't a serious thinker." Megyn Kelly decided to go straight to the source and interviewed Chris Wallace to clear up the controversy. Wallace was quite blunt in what he thought of Scarborough's assessment and doesn't mince words in the process.

Just 44% of Voters Choose Obama over Nameless GOP Candidate

Gallup released a poll showing Barack Obama barely hanging on in an election against a generic GOP candidate. The poll showed voters divided 44% choosing Obama 42% choosing a nameless Republican candidate. The poll showed Independents leaning toward a Republican candidate by a margin of 45 to 31. Essentially Obama barely hangs on here because Democrats still outnumber Republicans and the poll samples registered voters which would tend to favor Democrats more than a sample of likely voters. Still, he hangs on with a 2 point lead which falls within the 4 point margin of error.

Ed Morrissey points out another interesting find in the poll. Gallup notes that Obama's approval hovers around 50% and generally speaking Presidents with a 50% approval tend to win reelection. This trend may not apply to Obama as voters may say they approve yet still vote for a Republican. Ed writes:

The influence of Obama’s personal likability appears to be influencing job approval. The difference between that and the percentage who would vote for his re-election is six points, which is outside the margin of error. Clearly, some people “approve” of Obama while disliking his performance enough to vote for an unnamed Republican challenger, at least at this point — and that’s something to keep in mind when looking at approval ratings in other polls, especially those based on likely voters.

The poll asks Republicans and Republican leaning Independents to name a potential candidate for 2012 without prompting them.  The top five, in order, are Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Scott Brown, and Mike Hukabee.  When Gallup polled Republicans in July, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Huckabee led the field of potential candidates supported for a GOP nomination.  Palin does better with conservatives while Romney does equally well with conservatives and moderate or liberal Republicans.   Generally speaking, these early results are based on name recognition and Gallup points out Rudy Giuliani was favored early on and yet failed to win the GOP nomination.  It appears, though, Republicans, and Republican leaning Independents have not settled on one candidate and seem to be open to a variety of candidates.

Via Memeorandum

Gibbs Jumps on the Hand Jive Bandwagon

He looks like the kid who has to tell the same joke everyone else has already told.  He looks desperate for a laugh and worse Obama had just spoken on the need for bipartisanship.  The desperate attempt to get some attention backfired when those in the room couldn't help but let out a groan.  What an ass.

Andrea Mitchell Has Never Recovered From the Balloon Attack

Via Memeorandum

More of the utterly absurd "Hand Jive" from the equally absurd Andrea Mitchell. Mitchell thinks the hand notes were the one of the most interesting thing to come from Palin's tea party speech. Color me shocked by the news.  Women are so supportive of other women as a general rule and of course Andrea Mitchell has been unbiased in her coverage of Palin so far hasn't she?

Credit to Chuck Todd for at least trying to defend Palin by saying, "we've all done notes."  Andrea, of course, is not to be steered from her Palin bashing fun.  Has Andrea been harboring a grudge since she was attacked by those GOP balloons after Palin's nomination speech or are there different rules when it comes to covering Sarah Palin?



Sometimes those jokes just write themselves don't they Andrea?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

For More: See Palin Exposes Mysogeny in Democratic Base, Again

Palin's Tea Party Speech Brings Derangement to Full Boil

The big news of the day on Memeorandum is the reaction to Sarah Palin's speech last night in Nashville.  Nothing like a Palin speech to coax the liberal blogs to take a short trip over the edge.  HuffPo even has an EXCLUSIVE SHOCKING PHOTO from the event:

"Closer inspection of a photo of Sarah Palin, during a speech in which she mocked President Obama for his use of a teleprompter, reveals several notes written on her left hand. The words "Energy", "Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" are clearly visible. There's also what appears to read as "Budget cuts" with the word Budget crossed out."


WOW, I am shocked that she had a few key words written on her hand when giving a major speech covered by CSPAN and most of the cable news networks.  Really, it is the same thing as reading the whole thing word for word off a TelePrompTer isn't it?

The left has more, I know, gasp.  There is video where she appears to check these points on her hand when asked about the role of a conservative House or Senate if in fact Republicans manage to wrestle the gavel from Pelosi's grip:

All this proves, as as Ann Althouse notes, Palin has us in the palm of her hand.  No one is more fully planted in the palm of her hand than Andrew Sullivan:

Above all, she is capable of generating a personality cult - much, much more so than Obama, because she can harness Christianism to her divine destiny. The power of this kind of appeal - of a charismatic, beautiful woman, an icon of the pro-life cause, persecuted by the evil elites, demonized by libruls, and commanding the biggest military on earth - should not in my view be under-estimated.


Know fear.


The surest way to defeat the modern day Jeanne d'Arc is through her gynecological records, of course.  Andrew Sullivan's crib notes would therefore look something like this:

SNL: Rahmbo Apologizes

H/T:  Hot Air Headlines
Perhaps the only funny sketch to come from SNL in quite a while.  Since it is been in the news all this week, the skit depicting an even-tempered Rahm Emmanuel apologizing for using the "r" word is certainly worth a post.  While the overall skit presents Emmanuel as a foul-mouthed ill-tempered bully, SNL works in quite a few digs at the right as well.     Still, there is plenty to laugh at here, particularly Emmanuel letting loose on the Democrats who leaked the whole issue to the WSJ  to begin with.

Hope ~ the Obama Musical

Well folks, it doesn't get any stranger than this. This is "High School Musical Does DC" complete with soppy love songs between an argyle-clad Obama and a "mod" Michelle Obama, presumably from their courtship days . There is too much to take in on the first viewing honestly. Don't miss the singing Janet Napolitano who sings in German, perhaps the gaffes are less noticeable that way. We also see a ballad from John McCain. We see a brief bit from Hillary who must be quite flattered by the actress chosen to play her part. The actress portrays another character too, any guesses who? Actually the actress plays Sarah Palin as well, though I haven't been able to find a spot where she is included in this 2 minute montage. I found a picture of Palin's scene as well as one of Jeremiah Wright. Both can be seen below the video:



Guest of a Guest has more photos.

Palin and Shatner Together At Last

Everyone has this posted already but it is just too good to pass up the opportunity to post here as well. I thought this was hilarious though I would love to know what Shatner had to say in response. I am sure we'll get a reaction from him at some point. Anyway, for those who haven't seen this clip already or want to watch again, here it is. Enjoy!

Saturday Night Live Openers - Jintao Wants a Kiss First & President Sarah Palin

Here is the joint press conference skit with Jintao thinks he is entitled to at least a kiss, a movie and dinner before Obama "does sex to him". This is begging for a CNN fact check. Fred Armisen's impression is not improving much but this openers is still pretty funny:




The buzz of the episode last night was the parody of 2012 movie featuring the end of the world in liberal terms, President Sarah Palin. Guess who her Vice President is?