White House press secretary Robert Gibbs generated some criticism when he was a bit glib when questioned about former Vice President Dick Cheney's interview with CNN's John King. He drew laughs when mentioning Rush Limbaugh and Cheney as the least popular members of the "Republican cabal".
At least one correspondent, and also Pat Buchanan, felt that Gibbs was not showing proper respect for a former vice president. Gibbs seemed to acknowledge this point but I wish that he would have responded that he would have been more respectful if the Vice President had shown more respect for the facts and the truth.
Today, Adrianna Huffington had a great column on the Cheney interview. She illustrated how much more informative it would have been had Jon Stewart conducted the interview. Stewart would have confronted Cheney on the spot when he made spurious claims and accusations.
It should also be pointed out that Cheney showed no respect for the tradition under which former Presidents and Vice Presidents refrained from criticism of their successors. By contrast, Cheney went so far as to accuse President Obama of placing our country in more risk of terrorist attacks.
So my local gym switched (at least for now) to CNN. So I get to see the first ten minutes or so of Campbell Brown's "No Bias, No Bull."
Just before she comes on, the tail end of Lou Dobbs' show features an online poll in which 82% think the bailout and stimulus packages "will bankrupt the country."
Then the two ledes from Campbell's show are the Burris mess and "damage control" on Leon Panetta's appointment as CIA chief.
So, here we go again. I really think the Washington media is going to be unforgiving on Obama.
Is Campbell Brown pro-GOP? I know she covered the Bush campaign in 2000 for the NBC networks. Anybody have any clues and thoughts?
I had to rub my eyes and take a shot of whiskey when I actually saw the heading "Maddow for Meet the Press". Everyone has to remember the growling she did during the primaries, how disrespectful she was to the other commentators on the stage, and the condesending attitude. If her nose was any higher, it would have been cut off by the studio ceiling fans.
To even suggest that a partisian go on a show that is known for their equal time for all sides mentality, would just basically doom the show. Send the dragon back to the cave.
Whomever floated this idea obviously has a crush on this monster. She is horrible and I cannot even believe that she even got her own show.
I WANT EVERYONE TO REVIEW THE RATINGS OF MSNBC AND THEIR INTERNET WEBSITE. Ever since she appeared, it has dropped so much, that even the pigs in the duldroms of ratings won't even mention it.
Horrible Idea, Horrible Host, and Horrible Thought.
Most people top in the McCain campaign now believe New Mexico and Iowa are gone...They are now off the dream list of the McCain campaign. More interestingly, most top people inside the McCain campaign now think Colorado is gone.
Iowa and New Mexico were always the most likely Bush states to go blue this year and adding them to all of the Kerry states would give Barack Obama 264 electoral votes. Add Colorado's 9 EVs, then he's over the top with 273 EVs. So clearly, McCain knows he needs to take one of Kerry's states away from Barack Obama. According to King, that showdown state will be Pennsylvania.
While many people think Obama's margin in Pennsylvania is somewhat deceiving (Pollster has him up more than 15%) I tend to agree with Chris Bowers who considers the 7 most crucial states to be Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. Bowers' conclusion:
Specifically, McCain must sweep these states in order to win the election. Right now, however, Obama holds leads in all seven, and only North Carolina is smaller than a 3% lead.
Update [2008-10-20 21:11:40 by Todd Beeton]:OK, so let's throw McCain a bone and concede Pennsylvania's 21 EVs to him. What would Obama have to do to win?
O: Kerry states + IA + NM + CO - PA = 257 252
M: all others = 281 286
All Barack would have to do to win without PA in this scenario is win a state (or a combination of states) worth 13 18 electoral votes. As you can see, that would not be terribly difficult, as winning any of the following alone would still put Obama over the top:
Virginia (13) + Nevada (5)
North Carolina (15) + Nevada (5)
Virginia (13) + Missouri (11)
North Carolina (15) + Missouri (11)
In other words, even winning Pennsylvania requires McCain to essentially run the battleground state table. Of course, if McCain does win Pennsylvania, it's likely these others would follow but still, the point here is that McCain's "best case scenario" is really not good.
[editor's note, by Todd Beeton]Fixed. My Kerry state count mistakenly originally counted Nevada.