As garnerered from the New York Times article, It is Mr. Brokaw we have to thank for the sacking of Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews from the anchor desk at MSNBC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/arts/t elevision/30brok.html?_r=2&hp=&p agewanted=print&oref=slogin

     "In an interview here after Sunday's broadcast, Mr. Brokaw said that over the summer he had "advocated" within the executive suite of NBC News to modify the anchor duties of the MSNBC hosts Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews on election night and on nights when there were presidential debates. Their expressions of strong political opinions from the MSNBC anchor desk has run counter to the more traditional role Mr. Brokaw played on "NBC Nightly News" for more than two decades. NBC said earlier this month that the two hosts would mostly relinquish their anchor duties to Mr. Gregory, while being present as analysts."

Perhaps in all of this handwringing over the non-story about lipstick on a pig, have we forgotten why this is a story in the first place?

On MSNBC today I heard one Republican who was outraged about this story since it was ovious that Palin had "Branded" herself with the joke line from the convention.  Let's recap:

Sarah Palin:

"Do you know what the difference is between a bulldog and a hockey mom?"

... "lipstick"

Now, if anyone else had said this she would have been (rightfully) offended, but she brings this chauvanistic joke to the forefront whilst describing herself (and all other hockey moms).

Lets forget for a minute, the much maligned bulldogs (who from all accounts are very loving and not at all as mean as they are percieved to be) and focus on her statement.  

Hockey moms are bulldogs with lipstick.

If you aren't offended by this, perhaps trying to remember that when referring to a woman as a dog (of any type) is generally frowned upon and very much an insult.  There is another word for female dog, I am sure Palin wasn't thinking about when she made these bold pronouncements in front of the world during her acceptance speech.  However, her liking herself and all other hockey moms to that that derogatory term was allowed to pass as humor.

So here we are, less than a week later, and Palin (and the Republicans) wish to show their outrage about a phrase taken entirely out of context that had NOTHING to do with Palin.  They claim that the disgusting self imposed brand (lipstick) is a link to the phrase we should all be outraged about.

Personally I am more outraged by the frankly insulting "joke" Palin told during her acceptance speech than a phrase about the PORK that both McCain and Palin have and continue to support while saying they are against Porkbarrel spending.

What a wonderful double standard.

It is not Obama who should appologize, it is Palin who should appologize for insulting women.  Furthermore it is BOTH Palin and McCain who should appologize for their pork spending and abuse of power.

The polls are horrible today!  Obama has lost his lead!  The Repubs put on a great convention and motivated his base!

Really?

Well perhaps McCain's gambit has helped a little in moving the polls in his favor, but the pollsters met him half way.

The convention bounce has been greatly exagerated by a hidden shift in voter ID in the polling samples.  That's right, before the convention the Democrats were polled at a 10 point advantage (not surprising considering that registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a substancial 11 million).  In today's polls all three major polling firms have essentially placed the party ID at an even split.  Does it sound likely that we had this dramatic of a shift in party IDs or are polling outfits doing what they can to change the narrative and help McCain out?

Check out Huff post's story on this for greater detail.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09 /poll-madness-mccain-takes_n_125158.html

Do you still think these polling numbers are likely?
How about a 10 point shift in party ID?

I think not.

Many thanks to Excelscior1 over at Dkos for pointing this out:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9 /9/18192/04144/290/592615

This May make or break the election for Obama, please read and recommend.

Many thanks to DeanDemocrat at the Orange Satan from whom I reproduced this post.

**UPDATE** here is the link to the original diary: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/28/4727/23178/316/558035

Post below the fold:

I know there have been other posts on this today, but it cannot fall by the wayside.

Obama needs to show his caliber of leadership today, and you need to help him.

Today the Congress is set to pass a worse version of FISA than the one which was passed by the senate.  This bill not only shreds the 4th amendment, but it is an afront to the consitution itself.

This bill is no compromise.  Telecomm immunity goes to the heart of what it means to have rights in America.  But this "Compromise" goes further.  It makes it possible for the government to spy on Americans in violation to the already weak FISA laws ( 2 denied in 10000 requests) with only the say so of the executive branch.  

This law allows the executive branch (in a retroactive way) to make the courts dismiss a case against a telecom (or anyone else)with only the secret approval from an executive branch source.  The damage this law does to the fourth amendment is staggering, but what is even worse they can violate the amendment with impunity and the court cannot even comment on who is dismissing the charges.

By agreeing to this law the Democrats in congress have capitulated.

They have given in on the central premise of the constitution that this nation is a nation of laws.

A better description of this Immunity is freedom from any and all prosecution with regards to something (that the telcos and others) may have done, did do, and will continue to do with impunity.

I find it hard to believe that the framers of the Constitution (yeah that old thing) would have intended for the fourth amendment to be violated in this way,

This fight is far to important to stand on the sidelines on.  Right now the majority of this Democratically controlled House is prepared to vote this terrible piece of legislation in to law, and Bush is EAGER to sign it.

Now it is up to us to DO something about this.

"YES WE CAN" is not just a motto.  There is a "WE" in there, as in:

"WE are the change we have been waiting for"

We've all heard this, but today is the day to act.  

If you only make one call today contact Barack Obama (202) 224-2854.  Tell him to oppose this sham compromise on FISA.

But Don't Stop there

Yesterday we had the too rosy prediction on our friendly EV vote predictor of 355 to 183.

Today, we see this 308 230 split.  I wonder what happened.

Electoral vote shows 344 194

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

fivethirtyeight shows 335.5 202.5

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

How is it that here we get this silly swing towards McBush when all of yesterday's polls favored Obama?

How is it that they had it closer (to reality) yesterday than today?

The mind boggles.

Maybe it is time for people here to show some real transparency and EV poll results that explain how the vote predictor is (or in this case isn't) working.  Otherwise the graph is at best wishful thinking and at worse a deceptive POS.

That is all,

Thanks

This diary has come out of a discussion about caucuses, but my response has become too long for a response so I have changed it into a diary.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/4/17544 3/8888

1.  Forcing a reform of this nature will not be received well in states that are used to holding primaries and caucuses by their own rules, and their respective ties to historical precedent.

2.  Caucuses are not in and of themselves elitist.  Caucuses are not a measure of the same thing that a Primary is.  This is the fundamental flaw with trying to consolidate the caucus results and the primary results.  Caucus measure excitement/activism for a candidate.  Primaries measure overall support for a candidate.  A candidate needs both overall support, and strong activism to win.

The Caucus is a valid measure for whether a candidate will be a good candidate in the GE since it is the strong activism (people that caucus) that will be most active in supporting and furthering the cause of the candidate during the campaign leading to the election.  This is true above and beyond what most people who vote in a primary would be willing to do (i.e. not get involved beyond the final vote).

There are really a series of complicated issues that need to be dealt with when reforming the primary system.

1.  Popular vote doesn't mean anything in the current system.

For good or bad, this is the case due to the mixed nature of the primaries.

Options for fixing this issue:

a.  Eliminate Caucuses entirely. (Mentioned above and with reservations)

b.  Eliminate Primaries entirely.  (Same sort of objection as above)

c.  Make every state run a binding caucus and primary (like Texas).

Option c. allows every state to retain their traditional selection type while allowing delegates, superdelegates, party insiders, and the country at large to gage both popular vote and activist support for each candidate in each state in an apples-to-apples comparison.  In order for this to work some delegates from each state would have to be won under each contest.

2. Popular vote tallies and contests are not consistent because the contests allow people to participate in different levels.

Primaries allow the following:

a.  Only Registered Democratic voters

b.  Only Registered Democratic voters that voted democratic in the last contest.

c.  Only Democratic and Independent voters

d.  Any voters

As you can see, this variety again imposes an uneven standard to the popular vote and makes the comparison between the votes impossible.  This is just like trying to add fractions without figuring out the common denominator and normalizing them so that they can add up correctly.

The solution, again, is to force one methodology on all of the states so that the contests can be compared evenly.  States will have the same objection to this as they will to other changes (like dropping the caucus system all together), but unfortunately there is no other way to fix this issue without a national standard.  I propose that it become a part of the Democratic Party Charter and that all states vote on the method thought to be most in line with Democratic principles.  This way all states would then have to comply (or suffer the fate, sanctions, of a state that has violated the rules).

3.  US territories that have no effect on the election of a president (since their states command not electoral votes) get greater representation than states that do.  The problem with allowing this is that since the election is won on electoral votes, the party is handicapping their possibility of winning by giving such a large say to territories rather than emphasizing the wishes of those whose votes do count towards the election of a president.

These territories have no reason to come into the fold of the US if they can enjoy the same or greater privileges in terms of candidate selection as do states (and DC) who have to play entirely by federal rules as states.  If they want a say they can join a state, or become a state.  Perhaps have a reduced voice, but this voice should never be larger than states that command actual electoral votes as they are the ones (at this time) that decide the president.

4.  The Number of Superdelegates, and their influence needs to be put into check.  The party has a rightful place in helping to select the best candidate. This becomes necessary from time to time under extreme circumstances.  However, as we have seen in this primary, their influence is far too great.

a.  SDs can give one candidate a lead before any voting has occurred.  This is undemocratic and should be admonished by the party.

b.  SDs comprise 20-25% of the total delegates.  This outsizes and outweighs the legitimate choice of the electorate.  The SDs do not like the role they were forced into this year.  They don't want the power to decide who the nominee is above what the electorate has chosen.  So why are we giving them such a strong say in the decision, it makes no sense.

c. SDs votes are always non-binding, but they cannot effectively be locked in at any time before the convention allowing the present situation to occur again.  That is to say, encouraging a bitter convention floor fight that will doom the party's chances to win the election.

5. Last but not least, the calendar needs to be revamped so that all of the states feel they have had their fair shake at selecting the nominee, while not making things so states feel their history is trampled, and allowing for a diverse section of the populace to influence the early selection process.  This, by far, is the most difficult question politically since states get pitted against states.  I do not pretend to know what the best solution is, but here are some that I thought were interesting:

a.  National primary (everyone goes at once).  

Pros:  no one has an unfair advantage in selecting (or eliminating) a candidate from the running.  Addresses basic fairness issues about which states go first.

Cons:  Small States get overshadowed; Historical precedent for select states is trampled.  Does not allow for enough time to put campaign pressure on candidates to see if they can handle the heat (Vetting).

b.  Regional rotating primaries.  States are divided into 4-6 primary regions and each region rotates from election to election as to which goes first.

Pros:  This levels the playing field, and allows for easier travel (is less cost or wear on candidates).  Addresses basic fairness issues about which state goes first.

Cons:  Tramples historical precedent for some states.  Small states could be overshadowed.

c.  Rotating initial primaries (As we have them now before super Tuesday but with rotating states)

Pros:  Similarity to current familiar system, allows diversity into early nominee selection process.

Cons:  Tramples historical precedent for some states.  Doesn't address the basic scheduling issues and allows for an uneven campaign with inordinately long lulls and ultra-packed periods of time (which at times doesn't give states enough time to consider a candidate seriously).

d. Retain the current system.

Pros:  Familiarity.

Cons:  The current system.

Anyways what do you think?

In light of yesterday's events I'd like to congratulate Clinton on winning in Indiana.  She has run a vigorous campaign, and I hope she continues in the primary through the rest of the contests.  That being said, I hope the tone of the campaign improves.

I feel that the best possible outcome for the country at this point is the ticket I describe above.  But let's examine VP candidates and see where this leaves us.

Please follow me below the jump..