For more than a decade John McCain has been a darling of the national political press, even up through his victory in the Republican primary. Much of that has changed, in part because the media has somewhat moved on from the McCain narrative and at least equally because of the McCain campaign's animosity toward the press corp. Townhall's Matt Lewis says the following passage describes the evolution quite well:

"He loved the Senate, he loved Arizona, he loved his wife, and he hated being told what to do ... He may have also sensed that his popularity, which was considerable, would change once he became a candidate for president.  As many people have discovered, a politician can go to long way in Washington until he becomes a serious presidential candidate.  At that precise moment the Washington press corps digs in, and reputations are destroyed in no time."

However, Lewis points out:

The author goes on to write that prior to running for president, this person wrote a popular book, was subject of numerous positive  magazine articles, and was a fixture on national television.

... I should probably point out that this quote is not in reference to John McCain.  It actually comes from Alfred Regnery's book, "Upstream," and refers to Barry Goldwater's 1964 race. 

The only difference here I'd point out is that the media's positive treatment of Obama actually accelerated when he announced his run for president. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy aside, a "digging in" by the press corps didn't really begin until after Obama had defeated Hillary Clinton for the nomination.
 

As expected, Tina Fey returned to Saturday Night Live this past weekend to perform her impression of Sarah Palin. The skit, which also featured Amy Pohler as Hillary Clinton, didn't cut either woman much slack. But even if Fey doesn't care much for Palin or her politics, the vice presidential nominee's star power is even trickling down to their online videos. It already has more than five million views. SNL creator Lorne Michaels is no doubt glad he convinced Fey to do the impression, despite her reservations.

The website Betty Confidential has released a survey of 500 women voters. Survey says:

The survey showed that 60 percent of women "like" Sarah Palin and 60 percent "admire" her. An overwhelming majority (83 percent) said they will not vote for McCain/Palin just because she's a woman.

Now, I wouldn't expect too many women (or any other specific identity group) to admit they would vote for someone in their same identity group based solely on that commonality. So, I do think the "like" and "admire" numbers are more significant here. The survey also found that 65 percent of women say they have become "more interested" in the campaign since Palin was added to McCain's ticket.

"We were amazed at how many women wanted to weigh in and share their very strong views on her," said Betty Confidential editor-at-large Julie Ryan Evans. "But despite even strong disagreements with her politics, women tend to like and admire Palin as person." 

Also worth noting, the survey results were taken before Palin's very mixed performance yesterday during her interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson. The already difficult argument for conservatives that Palin is prepared to be president should something happen to John McCain probably just got considerably more challenging.

I'm on vacation today through September 21st. Ground Game will still be updated periodically. 

To read the blogs today, you'd be led to believe that Barack Obama is either a malignant sexist, or an endearing saint who would never use language to attack his political opponents. Why is it so hard to grasp what most likely happened?

1. Sarah Palin's "What's the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? One wears lipstick," joke was one of the more memorable from the Republican convention.

2. Barack Obama and his advisers wanted to answer that joke with a pun arguing that while Palin may be a new figure on the political scene, she still represents the unpopular/failed policies of the Bush administration.

Yes, others have used the phrase, including McCain. But it's hard to believe Obama just randomly decided to use the phrase for the first time, unaware of what would be a perceived proximity to Palin's convention joke. The Obama audience certainly seemed to get the joke.

Obama cannot be simultaneously heraled as the greatest political orator since JFK, while also not having to take responsibility when he says something unartful. In other words, he tried to say something witty and has now had his own joke flipped against him.

Of course, he wasn't calling her a pig. But I do think it's fair to ask if he was making a subtle jab at John McCain's age when he followed up the lipstick remark with, "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

Again, I think Obama was only talking about the McCain/Palin policies, but to deny he was making any kind of verbal jab is the kind of blind allegiance that calls into question the intellectual honesty of Obama supporters. Instead, they should own it. He made a fair point, even a strong point. This should, and so easily could, be a day in which Obama was putting McCain on the defensive for this unethical ad.

Here's my full write-up from this morning's breakfast chat with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. The two points that stood out to me were Perkins on the actual Palin selection:

While the McCain campaign has argued in favor of Palin's executive experience as a qualification to be vice president, Perkins surprised reporters in the room by acknowledging that he believes her selection was "purely a political pick." "Yeah, I think so," he said.

Also, Perkins' nuanced take on how reporters have been covering Palin so far:

Perkins also said that while he and other evangelical leaders are enthusiastic about Palin's stance on social issues, he encouraged reporters to comb through her legislative record to see if those beliefs translated into conservative policies.

"Look at her record as governor, that's what social conservatives are going to be doing," he said. "I don't think those questions have been answered yet."

At a meeting with reporters this morning, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins answered a lot of questions about Sarah Palin. I'll have a write-up on that for the CQ Politics site later this morning. But he also said a few things about blogs.

One reporter repeatedly pressed Perkins on rumors that have circulated about Barack Obama on the Internet, specifically that he is a "secret Muslim." It was strange, because the reporter clearly was interjecting her personal opinion that it was somehow the fault of Perkins and other evangelical Christians that these rumors exist and therefore his responsibility to refuse them.

Instead, Perkins said he did not support the spreading of rumors, but that his focus is on socially conservative issues. However, he mentioned the rumors and allegatios that have also been spread about Sarah Palin and her family.

"Blogs don't hold themselves to a standard of accuracy that most reporters do," he said. "My mother worked in a beauty shop when I was growing up. And the Internet is like a huge beauty shop," where rumors are spread.

Liberal bloggers and the mainstream media have been reporting on Sarah Palin's complicated history on The Bridge to Nowhere pork project. Think Progress says Palin is "lying" about her role, while the media is more accurately pointing out that she supported the project before later opposing it, and refused to send the money back to Washington afterwards.

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis echoes the "she lied" meme and adds:

How many days in a row do McCain and Palin have to lie about her position on earmarks - she was for the Bridge to Nowhere, but every single day on the stump she outright lies and says she was against it - how many days in a row do Palin and McCain have to treat the media and the voters like chumps before someone in the media calls her on this?

I don't know if that rises to the level of a "lie," but Barack Obama has been on the stump saying Palin switched her position for political gain, not principle. The Club for Growth has hit back today, pointing out that Obama voted for the Bridge to Nowhere funding and has yet to formally change his position:

"Barack Obama spent the better portion of yesterday attacking Sarah Palin for supporting the Bridge to Nowhere once upon a time even though she had the courage to get rid of it as governor. Yet, when Barack Obama had a chance to kill Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere and spend the money on Katrina victims, he voted -- drum roll please -- No."

"And over the last three years, Barack Obama hasn't changed his tune one bit. He has not disavowed his 2005 vote in favor of the Bridge to Nowhere. And he continues to vote to save specific, egregious earmarks. In 2007, Obama was given the opportunity to vote for an amendment to transfer money earmarked for bicycle paths to fixing America's bridges. He voted against the amendment. He was given the opportunity to vote for an amendment to eliminate earmarks for a Peace Garden in North Dakota and a baseball field in Montana. Barack Obama voted against teh amendment."

Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor was also at today's Heritage Foundation blogger briefing, where he was scheduled to discuss the conservative blogosphere's role in supporting Republican efforts to end the offshore drilling ban.

But Cantor spent a good portion of his time talking about the story for conservatives these days: Sarah Palin.

"All that you did in pushing an alternative VP pick, outside the mainstream, made that happen," Cantor said to the bloggers in attendance.

On Palin's ability to manger her family life with a career, he said, "There is something so ordinary about that, it's extraordinary." Cantor also talked about how Palin helps Republicans with middle class voters. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have made a point of critiquing the Republican speakers for not discussing economic issues in detail during their convention. Cantor countered that Palin's background is so authentically middle class, she doesn't have to make direct economic pitches to emphathize with voters.

"The consensus for some time has been that Democrats own the middle class, and that only they can somehow spell out prescriptions for the middle class to relieve their woes," he said. "Sarah Palin didn't have to speak to the middle class because she is the middle class."

Cantor also said conservative online activists played a key role in helping convention organizers make the most out of their abbreviated schedule after Hurricane Gustav.
.

Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund met with a group of conservative bloggers today at the Heritage Foundation to promote his forthcoming book: Stealing Elections. The actual text of the book is apparently embargoed until the 15th, but I can relay Fund's thoughts from the meeting today where he predicted that election day 2008 will be a lot like election day 2000, only possibly worse.

"In a very close race, people have an incentive to do things they might not ordinarily do," he said, alluding to voter fraud issues. Fund said he is most concerned about newly instated provisional ballots and the more than 14,000 lawyers being deployed by the Obama and McCain campaigns (9k for Obama, 5k for McCain). "Fourteen thousand lawyers in an election can't be a good thing."

Fund said to look to states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Mexico as potential targets to force their own lawsuit-driven recounts, which he says would, "damage the legitimacy of this election, damage the legitimacy of the winner."

Fund used most of his harshest words on Democratic allies like ACORN, but said he includes plenty of examples of Republican-driven voter fraud in his book as well. Two of his suggestions for avoiding an "election month" disaster include increasing the number of independent, non-litigating election monitors and to raise public awareness about the possibility of forthcoming, frivilous lawsuits from both campaigns.

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.

Sarah Palin is leading the Google search trends over Barack Obama and John McCain by 3-to-1. So, it's of little surprise that a number of new Palin-themed blogs and websites have begun popping up. Here's a short review of a few of the better ones.

Sarah Palin Facts: A genuine internet phenomenon, driven by Twitter posts and drawing inspriation from the earlier Chuck Norris Facts website. A similar site exists for MSNBC guru Chuck Todd. There are at least 24 "Sarah Palin" themed twitter accounts runnning now.


No Oprah: Let Sarah Speak: Launched after Oprah Winfrey confirmed she would not have Palin on her show until after the election. Winfrey has already endorsed Barack Obama and had him on her show twice, both times before he was officially running.

Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Launched by a woman in Wisconsin to track what she feels are unfair press accounts and political shots taken at Palin based on her gender.

Palin Drome: A humorous blog that presents itself as being written by Palin, and occasionally, by her son Track.

Also, Adam Brickley, creator and author of the Draft Sarah Palin blog, appeared on the Colbert Report last Friday. You can watch that video here:

While C-SPAN dominated the DNC and RNC Twitter coverage, CNN was heads and shoulders above the other cable news networks when it came to making use of Twitter. As with many using Twitter for the first time during the conventions, it was a learning experience.

In one of my own convention tweets from a week ago:

#RNC08 CNN assistant to Wolf Blitzer: "You should mention we're live Twittering on air." Blitzer: "I don't even know what that means."

And now, we learn that CNN presenter Rick Sanchez is debuting his own show today at 3pm EST that may be driven by Sanchez's Twitter followers. It may sound a little crazy, but it's certainly workable. Have one or two of the show's producers watching the Twittter feed, pick out a select few before broadcast, and update during commercial breaks, etc. Sanchez already tweets during his regular broadcasts, so it's not a stretch. You could also have nice additions, like having guests answer live questions from people on Twitter.

Sanchez already has 9,000 followers and I tend to use the metric that 1,000 followers is "famous for Twitter." It's also worth noting that Sanchez and CNN used Twitter to cover things beyond politics, including Hurricane Gustav.

h/t Jay Rosen
 

MSNBC has had trouble getting people to pay attention to its network for years, usually trailing Fox and CNN in the ratings. But over the past year, as Keith Olbermann was allowed to take a more left-leaning, opinionated approach to the news, the network's ratings have begun to flourish. Now, MSNBC is pulling Olbermann and "Hardball" host Chris Matthews off of their breaking news coverage for the rest of the campaign, replaced by David Gregory. Is MSNBC making a mistake in giving in to conservative pressure? Olbermann really is a pundit and should be identified as such. Although he's a pundit who knows what his station's viewers want. Meanwhile, Chris Matthews has been an anchor of real reporting and analysis at the network for years, even as he's occasionally upset both those on the left and the right.

John Aravosis says the move was especially bad because conservatives don't watch MSNBC:

I'm sure that now that NBC/MSNBC has caved to the Republicans, the GOP will never say another mean thing about the network. Yeah, ask the Democrats how well the "cave just this once and they'll leave us alone" strategy has worked. Not to mention, how many people at the Republican convention do you honestly believe watch NBC or MSNBC? They watch FOX, you morons. We watch NBC and MSNBC. At least we did. You people are idiots.

Glen Greenwald says MSNBC is afraid of the political right:

That is extraordinary for a media company to publicly embarrass, diminish and tarnish its own principal asset. It is plainly doing so for ideological, not ratings-based, reasons: namely, it fears doing anything to anger the White House, the McCain campaign and the Right in this country.

The Moderate Voice's Jazz Shaw says Olbermann crossed the ideological line "far more than once too often," but says "he did add more spice to televised political coverage."

Transplanted Texan says the move could be good for Olbermann, but fears the looming presence of Gregory:

If Gregory does well, I imagine we'll see him take over the Meet the Press chair after the election. Shame, I was kind of hoping for Gwen Ifill out of all the realistic options. As for Olbermann, while my opinion of him hasn't fallen quite as far as most other MyDDers, I still applaud the move. Maybe this kick in the pants will help him return to his pre-primary, less pompous, totally awesome form? And Matthews... eh, wish they'd just fire him. "HA!"

Liberal Values' Ron Chusid captures the real dilemma of having pundits as anchors:

Having Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews anchor political coverage was often more interesting than the other networks, but it was, to be mild, journalistically flawed.

It's not surprising that most of Hollywood backs Barack Obama in the general election. John McCain has been welcome for the occasional movie cameo, but at the end of the day, they're going to go with a Democrat. But how are celebrities, especially women, reacting to Sarah Palin's emergence on the national stage?

Lynne Spears, the mother of Britney and 16-year-old mother Jamie Lynn, had a care package sent to Palin daughter Bristol.

Robin Williams on David Letterman doing his best impersinations of reactions to Palin's debut from within the McCain/Bush camps.

Albert Brooks, a great comedic actor, puts on his concern troll mask:

Do we want a president who cannot communicate to their own child that possibly having a baby a year after you get your driver's license is not the smartest thing to do? Is this the new way for women to break the glass ceiling?

Rod Lurie, creator of the short-lived ABC sitcom, "Commander in Chief," about a female VP who ascends to the chief executive post, says Palin isn't qualified:

"Picking a woman is an absolute strategic idea from McCain's point of view. He's not talking about governing right now. The idea of this woman actually facing down [Vladimir] Putin and negotiating with [Dmitry] Medvedev is idiotic."

And finally, to the pinnacle of political thought. On her MySpace blog, Lindsay Lohan says it should be about the issues, not Bristol Palin's pregnancy:

I get Sarah Palin's views against abortion, but i would much prefer to hear more about what she can do for our country rather than how her daughter is going to have a child no matter what. Maybe focus on delivering some words and policy with stronger impact like Joe Biden.

John McCain's acceptance speech got off to a rough start tonight. Bloggers from the left and right were in shock as McCain began speaking before a giant, lime green backdrop, reminiscent of the awful stage backing during his universally panned speech after securing the nomination a few months ago.

But as the speech reached its conclusion, McCain found his comfort zone and delivered. He'll never give a speech with the oratory skills of Barack Obama, or even Sarah Palin, but he delivered specific policy proposals and crossover talking points that neither of his more vocally gifted counterparts offered. Like many of McCain's speeches, there was much to like here, but it comes filtered through his awkward delivery and a not always receptive audience.

1. Daily Kos diarist BarbinMD:


3. The increasingly-excitable Andrew Sullivan is feeling more reserved:

It made me realize how much I am still fond of this guy. And also clearer about why this is not his moment. The specifics were very vague, and the entire presentation based on biography, nostalgia and a kind of strained, exhausted mildness. His performance at Saddleback was much, much better. He seemed very tired to me.

4. Reason's Tim Cavanaugh has probably the kindest words you'll hear for McCain coming from the apparently Obama-leaning, but certainly anti-McCain publication:

I think. McCain's speech was good, very gracious, moving in parts, and generally serviceable. The roof was blown off the dump last night, I guess. Maybe this was good enough.

5. And finally, from the conventional in convention wisdom, Swampland's Jay Carney:

A mixed performance. The ending worked, though in the hall I doubt anyone could hear him very well as he spoke through the crowd's applause. The final peroration -- "We're Americans. We don't hide from history. We make history" -- was strong stuff.

I asked this guy if he was here supporting Ron Paul, Bob Barr or just opposing the GOP. "I'm here for myself," he said:

The protesters arrived in force today, from Code Pink, to acoustic guitar strummers, to one woman on stilts. But at least as of right now, the law enforcement teams are ready. There seemed to be a lot more cops on the scene than actual protesters:

From CQ's Molly Hooper on Capitol Hill today:

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland , a two-term Republican who represents some of Atlanta's suburbs, commented about class when asked about the performances under pressure of his party's vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin , and the Democratic nominee's wife, Michelle Obama, as they introduced themselves to the nation in their separate convention speeches.

"Honestly, I've never paid that much attention to Michelle Obama," Westmoreland said. "Just what little I've seen of her and Senator [Barack] Obama, is that they're a member of an elitist class . . . that thinks that they're uppity."

Westmoreland declined to elaborate further, though he did repeat one part of his comment when asked to clarify.

"Uppity, you said?" he was asked.

"Yeah, uppity," Westmoreland replied.

Later, Westmoreland's press secretary offered a clarification.

"This was an adjective for elitism, not a code word. It was obviously not a racially tinged remark," said the press secretary, Brian Robinson.

Here's a link to my feature over on the CQ Politics main site today about how John McCain and conservative talk radio have begun to heal their often tumultuous relationship. It almost goes without saying: Sarah Palin was a silver bullet:

McCain's recent moves to the right also appear to be making inroads with evangelical Christian talk show hosts. Lee Michaels and Jeff Shell, co-hosts of the KKMS Live! With Jeff & Lee show, based out of Eagan, Minn., say their listeners have been responding more positively to McCain than in recent months.

"We're an arena of ideas. It's our job to put information out there so our listeners can make up their own minds," Michaels said. "But we come at this with a conservative perspective and a Christian world view. Sarah Palin is a huge asset. I think it was a turning point for [Focus on the Family President] James Dobson and many others."

Sarah Palin's speech last night was watched by 37.2 million viewers, just three percent less than Obama's speech, despite an obvious network bias in favor of Barack Obama. This was the main speech of the RNC, as John McCain's acceptance speech will almost certainly have less viewers, since the NFL will launch its opening night of the season against one of the most important political moments of the campaign. From the Nielsen blog:

• 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.

We now know that Sarah Palin's acceptance speech for the Republican vice presidential nomination was a soaring hit for the Republican base. The obvious question is the same as after her first appearance with John McCain last week: How much does that enthusiasm trickle down ballot and how far before its resonance begins to dissipate?

As someone who grew up far away from the Beltway and any sense of entitlement, I found her most compelling line to be the one that lacked a political component: "Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys." It was such a good line that the AP mentioned it twice in their analysis piece this morning.

We still won't know for a day or two how the rest of America reacted to the speech, and John McCain's own address tonight could change the dynamic once again, for better or for worse. But here are some more quick takes from those following the election closely, starting with TNR's Michael Crowley:

I completely misjudged how negative she would be. Her lines about Obama were brutally cutting and possibly over the top in places. But she's a far better messenger than an angry white man.

Yossarian makes a point I've been arguing since before the primaries began: Do we really want an "average" person to be our next president? None of the candidates are in fact average, but they are going to great pains to make us believe so:

Obama's team spent much of the time during the convention promoting the idea that he's "average". And Palin spent the first third of her speech emphasizing how she's just a regular busy, working mother like so many other people in this country.

My CQ colleagues and I were trying to tabulate off-hand how many, if any, references to George Bush there have been from the main speakers so far. The Economist's Democracy in America blogs tells us the answer is one: from Mitt Romney.

And finally, Andrew Coyne says Palin is the "best natural speechmaker" since Reagan:

Her critics in the media and in the opposition may regret having piled on quite so enthusiastically, and with so little heed for who they hurt -- or angered. Watching the tumultuous, ecstatic reaction in the hall, I was reminded of the famous words of the Admiral Yamamoto after Pearl Harbour: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Sarah Palin delivered a dynamic speech tonight that was heavier on attack lines than any speech from either convention so far. The right is swooning, the left is mocking, but both acknowledge her political prowess.

Daily Kos diarist "georgia10":

With her snarky, amateurish, almost Student Council-like speech, Palin proved today that she can attack like a candidate for vice-president.  And she demonstrated that she can support the top of the ticket like a candidate for vice-president.

National Review's Jonathan Adler on Palin's depth:

I have one thought on the substance.  Including an extended discussion of international energy markets was quite shrewd.  It allowed her to play to one of her strengths -- energy policy -- while simultaneously undercutting concerns about her lack of foreign policy experience. She talked about the significance of foreign production and the geostrategic importance of pipelines with a level of sophistication that few would have anticipated, and it worked.  Had she tried to get into the nitty-gritty of Iraq or Iran, on the other hand, it would have seemed quite contrived.

Matthew Yglesias, from outside the convention floor in St. Paul:

Palin is having a hard time holding the attention of the drunk C-Listers with "limited access" credentials hanging out in the basement. No idea whether or not that's a good proxy for the overall effectiveness of her rhetoric. To my ear, Huckabee blows the rest of the GOP away as an orator.

John Hinderaker of the conservative Powerline blog:

Aspects of the delivery could have been better and the conclusion could have been stronger. But she passed the test, and neutral viewers who tuned in to see whether she seems ready for the Vice-Presidency had to be impressed. Palin showed that she will be effective on the campaign trail and will be a thorn in Barack Obama's side from now until November.

The conservative Anchor Rising blog:

Ahem, after listening to her speech, ladies and gentlemen, I'm betting she is plenty tough enough and most surely ready for primetime.

A National Journal Insiders Poll shows respondents favoring Mitt Romney for president in 2012 if John McCain doesn't win this year, with 55 percent of the vote.

However, when they polled conservative bloggers the results were much closer:

A survey of right-of-center bloggers was more divided; Romney won, but with a plurality of less than one-third, barely ahead of Palin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. The mood toward Romney was summed up by one respondent: "Alas." A blogger who picked Jindal said, "I think the field would be quite wide-open in 2012, but the base will demand a 'fresh face,' someone with a record of accomplishment, and someone who's not identified as an old Washington hand."

Both conservative and liberal bloggers are espousing theories today as to whether the traditional media have been biased against Sarah Palin. Howard Kurtz's column today on being grilled by an "absolutely furious"  Steve Schmidt is the most discussed in the blogosphere.

On the left side of the argument, Josh Marshall says reporters and readers are "getting played" by Schmidt, whom he says is confusing personal rumors in the blogosphere with legitimate inquiries into her political associations and experience:

Schmidt, by the way, is one of the most hard-boiled GOP operatives and Rove proteges around. I guess he and his McCain colleagues missed the whole Rev. Wright episode, Clinton impeachment episode and, what, maybe twenty other episodes over recent years.

Joe Klein thinks John McCain is sincerely agitated at the press, but says Schmidt is provoking a media war for "tactical reasons." I think both of Klein's points are probably right. But I disagree with what appears to be Klein's conclusion that a tactical decision disqualifies the merits of the complaint.

On the right, Jennifer Rubin predicts the attacks on Palin will backfire against both the media and Democrats. I think there's a good chance she's right about that, especially with Republicans and some independent voters.

National Review's excellent reporter Jim Geraghty makes a point being argued by several Republican lawmakers today:

In 72 hours, the media has subjected Bristol Palin to more scrutiny than they've given to Barack Obama in two years. Perhaps that's a mild exaggeration. But pretty darn mild.

And the often sound Stephen Bainbridge concludes:

I think this ends up helping McCain. In particular, it may redress some of the enthusiasm deficit. Lots of Republicans who had no fire in their belly for McCain are now seriously pissed off at the media. If McCain sticks by Palin, I may even open my wallet.

The Nielsen Blog has TV ratings for last night's first big round of speeches at the Republican National Convention:

• Overall viewing was more than 4.3 million people lower than Day 2 of the Democratic National Convention, and 600,000 people lower than Day 2 of the 2004 Republican Convention.
• More women (11.2 million) than men (9.5 million) watched the GOP convention (the same trend as Day 2 for the Democrats)
• African American viewing of the GOP convention (2.1 million) is less than half what is was for the Democratic convention (4.6 million)

Human Events' Michelle Oddis has a great video interview with Fred Thompson, hours before he addressed the Republican National Convention last night. Thompson once again breaks out the cigar (though I'm told this time it's not a Cuban) and makes reference to his previous Michael Moore rebuttal video, probably the one highlight of his short-lived presidential run:





In case you missed Thompson's speech last night, you can watch it here via the C-SPAN RNC Hub. Everyone was expecting Joe Lieberman to own the night, but the near-unanimous response from Republicans and the media on the ground here in St. Paul is that Thompson wowed the audience with his passioned defense of John McCain and Thompson's full-frontal assault on the media:

BlogPAC, founded by leading progressive blogger Matt Stoller, has released a new ad going after John McCain's two marriages. Stoller, a Harvard educated, talented political strategist, usually makes his mark by engaging in personal attacks against his ideological adversaries. So, it's not a big surprise BlogPAC would go there. But the reasoning in their press release seems a bit odd, considering how the traditional media has gone after Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol this week:

While John McCain's surrogates make specious assertions regarding Barack Obama's character, patriotism and associations, the legacy media has simply shrugged. Suckling the saccharin nectar of false bipartisan civility, the mass-media consensus seems to be that such attacks are okay, as long as they are made by a conservative Republican.

From the new ad's text:

"Which presidential candidate married a beautiful swimsuit model? Who left his swimsuit model wife after she was disfigured in a tragic car accident? Who dated a woman almost 18 years his junior, while still married to his first wife? John McCain, that's who. Ask the media why they don't tell you these things."

Barack Obama has had a tenuous relationship with the Fox News Channel, whether it was one of his aides getting into a shoving match with Bill O'Reilly, or Obama following John Edwards' lead in refusing to take part in a FNC sponsored Democratic debate earlier this year. But the always excellent Ari Melber reports that's all about to change:

Yes, Sen. Barack Obama is headed for Fox News, in a bid for Republican votes, by appearing for the first time ever on Bill O'Reilly's prime-time show. While McCain aims his acceptance speech at voters beyond his base, Obama will be talking to the bright red Republicans who watch O'Reilly's highly rated show.

What a smart and savvy move by the Obama campaign. Millions of Republicans and conservative voters will be tuning into Fox News tomorrow night and will likely be seeing Obama on camera in an extended capacity for the first time since is own acceptance speech last week.

MSNBC and Huffington Post are highlighting this appearance by Sarah Palin at a local Alaskan church in which she implies that God supports the Iraq War about two months ago. But this has to be the headline of the day, in which Palin praises one high-school student's ability to make Christian converts:

"Ben, I don't know you well enough yet, but looking at you, I'm thinking, people are going to interested in Jesus Christ through you because of the way you look - this red-headed Sasquatch for Jesus. You look good!"

Here in St. Paul, conservative talk show radio hosts occupy a long hallway leading into the Excel Center. Much like the conservative blogosphere, the conservative and evangelical airwaves have not always been the warmest enclave for John McCain. But in talking with some of them today, I have found a sea change in their outlook towards the soon-to-be anointed Republican nominee, and much of that has to do with Sarah Palin.

Even Rush Limbaugh seems to have come around.

"He's always been a strong pro-life candidate," said Jeff Shell, co-host of KKMS Live! with Jeff & Lee, based in Eagan, Minnesota. "But [Palin] energized the evangelical base and sucked the air out of Obama's nomination."

"It's been a huge boost," added his co-host Lee Michaels. "Defense and national security have always been strengths for him with our listeners. And the Rick Warren Saddleback Forum helped a lot. Warren is an example of how important evangelicals still are and it really increased the enthusiasm for the Republican ticket."

"Maybe one in twenty have been disappointed with the Palin pick," said Lars Larson of KXL in Portland, Oregon and his Westwood One national affiliate. "Sarah Palin has far more executive experience than Obama."

I'll have more on the influence of talk radio at the Republican National Convention later this week. But the message here is that conservative talk radio was not able to derail McCain's drive for the Republican nomination and they aren't likely to be a drag on his general election effort either.

Ron Paul is in negotiations with the McCain campaign for an agreement that would allow Paul to travel through the convention perimeter in exchange for access to Paul's supporter list. Technically, Paul is already allowed to travel to the convention floor as part of the Texas congressional delegation, but the agreement would allow him to bring some staff, including a bodyguard. Personally, I thought it would only be a distraction to have Paul participate in any formal capacity. But reading Ralph Hallow's story today, and the accompanying video interview with Mr. Paul, is definitely giving me second thoughts.

Is there any way having Ron Paul on the convention floor could turn out to be a smart move by McCain? Doug Mataconis says he'd be shocked if any such agreement was reached:

Ron Paul barely made a dent in the Republican primaries and he's openly attacked the Republican nominee and suggested that it would be best if his supporters voted for a third-party candidate such as Bob Barr or the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin,

Of course, Sarah Palin herself once had some nice things to say about Ron Paul in an interview with MTV:

Governor Sarah Palin: He's cool. He's a good guy. He's a good guy. He's so independent. He's independent of like the party machine, I'm like, right on, so am I. The party machinery, on both sides of the party, ya know, Americans are tiring of the incessant partisanship that gets in the way of just doing the right thing for this country.

Forgive my amateur Photoshop skills, but with Cindy McCain and Steve Ducey saying that Sarah Palin understands foreign policy because of Alaska's proximity to Russia, thought I'd dig a little deeper. Turns out they do have some common ground. Though Putin allegedly only tranquilized his prey:

Volunteers at the Republican National Convention are walking around the premises in bright orange shirts. One of the convention sponsors, and the one listed on the t-shirt is monster.com, a job-hunting site.

I was going to post this pic simply to make the joke that RNC staffers are walking around in "monster" t-shirts. But this seems like even more fodder for critics: With Bush's mediocre record on the economy, is it best to have your party's convention hosted by an employment agency?

As I mentioned yesterday, the Republicans are taking a much more liberal approach to convention protesters, i.e. not putting them in a cage. Yesterday morning, Iraq Veterans Against the War held a rally. And today, a group calling itself the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War held a high-profile march, with crowd estimates ranging from 8,000-10,000 participants.

Most of those marching did so peacefully. But as they are want to do, some anarchists got into the mix, breaking windows, slashing tires, and other things anarchists do to discredit causes they most likely agree with. They're kind of like a walking, talking MoveOn "General Betray Us" ad.

Anyway, I had a chance to do interview the Minnesota Peace Team, a group of volunteers whose mission is to protect both the protesters and the police.

The confirmation from Sarah and Todd Palin that their 17-year-old daughter Bristol is pregnant is sending shock waves through the lefty and righty blogosphere.

But discussions of Palin family pregnancies were already dominating the blogosphere even before the news broke. That's because some progressive bloggers were engaging in a conspiracy theory that Sarah Palin's youngest child, Trig, was in reality the child of Bristol.

Daily Kos diarist Red Pen has tried to put a stop to the baseless rumors, which first began circulating on the Kos site. However, even the usually respectable Andrew Sullivan has lowered himself into this debate, arguing that the press is "doing their job" by following the inuendo.

As to the actual news of Bristol's pregnancy, socially conservative bloggers are turning their ire to the left and the media, rather than against Palin. What I think this demonstrates is that while social conservatives certainly opposed intimate affairs outside of marriage, they value pro-life positions more. Leading conservative Hugh Hewitt writes:

This is hardly a rare story, though it is always a difficult one for families to work through.  In the end