By Mark Murray
Deputy political director
NBC News
updated 8 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain has nearly erased Democrat Barack Obama’s national lead and turned the presidential contest into a dead heat, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

In that poll, Obama holds a narrow one-point lead over McCain (47-46 percent), which is down from his three-point advantage in August (45-42 percent) and six-point edge in July (47-41 percent).

But you don't?

Yes I loathe some of his views.

I loathe what "democracy" has become. Here's what I wrote a few years ago:

Because his post is eerily reminiscent of the underlying liberal belief that, after all, American soldiers in Vietnam were terrorists.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong, but then again, if I can't be sarcastic with a pair of apes, then who can be sarcastic with Indochina?

Why ask me? You yourself added that I'm a master of sarcasm. [/sarcasm].

I would disagree. More than a few of our presidents and quite a few of our reps and senators have emerged from modest, backgrounds. In fact, it is more common today than at any time in our history that a person, coming from the lower or middle classes, can achieve success in national politics. In the past 50 years or so, Truman, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton have all emerged from humble beginnings to become president, and Obama hopes to join them.

In fact, I believe that coming from a life of privilege could be a detriment to being president. W. Bush grew up never had to worry about paying a bill in his life. It was amazing when the price of gas hit $4 a gallon, he had no idea it was that high. Nor could he fully appreciate the effect that this has on middle America.

I don't think any president would personally care about the gas price on streets.

Or any of the Congressmen/Senators

The truth is, the president doesn't worry about "everyday" things. Do you think he goes to the market and buys milk and bread or fills up the gas tank on his bullet-proof SUV??

But I do agree with Klydon that it is no longer true that only the wealthy and/or privileged become president, and Bill Clinton definitely stands out as an example, and Senator Obama as well. So, for that matter, does Sarah Palin.

Interesting article by the usually very liberal Michael Goodwin.

The straw that stirs the drink

By Michael Goodwin, The New York Daily News

Wednesday, September 10th 2008

Common sense and its snarky cousin, conventional wisdom, hold that presidential elections are won or lost at the top of the ticket. But there's an exception to every rule and Sarah Palin might be it.

Evidence abounds that Palin is rocking the race from the No. 2 spot. Most dramatic is the 10-point lead she and John McCain hold in the Gallup/USA Today poll, which shows them at 54%, the highest number yet for either ticket.

Almost every poll taken since Palin's convention speech shows the GOP ahead or tied, a reversal from most earlier findings. Crowds at McCain-Palin rallies are larger and more enthusiastic than when McCain appeared alone.

And here's the absolute proof Palin is the straw that stirs the drink: Democrats are attacking her more than McCain.

Days after he congratulated her and called her "an admirable person" who "will add a compelling new voice to this campaign," Barack Obama Tuesday called Palin a liar. You know she's hit a nerve when the opposing party's presidential nominee goes after the other party's VP nominee in such raw terms.

Then again, Sarah Palin is not your average VP nominee. She can, as Fred Thompson put it, field-dress a moose. She is a young mother. She is pro-life. She is from a small town in a sparsely populated state. She's a former beauty queen, smart, direct and winningly funny.

And, maybe most important, the left-wing media hate her. One or all of those factors is changing key voter preferences, at least for now.

According to the Gallup tracking survey, those flocking to McCain-Palin are the middle-of-the-road independents who were evenly split. They now favor the GOP ticket over the Democrats, 52% to 37%.

It wouldn't be surprising if a backlash against Big Media's unfair treatment of Palin is partially responsible. For 18 months, Americans were fed a daily diet of civil rights peas with a lecture that a vote against Obama or Clinton was a vote against history. You were a sexist if you voted against Clinton, a racist if you voted against Obama.

Comes now a woman on the GOP side, the first ever on its national ticket, and suddenly history doesn't figure in the new liberal media narrative of 2008. More important than shattering the glass ceiling is whether Palin could juggle five kids and still be vice president, and whether McCain was selling out by picking her.

Some in the press declared her unqualified before Obama did. Some argued her teen daughter's pregnancy proved she was unfit to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

And was it just me, or were some of those stories about Trig, her baby with Down syndrome, hinting she should have had an abortion when she learned of his disabilities? Was I wrong to detect suggestions she was so ambitious she was neglecting her kids?

Those thoughts went through my mind as I read The New York Times' front-page report on how Palin began leaking amniotic fluid on a trip to Texas, then flew home to Alaska to give birth. TheTimes cited a doctor from Massachusetts who, having never examined Palin, nonetheless offered the opinion she should have been examined before the trip home, even though Palin's own doctor gave the okay in a phone consultation.

I also found it curious The Times assigned four women, and no men, to the story, perhaps aiming to inoculate itself against charges of gender bias.

But the real bias of the left-wing media isn't race or gender or age. It's political. Are any of the four women on the story pro-life? Are any Republican? How about their editors?

Diversity comes in all forms, and the newsrooms of the broadcast networks and most broadsheet newspapers share a suffocating conformity of political affiliation. Surveys show the vast, vast majority of journalists at such places vote for liberal Democrats.

It's no wonder the coverage tilts the same way. The wonder is that the election of Sarah Palin could be the payback.

You'll be pleased to know that I've registered the [/sarcasm] tag with the U.S. Copyright office, and will receive a quarter every time someone uses it.

I found this quote to be particularly ironic, since he's calling the Republican VP candidate a pig.

In response, think the following is thus appropriate:

No, Senator Obama did NOT say it in reference to Governor Palin. He said it regarding Senator McCain's rather recent portrayal of himself as a promoter of change, while his record indicates that it will be 8 more years of the same exact policies as the current administration.

Secondly, Senator McCain used the EXACT same phrase when referring to Senator Clinton's healthcare plan. I didn't notice anyone finding it offensive when a Republican used it.

He's referencing the fact that she described herself as a "pitbull with lipstick" upon accepting the nomination.

From the McCain camp:

The quote is taken out of context. He was NOT referring to Governor Palin when he said it. Why should he apologize for something he didn't say??

And if the Republicans find the phrase so "offensive and disgraceful", then why did Senator McCain use it to describe a healthcare plan put forth by a certain female Democrat???

It may not affect the president personally, but most presidents would be aware of the effect it would have on the well being of the economy and budgets of middle America.

So you don't find it coincidental that the comment comes so shortly - and so closely worded - to her recent comment? There is nothing there, and we're all just making a huge deal out of nothing? Really? Seriously?

I agree. In a close election race would someone, who is as intelligent as Obamaand defied odds to get where he is, call a member of the opposing ticket a pig? The phrase "lipstick on a pig" was commomn before Gov. Palin arrived.

I would expect the Republicans to try to make an issue out of this as Palin is riding a wave of popularity. I would also expect the Democrats to try to gain support if it were reversed, but the fact that Palin used the term "lipstick" in her speech and it got a laugh does not give her a monopoly on the word.

Also, the McCain camp is forbidding any journalists from getting any "on the record" statements from Palin while travelling. It's time she stands on her own and says something more than "hockey mom", "PTA" and "sold it on ebay." She has generated a lot of interest, and is more appealing than McCain on the trail. I am interested in hearing something substantive from her.

I think middle class would be seen as a huge annoyance by presidents... always complaining about things they cannot fix

Yes.

And I think you mean to comment that it's not a coincidence. If someone does find it to be coincidental, then that means it's not intentional. But, you think it was intentional. Well, if it is, so what? Are you concerned that Palin's feelings are hurt? Madonne! A Vice-presidential candidate whose feelings get hurt? Sure, she's just the one to take the reins of government!

If Obama is so smart, perhaps he would have had the foresight to expect this, like you did?

More like I find it ironic that if the Republicans implied Obama was an animal, we'd have a race war on our hands.

Here's Senator Obama's statement:

"Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change, too. Except -- and so I guess his whole angle is, "Watch out, George Bush, except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics. We're really gonna shake things up in Washington." That's not change. That's just calling some -- the same thing, something different. But you know, you can -- you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig."

Well, your retort is quite an exaggeration (and I think you use ironic incorrectly). But, if the Republicans did state what you suggest about Obama, then, given the history of pejorative epithets that have been directed at black Americans in this country, Senator Obama would have legitimate grounds to take offense.

Nevertheless, while one may choose to engage in self-deprecation (such as Governor Palin's lipstick statement), one must keep in mind the legal rule that the defense cannot profit from its own mistakes. By her statement Palin opened up that line of jab.

Are women in the public arena to be protected, to be cuddled? If so, how will Palin fare if she does become Vice-president (or President) when she is faced with national or international recrimination?

As Klydon stated, yes it is a "coincidence", something that happens by chance. And if you read the Senator's entire comment, rather than taking it out of context, you will see how ridiculous it is that is being touted as an insult aimed at Governor Palin.

And you still haven't replied to my original question. If it is SO offensive, if the phrase "lipstick on a pig" is a disgraceful and offensive remark because it was meant to insult a female candidate, then WHY wasn't it "offensive and disgraceful" when Senator McCain used it???

It's not appropriate. You've been called on that crap already, but insist on choosing to ignore the Board's management's warnings. Consider this a FINAL WARNING. Cut the shit out!

I assure you this has no bearing on the politics at hand here. I don't give two shits if you believe that, or not, but that's the way it is.

I just wanted to let you all know that I'm going to vote for Obama. You have all shown me the light.

Charge yourself 25¢.

Why are you unable to answer this direct question, despite the fact that you have been asked it three times??

I'm not being sarcastic.