Brains that don't bounce.
Sep. 5th, 2008 10:03 am
- 40 Million Watched
- Andrew Sullivan worries because as many people watched Sarah Palin's speech as watched Obama's. I think that's an unwarranted worry.
I think most of the people who watched Obama's speech were already committed to seeing him elected. Those who oppose him, as we've seen from the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh and so forth, are comfortable not actually listening to what he has to say and so didn't tune in. They've been listening to the dittoheads vet Obama for months on end; they didn't need to know any more. The few who did probably did so for NASCAR reasons: they were waiting to see if someone took a shot at him.
From the surge in donations the day after Palin's speech (Obama saw an uptick of $10 million in donations, averaging $60, from 130,000 new donors, in the 24 hours after her speech), I conclude that many of the people watching Palin were not her supporters. Unlike Obama, her record is only now being analyzed in depth, so lots of folks on both sides are desperate to know who she is, how she thinks (or, at least, how well she reads a speech written by Matthew Scully), and what she'll bring to the White House. (I'm sure there were a few NASCAR-minded, waiting for a wreck.) - Nothing at all to the affair rumors eh?
- Todd Palin's former business partner has filed an emergency motion to have his divorce papers sealed. As Andrew puts it, "Oh God."
- Team McCain and The Google
- What was that mansion on the green screen at the beginning of McCain's speech? It turns out it was supposed to be Walter Reed Medical Center, but the technician in charge apparently found a nifty picture of a place called Walter Reed and ran with it. It turned out to be Walter Reed Middle School in Hollywood, California.
Oops. You'd think the palm trees would have been a clue.
"It was supposed to be"??
Date: 2008-09-05 05:45 pm (UTC)If John McCain had said "turned out" you'd accuse him of stupidity, disrespect, and deliberate disregard for the truth.
Why is this election bringing out the worst in you, Elf?
. png
Re: "It was supposed to be"??
Date: 2008-09-05 05:59 pm (UTC)Whether or not you believe Josh Marshall is a reliable reporter is entirely up to you.
Re: "It was supposed to be"??
Date: 2008-09-05 06:18 pm (UTC)Your piece didn't, though, and the page you linked to didn't support what you said. You were just too eager to present this as a fact.
Fact or not, it's just more irrelevant trivia.
. png
Re: "It was supposed to be"??
Date: 2008-09-05 06:04 pm (UTC)That was uninformed speculation, not a conclusion.
. pwn
Re: "It was supposed to be"??
Date: 2008-09-05 06:11 pm (UTC)It was informed speculation, though, based soundly on recent posts.
. png
Re: "It was supposed to be"??
Date: 2008-09-05 06:32 pm (UTC)Well placed, too, based soundly on recent comments. ;)
If it was intentional, instead of an accident, why would McCain want a picture of Walter Reed Middle School behind him while he is making his acceptance speech for the Republican candidacy for president of one of the most powerful countries in the world? I don't, frankly, see the connection...unless he wanted to seem more presidential, like in the West Wing. (if you don't know the connection, Google it ;)
I will say this, though, Elf. If you are going to make claims, you oughta link to them, and put more trust than in those who make claims about "what s/he said at a party last night", especially when said person is not *quoted*.
Re: "It was supposed to be"??
Date: 2008-09-05 10:52 pm (UTC)Or Hart for using their song, Barracuda, either.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-05 05:48 pm (UTC)And if you follow the link Andrew provides, it shows that the motion to seal the records was ... denied.
*beatific smiles*
Y'know, I think the weather in Hell must be getting a wee bit chilly lately--apparently the National Enquirer (who broke this story, and who also broke the Edwards affair) are doing actual investigative reporting lately. It's still neon yellow journalism, but it actually seems to bear some resemblance to the *truth*. Who'da thunk it?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-05 10:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-05 10:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-05 05:56 pm (UTC)I can imagine why someone might want their divorce papers sealed without any mention of Palin in them. But that the court has apparently denied it suggests to me that the court may have felt they were relevant to the public interest. I suppose in a small town the court may have wanted them open to clear Palin...
Yet another scandalous chapter..what a bizarre election.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 05:36 am (UTC)