Yes, as you first watch this and have to put up with the really bad theme song, you’ll probably be thinking WTF? But it’s freakin’ hilarious. Enjoy.

I can’t help but wonder if this latest stunt (and that’s exactly what it is) by Pappy McCain (“canceling the debate”) is really the beginning of the end, like jumping off of the Titanic or something. Not to be a concern troll, becuse anything that improves his odds of losing is undoubtedly a good thing, but jeezuz, this is stupid by any stretch of the imagination. It boggles the mind. Obama should go to the debate anyways and debate a picture of McCain (like Ed Flanagan did with his run against Jim Jeffords years ago – I know, he lost…). It’d look like this:

UPDATE: John Cole knows why:

McCain’s entire campaign is composed of lobbyists, and they need to be in Washington to get their cut of the $700 billion.  They can’t miss this shot at the trough.

I figured with the nonstop bad news everywhere, y'all could use a good laugh. The New York Daily News hired a Sarah Palin impersonator to go around New York City. Some of the comments from unsuspecting cityfolk:

“You're hot! But I hope you lose.”

“She seems smart. She likes hockey.”

“Obama '08!”

“If her parents see her with anyone who even looks like Palin, they'll strangle me.”

Interestingly enough, the comparison of the impersonator and the real deal show, well, a more worldy candidate in the impersonator. Probaby smarter, too.

(crossposted on Five Before Chaos.)

I just have to chime in on this “McCain invented the Blackberry” nonsense that’s making its way around the liberal blogosphere. Now, yeah, I get it, it’s funny because it’s the same contextual bullshit as that “Al Gore invented the internet” nonsense back in 2000. And I guess on one level I can appreciate the fact that the Dems are finally figuring out that stupidity works better than just about anything else when reaching the American voter.

Sure, point out how McCain hasn’t been at the forefront of supporting groundbreaking technologies and hasn’t authored any law on expanding wireless technologies. I’m all for embracing their tactics, as I’ve said before, with one exception: don’t make stuff up. Am I remiss here?

What’s with the qualifications with yes and no? Wouldn’t “No, she sucked ass! We’re moving to Sweden!” have been a better answer for question one?  Gibson “trying” to be the smartest person in the interview? I suspect that the guy that gets Gibson his coffee is smarter than Palin.

As you probably know by now, ABC's Charles Gibson, the hack/anchorman whose performance at the ABC Clinton/Obama debate was so pathetic that he was actually booed by the audience, is getting the first interview with Palin. One can more than likely expect nothing but fluffy, softball questions with no follow-ups, delivered with that serious “I'm a real journalist” face that Gibson puts on that is usually enough to convince the clueless that it's a “hard-hitting” interview.

It really seems like the Alaskan media seems to be doing the actual hardest-hitting journalism when it comes to the idiocy/corruption/incompetence of Sarah Palin. Why not? They know her better than anyone, aren't trying to fulfill some pundit-psychological need, and the “hockey mom” nonsense probably isn't as alluring in a state where every other mom is probably a hockey mom.  The Anchorage Daily News put out a tough op-ed yesterday listing off the questions that should be asked of Palin (but probably never will, as they are both relevant and complex, something she more than likely can't handle). Jump below the fold for more, as well as a question for you, dear readers, about “issues”.

Two of the questions from the ADN:

• As governor of Alaska, you have not pushed for laws or regulations that put your personal views on abortion, same-sex marriage and creationism into public policy. As vice president, will you push to outlaw abortion, restrict same-sex marriage and require the teaching of creationism?

• You present yourself as a Republican maverick who took on your own party's corrupt political establishment. In November's election, your party is running an indicted U.S. Senator, Ted Stevens, who is awaiting trial on charges he accepted more than $250,000 of unreported gifts from the state's most powerful lobbyist. Will you vote for his opponent? Will you urge Alaskans to help you change Washington and vote him out of office? If not, why not?

These are the kinds of questions we need asked (and the questions of this depth should bE asked of all of the candidates – in the meantime we're going to have to settle for “Does your preacher love America? Do you like donuts?“) Don't hold your breath, because any journalist that would ask them wouldn't be able to get within 100 feet of Smilin' Sarah.

And that brings me to my other notion: why Americans continue to fall for the fluff instead of the substance. By and large, we're a pretty ignorant lot, even many who feel they are well-informed. And, no, it's not just the conservatives, even though they've done a masterful job of elevating anti-intellectualism as a form of personal virtue. 

Yesterday at Five Before Chaos, I did a “Dumb American Voter Linkdump”, as there are several new books out upon the matter. Voting really is an emotional, not intellectual excercise for most Americans. And my friend Scherpschutter, who lives in Belgium, summed up the problem nicely:

In the US (and Italy) this general conscience seems to have imploded: both the left and the right have their own set of values, completely different from each other. We are good, They are bad. In such a situation an accusation of fraud, corruption or whatever isn’t harmful: it comes from a bad person, who is trying to hurt me, a good person. That is a dangerous, very harmful situation.

There's a lot of wisdom to be had there, and it does indeed explain it to an extent.

Another angle: LeftField's diary “It's the Issues, Stupid”, brought up some valid points, about how Obama's losing ground because he's not taking a bolder stand on the issues. I can agree with that sentiment, but on another level, it's not working for me, simply because it's assuming we have an informed electorate that is voting based on “the issues”. We don't. But they sure are flocking to get those Kawaski eyeglasses that Palin wears. Good to know we're paying attention to the things that matter.

It was said at the GOP convention that “this campaign isn't about the issues, it's about character”.  I suspect, given the tendencies of the electorate, that it really wouldn't matter if it was. 

So, there is indeed a huge challenge for the Obama team. Calling McCain's lies out as they occur is only going to go so far, as huge swaths of the public fall for that “if you repeat a lie enough it becomes true”. So, putting aside Dem capitulation, similar positions on some things, and all those other factors, how do we proceed?  What does one do when “talking about the issues” doesn’t matter?

So, readers, there's the big question I'd like you to answer. Also, I'd be interested in reading your questions for Sarah Palin, as well.

(Note: in no way does the title of this diary imply that Douglas ever had a firm grip on the reality in regards to relating to Vermonters – this one is just too out in la-la land to pass up, though – he's really losing it.)

This morning's Argus had me spitting up my coffee:

But Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas believes that Palin, a mother, hunter and first-term governor, is not only qualified to be president, if it comes to that, but that she will win over residents of the Green Mountain state.

“I believe Gov. Palin is qualified,” said Douglas, who has gotten to know Palin as a fellow state chief executive. He had hoped McCain would choose a governor as his running mate, he added. “I think a lot of Vermonters will identify with her.”

I guess Douglas also feels that Vermonters also all have foreign policy experience because we live so close to Canada. Or perhaps we all have marine biologist experience because we live so close to Lake Champlain. Or perhaps the Vermonters he meant were the loons in Second Vermont Republic who can relate to her days in the Alaskan seccesionist movement. Who's going to be the first reporter to ask Douglas about this?  Considering how much praise and support Douglas has given our current unqualified commander-in-chief, we really shouldn't be surprised, should we?

I just wanted to send a quick, heartfelt thank you out to those GMDers who clicked that Paypal button to help us Denver=bound boys out. It helped out a lot, and I hope you got your money’s worth.

Also, thanks to odum, Christian, the two Peters, Philip Baruth and Selene for both the assistance and the good times.

Thanks again.

One of the things I wanted to do when I came out here was to talk to a delegate or a blogger from some state that is completely different from Vermont. Well, how's Alabama? Larisa Thomason of Left in Alabama shared me her thoughts on blogging, as well as what it's like to be a lefty in Alabama. Enjoy.  

I'm down on the floor right now… it is really crazy down here between the media and the crowds, it's quite exciting, actually, a marked contrast to the speech that Harry Reid just gave. ;). They're locking off the floor now, as it's getting quite nuts. Anyways, I just want to throw up a few quick pictures.

 Nancy Pelosi formally nominating Obama –

A bunch of roses on the Secret Service gate:

Melissa Etheridge: