Parity Violation

John McCain thought that Sarah Palin knew more about energy than anyone else in the country. Barack Obama, however thinks it’s, oh, a Nobel prize winning physicist.

Any bet on who actually knows more about energy?

Obama’s green-team picks signal shift for energy policy – Chron.com

How cool is it that a scientist is going to run DOE? And also, this is my first post using the new Press This bookmarklet – which makes posting a quick blog post as easy as sharing a link on Facebook. Which means I may actually post things here with some semblance of regularity again!

Voting just gets you a D. Volunteer, call, work – let’s bring this election home.

Palin’s interview was so egregiously bad, that SNL could use some of her actual responses for this skit:

See the original interview…. and be afraid should this woman ever be president:

John McCain is running the only kind of campaign he might win. When you support an unpopular president and have unpopular views on just about every issue, the only solution? Lie. Lie repeatedly. And then lie some more. And throw in some false outrage now and then too.

It started with repeated lies about Palin’s objections to the “bridge to nowhere” – debunked of course but they keep repeating them.

Actually, before that, they were lying about Obama on taxes

Now they’re lying about a bill in Illinois designed to prevent sex abuse, distorting Obama’s position on sex education in one of the most dishonest and reprehensible ads in history.

Throw in a little bogus outrage about an expression John McCain used 3 times at least, and you have a pretty pathetic campaign.

Steve Benen says it best, with all the lies, deceptions, and sleaze: “John McCain has no business leading the greatest nation on earth.”

Well, I don’t really know why I’m not posting. Commenter JAK thought it was because I didn’t know who to support in the primary. In truth, I’ve been for Obama since Iowa, but I think Clinton is certainly a capable and smart person. She suffers, however, from being overly cautious (hence her early support of the war, and early opposition to any sort of withdrawl timeline), and being surrounded with a host of bad advisors.

Obama has been running a 50-state, small-donor, people-based campaign – whereas Hillary seems has made a habit of dismissing any if all states Obama wins as not counting, either because Democrats haven’t won them in Novembers past, or because they are caucuses. Furthermore, after agreeing that Michigan and Florida should not count, now she wants to change the rules and somehow make their rogue primaries count.

It’s all somewhat ridiculous, and the Clinton campaign seems determined to seize the nomination, not by winning contests and delegates, but with some sort of party-rifting super delegate coup – which simply is not going to happen. So, Obama will be the nominee, in the end. Clinton’s inevitably strategy – she didn’t seem to have any plans to fight on after Super Tuesday – in general wouldn’t make me feel optimistic about her campaign for the fall anyway.

The real problem, however, is not the Clinton campaign but a media that is more interested in Obama’s bowling score than the the Bush Administration’s radicalism. Or a media that continues to call McCain a “centrist” and a “maverick.” Or that ignores McCain’s flip-flops on everything from the Bush tax cuts to tobacco, or that refers to McCain’s repeated statement that Iran is training al Qaeda (they are not) as a “gaffe”, if they mentioned it at all.

Also, since this has become sort of uber-post, if you really want to see the lengths the Bush Administration will go to in the name of executive power, listen to the 2 stories in this episode of This American Life.

Don’t sell yourself short – watch the entire speech. Or, you can also read it here. But don’t settle for soundbites.

Check out this drivel from Slate. They actually wanted to get a graphology “expert” to analyze Clinton’s handwriting for personality.

Apparently Slate is unaware that graphology is a well-documented pseudoscience. I’m looking forward to see an astrological chart on John McCain or perhaps Mitt Romney’s biorhythms? Why not get a palm reader out too? Let no psesudoscience go unused.

Update I’m told this post was supposed to be in jest – I’m a little touchy about pseudoscience, I guess.

HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads – washingtonpost.com Is there a single corporate special interest the Bush Administration has ever stood up and fought? I can’t think of one. I guess they did create the federal no-call list (telephone solicitors must have crappy lobbyists). Anyway, here they are again – appeasing the infant formula industry.

Think Progress sums up the way the mainstream media has embraced self-described “war critics” Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack’s. However, it’s well-documented they have been war cheerleaders since 2003 or before. Glen Greenwald has the most extensive debunking of their credentials and credibility – they’ve been pro-Bush, pro-War since it began. Yet, of course, the MSM treats them as credible, “serious”, experts.

How many times does someone have to be wrong before the mainstream press letting these people on the air? Apparently, never.

Greenwald today calls the press mindless in how they put Pollack and O’Hanlon on every talk show calling them “critics” of the war when in fact they have been consistent cheerleaders. As he wrote yesterday, there are these little things called “computers” and the internet that record what people actually said in the past. When someone says they’re a war critic you can go actually check if that’s true or not.