I guess we’re allowed to be patriotic now that the liberal candidate’s in office, if you go with this kind of crap:

Every morning when I wake up, I have a conversation with God. This practice goes back about 12 years, at a turning point in my life, when I realized that only recognizing a higher power would make my life work. Being the contrarian I am, however, I was not prepared for ritual. Instead, my morning with God is as casual as a talk I’d have with a friend.
“Morning, God,” I say. “It’s Julianne Malveaux. You know. The sister who tries to serve you. It’s good to be alive today.” And then I do some Bible reading, listen to some gospel music and simply pray.

On Nov. 5, I changed my conversation. For the first time, I acknowledged my nation, praying, “It’s good to be alive in the United States of America today.”

Yes, it is good to finally consider and enjoy the perks that I go into being an American.

A man who looks like me will have his face in a history book. An elegant sister will preside over all those state dinners. Two little Black girls, with grins like those of my godchildren and baby cousins, will roll their eggs over the White House lawn on Easter Monday.

It will be our house, not a remote house, accessible, not unattainable. As I saw my face in the mirror called victory, I felt like an American, finally.

In honesty, I have never felt much like an American before. An African-American, certainly, but not flag-waving, Mount Rushmore-embracing, hit the Monument loving American.

For all of my life I’ve been an American, reluctantly. Came here in chains. Advanced by my brains and by the legacy of struggle and dignity. I sing, “Lift Every Voice” as if it is rap because it is history, poetry, poignancy and a capturing of every step African Americans have taken. How can you sing, “stony the road we trod” and feel fully American? How can you put your mouth around the phrase, “treading our way through the blood of the slaughtered” without wondering about the Democratic integrity of our nation? …

They want change. We want change. And the election of Obama makes me want to be a better, and more productive citizen.

So, I guess what this columnist is saying is that unless we elected a black President, she would never have been proud of her country? I guess with some people, it really is only skin deep, which is just so sad.

It’s interesting that so many are talking about how great this is, how we’re finally transcending racism, how we’re going to heal as a nation, and it’s all because we elected a black guy President. And don’t get me wrong, that is wonderful, it is historic, and I have no issues with any minority of any kind serving any office. But how is it that we’ll be able to transcend race when that’s all so many seem to be concentrating on? What about the person underneath the skin color? Does that not matter as much?

What frustrates me is that we have, yet again, another liberal wallowing in victimhood. Malveaux whines about being “brought here in chains” as a “reluctant American”, but… well… I’m pretty sure she wasn’t. And no one she has personally known has ever been a slave, either. I mean… some Christians at some point in history were persecuted against at one point, but I don’t cry in outrage over it all this time later. And I’m pretty sure that the Jews don’t still hate all Germans, including the ones who actually were in the Holocaust. The point is, if slavery is the only claim you can make to call yourself a victim, then you need to shut up and stop whining, because if that’s the worst thing you can come up with, it sounds like your life is pretty good to me. And interestingly enough, what never seems to get brought up is just who it was fought to ensure freedom for slaves: white people! We get no credit or thanks for that though, I guess. And hey, the Republican party is the party that fought for civil rights, yet no credit for that either. Figures.

What’s really pathetic is how for Malveaux, and many liberals like her, their love for their country is wrapped up in which politicians are running the place at the moment. Yet they howl in outrage if you question their patriotism, as if conditional love is just as good as unconditional love. Maybe I, a conservative in Flyover Country, am some kind of freak or something, but I love my country all the time. I love my country regardless of who is currently in office, I love my country for the good and the bad, and I will always fight for her. I don’t need to have a President with an (R) next to his name to love my country, nor does he have to be a specific race, gender, or religion for me to love her.

It says much worse about Julianne Malveaux than it does about America that her love for her country, and seemingly her self-worth as well, is dependant on a politician. I’m guessing as soon as Obama leaves office, she’ll just sink back into despair and victimhood, right?

Hat Tip: My colleague Warner Todd Huston at Stop the ACLU

This video of Megyn Kelly of Fox News taking on Obama spokesman Bill Burton is beyond awesome. Best line? “You may have the rest of the media in the tank, but Fox News reports it straight.”

Hat Tip: Hot Air

This article will make you want to cheer. And groan at the same time.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. “Housing-gate,” no doubt. Or “Fannie-gate.”

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled “Do Facts Matter?” ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): “Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury.”

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was … the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was … the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It’s not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Make sure to read the whole thing. It’s total genius.

Wait, scratch that. It isn’t genius. It’s common sense.

I really wonder sometimes how it is that we got to this point. How did we let things get so out of control? And when did journalists start sacrificing their integrity? What are they sacrificing it for? The mainstream media have collectively sold their principles. They’ve sold their journalistic ethics. There is no such thing as “honest media” anymore. There is no honor in the industry anymore. Journalists stop at nothing to find out the scandalous truth if it involves a Republican, many times going so far as to fabricate it, but when it comes to investigating a Democrat, suddenly they close ranks. It’s sad, isn’t it? Journalism should be a proud profession.

Not anymore, though. Journalism is dead. Today, journalists are nothing more than prostitutes for the Democratic Party.

Hat Tip: Ace of Spades

The fair and balanced government funded PBS will be supplying the moderator for tomorrow night’s vice presidential debate. Meet Gwen Ifill, Obama groupie and author of the book Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. Here’s the summary of the book:

“In The Breakthrough, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power…Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the ‘black enough’ conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.”

And here’s Ifill talking about her book:

Now, I wonder if Gwennie could have just the teensiest interest in seeing an Obama victory… to bolster her book sales, perhaps? All she’s done this election season is absolutely fawn over Barack Obama, whereas she couldn’t have been more condescending and dismissive towards Sarah Palin. Her attitude was so obvious that PBS was flooded with complaints, and the ombudsman had to come to her rescue. Here’s the video of Gwennie’s idea of “objective” reporting:

Notice the whining over the attacking of Obama, the condescension over the chants of “Michael Steele!” and “Drill, Baby, Drill!”. I also couldn’t help but notice she was speaking over the Star Spangled Banner being sung in the background. Maybe that’s no big deal to some people, but to me it is. I was a journalist before I started blogging; I did video reports all the time. And at every single sporting event I went to, the National Anthem was sung, and I would never have been talking over it. I always made a point to make sure I had stopped what I was doing so I could pay my respects. It may be petty for me to say that I find it distasteful, but I really do. They couldn’t have waited the sixty or so seconds until it was over so that they could show some respect to our National Anthem? I don’t know. Like I said, maybe that’s just me.

In any case, perhaps PBS doesn’t understand what exactly a moderator is supposed to do. A moderator is someone who is supposed to be neutral; someone who can show no bias between the two subjects, someone with no prejudice towards either of the candidates. Gwen Ifill does not fit that description. Not only is she quite obviously in the tank for Obama, she has a vested financial interest in seeing him win. Even left wing bloggers are puzzled over this:

My dear ladies and gentlemen, in Election ‘08 where partisanship is as thick as a the foundation of the Empire State Building, having a moderator that appears “so friendly” to Senator Obama just doesn’t look right and opens the door to “the fix” talk. Although Ifill isn’t one of those screaming political pundits, I’ve heard her on various radio shows (especially urban radio) where she just gushes about Senator Obama’s historic run for the presidency. And with so much riding on Governor Palin’s performance in this debate, why have someone with an Obama tilt moderate? While I’m hardly a conservative and/or Republican (I do have a smattering of some conservative views), they have every right to not like this situation. And I would say the same if the moderator was a person who gushed about a McCain presidency.

I have a hard time believing that Gwen Ifill will NOT be tougher toward Governor Palin than Senator Biden. She seems to have much vested in an Obama presidency. She is a professional. She may moderate fairly. But with today’s political environment, couldn’t PBS find someone who hasn’t written a book and articles that are clearly positive to ultra-positive towards Senator Obama?

Of course, we’ve gotta be careful of criticizing her too heavily, or she’ll play the race card. And of course, PBS apparently doesn’t understand what all the controversy is over.

This, my friends, is just another example of why journalism is officially dead.

Hat Tips: Jay at Stop the ACLU and Michelle Malkin

Rusty at The Jawa Report has your mandatory reading assignment for the day. It’s the big bombshell that the media is unlikely to ever let see the light of day. A PR company linked to Obama and countless other big-name Democrats, as well as countless netroots operatives and Obama supporters, has been caught in an intentional smearing of Sarah Palin on YouTube. Some obvious astroturfing took place as well. All of this took place during company time, by the PR company’s employees, using sophisticated methods and the same voiceover person that is used by the Obama campaign. David Axelrod is also apparently involved with this. Go to Rusty’s site to see all the damning evidence. Here’s the bottom line:

While not conclusive, evidence suggests a link to the Barack Obama campaign. Namely:

* Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.

* The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.

* Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.

* Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.

* The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.

* This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrod’s firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as “astroturfing.”

* David Axelrod is Barack Obama’s chief media strategist.

* The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.

This suggests that false rumors and outright lies about Sarah Palin and John McCain being spread on the internet are being orchestrated by political partisans and are not an organic grassroots phenomenon led by the left wing fringe.

Of course, the videos and accounts have been removed from YouTube within an hour of Rusty’s post going up. Shockingly enough.

Luckily, Rusty used precautions and saved the video. Here it is:

And compare the voices for yourself:

If you’re waiting for the mainstream media to start doing their own investigative work, or at the very least cover this, don’t hold your breath. It’s not going to happen. The most damning evidence of all is the frantic attempts at a cover-up so quickly after the story went live. Sure, it technically could be a coincidence. Just like Hillary Clinton technically could revive her run for the nomination before November. That’s how far-fetched this is, folks.

Stay tuned for more details as they emerge. I can’t wait to see what the Obama camp will have to say about this… if they comment at all.

UPDATE: Ethan Winner responds, and it’s exactly as we would expect. He takes all the credit (or blame). Nice, neat resolution. Right?

Statement of Ethan Winner
The following is in response to questions I have received regarding the post on the Jawa Report website.

I produced and posted on the Internet the video entitled “Sarah Palin: A Heartbeat Away.”

The idea for the video was mine. No one paid me to produce it. The only out-of-pocket cost will be the fee for the voice-over narrator, which I will pay personally when I receive an invoice. Contrary to the allegation in the Jawa Report, the voice-over artist has never done any work for the Obama campaign. I retained her through a talent agency based solely on the quality of her voice.

Neither the Obama campaign nor any independent political action committee has had a connection with the making and/or posting of this video. Just like the thousands of Americans who have posted videos on the Internet regarding the current Presidential campaign, I produced this video as an expression of my right to free speech, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

I believe the American people have a right and a need to know information about candidates for political office and their views. I made this video because I think it is important for the public to be aware of the association between Sarah and Todd Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party. The New York Times has reported that the Alaskan Independence Party website describes the party as seeking, in the words of the party, “a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority,” including “advocacy for state’s rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.”

While a number of media outlets have said that reports that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party may have been erroneous, her attendance at the party’s 1994 convention, her video speech to the 2008 convention and her husband’s membership in the Alaskan Independence Party have not been called into question.

Some people have asked why I have pulled the video from the Internet. The reason is simple. Following the posting of personal information about me by the Jawa Report, my family began to receive threatening and abusive phone calls and emails.

Uh, sorry. Not so easily sidestepped, but nice try.

It’s written like a lawyer, for one. And he goes on to address everything except the actual lie that took place in the video: Sarah Palin was never a member of any secessionist party of any kind. But I guess that’s just not important. And he just happened to pay for everything himself, just happened to find Obama’s narrator voice twin… oh, and he hasn’t actually paid for it yet. (The message is, don’t bother trying, he’s a step ahead of you.) As Rusty incredulously asks:

So, he produces the video. He pays for the video production — out of his own pocket.He then posts it to YouTube using multiple phony identities.

Then he gets his friends at one of the largest PR firms in the world to post it on the internet, to suggest to others that they pass it on, and spend company time defending the outright lies in the video — all for free?

And the multimillionaire who is President of the firm also spends his free time defending the lies on this “homemade” — yet professionally voiced over — video?

Nice try, buddy.

Oh, and did we mention that Ethan Winner is apparently a friend of senior Obama campaign adviser David Washington? Don’t bother checking, though, because it’s already been removed as soon as it was pointed out. Just another “coincidence”, I’m sure.

Also see:
Patterico
Michelle Malkin
Stop the ACLU
Ace of Spades
Dan Riehl
Melissa Clouthier
Hot Air
RedState

Glad to hear them say it. I hope McCain realizes he’s not the media darling anymore, and he never will be again — so he can stop catering to them now.

Transcript:

Let me - let me also add, on the, um, specific question of the New York Times. Um, to speak directly to this point. Um, let me first say, we are first amendment absolutists on this campaign, and that the press, and anybody who wishes to cover this race, from a blogosphere perspective or a media perspective, you know of course is constitutionally protected with regard to writing whatever they wanna, whatever they wanna write. But let’s be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: is that whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a, a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day, uh, attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Senator McCain, attacks Governor Palin, um, and excuses Senator Obama. There’s no level of public vetting with regard to Senator Obama’s record, his background, his past statements. There’s no level of outrage directed at his, uh, deceitful ads. Uh, this is an organization that is completely, totally, 150% in the tank for the Democratic candidate which is their perogative to be, but, but let’s not be dishonest and, and call it something other than what it is. Um, everything that, that is read in the New York Times, that attacks this campaign, should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective — that, it is an organization that has made a decision, uh, to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate, in this case John McCain, and to advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama.

Hit the nail on the head.

The media doesn’t seem to understand, what with their constant shrieks of FREE SPEECH!! that it isn’t anyone’s free speech that we have a problem with. It’s the presentation of fairness and balance that bother us. It’s the lying and hypocrisy. You can’t lie and smear one campaign while continually covering for another, and then turn around and claim you’re an ethical journalist. If Keith Olbermann wants to be a shill for Barack Obama, then that’s fine. But don’t you dare do it in the name of “ethical journalism”.

It’s this situation, right here, which so clearly illustrates why 2008 will be known as the year that journalism died.

Hat Tip: My colleague Lorie Byrd at Wizbang

McCain and Obama are both being interviewed live tonight on the 9-11 Presidential Forum. The hosts are Judy Woodruff and Richard Stengel.

8:01: And we’re off. McCain is up first. The theme tonight is “national service”.

8:07: So far, this is one big snoozefest. McCain is answering questions well, but they’re all puff questions. Nothing too exciting yet.

8:12: Tons of audio issues; not a lot of live-blogging possible right now because I can’t hear 50% of what McCain is saying! So frustrating.

8:23: McCain wants to increase the size of the military. He keeps repeating it. It’s a good point.

8:31: Hey, Leonardo DiCaprio is in the audience. Yay.

8:45: McCain is perfect at the self-deprecation game. When talking about his old age, he pretended to fall asleep for a second — the audience ate it up.

8:48: McCain says Americans are special and exceptional. Judy Woodruff apparently disagrees, asks what makes Americans more special and exceptional than Canadians or Mexicans. Asks if we are better than they are, what makes us special. Sorry Judy, but Mexicans and Canadians are not the beacon of freedom in the world. They are not the most generous nations in the world, either. Yes, Americans are special. They are exceptional.

8:49: McCain nails it out of the park on Judy Woodruff’s insipid question. Her comeback? “Yes, but does that make us better?” YES, you moron.

8:50: Richard Stengel is mostly quiet with McCain, but Woodruff is off the charts on my douchebaggery meter tonight. Ugh.

8:52: McCain is done. Audience is going wild.

8:55: Obama is on the stage with McCain. McCain immediately bypasses the hosts and goes right for a handshake and a hug. Obama acts like he can’t wait to get away from him, completely gives him the brush-off. Rude.

8:55: Obama: “I’m at a slight advantage. This is my alma mater.” Makes a joke about being able to afford housing when he attended Columbia, and he couldn’t now. That’s rich. He’s only a multimillionaire. But I guess that doesn’t fly with the average American, does it? Gotta fight that elitist image.

8:57: Obama on what 9-11 meant to him: unity, the spirit of togetherness. We need to recreate that spirit. Yawn.

8:59: Obama wants ALL citizens to participate in increasing fuel efficiency and decreasing dependence on foreign oil. Marvels on the number of “small towns and even medium size towns” that rely solely on volunteer firefighters. Huh?

9:01: Obama says America is the greatest country on Earth. I almost fell out of my chair. Shocka: Woodruff didn’t combat Obama on that the way she did McCain. Hmm. He talks about individual responsibility and self-reliance, so what’s with the whole government-running-lives schtick he has?

9:06: Back from the first commercial break, and no audio problems for Obama yet.

9:08: Unions are about “togetherness”, Obama says. Leaps from that to “education has failed our children”. Ah — it’s a segue into teachers unions and how great they are. This is a defining moment for the United States… there is no leadership in Washington. Obviously this means Obama must be President!

9:09: Obama keeps talking about “small, rural towns”. Now says they might be scraping by but they help each other. He talks about how he made some big sacrifice by, after graduating from Columbia, being a community organizer rather than on Wall Street. His inspiration was the Civil Rights Movement. Says he made $12,000 a year… I’ll believe it when I see proof. Government should have a role with “young people” and “service”. That means… higher taxes! Government should give younger people an opportunity to serve AND go to college. Interesting.

9:12: Stengel asks about government being too big decreasing personal initiative. Obama stutters, says “Those are old arguments”. Don’t you dare suggest that government can be too big!

9:13: With each answer he gives, Obama is rambling. He jumps from talking point to talking point to talking point. He seems to have no focus whatsoever. Make a point and stick to it!

9:15: Obama says he wants to expand government’s avenues to provide opportunities, like an “energy corps”. Huh? He’s really hammering the big government theme tonight.

9:18: And we’re back. Woodruff asks another asshole question: “One of the consequences of 9-11 were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the military is facing enormous challenges.” Consequences? Obama says that the military is too strained right now. Trying to come off all hawk-ish now. He’s not doing very well.

9:21: Obama says the President should push for military service as an obligation for many, not just for some. Again with the small town meme. Says that if we go to war, “we all go to war”. What in the hell is that supposed to mean??

9:22: Stengel asks about Columbia welcoming Ahmadinejad, but not ROTC. Should ROTC be welcomed? Obama says yes, but could he really say anything else?

9:25: Woodruff asks how you forcibly create a larger military without creating a draft. Obama says the President should “inspire” people to serve. How exactly does one do that, Obama?

9:30: And we’re back again. Obama says McCain’s service is “legendary”. Says he wants to stop the politicization of military service, and then turns around and talks about how a soldier was unable to get treatment for PTSD and killed himself. Is that perhaps veiled politicization? Hmm…

9:33: Stengel asks Obama about the community organizer vs. small-town mayor thing. Obama says they’re all yak, yak in the Senate while mayors have to take care of… getting the trash taken care of? Nice.

9:36: Woodruff asks Obama about the tone and rhetoric from Washington. Washington is “broken”… yawn. Obama preaches change, but he is the typical politician! HOW will he change Washington? There’s nothing but empty words here! Wants to make government “cool” again.

9:38: Is volunteerism part of what makes America special? Obama responds with an automatic yes. Mentions being part of a “common project”. Hmm.

9:40: What President would you use as a model for you? Obama says what Kennedy did was great, creating new frontiers. Mentions Bill Clinton. Idealism. Obama’s asked if any Republican Presidents come to mind, he says Teddy Roosevelt.

9:41: Thank God, it’s OVER.

THOUGHTS:

Wow. That was terrible. A huge snoozefest the entire time. But you know, John McCain did much better than Obama did in my opinion. McCain was charming, he was knowledgeable. He stayed on topic and came across as someone who knew his stuff. He was also funny and self-deprecating. The crowd ate it up. Obama, on the other hand, kept jumping from topic to topic. He rambled. He didn’t say much that was too offensive and was likeable and charming enough, but he didn’t say anything of substance all night. It was all empty rhetoric and talk of inspiration! and change! and hope! and unity! and togetherness! and the like.

All in all, the loser here was neither candidate. They both did adequately well. The real loser here was Judy Woodruff. She gets my Douchebag Of The Day award.

George Stephanopoulous is nice enough to correct him:

Transcript:

Obama: What I was suggesting — you, you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not, uh, talked about my Muslim faith, and you’re absolutely right that is —

Stephanopoulos: Christian faith.

Obama: — yeah, my, my Christian faith… and, what, what I’m saying is he hasn’t suggested that I’m, that I’m, that I’m, uh, a Muslim.

Very interesting indeed.

So, what to make of this? Is Obama secretly a Muslim?

Honestly, I don’t think so. I think this is just another gaffe made by a man who is not nearly as eloquent as his followers would like to believe. Much more interesting is how George Stephanopoulos was willing to jump in and save his ass for him.

Unbiased reporting, all the way.

Hat Tip: Little Green Footballs

Sarah Palin was just a hair away from beating Obama’s record-breaking viewership. She got a whopping 37.2 million viewers tuning in on only six networks, as opposed to Obama’s ten.

Imagine if she’d gotten the same air time.

* The Sara Palin speech generated 37.2 million viewers, just a 1.1 million viewers short of Barak Obama’s record-breaking speech on Day 4 of the Democratic Convention. The Palin speech was carried on only six networks while the Obama speech was carried on ten (including BET, TV One, Univision and Telemundo).

* Palin attracted a large female audience (19.5 million women, or 4.9 million more than Day 3 of the Democratic Convention).

* Ratings for viewers 55+ (25.2) continue to be about ten times higher than for teens (2.2)

* Day 3 for the GOP attracted more Hispanic viewers (1.4 million) than Day 3 of the Democratic Convention (1.2 million), even though Univision and Telemundo did not carry the speech.

Kim Priestap puts this in great perspective:

Earlier today, Obama said - in an effort to show that he’s had it tougher on the campaign trail than Palin - that he’s had 19 months of campaign scrutiny as compared to only 4-5 days for Palin. Think about that. Obama has had 19 months to sharpen his image, to get his message out, to tour Europe, and to run ads, while Palin only had a mere 4 to 5 days, yet her viewership came within an eyelash of Obama’s? Wow. If those who are running the Obama campaign are smart, they are terrified right now.

No wonder the Obama campaign and the mainstream media are so scared. Sarah Palin is a powerhouse, and the American people are falling in love with her, despite all of their best efforts. (Don’t they know that the only rock star is Obama?!)

Unfortunately, the ignorant rubes in flyover country are catching on. Over 50% of voters think the media is trying to hurt her.

Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.

Of course, the idiots in the MSM will just keep on with the vitriol. Objectivity? Professionalism? Please! They’ve got a savior to elect!

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Megyn Kelly interviews destroys US Weekly senior editor Bradley Jacobs.

I think I might have a girl crush on Megyn Kelly now, too.

What was really entertaining was that Jacobs had zero defense to offer. He just sat there and stuttered and fumbled and tried to not get flustered. Sorry, buddy, didn’t work. Megyn Kelly is way more B.A. than that guy will ever be. Jacobs was literally squirming!

More total pwnage.

Hat Tips: Hot Air and Ace of Spades