Wednesday, 01 October 2008


Ken Berwitz

When Hillary Clinton BS'ed us about being under sniper fire, the media had a field day at her expense - and to the obvious benefit of Barack Obama. 

Fair enough.  She deserved it.

So what does Joe Biden deserve for the BS that HE tossed - the same kind as Hillary's?

Here are the facts, from Bill Sammons of Fox News Channel.  The bold print is mine:

Unlike Clinton, Biden Gets Pass for Saying He Was 'Shot At' in Iraq

When Hillary Clinton told a tall tale about "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, she was accused of "inflating her war experience" by Barack Obama's campaign -- but the campaign has been silent about Joe Biden telling his own questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq. 

When Hillary Clinton told a tall tale about "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, she was accused of "inflating her war experience" by rival Democrat Barack Obama's campaign. 

But the campaign has been silent about Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, telling his own questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq. 

"Let's start telling the truth," Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube last year. "Number one, you take all the troops out - you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die." 

But when questioned about the episode afterward by the Hill newspaper, Biden backpedaled from his claim of being "shot at" and instead allowed: "I was near where a shot landed." 

The senior senator from Delaware went on to say that some sort of projectile "landed" outside a building in the Green Zone where he and another senator had spent the night during a visit in December 2005. The lawmakers were shaving in the morning when they felt the building shake, Biden said. 

"No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn't that kind of thing," he told the Hill. "It's not like I had someone holding a gun to my head." 

The rest of the press ignored the flap at the time because Biden was viewed as having little chance of ending up on the Democratic presidential ticket. But even after Biden was selected to be Obama's running mate last month, his claim to have been "shot at" drew no scrutiny from the same reporters who had savaged Clinton for making a similar claim that turned out to be false. 

FOX News has been asking the Obama campaign for details of the alleged shooting in Iraq ever since Biden was tapped to be vice president. Biden campaign spokesman David Wade promised an answer last week, but failed to provide one. 

Meanwhile, the gaffe-prone Biden has again raised eyebrows with another story about his exploits in war zones - this time in Afghanistan. Biden said he will grill Republican rival Sarah Palin in Thursday's vice presidential debate about "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down." 

"If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are." 

But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February. Fighter jets kept watch overhead while a convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and fellow Senators Chuck Hagel and John Kerry. 

"We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to," joked Kerry, a Democrat, to the AP. "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine." 

Biden never explicitly claimed his chopper had been forced down by terrorists. Nonetheless, 

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said Obama-Biden officials have been less than forthcoming about Biden's dramatic war stories. 

"They never explained Biden's helicopter story from last week - which is very similar to the story about getting 'shot at' in Baghdad," Rogers said. 

There are two morals to this story:

1. If media are rooting against you, don't exaggerate the danger you were in during a trip to a war zone.  You'll be nailed good and hard for it.

2. If media are rooting for you, exaggerate all you want.  Do it more than once.  You'll be given a free pass.

If Joe Biden, the human BS and gaffe machine, has learned nothing else in this campaign, he's learned those two morals.


Ken Berwitz

Well, Gwen Ifill has now reacted to criticism that she is too politically biased to moderate tomorrow's Vice Presidential debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin.

What have we learned from her reaction?  We've learned that Ms. Ifill apparently mixes a hefty dose of arrogance with that political bias.

To refresh your near-term memory, it came out today that Ms. Ifill has written a book (or partially written it if you believe her) which appears to be supportive of Barack Obama, the head of Joe Biden's presidential ticket, and therefore against Sarah Palin and John McCain.

Here is the beginning of an Associated Press story which details Ms. Ifill's reactions to these concerns:

PBS journalist Gwen Ifill, moderator of the upcoming vice presidential debate, dismissed conservative questions about her impartiality because she is writing a book that includes material on Barack Obama.

Ifill said Wednesday that she hasn't even written her chapter on Obama for the book "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is to be published by Doubleday on Jan. 20, 2009, the day a new president is inaugurated.

Please note that, according to the article, Ms. Ifill is dismissing "conservative questions".  There's a demonstration of neutrality if I ever saw one - only conservatives would voice concern about this, no one else.

And the comment that she hasn't even written her chapter on Barack Obama?  It sure sounds like the jury is out, doesn't it?  Well here is the description of Ms. Ifill's book, straight from her publisher:

In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obamas stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.

Hmm, let's see.  Barack Obama has a stunning presidential campaign and is one of the emerging young African American politicians who are forging a bold new path.  Yep, that sounds neutral all right.

Does Gwen Ifill think we are effing morons? 

Does she think that voters voluntarily turned in their cerebrums this morning?

The scariest part is that some people will buy into the impossibly idiotic premise that there is no question about Gwen Ifill's neutrality.  And every one of them will cancel out a vote - maybe of someone who is using their cerebrum.

The only silver lining in this cloud is that, possibly (no guarantees), the embarrassing publicity will cause Ifill to consciously work at being evenhanded tomorrow because she knows she will be under especially heavy scrutiny. 

With an arrogance level like hers it is only a possibility.  But we can hope, can't we?

j What nonsense of note! Gov Palin is being marketed as vast executive experience as a mayor and governor, she has been in debates in previous position, and she has a degree in journalism! From what I have read about the book it comes many black politicos including GOP ones such as Rice and Powell as well. It seems a very clever title to me. Is the real issue, a black woman cannot be fair to a white woman objectively? I think this is a smokescreen for the real issue that Gov Palin is an intellectual lightweight. Hey do not worry, the bar is set so low for her that short of drooling she will be declared a winner! (10/02/08)

Blindman What else are we to think, 99 percent of African-Americans are support Obama? Why should we assume she doesn't? Racism is a multilane highway that goes in many directions. I do hope she attempts at making it a fair debate, otherwise it might actually backfire on Obama. (10/02/08)


Ken Berwitz

How classic is this?

Do you know about Gwen Ifill, the moderator of tomorrow's vice presidential debate?

Well, here's a quick education, courtesy of excerpts from an article by Bob Unruh at World News Daily:

VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book
Focuses on blacks who are 'forging a bold new path to political power'

Posted: September 30, 2008
8:35 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
 2008 WorldNetDaily

The moderator of Thursday's vice-presidential debate is writing a book to come out about the time the next president takes the oath of office that aims to "shed new light" on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other "emerging young African American politicians" who are "forging a bold new path to political power."

Gwen Ifill of the Public Broadcasting Service program "Washington Week" is promoting "The Breakthrough," in which she argues the "black political structure" of the civil rights movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from the struggles over racial equality.

Ifill declined to return a WND telephone message asking for a comment about her book project and whether its success would be expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.

During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton the vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds."

"Well, that's all you've got," she told Cheney.

Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her answer, because they "thought I was being snippy to Cheney." She explained that wasn't her intent.

But she also was cited in complaints PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said he received after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin delivered her nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., earlier this month.

Some viewers complained of a "dismissive" look by Ifill during her report on Palin's speech. According to Getler, some also said she wore a look of "disgust" while reporting on the Republican candidate.

At that time she said, "I assume there will always be critics and just shut out the noise. It is surprisingly easy."

So what do you think?  Do you think this debate has been set up as a neutral event?  Or do you think it's just a set-up?

I wonder how Mr. Obama would like it if, say, Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel was made the moderator of his next debate with John McCain.  I wonder if the media would just yawn and not have a problem with it, they way they've yawned and not had a problem with Ifill moderating Palin/Biden.

Media activity in this election has gone from bias, to disgrace, to a bad joke.  And we're supposed to be the punch line.

Howard OBAMA MEDIA BIAS ... NOW, OBAMA DEBATE BIAS !!! The nation already is skeptical about the fairness and objectivity of the mainstream media regarding election coverage ... so, why in the world is Gwen Ifill the debate moderator, when she is writing a book about Obama ... especially since her book sales would increase if Obama/Biden win? The moderator in a debate ... especially one of this importance and magnitude ... should be seen as completely fair, objective and above reproach. This is a terrible choice, and could easily have been remedied by choosing from hundreds of other more objective potential moderators. I can imagine the outcry if Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter was chosen as the moderator for the first Vice Presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. FURTHERMORE ... Everyone knows that Roland Martin is in the tank for Obama ... and regarding his call for Palin to either 'put up, or shut up' ... for millions of Americans, we still feel that Obama never adequately explained why he chose to spend TWENTY YEARS, yes TWENTY YEARS, in Jeremiah Wright's anti-American, racist, black liberation church, which gave a life time achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, and Obama only quit the church due to public outrage and personal ambition. (10/01/08)


Ken Berwitz

I am now convinced that no matter how many times Barack Obama lies about his voting record on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) mainstream media will ignore it in an effort to get him elected to the presidency

Here is the latest example of what I'm talking about.  It was put up at  I saw it at

The lies are Barack Obama's.  The bold print is mine:

Palin Reminds America of Obamas Lies About His Support of Infanticide

By Brad OLeary
Governor Palin describes her Downs Syndrome baby, Trig, as absolutely perfect.

Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed-up world you live in down there on Earth. Trig is no different, except he has one extra chromosome," Palin wrote in an email to her family and close friends.
A Registered Nurse at Christ Hospital, Jill Stanek discovered that babies who survived abortions and were born alive were not given any medical care and were shelved to die in the soiled utility room.  Babies were left to die on metal counters or accidentally thrown in the trash. Stanek testified about these horrors before the Illinois State Senate of which Obama was a member.
Obama was the sole opponent to speak out on the State Senate floor against legislation designed to protect viable, living babies who survive late-term abortions; adamantly opposing any medical care to these babies in 2001, 2002 and 2003.  Obama stated what we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I wont support that.
The United States Senate unanimously passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) in 2002 before Obama was in the Senate.  Asked by CBN reporter David Brody if he would have supported BAIPA had he been in the US Senate at the time, Obama bristled I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported.
When pressured about his opposition to a similar bill in the Illinois Senate, Obama replied that was not the bill that was presented at the state level.  What the bill was also doing was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade.  That is simply not true.
In August of this year, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) released three documents that proved that on March 13, 2003, Obama, as chairman of the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, actually presided over a committee meeting at which the original state Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (SB 1082) was revised to make it virtually identical to the federal law including the addition of exactly the same neutrality clause.
NRLC cites FactCheck.orgs assertion that "Obamas claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal actThe documents from the NRLC support the groups claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082." Obama swiftly killed the bill in committee by a 6 to 4 vote.
Praised by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) for his 13 pro-abortion votes, even by pro-choice standards, Obama takes the disrespect for human life to boundaries seldom seen.  NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said of BAIPA, We, in fact, did not oppose this bill.  There is a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child thats born.  And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them.
Even NARAL was neutral. Pro-aborts agreed to let BAIPA pass without a fight lest they appear extreme, except Obama.  He decided to battle alone further left than any senator Boxer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, et al.  This is one skeleton in his utility closet that should frighten all Americans.

Incredible.  Obama lies to our faces about this bill;  about the infanticide that he voted to allow.  And mainstream media will not report his lies no matter how often he tells them.

They want Obama to win.  And you don't get your candidate into the oval office by educating voters about facts like these.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


Ken Berwitz

Is there any other kind?

Read this sickening excerpt from an Associated Press article, which details what four students apparently thought was a really clever idea:

Oregon school says 4 confessed to Obama effigy
Sep 30, 8:56 PM (ET)


NEWBERG, Ore. (AP) - A Christian university in Oregon said Tuesday it has punished four students who confessed to hanging a likeness of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama from a tree on campus.

A statement from the school said the penalties against the four students were "immediate long-term suspension and public service." The school cited federal privacy rules in not disclosing more about the students or their punishment.

The FBI is investigating whether any civil rights were violated.

Felton said the university's own investigation led to the four students. "To the best of our knowledge these are the only people involved," he said. "We're not pursuing it any further."

The commercially produced cardboard cutout of Obama was hung from a tree last week with fishing line around the neck.

A message taped to the cutout read, "Act Six reject." That refers to a scholarship and leadership program for minority and low-income student leaders at Christian colleges primarily located in the Northwest.

Felton wouldn't comment on the students' motive. Instead he cited a statement from Brad Lau, the university's vice president of student life.

"Regardless of the students' intent, the image of a black man hung from a tree is one of the most hurtful symbols of racism in American history," Lau said in the statement. "Displays such as this have no place on a campus that is dedicated to living out the teachings of Jesus."

Are they racists? Are they incredibly stupid?  Maybe a lot of both?

Even if the students in question did not do this for racist purposes (and that is a huge stretch), the act itself is racist anyway.  How could they possibly have thought that depicting the lynching of Barack Obama could be taken any other way?  No one is that stupid. 

Regarding their punishment, I agree with the long suspension.  But I would like to know what community service students who did something like that would be expected to perform before agreeing it is a good idea.  There are community services I would not let these four anywhere near.

Personally I think they should also be forced to write an essay explaining what went through their minds when they did this and be made to read that essay at a student assembly.  Let the rest of the students know why their school was disgraced in this manner.


Ken Berwitz

Regular readers of this blog already know about the incompetence of speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi.  The following excerpts from an article by Jennifer Haberkorn of the Washington Times tell you all you need to know about her hypocrisy level as well. 

The expos is Haberkorn's.  The bold print is mine:

EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi paid husband with PAC funds


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade, a practice of paying a spouse with political donations that she supported banning last year.

Financial Leasing Services Inc. (FLS), owned by Paul F. Pelosi, has received $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting fees from the speaker's "PAC to the Future" over the PAC's nine-year history.

The payments have quadrupled since Mr. Pelosi took over as treasurer of his wife's committee in 2007, Federal Election Commission records show. FLS is on track to take in $48,000 in payments this year alone - eight times as much as it received annually from 2000 to 2005, when the committee was run by another treasurer.

Lawmakers' frequent use of campaign donations to pay relatives emerged as an issue in the 2006 election campaigns, when the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal gave Democrats fodder to criticize Republicans such as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Rep. John T. Doolittle of California for putting their wives on their campaign and PAC payrolls for fundraising work.

Last year, Mrs. Pelosi supported a bill that would have banned members of Congress from putting spouses on their campaign staffs. The bill - which passed the House in a voice vote but did not get out of a Senate committee - banned not only direct payments by congressional campaign committees and PACs to spouses for services including consulting and fundraising, but also "indirect compensation," such as payments to companies that employ spouses.

"Democrats are committed to reforming the way Washington does business," Mrs. Pelosi said in a press release at the time. "Congressman [Adam] Schiff's bill will help us accomplish that goal by increasing transparency in election campaigns and preventing the misuse of funds."

Over the first six months of 2008, FLS was the largest vendor for Mrs. Pelosi's PAC. Brian Wolff, a political consultant, is the second-largest vendor, bringing in $22,500 this year.

FLS' payments represent 11 percent of the $213,900 the PAC raised over the first half of this year, according to the FEC documents.

Mrs. Pelosi's PACs have been in trouble before. In 2004, one of her political action committees, Team Majority, was fined $21,000 by the FEC for accepting donations over federal limits. It was one of two PACs she operated at the same time. The Team Majority PAC was closed shortly after the fine was levied.

Nancy Pelosi is,arguably, the single most incompetent, useless speaker of the house in my lifetime.  Apparently she is also among the most hypocritical.

This is the same genius who could not get 40% of her own party to vote for Tuesday's financial bailout legislation. 

This is also the genius who knew that a large number of Republican house members did not want to vote for the bailout package on Tuesday, but were gritting their teeth and doing it at the behest of John Boehner, the minority whip.  So just before the vote she made a nasty partisan attack-speech that blamed them for the financial mess and everything else that has gone wrong in politics since the Burr-Hamilton duel -- and then wondered why some of them defected.

Here's a hint for Ms. Pelosi:  When you have people who do not want to vote for legislation and are thisclose to rejecting it, do not tell them what pieces of excrement they are just before the vote.

A competent speaker of the house would know that. A competent middle manager would know that.  A competent sanitation worker would know that.  Nancy Pelosi does not know that.


Ken Berwitz

I usually excerpt Associated Press articles because they, more than other news services, have a problem with their articles being reprinted.  But you have to see this one verbatim.

Here is the headline and the article.  Read the headline.  Then stop and think about what it suggests to you.  After you do, then read the article and see if it has anything whatsoever to do with the headline:

McCain turns irritable, sarcastic in interview
Oct 1 01:33 PM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain, once renowned for his jocular sessions with journalists, appeared irritable and at times sarcastic in an interview in which he defended running mate Sarah Palin's experience and campaign ads critical of rival Barack Obama.

Meeting Tuesday with the editorial board of The Des Moines Register, McCain was asked why he picked the Alaska governor, someone "who doesn't have a lot of experience."

"Thank you, but I disagree with your fundamental principle that she doesn't have the experience," McCain replied before citing Palin's work as a PTA member, city council member, mayor and governor. "You and I just have a fundamental disagreement, and I am so happy the American people seem to be siding with me."

When it was suggested that Palin's lack of experience worried voters, McCain turned sarcastic.

"Really? I haven't detected that in the polls, I haven't detected that among the base," he said. "If there's a Georgetown cocktail party person who, quote, calls himself a conservative who doesn't like her, good luck. I don't dismiss him. I think the American people have overwhelmingly shown their approval."

At another point, McCain was asked if he's strayed from his "straight talk" image with advertising that some have labeled deceptive. McCain dryly responded, "It would be valuable if you gave some examples for an assertion of that nature."

He went on to say: "I have always had 100 percent, absolute truth, that's been my life and putting my country first. I'll match that record with anyone and an assertion that I have ever done otherwise, I take strong exception to."

As examples, a questioner at the Register noted a McCain commercial that suggested Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergartners and assertions by his campaign that a "lipstick on a pig" comment Obama made was a reference to Palin. News media fact-checking the sex education ad deemed it deceptive and a distortion of Obama's position.

"It certainly is your opinion and I respect your opinion, but it's not the facts," McCain said in the interview. "I respect your opinion. I strongly disagree with your assertion."

He also sarcastically referred to his five years as a prisoner of war when answering a question about his having government-financed health care throughout his military and congressional career.

"The answer is that most of my life, in serving my country, I have had health care," he said. "I did go for a period of time when the health care wasn't very good."

McCain met privately with the newspaper's editorial board after holding an economic roundtable earlier in the day at a Des Moines business. The newspaper posted videos of the session on its Web site.

I gather that people who read the AP's headline are supposed to think things like "Yeah, that McCain has some temper.  Boy will he be out of control if he's President".  Ditto for the way Mr. McCain's answers were framed (not his actual words, but the writer's characterization of them).

The problem is, nothing in that article displays irritability or more than the mildest sarcasm, well within what any candidate might have shown.

Simply stated, the headline and the tone of the article took what should have been straight reporting and morphed it into a hit piece against McCain. 

This is exactly the kind of horsemanure being shoved at voters every day.  And, based on my personal experience, some of them are being fooled by it.

Mainstream media want Barack Obama to be President and manipulating/making fools of voters is one of the ways they're trying to accomplish it.  What a disgrace.

JacqueItch What?!? He seemed both irritable and sarcastic to me from his responses here, some of which I saw on video. . . .? So I don't think the heading was erroneous or misleading. However, the idea the that every nuance of human reaction from these celebrities needs to be assayed and found either wanting or excessive seems to be a distraction from the deeper issues they are going to face as leaders. On this score I agree with you. I do think that rational thought and collected emotions are important to the people at the helm-------but even more important is honesty and the ability to generate trust among the electorate in their decisions. On his honesty, McCain has a problem: he has denied saying things repeatedly that the record shows he's said. Why he's done this I don't know, but it definitely has turned people against him. (10/02/08)


Ken Berwitz

Here is Don Pesci of the Waterbury (Connecticut) Republican-American, explaining what Palinophobia is and how it affects so much of our wonderful "neutral" media:

DON PESCI: Palinophobia is on the march

"On the last night of the Republican convention," Jim Geraghty observed in the latest issue of National Review, "MSNBC's Keith Olbermann reacted in outrage to a comment by Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle about the news media's treatment of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Said Olbermann: "I'd love the governor or anybody else repeating those talking points to give us the names of those news organizations that have actually questioned whether or not mothers have a right to sit in office. But we haven't heard that list yet."

His colleague, Chris Matthews agreed: "I sit here waiting for that list of major news organizations who have questioned her motherhood or her right to become vice president, given her motherhood. I don't think it has ever happened."

About that list: glad to oblige.

NBC News anchor Brian Williams: "Are (working women with several children) wrong when they express fears or doubts that she should be able to do this, that she should be doing this?"

Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn: "And I think if you're talking about the commander-in-chief, and that is what she is likely to be given his age and his health, will she put her country first, or will she put her family first?"

Harry Smith of CBS's "Early Show": "Coming up, the mommy wars. Should a woman with five children run for the nation's second-highest office? We'll hear from all sides of that debate. The question, can a mother of five, including an infant with Down syndrome, be an effective vice president?"

Sally Quinn again: " a woman with five children, including one with special needs, and a daughter who is a 17-year-old child who is pregnant and about to have a baby, probably has got to rethink her priorities."

An on-screen headline at MSNBC: " some working mothers worry that Palin is taking on too much" and "some voters concerned if Palin, a mother of five, has time to be VP."

Liberal talk-show host Ed Schultz on "Larry King Live": "What kind of mother is she? Is she prepared to be the vice president? Is she going to be totally focused on the issues?"

Campbell Brown of CNN to McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds: " why would she have subjected (her pregnant daughter) to this kind of scrutiny by accepting this high-profile position?"

Bill Weir of ABC News to McCain aide Mike DuHaime: "Adding to the brutality of a national campaign, the Palin family also has an infant with special needs. What leads you, the senator and the governor to believe that one won't affect the other in the next couple of months?"

Alan Colmes of "Hannity and Colmes" on his blog: "Did Palin Take Proper Pre-Natal Care? ... even after the water broke, (she) continued with her activities and then boarded a plane."

Explaining the ways of womanhood to men, Geraghty in his National Reivew piece felt constrained to point out to Colmes "that preterm premature rupture of the placental membrane complicates 3 percent of all pregnancies, occurs in approximately 150,000 U.S. pregnancies each year, and can occur before labor begins. While there is some risk of infection or compression of the umbilical cord, active labor can, in some cases, be delayed as much as a week. At the time, Palin called her doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, who based on the length of time between contractions determined Palin was not in active labor and okayed her return flight. She gave birth the next day."

And then, of course, there was Lindsay Lohan, not a newswoman yet, but inching her way toward Bethlehem: "I am concerned with the fact that Sarah Palin brought the attention to her daughter's pregnancy, rather than all world issues and what she believes she could possibly do to change them, if elected."

Palinophobia is on the march, and there are miles to go before we sleep.

Chris olbermann and keith Matthews (yeah, I switched the last names;  who can tell the difference when it comes to Palinophobia) challenging whether Sarah Palin has been attacked because she is a mother running for the Vice Presidency?  Unbelievable.

And the scariest part is that these two jokes-on-legs probably believe they're right. 

Maybe olbermann and Matthews should consider investing a few moments to read Mr. Pesci's column....or, better yet, the numerous media reports that he drew his examples from.

Don't count on it happening.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!