Personally, I vote for incoherent threat against freedom of the press.  Two for the price of one!

Why "either?"

It is rambling, incoherent threat against freedom of the press from a sinister woman who is way too dumb to be president.

If you put your ear up against Palin's ear, I betcha can hear the Bering Strait.

I had a (formerly) close friend who talked like that. Smoking crack for ten years will do that to a person.

"We want truth, we want fairness, we want balance."

Fox News.  Fair and Balanced.  "Organ of the Central Committee of the Republican Party of the United States"  (hat tip to Pravda).

Seriously - very frightening.  

"We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance."

truthy, fairy, but unbalanced

Can someone tell me what the hell she meant?

we've really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press

Really, what the hell was she trying to say, did she mean fighting for the freedom of the press?

Incoherent is generous, batty is more like it.

I hope and pray 4 years from now, after Obama's first term, Republicans nominate her. I doubt Huckabee or Romney or any Republican will be as remotely chilvarous as Biden was. Huckabee will eviscerate her with a smile.

"perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege."

So...the press has hauled the First Amendment down to Gitmo?

Okay, I hate Saddam as much as the next man, but I don't quite see how he thwarted or could have thwarted freedom of the press here. Just because we are America and we are fighting against someone doesn't mean that someone is a threat to everything we have.

I have re-read that quote several times and I have absolutely no idea what she is trying to say (though I know in my heart that it's something stupid).

But this quote?

"OK, I'll tell you honestly," Palin said, "the Sarah Palin in those interviews is a little bit annoyed because it's like, man, no matter what you say, you're going to get clobbered. If you choose to answer a question, you are going to get clobbered on the answer. If you choose to try and pivot and go on to another subject that you believe that Americans want to hear about, you get clobbered for that, too."

What tough as nails Sarah is saying here is that she's a coward and doesn't have the courage of her convictions.  Nobody told her the "right" answer ahead of time, and gosh golly, that's so annoying!

Without exaggeration and not with any irony or snarkiness, in all honesty, and I swear to all that is dear to me, what the Palin has said above is about a word for word translation from Persian of what Ahmadinejad keeps saying about "freedom of the press".  Right down to "We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance."

OK, I exaggerate a little bit.  Except for this line: "we've really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press".  Ahmadinejad has ordered the closing of many newspapers, but he has never actually suggested that there could be a "mutually beneficial relationship" with "those fighting the freedom of the press."

Her "I was annoyed" demonstrated a frightening authoritarian streak, but again, for all his rabid stupidity, Ahmadinejad would never admit to be "annoyed" with the press.  Never in public.

Tsk tsk tsk... Don't you ever consult with Leon before you post, Jonathan?  This is a beautiful 26-stanza elegy about life back in Wasilla.  (Chuckles)... You would walk right by Pablo Neruda if he were on the street corner and rambling to himself, wouldn't you, East Coast propagandist.

"As we send our young men and women

    overseas

in a war zone to fight for:

    democracy and freeeeeeeedoms--

i   n   c   l   u   d   i   n   g:

freedom of the press;

we've really

got to

have

a

 mutually

     beneficial

          relationship

                        here.

With those: fighting the

   freedom of the press;

and,

then,

theee press!

Though not taking;

advantage and exploiting;

a sit-u-a-tion, perhaps,

they would want to--

capture and abuse--

the privilege.

We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance."

Beautiful.  

It gets worse.

"In those Katie Couric interviews, I did feel that there were lot of things that she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a VP candidate stands for, what the values are represented in our ticket. I wanted to talk about Barack Obama increasing taxes, which would lead to killing jobs. I wanted to talk about his proposal to increase government spending by another trillion dollars. Some of his comments that he's made about the war, that I think may, in my world, disqualify someone from consideration as the next commander in chief. Some of the comments that he has made about Afghanistan -- what we are doing there, supposedly just air raiding villages and killing civilians. That's reckless. I want to talk about things like that. So I guess I have to apologize for being a bit annoyed, but that's also an indication of being outside the Washington elite, outside of the media elite also. I just wanted to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for."

Almost makes me nostalgic for Rove.

Though not relevant to this specific quote, we joked in our law office today that if we had a drinking game before the debate that you had to take a drink everytime Palin said "also", we would all be loaded by 10 eastern time...:)

I appreciate the reference to Huckabee above.  One can disagree with the man (deeply, in fact), and he could produce a gaffe to rival the best of them (sort of the Biden of the right, if you will).  But his genuine folksiness, his sense of humor, shines a bright light on the faux-foksiness  and mean-spiritedness of Palin.

I was listening to a segment on NPR this afternoon.  They did a post debate with a bunch of AARP'ers in the Duluth MN/Superior WI area.

One quote from the follow-up, a Palin fan:

"He's (Biden) been in the Senate for 36 years, so how the hell does he know what we're doing out here?" Schetta said. "He don't. She does. She might be, whatever you call it, a little schoolgirl or whatever, but I'll tell you what, she'd be bringing something refreshing that I can see to this ticket."

Only one senior they interviewed was critical of Palin, but the way the story went, it seems they found one undecided, one for and one against, making the story almost useless aside from what little reasoning NPR dared tease out of the debate viewers.  Though the 'for' viewer and the undecided pretty much display little in the way of thought process.   On the other hand, the against viewer recognized Palin was ducking the questions and wandering off on her own.

Here's the link to the story:

www.npr.org/.../story.php

jet, it's interesting what you report.  My own feeling is that if the weird configuration of McCain and Palin (fighter pilot, POW, and gambler + accidental governor in a weird petro-socialist State where they believe their own propgaganda) is genuinely attractive, it's because it seems to offer some voters the kind of metaphor of change that Obama is offering -- but without the embarrassment of having to vote for a black guy.

This may apply to a few people, or many.  Hopefully the former.

Obama on Freedom of the Press

National Review’s Stanley Kurtz got a taste of Obamaite totalitarianism for himself. He investigated the links between William Ayers and Obama by visiting the library at the University of Illinois at Chicago where the records from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge are held. Both men were on the organization’s board of directors so Kurtz correctly believed that the bevy of documents would reveal the nature of their working relationship. He wrote an article to this effect, which led to an appearance on Milt Rosenberg’s Chicago radio show.

Obama’s toadies reacted to this mundane incident with maximum force. Kurtz was a threat as he also uncovered ties to the Gamaliel Foundation. Again they mustered their hordes via the “action wire.” They instructed them to impugn Kurtz with “the talking points below.” Kurtz’s respectable inquiry into the Ayers association became “one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.” The writer was a “right-wing hatchet man.” Not satisfied with this invective, they further maligned him as “a slimy character assassin” known for “divisive, destructive ranting.” Yet the smears were all one-sided and came directly from Obama’s headquarters.

Kurtz merely tried to disinfect myth with light. He focused on the question of “why this foundation seemed to fail in its chief task, which was to improve public education in Chicago.” It is recommended that readers examine his article and listen to the radio program for themselves so they can judge how absurd the “action wire’s” depiction of Mr. Kurtz really was. Milt Rosenberg possesses the countenance of an old-school ivory tower scholar — which is what he is — and admitted to being “somewhat startled by this firestorm that has erupted” as hundreds of lackeys called not only the program, but also the station manager, in the hopes of taking Rosenberg off the air. Apparently, in Barack America, Kurtz’s free speech is not the kind that can be tolerated.

The drama played out again with the same host when David Freddoso, author of The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate, was invited to appear. This time an Obama surrogate was brought on as a counterweight but that did not placate his minions. Another “action wire” was generated. This one disparaged Freddoso as “dishonest” and a practitioner of “extreme hate mongering.” The leftist fared quite poorly in the civilized exchanges — as they invariably do — while a moment of high comedy occurred after Rosenberg asked the activist about Obama’s connection with William Ayers. He responded by not responding. Rehearsed talking points spewed forth. In the hopes of confusing the attention-challenged he proclaimed: “the radical idea is that regular people can do extraordinary things if they bind together and work for their common purpose. … It’s easy to forget that ‘yes we can’ do great things.” What about William Ayers? So stereotypical was the backer’s spin that one could have mistaken his analysis for conservative parody.

All of this leaves us in a quandary. What are we to make of Senator Obama? No messiah should have to silence his questioners yet his appeals to censorship are habitual. The candidate appears above no fray. At this juncture, leftists undoubtedly fathom that their savior is weak and that fair debate equates with his doom. Therefore, their strategy is to scorch any ground upon which they find the right. Barack Obama’s tactics are totalitarian and un-American. They illustrate that, while we should reject him for a thousand reasons this November, none is more convincing than the palpable contempt he has shown for free speech.

pajamasmedia.com/.../2

jacob, I hate to tell you this, but the fact that you can use the cut'n'paste tools doesn't prove you have anything to say.  It merely proves you can cut'n'paste.

I'm getting nervous. I think I actually understand and largely agree with what Palin was trying to say, in spite of the patently magical effect of selectively transcribing speech into print to facilitate distortion of intended meaning.

Kudos to icarus and jet for demonstrating this phenomenon in terms of Persian and Old People.

Clue to partisans--misunderstanding Palin's appeal is evidence of the much more dangerous Pauline Cael Syndrome--  "..., but, everyone I KNOW voted for McGovern..." ??!!

RP - ignore the media and may attention to what is actually occuring in this country with regard to Palin.

Look at the polls, both from the debate and the rest.  Palin memorized her lines, it doesn't mean she has a clue what they mean and the vast majority of people agree across all demographics.  People see no evidence of that she grasps what she is saying, quite the opposite. She is obviously one seriously dense woman and there is no sale there.

The elite right wing media and the far right partisans like "Aren't I adorable? WINK" Palin.  No one else who matters does, period.

Biden destroyed her with independents and in every focus group, including FOX - whose focus group actually had the highest negatives for Palin.  

Obama/Biden are demolishing this gruesome ticket in every demographic but one.  Not that the media will tell you that, but all we have to do is look at what is right in front of our noses.

I have said from day 1 that McCain will rue the day he ever set eyes on Palin. We're looking at the landslide that these people deserve.

TImteter: Right on.  The difference between Huckabee and Palin, aside from the obvious, is that he is a genuine "folksy man of the people" and remains so, even while governing a state, and running for national office.  That doesn't mean he's not ambitious, or a right wing nut, but I never got the sense he was reaching or faking it when he was turning on the charm.

Palin is not nearly so genuine.  She's a news reader and a social climber first, last and always, and her brain is clearly pretty close to a content-free zone.  She is about as genuine as a $3 bill.  Anyone who lives in the hinterland and pays the slightest attention to how their neighbors speak and think, can tell immediately that she's a fake.

Of course, Americans generally are easily taken in by fakes - a country where people actually paid attention to what they are "buying" wouldn't have the sub-prime crisis, for example, and sure as hell wouldn't have put George Bush in office a second time.  But I'm not sure that Palin is good enough to take in even a majority of the people listening.

Fair and Balanced? She wants FOX News!

From CNN:

Debate analysis: Palin spoke at 10th-grade level, Biden at eighth

An analysis carried out by a language monitoring service said Friday that Gov. Sarah Palin spoke at a more than ninth-grade level and Sen. Joseph Biden spoke at a nearly eighth-grade level in Thursday night's debate between the vice presidential candidates.

corner.nationalreview.com/post

"From CNN:

Debate analysis: Palin spoke at 10th-grade level, Biden at eighth "

From Earth

Debate analysis: Palin spoke like an idiot, Biden like an expert; Jacon declared brain-dead

jacob, Palin's endless run-on sentences and prepositional phrases may mean that diagramming a Palin sentence would take two months...but that doesn't mean that her ideas are complex.  In fact, the more complex the sentence, the ideas may even be less clear.

In "Politics and the English Language," Orwell wrote about this sort of language, where "modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug."  Orwell would HATE Palin's speech.

jacob,

If indeed Biden spoke at an eighth-grade level and Palin at a higher level, then Biden was the better speaker.

I have been a professional editor and writer, mostly in the life sciences, for about 16 years. During this time my most difficult gig, without question, was writing patient education materials for one of the leading providers of same in the United States. As an industry leader the publisher knew that the overwhelming number of American adults read at or below the 10th grade level. Thus if a surgeon is going to hand a patient a booklet on laparoscopic gallbladder surgery and say "Read this," the booklet can't be written at a college level or the doctor had just raised his or her risk of performing a procedure without informed consent. Major payors generally won't pay for these materials if they're written at higher levels.

To determine the reading level there are fairly straigntforward (if somewhat arbitrary) tests one can run on a passage to gauge its reading level (e.g. the Gunning FOG test). In a nutshell, you measure the number of words per sentence, the number of words containing more than two syllables, the number of abstract words such as pronouns that require the reader to recall a referent, and the sentence structure itself (simple, complex, compound), active vs. passive constructions etc.and plug these data into a formula.

Bottom line: Simpler is better, because it's more comprehensible. This is true for public speakers as well as for writers.

(The one single thing Palin can do to improve her communication skills, IMO, is shorten her sentences. She has a tendency to take an idea and start running with it, which kills her reading/listening level--not surprising, because she only has a few years of industrial-strength public speaking under her belt. Less experienced speakers fear the silence at the end of their sentences, so instead of letting a sentence's single idea sink in, they launch off into another idea. Especially if the link between ideas is tenuous, they risk losing many in their audience.)

Thus, when you say that Biden spoke at a lower reading level than did Palin, one thing you're saying is that, all else being equal, Biden is the better speaker.

"Either she's sinister or just way too dumb to be president:"

False choice.

Robert Powell,

You're absolutely right that some people are misunderstanding Palin's appeal. You just don't know who those people are.

icarusr said:

"Debate analysis Biden like an expert"

It's true. however, it's hard to explain away The Biden Error/Lie/Hallucination List

campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post

2/3 of these posts make fun of Palin, 1/3 take her seriously.

The way we ran Jesse Ventura out of Minnesota is that we refused to not take him seriously.

He hated it. He hated the media, the pundits, the accountability. He stayed really angry for four years, then left.

Palin should be treated no differently than any other candidate.

So what's up with Babe Buchanan's new face? It's something right out of "Death Becomes Her". Stay away from that house on Halloween.

It's telling that Jacob's main source for "analysis" is now National Review.

rozenson ,

What are   your main source for "analysis"?

Whenever I see a high-ish number of comments on a post, then click to read those comments, and then run into a jacobtl vs. everybody bog of quicksand, it makes me hit the back button and not read any further. Please, for my sake, let the tennis balls fly past, do not return them, much less keep it going. I ask you - have you ever kept it going and actually learned something interesting for your efforts? I haven't, and I don't even read them anymore, or anything that might come after.

AND he doesn't even address the topic of the post, it's just spam.

jacobt1, you're deening Palin! Aw-shucks doggone it.

Enter the Obama campaign, which reflects the new ethos. It twice issued "Obama Action Wire" alerts for activists to call a Chicago radio station and try to shut down appearances by two Obama critics, writers Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso. No "chilling effect" here. CNN and the Chicago Tribune reported on the effort to silence Obama's detractors, but mostly by way of noting the Obama camp's tech-savvy mustering of its supporters.

But the Times goes beyond mere legalities. It asserts with no evidence that the group's advertising is "lies," then urges the FEC to "be vigilant for what will inevitably be fresh attempts to mislead voters with fresh lies." Here's a newspaper charging a governmental agency with policing and shutting down campaign ads it doesn't like.

It's all just a taste of what's to come if Obama wins and Democrats have even bigger majorities in Congress, emboldening them to try to crush their antagonists once and for all. "Hate is not a family value" was a popular bumper sticker on the left during the 1990s. Now, the left has embraced hate as, if not a family value, the organizing spirit of its long assault on George W. Bush, and anyone else in the way, from Joe Lieberman to Sarah Palin.

America's partisan politics has always featured its share of rancorous abuse, but there's something rancid at the heart of the new, blog-driven left that believes its bullying childishness has led the way out of the wilderness. This spirit will inevitably seep into an Obama administration. Whatever Obama's professions of his commitment to cross-partisan understanding, he's never confronted the left of his own party and has always been willing to engage in hardball when it suits his purposes.

Little Keith Olbermanns will surely be burrowed throughout his executive branch, eager to chill the speech of the "worst people in the world."

www.realclearpolitics.com/.../liberals_rethink_free_speech.html

jet: I wouldn't worry about Duluth. A night's entertainment is...well, there is no night's entertainment. It's as sexy as Evansville, Indiana, only colder, and a tad more racist.

Norm Coleman polls fairly well there. I think they had a library, back in the '90s.

The bigger question: Is Palin Irish or English? The blogosphere is busy analyzing her blood, and she seems to be descended from someone in Norwich, and someone who was a bartender in Cork. Can we please see a clarification from the campaign? (I hope it's English, she so very Orange.)

Jacob. I just wanted to type that so I feel at home.

How much money has the Bush Crime Family taken from America? These guys are good. But how could such brilliant criminals end up with those wives? Is golf that fulfilling?

Sounds like glossalalia to me!