Two online, liberal publications today provide us with examples of items intended to portray Sarah Palin in a negative light. One is substantive, the other reaching. The Huffington Post's Sam Stein offers the "reaching" entry, saying Palin has made a "potentially major gaffe," after stating the following at a campaign event:

Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, as McClatchy reported, "aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization."

Stein follows that with anti-Palin quotes from liberal policy tanks and the libertarian Cato Institute, which is incorrectly identified as "conservative."

Compare that to this piece from Ari Melber in the Washington Independent. Melber has tracked down a photo of Palin wearing a t-shirt during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that appears to endorse the "bridge to nowhere" pork barrel project that Palin has since taken credit for opposing. There's already been evidence that Palin's reformer role in this story has been exaggereated, and Melber does a fine job of adding something to that narrative:



Meanwhile, Christina Bellantoni has an article on an Obama verbal slip in the Washington Times, a paper viewed by some as leaning toward the political right:

ST. LOUIS, Mo. - Sen. Barack Obama's foes seized Sunday upon a brief slip of the tongue, when the Democratic presidential nominee was outlining his Christianity but accidentally said, "my Muslim faith."

However, while Bellantoni details how Obama's critics are attempting to use the comment against him, she puts it in its proper context. Comparatively, if this were McCain or Palin making the same utterance, I'd assume Stein would also call it "major," or perhaps "evidence" of their actual inclinations.

I'll go on the record now as saying Joe Biden seems like the best VP choice for Obama at this point. He's seasoned on foreign affairs and brings a moderating personality and record.

In related news, influential blogger Steve Clemons won't reveal his sources within the Obama camp, but he does whittle down the list of perspective vice presidential nominees, confidently excluding Evan Bayh, Tom Daschle and Wesley Clark:

I just received word that it is not Senator Jack Reed either, though Obama thought very highly of him. In my estimation, that leaves Joseph Biden, Chuck Hagel, and Sibelius. I don't think that Tim Kaine would be the nominee given the elevation of Mark Warner as the keynote speaker at the Dem convention.

CNN adds that the "VP buzz is squarely on Biden." Over at Open Left, Chris Bowers promised to not "freak out" if it's Biden, but does add this warning:

Biden is not a reinforcing choice, as he has served in the Senate for 36 years and supported the war back in 2002-2003. In two key ways--Iraq judgment and "change" election--that is very much the opposite of Barack Obama, and could muddle his message. Still, when it comes to ideological leanings and campaign ability, Biden is a preferable choice to Bayh and Kaine.

Josh Marshall is also not thrilled about the Biden possibilities, but acknowledges it could in fact be a very smart pick:

Most senators grasp of foreign policy is fairly thin -- and it tends to be heavily influenced by whatever lobbyists or power players are in their orbit. But Biden has a pretty deep knowledge of pretty much every big foreign policy question. And his ideas and judgment strike me as fundamentally sane.

For the best of CQ Politics' reporting on the Veepstakes, be sure to read Jonathan Allen's VP Watch Blog.

Via Seton Motley, we learn that Barack Obama was for being compared to Paris Hilton before he was against it:

A February 24, 2005, Washington Post article begins:

There's nothing exotic or complicated about how phenoms are made in Washington, and, more to the point, how they are broken.

"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

Two days ago I mentioned Matthew Yglesias moving from Atlatnic to the CAP. I also recently noticed Yglesias' colleague Spencer Ackerman moving his Attackerman blog from The American Prospect to Jane Hamsher's Firedoglake. Their passionate discussions might better suit the 20 something "hardcore punk" fan. After all, his top Google search return is his now-dormant "Too Hot for TNR" blog, referencing his former employer, The New Republic. His blog's new url is his fourth Google search return.

The Yglesias and Ackerman moves to more grassroots organizations helps illustrate a broader truth that while progressive bloggers substantially lead in the partisan tech race, readership tends to be focused more on activism. Conversely, conservative bloggers often establish themselves at more traditional media outlets, offering punditry and analysis of current events.

The Nation's Ari Melber and Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas have won a battle against Time magazine and its reporter/columnist/blogger Joe Klein.

Klein produced a story on last year's Netroots Nation in which he described Hillary Clinton being booed at the event. Trouble is, Melber and Kos say Clinton wasn't booed by the audience. Klein's inaccurate description was included in a version of a story covering this year's Netroots National event in Austin, Texas. Time initially rejected calls for a correction to Klein's piece, leaving Kos understandably agitated:

I already fired off an email to Time asking for corrections to that and several other glaring errors in that terrible piece. But as we've learned with Joe Klein, Time considers itself and its writers infallible, so there's slim chance of any corrections.

But with Melber and Kos bringing attention to the erroneous piece, the Time editors have since abdicated:

The original version of this story said that Hillary Clinton's appearance at a 2007 Netroots Q&A session was greeted by boos. The writer confused that event with accounts of another Clinton appearance that had taken place earlier. Clinton was not booed at the Netroots event.

UPDATE: Another Netroots Nation story bites the dust. This time an attempted humor piece, apparently, from the Austin American-Statesman.

Liberal bloggers seem to have backed off their earlier complaints about Hillary Clinton citing the assassination of RFK as reasoning for her to stay in the Democratic primary. Instead, they are turning their attention to the second half of her argument, which asserted that her own husband, Bill Clinton, didn't wrap up his 1992 nomination until June of that year.

CQ Politics' own Taegan Goddard looks through Bill Clinton's autobiography and finds:

He writes: "On April 7, we also won in Kansas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. On April 9, Paul Tsongas announced that he would not reenter the race. The fight for the nomination was effectively over."

TPM's David Kurtz posts video of Bill Clinton making the same argument and says:

To anyone who remembers past Democratic nomination contests, it will be no surprise that there is nothing unprecedented about the pressure on Hillary to get out of the race.

Brendan Nyhan calls Clinton's argument "bogus."

The Clinton and Obama mouthpieces both tell Talking Points Memo that CNN's report about formal talks over Hillary Clinton as a potential vice presidential nominee are "100% false."