Comments on: WaPo v. WaTi: Which Had the Right Spin on Palin Interview

By: Ernest

Ernest — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:18:26 +0000

You aren’t quite sure what you are sayin’, are you, Andrew?

Mike sounds like a PhD, by comparison.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:13:36 +0000

You might want to note that the 9/11-Iraq connection thing was from a speech she gave, not from the actual interview. Seemed pretty clear from the first paragraph of the story. You yada-yada-yada'd over this with your "..."

Just sayin'

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:46:18 +0000

The better question is why WCP is devoting so much time to Palin. The number of blindly critical posts suggests the writers here have a view and don't let facts get in the way. As to the question you posed, the WaPo article starts with the scandal and then gets down to the meat and it really fizzles. She said they would be fighting terrorists. As members of the military who serve a country that is objectively fighting terrorists--in Iraq and elsewhere--it is completely accurate to say that their job and their future will be fighting terrorists. Just ask if that article would have appeared on the front page of WaPo if Obama addressed troops heading off to Iraq and thanked them for their sacrifice in fighting terrorism.

By: Ernest

Ernest — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:09:32 +0000

It is uneasy to discern, Erik. From the existential perspective, the truth is as elusive as it, eh, memetic. I thought that on the whole our Hockey Mom did well. The war with Russia would be nice.

By: Mike Riggs

Mike Riggs — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:05:30 +0000

The Times was too nice, and the Post wasn't harsh enough. I'm endorsing the yet-to-be-posited theory that a very jittery 12-year-old Alabama boy was actually inside Palin's brain, controlling her speech function via the scientific miracle first seen in the Dennis Quaid movie, Innerspace,