Re: Low moaning Dems & MSM this morning comments

Low moaning Dems & MSM this morning was an “after action report” following Gov. Sarah Palin’s historic and outstanding speech before the GOP convention

Here in italics are parts or all of comments it drew with my responses in plain

Tarheel Hawkeye @ 10:12 - - -

My two thirty-something daughters, who were rabid Hillary supporters and were planning to sit out the election or vote for Hillary as a write-in, have both called me to say they're voting for McCain-Palin. I believe there will be a large number of women who will do the same based on Sarah "Barracuda's" speech at the RNC last nite.

This brings strength to the GOP in several ways: the older female vote will belong to McCain; the religious right is now off the fence and solidly behind Sarah; the conservatives are riled up because of the cheap shots from MSM talking heads; and the Reagan Democrats are likely to return to the GOP fold. This spells disaster for St. Barack and Joe "Kinnock" Biden.

I hope you’re right on all points. You’re mention of “Kinnock” from whom Biden plagiarized brings to mind this: So many pundits have been pointing out Palin didn’t right her speech, but I can’t think of one who's add: “Of course unlike Biden, she didn’t plagiarize it.”

Anon @ 11:27 - - -

You see, the MSM is bitter and they cling to their left wing ideology and their false narratives and their antipathy toward politicians who represent Americans who are not like them.

Obama’s “bitter … cling to” remark is the gift that keeps on giving. I used it just today in a post.

Steve in N.M @ 12:26 - - -

Hawkeye: Always look forward to your comments. Am praying you are correct (as you usually are) with this one! Maybe Chris' leg will go numb! Steve in New Mexico

Gee, Steve, if MSNBC’s Chris Matthews' leg goes numb, how will he be able to judge The One’s speeches?

Ex-prosecutor @ 1:30 - - -

A very important asset of Governor Palin, which the MSM and Democrats ignore, is that, unlike the candidates the Democrats continue to produce, she's very likable and has lived a life much like the rest of us.

For that reason, as well as the others discussed in your post, the Democrats must be very careful in how they jump on her. Attacks may cause fence-sitters to rally to her.

To sit by her on a long flight on a plane would be enjoyable, unlike having Gore, Kerry or Obama as companions.

Sitting by Gore or Kerry on a long flight?

No thanks. I’ll "Go Greyhound."

Now, Obama?

I’d turn to him after the beverage service and ask: “Do you think you can get through Election Day with someone asking: ‘Well, if you slept through all those sermons, OK I guess, but didn’t Michelle tell you what he said after you woke up?”

Anon @ 2:51 - - -

Of course they will come after her and they're too blinded to realize she's armed and dangerous. She'll fight back and win.

I hope you’re right about Palin ultimately winning the Smear War so much of MSM has launched against her. There’s a lot out there which gives the lie to their smears. This CNBC interview in which Palin discusses energy and the environment is one example. I can’t recall a leader of either party discussing those topics so knowledgeably.


Another serious problem they have and don't understand is even though no one thinks this is a woman who needs protection, decent people will be angered by the continued attacks and will be defensive of her as well.

They used the American people's sense of decency and fair play to sustain Bill Clinton. Defending him as a flawed but 'good man'. Saying, over and over again, how his transgressions were personal matter (his wife forgave him, we had to).

Now they don't realize how the public will rise up to defend against outrageous, unfounded attacks on the girl next door?

I think what we are seeing with Palin is just what we saw with the Duke lacrosse players. Leftist ideologues and foolish people pulled along in their wake are saying things that don't make sense. Fair-minded, intelligent people are seeing what's going on and speaking out. And some people don't know what to think.

Anon @ 5:36 - - -

The moaning might grow louder. A CBS poll conducted over the previous three nights (which did not even catch the full impact of the Palin speech) has the race tied. A week ago, they had Obama up 48-40.

This is one poll and they can jump around a bit but it will be interesting to see how the polls look when more come out. The Gallup and Rasmussen rolling averages have shown a bit of movement toward McPalin but, as Palin spoke after 10 PM last night, I doubt any poll has picked up on her performance with the possible exception of including some people called on the West Coast last night by pollsters.

McPalin’s a new one on me. I’m fine with it.

Today, Sept. 6, Rasmussen (Obama +3) and Gallup (Obama +2) both caution the full impact of the GOP convention won’t show in their polls until next week, which fits with what you were pointing out.

Thank you all for commenting.

The Obamas have plans for U. S.

The most important thing Sen. and Mrs. Obama can do now for America is participate in a lengthy televised Q&A with not "In the Tank for Obama" journalists who'll ask them questions about why they remained in Wright's church almost 20 years, why they brought their children for religious instruction to the church of such a hate-filled racist and anti-American preacher, and why they developed a close friendship and activist alliance with the terrorist Bill Ayers?

The Q&A needs to happen before America should trust the Obama's with the keys to The White House.

While we're waiting, I encourage you to read the excerpts which follow from Investors' Business Daily's The Audacity of Socialism series - - -

... [Sen.] Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."

Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social change."

The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn't seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year "community leadership" positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They'll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.

In exchange, they'll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky.

"Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities," Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for "justice" and "equality" in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. "I get to practice being an activist," and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent.

Public Allies promotes "diversity and inclusion," a program paper says. More than 70% of its recruits are "people of color." When they're not protesting, they're staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare.

Public Allies brags that more than 80% of graduates have continued working in nonprofit or government jobs. It's training the "next generation of nonprofit leaders" — future "social entrepreneurs."

The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. "Don't go into corporate America," Michelle has exhorted youth. "Work for the community. Be social workers." Shun the "money culture," Barack added. "Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

"If you commit to serving your community," he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, "we will make sure you can afford a college education." So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government.

Many of today's youth find the pitch attractive. "I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement," said Brian Coovert of the Cincinnati chapter. "There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I'll have a job."

Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. "It was too touchy-feely," said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. "It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias."

One of those -isms is "heterosexism," which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of "capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege."

The government now funds about half of Public Allies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military, he said.

The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military — and stick American taxpayers with the bill.

Hat tip: BN

Tom Maguire pokes fun at The One

Matt Drudge linked to an AP report of a New Jersey fundrainser at which Sen. Obama assured the big-bucks givers:

"We're not going to be bullied, we're not going to be smeared, we're not going to be lied about," Obama said. "I don't believe in coming in second."

Just One Minute’s Tom Maguire saw an opportunity to offer “free advice to Team Obama:”

Whether Obama is revealing personal weakness or simply highlighting the historic weakness of his party, this is not talk that projects strength, especially in the current context - what is Obama saying, he won't be bullied by a 44 year old hockey mom?

Stand Tall, Barack - you won't be bullied by Sarah Palin!

OMG, is this a secret plan to assassinate Putin by making him laugh so hard he gets an aneurysm?

Or is this Laugh Attack launched at the Right Blogosphere (It's working! I can barely type through the tears).

Man up, Barry - even though she was a state champ, you are probably a better baller, too, what with being 6' 2" and a guy to boot. 'Course there is that cigarette smoking that may have cut your wind...

Our next President - ready to take on hockey moms, PTA heads and small town mayors. Even former ones.

The rest of Tom’s post is here.

From Team Obama’s point of view, the bright side of the “We’re not going to be bullied” whine is that the Senator didn’t add: “By these bitter small town Moms who cline to hockey sticks and religion.”

Bob Novak’s column today

begins:

The main reason I am writing this column is that many people have asked me how I first realized I was suffering from a brain tumor and what I have done about it.

But I also want to relate the reaction to my disease, mostly compassionate, that belies Washington's reputation.

The column continues here.

It’s interesting, touching, affirming and graceful.

I hope you all give it a look.

O'Reilly steps on Sally Quinn's apology

A friend who sent on this clip said: "O'Reilly takes what could be a gracious and interesting moment and, of course, bloviates."

I agree. Take a look and decide what you think

The Churchill Series - Sept. 5, 2008

(One of a series of weekdays posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

By virtue of his position, Churchill's long-time bodyguard, Scotland Yard's Detective-Inspector Walter Thompson, was witness to many of Winston and Clementine's private moments.

Tom Hickman is author of Churchill's Bodyguard, a book part Thompson biography and part collection of Churchill anecdotes Thompson collected. Here are two of those anecdotes:

Churchill ends his autobiography, My Early Life, with the oft quoted words: “until September 1908, when I married and lived happily ever afterwards.”

It was the late 20s and the Churchills were about to drive in an open two-seater from London down to Chartwell. Thompson sat in the back in what the Brits call the dickie seat (our rumble seat).

Winston was habitually late, but this was one of those rare times when he was ready first, seated at the wheel. Soon Clementine joined him.

Thompson carries the story from there:

[Clementine] appeared dressed in a most gorgeous black dress decorated with gold thread. Winston voiced his delight.

“Clemmie,” he said, “you look beautiful. What a lovely dress.”

“I am so pleased you like it, darling,” she replied, as she took her seat beside him.

It was not until we were out in the country that the dress was again mentioned.

Winston gazed sideways and quietly said: “And what did it cost?”

She replied: “I dare not tell you.”

“I thought not," he said. “I am sure it was very expensive.”

“I will tell you later, Winston,” she replied.

“But there is no harm in knowing now, in view of the fact you have bought it.”

The car almost came to a standstill when she said: “Two hundred guineas.”

“I suppose,” he said, “you have not paid for it yet?”

“Let us talk about it later,” she replied.

Dead silence followed and not another word was said.

Where trains were concerned, Churchill was a classic last minute race-to-the-station traveler.

When he was a cabinet minister or PM, and later when out of office but "a great man," Churchill's last minute habit didn't cause him any problems. Staff simply phoned ahead and the train was held.

But when out of office during the 20s and 30s, Churchill frequently had to race to catch a train. Often he lost.

Thompson once heard Clementine explain Churchill's "last minute" habit this way: "Winston's a sporting man. He likes to give the train a chance."

I hope you all have a good weekend. Special thoughts go to those of you in areas hit by the storms.

John

I owe Anons and other Commenters

JinC Regulars have read this before: A lot of the best reporting and commentary at this blog is on the threads.

And that's where I find the best editing, too.

I'll never forget the time I posted about one of the English Kings.

An Anon editor told me I'd put up "a good post," but it was about "his 'reign,' John, not 'rain.'"

The foregoing is intro to this: There's been so much informed, revealing, humorous and other important and good kinds of comments showing up on the threads.

I've got to get at least some of them onto the main page.

I'll do some of that tomorrow.

Give a look here for the post about 2 PM ET.

And thank you to every one of you who makes worthwhile comments here.

John

Dem Majority Leader Harry Reid v. Gov. Sarah Palin

The following from James Taranto's WSJ Best of the Web Today with a brief JinC comment below the star line.

Taranto - - -

The New York Times reports on a priceless response to Sarah Palin's speech.

First, here's what she said:

Harry Reid, the majority leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee. He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain."

Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man. Clearly what the majority leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain.

Here's Reid's answer, as reported by the Times:

Now Harry Reid is hardly thin-skinned and almost anything else Ms. Palin could have said about him might not have drawn much of a reaction.

But to the former boxer from tiny Searchlight, Nev., that insinuation from Governor Palin amounts to fighting words. He sees himself as more than capable of standing up to Mr. McCain and, through spokesman Jim Manley, Mr. Reid fired back.

"Anyone who knows Senator Reid knows he never backs down when he's fighting for what's right and that he always stands up to John McCain when he is wrong," said Mr. Manley. "Shrill and sarcastic political attacks may fire up the Republican base, but they don't change the fact that a McCain-Palin administration would mean four more years of failed Bush-Cheney policies."

So Reid is "more than capable of standing up," and he shows it by hiding behind a spokesman--named Mr. Manley!(emphasis added)

*************************************
Comments:

Mr. Manley!

You can't make that up, can you?

Who'd believe it?

And by the way - Has Sen. Reid ever apologized to the American people, President Bush, and most of all our military in Iraq and their families for saying "the war there is lost?"

If he hasn't, he needs to ASAP. I'm sure it would help if Sen. Obama asked him to.

Just doing their job on Gov. Palin

Polls show most Americans believe Alaska’s Gov. Sarah Palin is the victim of MSM sexist smear attacks.

While by no means all MSM journalists are participating in the attacks, many who are claim they're simply “doing our job.”

Let’s take a look at some of what Jonah Goldberg at Realclearpolitics.com reports about the “job” the leftist MSM attack machine is doing on Palin. I add a few comments below the star line.

Goldberg begins - - -

"What is wrong with these people?" was the nigh-upon-universal reaction among conservatives at the GOP convention this week.

Liberal reporters inquired of conservative journalists, Republican delegates, right-leaning janitors, free-market short-order cooks, even the guys walking around in elephant suits: Will Sarah Palin drop out? What about the Eagleton Option?

For those who don't know, the Eagleton Option refers to Thomas Eagleton, George McGovern's first VP pick in 1972, who was forced to withdraw because of allegations of mental illness. . . .

Of course, it was hardly the only journalistic will-o'-the-wisp unleashed from the media bog. The claim that Palin was a Buchananite -- and hence an acolyte of a "Nazi sympathizer" according to Florida Rep. Robert Wexler -- was not true.

The claims she cut funding for pregnant teens, that she was a member of the more-goofy-than-scary Alaska Independence Party, that Trig Palin -- her special-needs baby -- was really her daughter's: these were all bogus.

As for the even more disgusting smears peddled at the Daily Kos and one blogger [, Andrew Sullivan,] at The Atlantic -- smears that drove much of the prurient investigation into the Palin family's privacy by more reputable sources -- they were as untrue as they were repugnant. …

The rest of Goldberg’s article’s here.

**************************************************
Comments:

So the MSMers attacking Palin are just doing their job? Really?

Is a requirement for their job getting so many things wrong that could easily have been gotten right?

Do you think everyone in MSM busy doing their job on Gov. Palin has heard the joke about how the Palin’s could’ve kept their daughter’s pregnancy a secret? Told MSM the father was John Edwards.

Everyone instantly understands that joke which tells us a lot about MSM’s liberal/leftist bias and gives the lie to the “we’re just doing our job” blather.

Oprah wants Palin AFTER the election

At Drudge Report this morning:

BIG DILEMMA: OPRAH BALKS AT HOSTING SARAH PALIN; STAFF DIVIDED

That’s followed by:

Oprah Winfrey may have introduced Democrat Barack Obama to the women of America -- but the talkshow queen is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket!

Oprah's staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

"Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on," an insider explains. "Oprah's website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama." …

Last year, Winfrey blocked an appearance by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, timed to a promotional tour of his autobiography.

Oprah and executive producer Sheri Salata, who has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama's campaign, refused requests for comment.

A short while later Drudge posted the following:

OPRAH'S STATEMENT:

"The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates [Except Sen. Obama. – JinC]. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over." (emphasis added)

Oprah is obviously trying to be as even-handed as the NY and LA Times, NPR, the networks, Joe Klein, Chris Matthews, Andrew Sullivan, Kos and Team Obama itself.

And she’s succeeding.

Rasmussen reports beginning of McCain bounce

From Rasmussen - - -

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows the beginning of John McCain’s convention bounce and the race is essentially back where it was before Barack Obama’s bounce. Obama now attracts 46% of the vote while McCain earns 45%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 48%, McCain 46% (see recent daily results).

Tracking Poll results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. Virtually all of the interviews for today’s update were completed before McCain’s speech last night. Roughly two-thirds of the interviews were completed before Palin’s speech on Wednesday night. Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time and a FREE daily e-mail update is available.

Both Obama and McCain are now viewed favorably by 57% of the nation’s voters (see trends). However, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is viewed favorably by 58%--a point more than either Presidential hopeful. Forty percent (40%) have a Very Favorable opinion of her. ...

The rest of today's report's here.

So after a week of relentless smearing by much of MSM, Gov. Palin is viewed more favorably than Sen Obama -- 58 to 57%.

Yes, that's a statistical dead heat. And if Obama's news organizations continue to heap sexism and smears on Palin while glorifying The One and ignoring his efforts to suppress and distort news about his friendship with the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, Palin's favorable rating could drop and we could see an ascension in The One's favorable rating.

Only time will tell.

But we now know why Obama's media flacks immediately set out so ruthlessly to destroy Palin.

Rasmussen's report today gives us the answer.

The Churchill Series – Sept. 4, 2008

(One of a series of posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

We continue today the series within the Series leading to the 100th Anniversary of the Churchill’s wedding September 12, 2008.

Churchill historians will tell you Clementine often smoothed things over when Winston’s temper got the better of him in social situations.

Jon Meacham, author of Winston and Franklin: An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship, recounts one such incident which occurred at a small London dinner party the Churchill’s hosted during WW II when First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt who was in Britain on a goodwill visit.

The dinner guests included a few Cabinet members, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, a number of British women who were leaders of war relief work, America’s Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, and Eleanor’s companion-secretary Malvina Thompson.

Things were going along nicely until:

Eleanor and Churchill exchanged words over Loyalist Spain.

“I remarked that I could not see why the Loyalist government could not have been helped, and the prime minister replied that he and I would have been the first to lose our heads if the Loyalists had won – the feeling against people like us would have spread,” Mrs. Roosevelt recalled.

[She continued]: “I said that losing my head was unimportant, whereupon he said: ‘I don’t want you to lose your head and neither do I want to lose mine.’

Then Mrs. Churchill leaned across the table and said: ‘I think perhaps Mrs. Roosevelt is right.’

The prime minister was quite annoyed by this time and said: ‘I have held certain beliefs for sixty years and I’m not going to change now’” (p. 200)

And what followed next? Meacham doesn’t say anything more other than that Eleanor’s friends found Churchill “hopeless.”

Historians who continue recounting the incident agree that right after an angry Churchill had said he wasn’t changing his views, Clementine said she thought dinner was just about over and it was time to serve desert in a drawing room.

The transition from dining table to drawing room gave a “grace period” Churchill used to recover his temper while Clementine began, as the Brits say, “chatting up” the guests on various light subjects.

Eleanor Roosevelt and Churchill had some mutual respect, but they were oil and water.

Had Winston and Eleanor married, I can easily imagine what would have happened.

I would have used Lord Rosebery’s words when he erroneously predicted at the start of the Churchill’s 56 year love match:

”The union will last about six months, with luck.”

Law prof’s “feminist blood boils.”

Here’s part of Univ. of Wisconsin School of Law professor Ann Althouse’s post concerning Gov. Palin’s speech last night - - - -

IN THE COMMENTS: Doyle writes:

It was definitely well-executed, but I thought the speech was too sarcastic.

Oh, yes, sarcastic. That reminds me. I saw Paul Begala on some morning show and he was using that word. He said that Palin was excellent when she was telling her life story, but then when she got into the criticisms of Barack Obama, she was sarcastic, and that wasn't good.

Step back, little lady. Be good. Be nice. Tell us about your children and what you like to cook for dinner and how much you love your hubby.

Grrrr... my feminist blood boil.

Althouse's entire post's here.

The trashing Palin's receiving is making a lot of women's and men's blood boil.

Guess the guilty pol's party

The Detroit Free Press reports - - -

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick has pleaded guilty, ending a nearly eight-month drama that has transfixed the region, paralyzed much of city business and halted a political career that once held such promise.

At 7 p.m., the mayor is expected to speak about his decision in a televised address.

Judy Smith, Kilpatrick's Washington, D.C.-based public relations consultant, said details are still being finalized, but 7 p.m. is the tentative time.

In a courtroom this morning, Kilpatrick pleaded guilty to two felony counts of obstructing justice by committing perjury. He will spend four months in jail, pay up to $1 million in restitution, and serve five years' probation. He also agreed not to run for office during that five-year span.

The rest of the Free Press' lengthy report is here.

It never mentions his party affiliation. Can you guess what it is?

The article also doesn't say whether Kilpatrick can delay serving his time until after the election so he can work to get out the vote for Sen. Obama and his mother, Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick

Palin knows energy - Don't misss this video

Folks, a Regular sent along the link below to a CNBC interview of Gov. Sarah Palin by CNBC's Maria Bartiromo.

The interview was taped a few days before Sen. McCain named Palin his V-P pick. It lasts almost 12 minutes.

Energy development, distribution and use compatible with care for the environment are the only topics.

The sound/visual quality is excellent and Palin's outstanding.

Listen to her and than ask yourself when you last heard an American politician of either party speak so knowledgeably about energy and the environment?

Take a look here.

Low moaning Dems & MSM this morning

Thomas Lifson at American Thinker tells us about it - - -

The smug laughter among liberal elites at Sarah Palin is quieting down, replaced by low moaning. Clive Crook of The Atlantic admits that there might have been just a bit of misunderestimating going on among the left:

...the Democrats have a problem. They had a few days of calling her a clueless redneck, a stewardess, a nonentity, and she has hurled that back in their bleeding gums. (If I were Joe Biden, I'd start practicing for October 2nd right now.)

Even before tonight's speech, they had backed off the "no experience" strategy, because (as the Republicans intended) that was sending shrapnel in Obama's direction. Their line right now is their default mode, that McCain-Palin is four more years of George Bush. But this too is a completely untenable strategy, since the Republican ticket now looks stunningly fresh to voters, as fresh in fact as Obama-Biden.

Where they will have to end up is obvious: McCain-Palin is an extreme right-wing ticket. It is a team that will prosecute the culture war against all that is decent and civilized in the United States: that must be the line.

I think he's right. Expect the Democrats to caricature Palin (again), this time as a wild-eyed religious fanatic bent on imposing her views on others' lives. That's fine with me. Let's have a nuanced talk about the infanticide Obama supports, while little Piper Palin slicks down Trig's hair. ….

The rest of Lifson’s post’s here.

Comments:

I thought Gov. Palin hit a home run last night. It was a very well crafted speech very well delivered.

It obviously played well in the convention hall. It’s a safe bet it also played well among the American people.

It’s not hard to understand why the Democratic MSM, aligned with special interests groups like NOW and the Green orgs which want to hold back American efforts to become more energy self-reliant, want to take her out with smears and ridicule before the American public get to know her.

Palin’s outstanding example last evening of grace under pressure has the Dems and MSM moaning this morning.

But don’t underestimate the mendacity of many of them.

They’re going to come after her with more smears and ridicule at the slightest opportunity.

The Churchill Series - Sept. 3, 2008

(One of a series of weekdays posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

The following is a repost that fits right in with our series leading up to the 100th Anniversary of the Churchill's wedding.

I hope the post leaves you smiling.

John
_____________________________________________

Churchill ends his autobiography, My Early Life, with the oft quoted words: “until September 1908, when I married and lived happily ever afterwards.”

It was a wonderful marriage, with Clementine’s love, judgment and loyalty sustaining and enriching Churchill in both the domestic and public parts of his life.

But as in even the best of marriages, there were those “moments.” Churchill’s long-time bodyguard, Scotland Yard Detective-Inspector Walter Thompson tells us about one of them that occurred in the late 20s.

The Churchills were about to drive in an open two-seater from London down to Chartwell. Winston drove. Thompson sat in the back in what the Brits call the dickie seat (our rumble seat).

Thompson carries the story from there:

[Clementine] appeared dressed in a most gorgeous black dress decorated with gold thread. Winston voiced his delight. “Clemmie,” he said, “you look beautiful. What a lovely dress.”

“I am so pleased you like it, darling,” she replied, as she took her seat beside him.

It was not until we were out in the country that the dress was again mentioned . Winston gazed sideways and quietly said: “And what did it cost?”

She replied: “I dare not tell you.”

“I thought not, he said. “I am sure it was very expensive.”

“I will tell you later, Winston,” she replied.

“But there is no harm in knowing now, in view of the fact you have bought it.”

The car almost came to a standstill when she said: “Two hundred guineas.”

“I suppose,” he said, “you have not paid for it yet?”

“Let us talk about it later,” she replied.

Dead silence followed and not another word was said.

___________________________________
Tom Hickman, Churchill's Bodyguard. (p. 219)

Will Kerry Upstage Palin

by finally releasing all his Navy records?

A TIME-WARPED SEXIST ASSAULT

is what’s happening to Gov. Sarah Palin.

So says NY Post’s Andrea Peyser whose column today begins - - -

Holy hoop skirts: When did the clock tick back to 1958?

When Joe Biden tragically lost his wife and infant daughter in a car wreck in 1972, not a single colleague, friend or competitor advised him to quit his newly won Senate seat to raise his two little surviving sons.

Rather, he was sworn into office from the injured boys' bedside, and took to commuting an hour and a half each way from Delaware to Washington. And when Biden's second wife gave birth to a daughter, no one thought to ask him to step aside and stay home.

They all do it. John Kennedy did it; so did Barack Obama: Men run for office and serve in elected positions while creating small children without ever being patronized as "super dads" or "multi-taskers."

Nor are they penalized, ridiculed or dismissed for ignoring their kids. They're good dads.

If Sarah Palin, tapped as John McCain's running mate, were a man, it's unlikely we'd even be having this conversation. (A man, or a Democrat.) (emphasis added) . . .

But women on the left, who fought long and hard for the ability to raise children simultaneously with election cash, are in spasms. (Some have simply kept silent. Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton - where are you?)

The same lefty media that studiously ignored the adolescence of Chelsea Clinton can't wait to dig into Bristol Palin.

The Diary section of Daily Kos Web site had a curious way to make Palin's daughter into a campaign issue: "Considering Palin was chosen solely for her religious right family values cred, Bristol's shotgun marriage and pregnancy are very fair game. They are the direct result of this lunatic abstinence-only garbage, and should be highlighted as such."

The stupendously sexist New York Times printed a front-page article noting that some unnamed women argue over "whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try." . . .

Peyser’s entire column’s here.

MSM’s desperate race against Palin’s speech

Excerpts from American Thinker editor and publisher Thomas Lifson's "Sarah Palin and the Two Americas" with my comments below the star line.

Lifson says - - -

… A desperate race is underway, with the liberal media scampering to define Sarah Palin to the public as a dangerous religious fanatic and naïve hick, some kind of back woods primitive incapable of effectively discharging the awesome job of president, soon to be thrust upon her as John McCain expires right after his inauguration.

Tonight, Governor Palin will have her opportunity to speak directly to the American people, and thanks to the blizzard of critical coverage, she will be no doubt attract an enormous audience.

She has the rarest of qualities: authenticity. Media and Beltway types can't fathom what that is. It goes right over their heads. Not even on the radar screen. Her multiple facets -- beauty queen, moose hunter, mother, member of an Assembly of God Church, and ferocious reformer of corrupt politics may baffle sophisticates, but ordinary Americans see all the pieces fitting together, and they recognize a type of person they know and love. . . .

Sarah Palin is the ultimate All-American Girl, beautiful but not glamorous, powerful but unpretentious, high-powered but down-to-earth, a reformer who speaks up while others cower in fear of rocking the boat. Like Ronald Reagan, she can reach right through the television camera into people's minds and hearts. We recognize one of us.

The left, so wrapped in artifice and fakery, are driven crazy by this. Her behavior appears bizarre, inexplicable. In their minds, she is a disaster and they pretend to be gleeful, asking when McCain will dump her. All while panicking, because they can see the energized GOP base and the failure of Barack Obama to garner the ten-to-fifteen point post-convention bounce to be expected after his speech before the multimillion-dollar Greek temple set and fireworks at Invesco Field only 5 days ago.

Those who planned the classical Greek theatrical stage never for second contemplated the possibility of a deus ex machina named Sarah.

So now they hurl ridiculous, self-discrediting accusations (the fantasy that Palin was not the mother of her baby Trig and was covering for her daughter was published by The Atlantic) and cannot understand that they won't work on a mom who's about to become a grandma while caring for a Down syndrome baby.

They regard the public as fools to be manipulated, and know that with the MSM megaphone, they can sell practically anything. …

Despite having been written off as a hopeless cause by political insiders and media know-it-alls, the Grand Old Party is about to renew itself amidst catcalls from the opposition. The same sort of swells who laugh at Sarah Palin as trailer trash categorized Ronald Reagan as an amiable dunce when in a charitable mood, spelled his name Ray-Gun, and felt ashamed to have a graduate of Eureka College, not some Ivy League campus, representing America on the world stage.

Ronald Reagan never let the contempt of the cultural, literary and journalistic elites bother him. He simply spoke over their heads directly to the American people. And changed the world.

In Sarah Palin, we may well have a figure able to do the same. All eyes will be on her tonight.

Lifson’s entire post’s here.
****************************************************
Comments:

Lifson’s bang on when he says the liberal media news orgs are in a desperate race to trash and slime Palin.

They’re thinking - - -

Don’t let the public make up its own mind. Our job is to filter the news. We’ve done A+ work getting the public’s mind off Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.

And we’ve done a pretty good job fogging over The One’s close relationship with Will Ayers.

Now let’s all get out there and “strangle” Palin before she’s able to fight back.

Folks, I don’t know yet whether Palin’s even half the wonderful things GOPers are saying about her.

I need more time to make up my mind.

As far as I'm concerned, right now one of the biggest pluses Palin has going for her ]is that so much of the sexist, arrogant, and error-filled reporting and commentary I’ve been reading about Palin is coming from the same crowd whose assessments of the Iraq surge you’ll find here.

Congrats to Lifson on a fine post. Be sure to check in regularly at American Thinker. It's an outstanding blog.

Hat tip: Realclearpolitics.com

MSM's Surge of Ignorance & Gov. Palin

At Volokh Conspiracy Univ. of Chicago School of Law Professor Eric Posner offers a post – "Surge of Ignorance" – that includes:

The only real question about the planned "surge" in Iraq — which is better described as a Vietnam-style escalation — is whether its proponents are cynical or delusional. -- Paul Krugman, NYT, 1/8/07

There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq. -- NYT Editorial, 1/11/07

What anyone in Congress with half a brain knows is that the surge was sabotaged before it began. -- Frank Rich, NYT, 2/11/07

...

W. could have applied that to Iraq, where he has always done only enough to fail, including with the Surge -- Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/17/07

The senator supported a war that didn't need to be fought and is a cheerleader for a surge that won't work. -- Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/24/07

Now the ''surge'' that was supposed to show results by summer is creeping inexorably into an open-ended escalation, even as Moktada al-Sadr's militia ominously melts away, just as Iraq's army did after the invasion in 2003, lying in wait to spring a Tet-like surprise. -- Frank Rich, NYT, 3/11/07

Victory is no longer an option in Iraq, if it ever was. The only rational objective left is to responsibly organize America’s inevitable exit. That is exactly what Mr. Bush is not doing and what the House and Senate bills try to do. -- NYT Editorial, 3/29/07

There is no possible triumph in Iraq and very little hope left. -- NYT Editorial, 4/12/07

... the empty hope of the "surge" ... -- Frank Rich, NYT, 4/22/07 …

There’s much more of what you’ve just read in Posner’s post.

I take it as a very good sign that so many of the Obama MSM flacks now trashing Palin couldn’t resist the urge to opine on the surge and got it wrong.

The Churchill Series - Sept. 2, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Readers Note: In yesterday's post I gave the Churchill's wedding anniversary date as Sept. 8. Oops! It's Sept. 12. The post has now been corrected. Sorry about that.

On the bright side, the error means we'll have four more days devoted to Clementine and their marriage.

Today we pick up on the newspaper article below. Those of you who missed yesterday's post can read from here down.

The rest of you can scroll down to where I placed 5 stars (*) to mark the beginning of today's post.

John
_________________________________________________

This Sept. 12 will mark the 100th Anniversary of the marriage of Clementine Hozier to Winston Churchill. I’m posting a series within the Series running up to Sept. 8.

We start today with a look at a newspaper article published at the time of Churchill’s death in January 1965 – “Churchill's Marriage 56-Year Triumph.”

The article follows indented in full with my comments interspersed in plain.

If you wish to read the article first free of my “interruptions” it’s right here.
Now for those ready to press ahead the article begins:

When Winston Churchill, a pugnacious 34-year old politician, married Clementine Hozier in the society wedding of 1908, Lord Rosebery, a family friend, commented: "The union will last six months, with luck. Their marriage will fail because Winston is not the marrying kind."

The marriage not only endured for more than 56 years, it was a triumph -- in Lord Ismay's words probably "The most ideal marriage there has ever been." Churchill's autobiography, My Early Life, published in 1930, ended with the words: "...until September, 1908, when I married and lived happily ever afterwards."

The marriage was a indeed “triumph.” It was also many other things that are great and good in this life.

But it was not, as you’ll see in this series, one in which everything went along “happily ever afterwards.”

IMO Churchill used the fairy tale “happily ever afterwards” as the closing words of My Early Life for two reasons. He knew readers would understand, without his going into details about his marriage, that he felt he had a wonderful wife and a very satisfying marriage. And it gave his book “a happy ending.”

The triumph was due almost entirely to the devotion and tact of Clementine Churchill. Right from the start of their marriage, the shy, dignified beauty plunged into the whirl of publicity ad controversy in which her husband reveled.

Devotions and tact Clementine Churchill certainly had. She also had very high intelligence. Her physical courage was the equal of Churchill’s. And IMO she was a better judge of WSC than he was of himself.

The next few series posts will offer specific examples of those strengths she brought to their marriage.

She shared his unpopularity as Home Secretary before the First World War, the bitten accusations of being a traitor to his class that Tory peers hurled at him when, as president of the Board of Trade in the Liberal Government of Herbert Asquith, he attacked the House of Lords as an outmoded institution.

In 1922, when her husband was ill and unable to fight his Dundee by-election campaign, Clementine went on the hustings and faced a hostile mob that yelled "Your husband is a warmonger" and “How could you bring up a bairn on a shilling a week?"

Everything in these last two paragraphs is on the money.

The reference to “a bairn,” a word Scots sometimes use for "child," may well have been to the Churchill’s infant daughter, Mary, born just a few weeks before Clementine journeyed from London to Dundee to campaign for Winston still hospitalized following an appendectomy, in those days a serious operation.

Since Clementine was nursing Mary and did not want to leave her for even a short time in the care of others, she carried Mary to campaign appearances, at many of which the crowds were hostile.

She was the only person who could handle the unpredictable Churchill; soothing tantrums, insuring he had precious hours of relaxation during the Second World War, sometimes advising him on a course of action or a speech, but always so tactfully that he thought the idea was his own. Often she would quietly comment as he drafted a fiery speech: "Winston, I wouldn't say that." He usually took her advice.

Clementine wasn’t the only person who could handle “the unpredictable Churchill.” But that’s not central to the purpose of this series, and this post is getting long.

So I’ll end here and pick up on the rest of the article tomorrow.

* * * * *

She had a taxing job providing meals to meet Churchill's exacting standards. He liked plain English food best, superbly cooked, and relished fine champagne and brandy.

One of the great strains in their marriage, particularly in the early years, was that Churchill frequently brought quests home to dinner on very short notice - sometimes even less than an hour.

Sometimes there were dinner-table arguments at which Clementine acted as peacemaker.

There were many occasions when Clemmie, as Churchill called her, played the peacemaker. One occurred when the Churchills were hosting Eleanor Roosevelt at a small dinner in London. America's First Lady and the PM got into a fierce argument about the Spanish Civil War. I'll be posting about it in a few days.

Clemmie wasn't always the peacemaker at the dinner table. Her daughter Mary has often told the story of the night her mother and father got into it and her mother threw the spinach dish at her father.

During the war, Clementine had to plot to save her husband from his own frantic energies and carelessness of personal safety. She knew the only way to get him home before nightfall on his tours of bombed-out London was to go along with him.

I don't know enough to comment on this.

It was Clementine who, with Lord Beaverbrook, arranged for stations on the London Underground to be turned into a gigantic air-raid dormitory during the 1940 blitz, with 2,000,000 bunks set up along the platforms.

Clementine had concern for the people taking shelter in the tubes, but this statement greatly exaggerates her role in seeing they were provided what physical comfort was possible.

Once she said: "I never think about after the war You see, I think Winston will die when it is over...He is 70 and I am 60, and we are putting all we have into this war, and it will take all we have."

She made essentiallly the same comment to a number of people. She had good cause for what she said. Churchill's physician, Lord Moran, essentially agreed with her. In one instance in 1943 after Churchill had a heart attack while trying to fight off pneumonia Moran doubted Churchill would survive the night.

From the birth of their first child, Diana, in 1909, Clementine resolved to keep the family as far as possible from the limelight.

Yes, she did, but given her husband's career and the press being the press, her efforts were doomed to fail.

I'm going to end here. In Friday's post, I'll say a few things about the Churchill's children. Now here's the last part of the newspaper article:

Diana grew up to be the intellectual dreamer of the family. Her two marriages -- to Sir John Milner Bailey, son of a South African millionaire, and to Duncan Sandys -- ended in divorce, and she died in 1963.

The unpredictable Sarah, born in 1914, was always an individualist. Her mother nicknamed her Mule, because of her stubbornness.

Randolph, born in 1911, never achieved the political stature expected of him as a young man, though he has had a headline-making career as politician, journalist and gadfly.

Mary, born in 1922, has been least in the news. She is married to former Agriculture Minister Christopher Soames and is writing her mother's biography.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy in the Churchill's married life was the death of their daughter Marigold Frances at the age of 3 in 1921. Clementine Churchill would never speak of it even decades after the event.

Churchill once said jokingly of his wife that they had tried "two or three times in the last 40 years to have breakfast together, but it was so disagreeable we had to stop or our marriage would have been wrecked."

In one of his books, he wrote: "It was much the most fortunate and joyous event which happened to me in the whole of my life. For what can be more glorious than to be united in one's walk through life with a being incapable of an ignoble thought."

End note: I want to thank the Chruchill Centre which hosts the article here at its site.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit asks:

HOW THEY COULD HAVE KEPT THE PALIN PREGNANCY STORY OUT OF THE PRESS?

Leaked it that John Edwards was the father.

But there are no Palin "snippets"

The pastor Sen. Obama says inspired him; the man whose church Obama worshiped at and brought his children to for religious instruction shouted from the pulpit:

"God damn America for killing innocent people. God damn America!"

That same pastor, Rev. Wrigtht, castigated "KKK-America."

And he preached the lie America deliberately spread HIV/AIDS as a means of holding down the country's black population.

Obama listened to it all for almost 20 years and never left Wright's church.

But Newsweek, one of Obama's most enthusiastic MSM's supporters, wasn't put off by Wright's racist ravings, so offensive to decent Americans.

Newsweek call them "snippets."

Most of MSM followed suit.

And almost every MSM news orgs hasn't dared demand answers to how the "brilliant" President-presumptive Barack Obama could, as he's claimed, "never [have]heard that stuff;" or why his wife Michelle, herself a very smart woman, never told him about it?

Then there's Gov. Sarah Palin and her family.

It seems the MSM can find no "snippets" about her and her children.

Everything is very "newsworthy," even the most transparent smears coming from Kos.

Columnist: If Obama loses “full-fledged race and class war”

I’ve thought for a while now that some of Sen. Obama’s supporters would get around to telling voters that if he doesn’t win, we’re letting ourselves in for a race war that will dwarf the riots of 1968.

Today Philadelphia Daily News columnist Fatimah Ali says just that:

If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!

Ali also tells us what we can hope for if we elect The One:

Obama understands that people are suffering. Every week, prices go up at the supermarket, and people are unable to feed their families. It already is dark and stormy for millions, who can't even afford pencils, book bags and lunch money for their children.

But when Obama wins the White House, we may just see a revolution that can turn the tide and improve this nation for everyone, not just a select few.

Ali’s entire column's here.

I hope many pundits supporting Sen. Obama will speak out and label Ali’s inflammatory words for what they are: bad for all Americans, and particularly bad for minorities.

Andrew Sullivan’s “high road” smear

You know the old joke about the politician who kept telling audiences he was sticking to the “high road.” “To prove that,” he said, “I won’t make an issue of rumors my opponent has a drinking problem.”

Former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan, who writes for a number of newspapers and blogs at the Atlantic Monthly’s Atlantic.com gave us all an actual example of sticking to the “high road” when he used his blog, which gets millions of hits most months, to spread the vicious rumor Gov. Palin is not the mother of her son Trig. Daughter Bristol is.

Mind you, Sullivan told everyone, he was just asking questions to put the rumors to rest. You can read one of his “put the rumors to rest” posts here.

Sullivan didn’t fool Realclearpolitics.com co-founder and co-publisher Tom Bevan who posts today “Some Kind of Ugly.” It follows, after which I add a few comments.

Bevan begins - - -

Let me get this straight: an anonymous blogger from the left wing site Daily Kos cobbles together snippets from newspapers, undated or misdated pictures, and other anecdotes and tidbits of information to produce a conspiracy theory that Sarah Palin is covering up the fact that her daughter, Bristol, is really the mother of Trig, the five month old baby born in April with Down's Syndrome.

This ugly rumor - ripped straight from the headlines of Desperate Housewives - is then picked up, turned over, and promoted repeatedly by a "respectable" writer in the online version of one of America's most venerated magazines.

The result is that an unfounded personal smear, which really should have no business existing outside of the bowels of the left wing Internet, becomes an overnight sensation among the political chattering class.

The sordid chronology of the last few days will get lost quickly as the mainstream media turns its attention to the dramatic announcement yesterday that Bristol Palin is five months pregnant.

But make no mistake about it: this was a litmus test of the media's responsibility and integrity, and at least one journalist failed that test miserably.

While all the major media outlets shied away from repeating this crackpot theory, Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic jumped into the fever swamp with both feet. Not only that, but he continues to demand that the Palins produce medical records to refute the rumor even after yesterday's announcement about Bristol made it clear that she could not possibly be the mother.

Just a couple of weeks ago Sullivan latched on to and began promoting another rumor that bubbled up from the left wing blogs that John McCain had lifted his "cross in the dirt" story from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago only to discover no such passage existed in the book.

Sullivan appears to want to justify his descent by arguing that trafficking in rumors is perfectly appropriate for his blog. He's just asking questions, after all. But The Atlantic is not Daily Kos, though these days it's becoming harder and harder to tell the difference.

***************************************************

Comments:

Every blogger, reporter and journalist knows how easy it is to spread smears and rumors. You just publish them.

That’s what’s Sullivan did, knowing that his journalist colleagues who were holding back on the “Trig isn’t Palin’s baby” smear could jump on it as soon as he published. It was, after all, now being reported at the Atlantic Monthly’s site. And by Andrew Sullivan no less, who was “asking questions the McCain camp so far hasn’t answered.”

My hat is off to Tom Bevan for calling Sullivan on his promotion of one of the lowest political smears I know of .

Caution to all of you who are fair-minded: We’ll have much more of the Sullivan kind of smearing before the campaign is over.

The Churchill Series – Sept. 1, 2008

(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

This Sept. 8 will mark the 100th Anniversary of the marriage of Clementine Hozier to Winston Churchill. I’m posting a series within the Series running up to Sept. 8.

We start today with a look at a newspaper article published at the time of Churchill’s death in January 1965 – “Churchill's Marriage 56-Year Triumph.”

The article follows indented in full with my comments interspersed in plain.

If you wish to read the article first free of my “interruptions” it’s right here.
Now for those ready to press ahead the article begins:

When Winston Churchill, a pugnacious 34-year old politician, married Clementine Hozier in the society wedding of 1908, Lord Rosebery, a family friend, commented: "The union will last six months, with luck. Their marriage will fail because Winston is not the marrying kind."

The marriage not only endured for more than 56 years, it was a triumph -- in Lord Ismay's words probably "The most ideal marriage there has ever been." Churchill's autobiography, My Early Life, published in 1930, ended with the words: "...until September, 1908, when I married and lived happily ever afterwards."

The marriage was a indeed “triumph.” It was also many other things that are great and good in this life.

But it was not, as you’ll see in this series, one in which everything went along “happily ever afterwards.”

IMO Churchill used the fairy tale “happily ever afterwards” as the closing words of My Early Life for two reasons. He knew readers would understand, without his going into details about his marriage, that he felt he had a wonderful wife and a very satisfying marriage. And it gave his book “a happy ending.”

The triumph was due almost entirely to the devotion and tact of Clementine Churchill. Right from the start of their marriage, the shy, dignified beauty plunged into the whirl of publicity ad controversy in which her husband reveled.

Devotions and tact Clementine Churchill certainly had. She also had very high intelligence. Her physical courage was the equal of Churchill’s. And IMO she was a better judge of WSC than he was of himself.

The next few series posts will offer specific examples of those strengths she brought to their marriage.

She shared his unpopularity as Home Secretary before the First World War, the bitten accusations of being a traitor to his class that Tory peers hurled at him when, as president of the Board of Trade in the Liberal Government of Herbert Asquith, he attacked the House of Lords as an outmoded institution.

In 1922, when her husband was ill and unable to fight his Dundee by-election campaign, Clementine went on the hustings and faced a hostile mob that yelled "Your husband is a warmonger" and “How could you bring up a bairn on a shilling a week?"

Everything in these last two paragraphs is on the money.

The reference to “a bairn,” a word Scots sometimes use for "child," may well have been to the Churchill’s infant daughter, Mary, born just a few weeks before Clementine journeyed from London to Dundee to campaign for Winston still hospitalized following an appendectomy, in those days a serious operation.

Since Clementine was nursing Mary and did not want to leave her for even a short time in the care of others, she carried Mary to campaign appearances, at many of which the crowds were hostile.

She was the only person who could handle the unpredictable Churchill; soothing tantrums, insuring he had precious hours of relaxation during the Second World War, sometimes advising him on a course of action or a speech, but always so tactfully that he thought the idea was his own. Often she would quietly comment as he drafted a fiery speech: "Winston, I wouldn't say that." He usually took her advice.

Clementine wasn’t the only person who could handle “the unpredictable Churchill.” But that’s not central to the purpose of this series, and this post is getting long.

So I’ll end here and pick up on the rest of the article tomorrow.

She had a taxing job providing meals to meet Churchill's exacting standards. He liked plain English food best, superbly cooked, and relished fine champagne and brandy.

Sometimes there were dinner-table arguments at which Clementine acted as peacemaker.

During the war, Clementine had to plot to save her husband from his own frantic energies and carelessness of personal safety. She knew the only way to get him home before nightfall on his tours of bombed-out London was to go along with him.

It was Clementine who, with Lord Beaverbrook, arranged for stations on the London Underground to be turned into a gigantic air-raid dormitory during the 1940 blitz, with 2,000,000 bunks set up along the platforms.

Once she said: "I never think about after the war You see, I think Winston will die when it is over...He is 70 and I am 60, and we are putting all we have into this war, and it will take all we have."

From the birth of their first child, Diana, in 1909, Clementine resolved to keep the family as far as possible from the limelight.

Diana grew up to be the intellectual dreamer of the family. Her two marriages -- to Sir John Milner Bailey, son of a South African millionaire, and to Duncan Sandys -- ended in divorce, and she died in 1963.

The unpredictable Sarah, born in 1914, was always an individualist. Her mother nicknamed her Mule, because of her stubbornness.

Randolph, born in 1911, never achieved the political stature expected of him as a young man, though he has had a headline-making career as politician, journalist and gadfly.

Mary, born in 1922, has been least in the news. She is married to former Agriculture Minister Christopher Soames and is writing her mother's biography.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy in the Churchill's married life was the death of their daughter Marigold Frances at the age of 3 in 1921. Clementine Churchill would never speak of it even decades after the event.

Churchill once said jokingly of his wife that they had tried "two or three times in the last 40 years to have breakfast together, but it was so disagreeable we had to stop or our marriage would have been wrecked."

In one of his books, he wrote: "It was much the most fortunate and joyous event which happened to me in the whole of my life. For what can be more glorious than to be united in one's walk through life with a being incapable of an ignoble thought."

End note: I want to thank the Chruchill Centre which hosts the article here at its site.

The Maureen Dowd “lightweight” problem

Responding to Maureen Dowd’s shameless Palin screed, Jack in Silver Springs said on the post thread

I think that your description of Dowd as a lightweight does a disservice to lightweights. She's beyond lightweight.

Jack has a point.

I struggled to find the right word for Dowd.

“Clown” came to mind, but most clowns I’ve met wouldn’t descend to the level Dowd did in her nasty, sexist column in which she even used the Palin children as part of her trashing of their Mom.

I dismissed “sophomoric” because most sophomores I’ve known have been much more mature than Dowd.

The foul language words? I won’t touch them. I don't want them on the comment thread.

Maybe what I should have settled for is “Maureen Dowd’s shameless Palin screed is even worse than her usual shameless screeds.”

Thanks, Jack, for your comment.

Obama says Palin family off-limits; denies Dems stoking rumors

This from Politico - - -

Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown reports: At a press avail in Monroe, Mich., Barack Obama on Palin: "Back off these kinds of stories."

"I have said before and I will repeat again: People's families are off limits," Obama said. "And people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18 and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn’t be a topic of our politics."

On charges that his campaign has stoked the story via liberal blogs:

"I am offended by that statement. There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us," he said. "Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And if I thought there was somebody in my campaign who was involved in something like that, they would be fired."

Comments:

I’m glad Sen. Obama said candidates’ children should be off-limits.

I don’t agree the “off-limits” should extend to adult family members, particularly those who actively campaign for a candidate.

As for whether his campaign is stoking rumors, of course I hope not.

But he needs to respond to the information I linked to yesterday suggesting at least one Obama site was the source of a smear of Gov. Palin.

I’m going to continue to follow that story.

Lon. Times’ Baker on Obama and Palin – Don’t Miss It!

Caution note: If you’re a Maureen Dowd fan and, like Dowd, you’ve a secret passion for chick flicks, perhaps you should miss this post. I think it will only upset you.

What follows are excerpts from a fact-filled, carefully reasoned, literate column by British journalist Garard Baker, the Times of London’s United States editor.

Baker compares Sen. Obama and Gov. Palin. He also has a few things to say about how our MSM is treating Palin.

Baker begins - - -

Democrats, between sniggers of derision and snorts of disgust, contend that Sarah Palin, John McCain's vice-presidential pick is ridiculously unqualified to be president.

It's a reasonable objection on its face except for this small objection: it surely needs to be weighed against the Democrats' claim that their own candidate for president is self-evidently ready to assume the role of most powerful person on the planet.

At first blush, here's what we know about the relative experience of the two candidates. Both are in their mid-forties and have held statewide elective office for less than four years. Both have admitted to taking illegal drugs in their youth.

So much for the similarities. How about the differences?

Political experience

Obama: Worked his way to the top by cultivating, pandering to and stroking the most powerful interest groups in the all-pervasive Chicago political machine, ensuring his views were aligned with the power brokers there.

Palin: Worked her way to the top by challenging, attacking and actively undermining the Republican party establishment in her native Alaska. She ran against incumbent Republicans as a candidate willing and able to clean the Augean Stables of her state's government.

Political Biography

Obama: A classic, if unusually talented, greasy-pole climber. Held a succession of jobs that constitute the standard route to the top in his party's internal politics: "community organizer", law professor, state senator.

Palin:A woman with a wide range of interests in a well-variegated life. Held a succession of jobs - sports journalist, commercial fisherwoman, state oil and gas commissioner, before entering local politics. A resume that suggests something other than burning political ambition from the cradle but rather the sort of experience that enables her to understand the concerns of most Americans..

Political history

Obama: Elected to statewide office only after a disastrous first run for a congressional seat and after his Republican opponent was exposed in a sexual scandal. Won seat eventually in contest against a candidate who didn't even live in the state.

Palin: Elected to statewide office by challenging a long-serving Republican incumbent governor despite intense opposition from the party.

Appeal

Obama: A very attractive speaker whose celebrity has been compared to that of Britney Spears and who sends thrills up Chris Matthews' leg

Palin: A very attractive woman, much better-looking than Britney Spears who speaks rather well too. She sends thrills up the leg of Rush Limbaugh (and me).

Executive experience

Obama: Makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of his campaign staff and a vast crowd of traveling journalists

Palin:Makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of 500,000 people in her state, and that impact crucial issues of national economic interest such as the supply and cost of energy to the United States.

Religious influences

Obama: Regards people who "cling" to religion and guns as "bitter" . Spent 20 years being mentored and led spiritually by a man who proclaimed "God damn America" from his pulpit. Mysteriously, this mentor completely disappeared from public sight about four months ago.

Palin: Head of her high school Fellowship of Christian Athletes and for many years a member of the Assemblies of God congregation whose preachers have never been known to accuse the United States of deliberately spreading the AIDS virus. They remain in full public sight and can be seen every Sunday in churches across Alaska. A proud gun owner who has been known to cling only to the carcasses of dead caribou felled by her own aim.

Record of bipartisan achievement

Obama: Speaks movingly of the bipartisanship needed to end the destructive politics of "Red America" and "Blue America", but votes in the Senate as a down-the-line Democrat, with one of the most liberal voting records in congress.

Palin: Ridiculed by liberals such as John Kerry as a crazed, barely human, Dick Cheney-type conservative but worked wit Democrats in the state legislature to secure landmark anti-corruption legislation.

Former state Rep. Ethan Berkowitz - a Democrat - said. "Gov. Palin has made her name fighting corruption within her own party, and I was honored when she stepped across party lines and asked me to co-author her ethics white paper."

On Human Life

Obama: Devoutly pro-choice. Voted against a bill in the Illinois state senate that would have required doctors to save the lives of babies who survived abortion procedures. The implication of this position is that babies born prematurely during abortions would be left alone, unnourished and unmedicated, until they died.

Palin: Devoutly pro-life. Exercised the choice proclaimed by liberals to bring to full term a baby that had been diagnosed in utero with Down Syndrome.

Now it's true there are other crucial differences. Sen Obama has appeared on Meet The Press every other week for the last four years. He has been the subject of hundreds of adoring articles in papers and newsweeklies and TV shows and has written two Emmy-award winning books.

Gov Palin has never appeared on Meet the Press, never been on the cover of Newsweek. She presumably feels that, as a mother of five children married to a snowmobile champion, who also happens to be the first woman and the youngest person ever to be elected governor of her state, she has not really done enough yet to merit an autobiography.

Then again, I'm willing to bet that if she had authored The Grapes of Wrath, sung like Edith Piaf and composed La Traviata , she still wouldn't have won an Emmy.

Fortunately, it will be up to the American people and not their self-appointed leaders in Hollywood and New York to determine who really has the better experience to be president.

Baker’s entire column’s here.

Full confession: If you’ve read the post so far, you’ve read all of Baker’s column.

As I read it, I couldn’t find anything to snip out. I kept saying to myself, “That’s so good. Leave it in.”

And then there I was at the end of his column.

It was a delight to read, especially after spending a lot of time yesterday and this morning working on a post responding to the NY Times’ Maureen Dowd’s shameless, sexist screed targeting Palin.

I’ll send Baker an email letting him know what I did and why.

What do you all think of Baker's column?

Hat tip: Realclearpolitics.com

Maureen Dowd’s shameless Palin screed

The NY Times’ Maureen Dowd surely meant her latest column – “Vice in Go-Go Boots?” - to be a witty parody of Governor Sarah Palin’s public career and family life, with a few barbs aimed at people questioning some of what Sen. and Mrs. Obama have said and done thrown in.

But what Dowd wound up producing is a shameless screed oozing nastiness, sexism, condescension and unintended self-parody.

The self-parody begins right at the head of her screed:

"The guilty pleasure I miss most when I’m out slogging on the campaign trail is the chance to sprawl on the chaise and watch a vacuously spunky and generically sassy chick flick."

"So imagine my delight, my absolute astonishment, when the hokey chick flick came out on the trail, a Cinderella story so preposterous it’s hard to believe it’s not premiering on Lifetime."

"Instead of going home and watching 'Miss Congeniality' with Sandra Bullock, I get to stay here and watch 'Miss Congeniality' with Sarah Palin.

"Sheer heaven." ...

Dowd surely thought her opening was a big mock of Palin, but it's just the latest example of why her critics say she's a lightweight.

They must have howled when Dowd used the Times editorial page to tell everyone her "guilty pleasure" is to “sprawl on the chaise and watch a vacuously spunky and generically sassy chick flick.”

A friend joked that if she were the contest judge, Dowd would be her choice for Miss Most Vacuous Chick Flick Fan.

Dowd's opener reminded me of Nixon's "I am not a crook" and Duke President Dick Brodhead's 60 Minutes excuse for supporting the frame-up attempt of three transparently innocent Duke students. Remember Brodhead whining: "The facts kept changing?"

Nixon and Brodhead didn't realize what they were telling us about themselves; neither does Dowd.

It too bad there wasn't a Times editor willing to tell Dowd: “You might want to think about that opening. It's not witty. It just makes you look foolish.”

Now, what about Dowd's condescension?

I'll cite what is Dowd's most offensive, racially-tinged condescension which she aimed at millions of Americans who love this country and want it to flourish in the face of attacks from without and within.

The example occurs when Dowd says:

"Americans, suspicious that the Obamas have benefited from affirmative action without being properly grateful, and skeptical that Michelle really likes 'The Brady Bunch' and 'The Dick Van Dyke Show,' reject the 47-year-old black contender as too uppity and untested."

Dowd and her Times sponsors have that wrong.

What concerns so many of us has nothing to do with anything "uppity" about the Obamas. They have a perfect right, for example, to go to a church of their choice and say anything they want about this country.

What concerns so many of us repeatedly smeared as racist is that we don't know why, for example, the Obamas attended a church where the pastor preached from the pulpit racist and anti-American hate such as “God damn America” and “KKK-America.”

We take those racist, anti-American slimes as seriously as we would if the Obamas pastor had filled his sermons with hate about “God damn gays” and “Gay, Gay, Gay- America.”

The Obamas' silence about their relationship with Wright - what attracted them to him and his church, why they did so much to support it, why Senator Obama claims he never heard the sermon and why Mrs. Obama has never heard any of his "snippets" either - is an extraordinarily important matter.

None of the people I have in mind would support a church where the pastor spewed "God damn the gays and lesbians at the New York Times" and "Gay, Gay, Gay - America" or "God damn America" and "KKK-America."

It's a sure bet Sarah Palin and her husband would not have stayed in such a church, either.

But the Obamas stayed in Trinity until Wright said publicly the Senator was 'just another politician."

We need to know why the Obamas stayed all those years in Trinity UCC.

Dowd and the Times should know we don’t care what Michelle Obama thinks about the Brady Bunch.

We think Michelle Obama was sincere when she said America was “a downright mean country.”

We think she has ever right to say that and believe it. We just want her to tell us more about how and why she came to feel that way.

We also notice Team Obama and MSM Obama flacks approve when Michelle Obama goes on The View and talks about her pantyhose, but get upset when she speaks about America.

Then they turn around and accuse us of resenting her for being "uppity."

But that's not right. They're the ones trying to manipulate Michelle Obama; most Americans want her to be herself and speak candidly to us.

Dowd's column is laced with shameless sexism as this excerpt illustrates:

The movie ends with the former beauty queen shaking out her pinned-up hair, taking off her glasses, slipping on ruby red peep-toe platform heels that reveal a pink French-style pedicure, and facing down Vladimir Putin in an island in the Bering Strait.

Putting away her breast pump, she points her rifle and informs him frostily that she has some expertise in Russia because it’s close to Alaska. “Back off, Commie dude,” she says. “I’m a much better shot than Cheney.”

Will Dowd’s sexism draw criticism from NOW and other women's organizations which would be outraged if Dowd ever treated a Democratic woman Vice Presidential candidate as she's treated Palin?

I doubt it.

Dowd is often nasty, but in “Vice in Go-Go Boots?” she sinks to a new low when she uses the Palin children in a column trashing their mother:

Then she takes off in her seaplane and lands on the White House lawn, near the new ice fishing hole and hockey rink. The “First Dude,” as she calls the hunky Eskimo in the East Wing, waits on his snowmobile with the kids — Track (named after high school track meets), Bristol (after Bristol Bay where they did commercial fishing), Willow (after a community in Alaska), Piper (just a cool name) and Trig (Norse for “strength.”)

Is there anyone left at the Times to say to Dowd: “We have some decency?”

I’ll close with an excerpt from Alaska’s KTUU TV's Apr. 18, 2008 story announcing Trig Palin’s birth:

…A press release from the governor's office says Palin and her new son are both "doing well and resting comfortably."

The Palins released the following statement:

"Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives."

"We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed."

Just yesterday, Palin was in Texas at a forum on energy with Texas Gov. Rick Perry and executives from four other states.

Palin was asked at the forum whether or not she would accept an offer by Republican presidential candidate John McCain to share the national ticket as vice presidential nominee.

She said she would accept, according to reports from a Texas newspaper.
The governor's water broke during the energy conference but she stayed and gave a 30-minute speech before boarding an Alaska Airlines plane home to deliver the baby.

Gov. Palin's parents, Sally and Chuck Heath, visited with their new grandson Friday afternoon.

The grandfather says Trig is named after his great uncle, a Bristol Bay fisherman, while the name Paxson comes from the well-known snowmachining area.