Salon's War Room details the carnage from Papa Bear's sit-down with Obama. Specifically, the host's spin on taxes.
FDL offers a glimpse of the Palin interview:
Questions that will NOT be asked:
(1) Why are you refusing to testify in an investigation of abuse of power now when you promised to testify before?
(2) Why did you inquire into your ability to ban books when you were Mayor?
(3) What books did you want to ban?
(4) Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution? Why or why not?
"Serious caveats." That's what the Journal news team claims must be attached to Palin's suggestion that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. For us, that still seems like weak language given the facts of Palin's support for the infamous bridge.
Ezra Klein wonders out loud:
I think one aspect of the modern press that doesn't get enough attention -- either among folks in the media or folks critiquing it -- is the transition from the fundamental scarcity being information to information being in abundance and the fundamental scarcity being mediation.
While defending his on-air Democratic convention comment that it's difficult for Democrats to criticize John McCain on national security because McCain was a POW during the Vietnam War while Clinton tried to avoid the draft.
Responding to FAIR, Brokaw claimed his comment came before Clinton spoke at the convention. It did not.
And how "she was mauled, minimized and manhandled by an openly skeptical media establishment." Daily Howler points out Kurtz' proof for said mauling it pretty thin.
Not when he can read minds. Tapper, who doubles as a professional parser of all-things Clinton related, reports that Hillary Clinton needs to be more forceful in her public denunciations of Sarah Palin. At least that's what some Democrats think, according to Tapper. Who are these disappointed Democrats and what are they actually saying about Clinton?
No details are offered. But trust us, Tapper just knows.
Of course, this wouldn't be an example of a journalist typing up his own Clinton opinion and then making it seem like news by not quoting invisible Democrats, would it?
UPDATE: We didn't mean to suggest that Tapper invented his sources or doesn't have any for his Clinton claim. But because he doesn't quote anybody (even anonymously) and makes only a vague reference to "Obama supporters," it's almost impossible for readers to gage whether Tapper's specific charge is true; that some Democrats are "troubled" at how Clinton is campaigning, or how widespread that sentiment is.
This wire service article, with the headline "Obama: Recession could delay rescinding tax cuts," is a mess. Here's the opening:
"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.
According to the AP, Obama's having second thoughts about GOP tax cuts for the rich. In the article, the AP points to an exchange Obama had Sunday on ABC where he was asked about middle class tax cuts:
""Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority.""
Hmm, Obama clearly stated he won't delay middle class tax cuts, which runs counter to the headline. What about tax cuts for the rich, is Obama re-thinking those? The AP again quotes Obama from ABC, but the premise there is, "What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?" [Emphasis added.]
Obama's response: "I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now."
The problem is that the headline tells readers Obama might have changed his mind about rescinding tax cuts. But in the article Obama specifically states he won't delay tax cuts for the middle class, and then says he's only thinking about delaying raising taxes on the wealthy.
Or has the AP adopted the spin that rescinding a tax cut is the same as raising taxes?