Here’s some folks pawing at Sarah Palin and mumbling while a Kenyan mystic seeks to cast off “every form of witchcraft” from the candidate in 2005 at her church in Wasilla.

Wonder if the spell’s still holding.

This past week McCain/Palin held a huge rally in Fairfax. The McCain camp claimed that they had 23,000 people attending the event. That’s an Obama-sized number, a number that would signify a real swing in momentum for the republican ticket. Too bad it might not be true.

Bloomberg reports:

“McCain aide Kimmie Lipscomb told reporters on Sept. 10 that an outdoor rally in Fairfax City, Virginia, drew 23,000 people, attributing the crowd estimate to a fire marshal.

Fairfax City Fire Marshal Andrew Wilson said his office did not supply that number to the campaign and could not confirm it. Wilson, in an interview, said the fire department does not monitor attendance at outdoor events.

In recent days, journalists attending the rallies have been raising questions about the crowd estimates with the campaign. In a story on Sept. 11 about Palin’s attraction for some Virginia women voters, Washington Post reporter Marc Fisher estimated the crowd to be 8,000, not the 23,000 cited by the campaign.”

Found via TPM.

*McCain camp offers weird response to press inquiries.

*Quick update: Palin’s Bridge to Nowhere lie returns to stump speech.

On my way home from a vacation up north, I flipped on C-Span radio for much of the Jersey Turnpike. The station replays the morning chat shows. Since I am addicted to the presidential race, I just had to listen to George Will and Brit Hume, etc. I’d listen. Then scream. I’d listen. Then Scream. All through Jersey. It was fun.

News had already broke that MSNBC was ditching its fiery brand names (Olbermann and Matthews) because of the view that they might be too liberal. This is an interesting turn of events for the schizophrenic network (tonight is the debut of liberal talker Rachel Maddow’s show) Olbermann and Matthews had sparred with each other on the air and Olbermann had taken a jab at Joe Scarborough. Jon Stewart compared the antics to The Lord of the Flies.

What was Olbermann’s REAL alleged screwup? Going after the Republicans for using graphic 9/11 footage as a prop during its convention. And going after his own network for airing the video. You can read/watch Olbermann’s critique here.

Meanwhile, the chat shows had peppered the McCain campaign about when Sarah Palin would finally sit down for an interview. Yesterday we learned that the McCain campaign awarded the Palin interview to ABC’s news anchor Charles Gibson. I’m sure I will watch it. But I can’t help but think the obvious thought: Gibson is no Russert.

What does Palin need? What do we need? Russert. It would have been awesome to see Russert post up old, pre-convention Palin stances on earmarks, the “Bridge to Nowhere,” Polar Bears, Creationism, and Iraq. Is she really George Bush in lipstick? Russert would not only find out, his findings would stick.

Palin would have to answer all the questions about flip-flops, earmarks and that bridge to nowhere. She would have to prove her readiness. And no Republican would be able to accuse Russert of bias. I doubt Gibson’s interview will change many minds or bring about an accurate portrait of Palin. Say what you will about Russert, his interview would have meant something.

According to some dude’s Flickr account, the above billboard advertisement is running in Minneapolis leading up to, and for the duration of, the Republican National Convention. Notice that the ad itself contains five rich white people, but no actual oligarchs, unless the rumors are true, and Samantha Bee really is Jon Stewart’s grandmother. In which case, satirical political television is dominated by a select group of nepotistic New York comedy writers.

I wonder what funny signage is running in Denver, and if it’s anywhere near as witty and self-aware as the Daily Show’s?

Take that John McCain!

John McCain on the U.S. invasion of Iraq: “We were greeted as liberators. We mishandled the war for nearly four years. We mishandled it in a way that was so harmful that I stood up against it.”**

Nevermind that it took McCain a really, really long time to stand up against the Iraq War strategy. He may have even hedged his bets on supporting the surge.

But were we really greeted as liberators?

**McCain quote taken from an interview he did that aired today on “This Week…” McCain also oddly invokes the Oil-For-Food scandal as part of a laundry list of reasons we invaded Iraq. I hadn’t heard that reason.

The presidential candidates have spent plenty of time introducing and debating their economic polices. For a short-term boost, they should look no further than their own names for help. They are being used to sell products that have nothing to do with the campaigns. And I suspect, in most cases, the gimmicks work quite well.

For the past few days, Medaterra in Woodley Park has been serving the Obama Rama Martini and the Sugar McCain, and advertising the drinks on a sidewalk sign. Both are on the normal menu. The Obama drink is a Banana Rum Martini, with banana liquor, vodka, and cranberry juice, and the McCain drink is fresh lemonade, Stoli and Cointreau.

I called up Medaterra to see how the drinks were selling. In short: good. Martini sales are up overall, estimates waitress Andrea Tehan. “Everyone keeps asking who’s winning,” she says, adding that staff have been monitoring the drinks sales and have noted that the Obama Rama Martini has outsold its Republican counterpart by a 4-1 ratio, despite the McCain drink being more popular under its normal name. Which is to say this entire thing is pretty dumb, and pretty smart from a business perspective.

This got me thinking. Who else has recently jumped on the campaign commerce bandwagon? Read the rest of this entry »

So it could be just me, but a guy’s gotta wonder how McCain isn’t drawing more fire for…just about everything, no?

Okay, perhaps it is just me who gets bummed when Fox wins big in the ratings after accusing Obama of proffering terrorist fist jabs and calling Michelle his “Baby Mama”, when McCain gets a free pass to assert that everyone knows who Hamas wants to be President, when the presumptive Republican nominee hires Steve Schmidt, Bush footsoldier, to rejuvenate his wizened, ailing campaign—this after giving a “full-throated” (phrase of the season) and thoroughly inane shout-out to the current Vice President—when Gen. Wesley Clark finds himself caught in some serious media crossfire for the simple crime of pinpointing the basis of McCain’s campaign and questioning its validity…and when Obama gets accused of elitism and out-of-touchism for his Ivy Leaguesmanship when McCain owns…what, like, thirty houses?

So a rant’s a rant, and rarely adorable. Here’s the question: is the MSM holding out on full-throttle McCain excoriation because:

a. They’re trying to shake their rep of being LIBERAL, or

b. They want to make it an interesting fight, for the sake of preserving ratings and because one of the candidates can’t raise money or adrenaline on his own steam?

Lemme know in the comments. Or, you know, don’t. After all, a fella like me only cares what they say in commie rags like the New York Times.

Meanwhile…Michael Douglass:

Olbermann sampled this speech in a recent special comment…merely proving Aaron Sorkin’s abiding influence on U.S. infotainment.