Clinton, Palin hold joint press conference

[Pangloss]

It's a developing story and I'm keeping an open mind about it. It just seems to me that many here leaped straight to the worst possible answer without waiting to see if it wasn't just a case of someone not wanting to use a bad email program.

 

And you know what, I'm convinced that's the case, just looking at the timing and rabidness of some of the early replies in this thread. She scares you. You've said so yourselves. So you assumed the worst.

 

That's unfortunate and it's not good politics.

[iNow]

Speaking for myself, I've been reading about the personal email issue and how her staffers were seeking ways to avoid audits and subpeoanas... for over 2 weeks already. That's hardly "leaping straight to the worst possible answer w/o waiting to see."

 

 

There have been numerous articles about this, and if you haven't read them yourself it just means you're not paying attention as closely as some of the rest of us.

[Pangloss]

Or I'm not as eager to jump on the bandwagon.

 

I'd like to see a source for 'two weeks' of stories on this, please.

[iNow]

I've got better things to do. With all of the articles, papers, and blogs I read every single day, I have zero desire to try combing through my entire internet history for the past 2 weeks, and I'm going to have to ask you to either take my word for it and just disregard my post.

 

I've been reading about this personal email thing with Palin for a while though...

 

 

EDIT: maybe a week and a half is more accurate. burn me at the stake if you deem it appropriate. Lambaste me and do a fact check and say I'm no better than republicans...

Edited September 19, 2008 by iNow

[Phi for All]

It's a developing story and I'm keeping an open mind about it. It just seems to me that many here leaped straight to the worst possible answer without waiting to see if it wasn't just a case of someone not wanting to use a bad email program.

 

And you know what, I'm convinced that's the case, just looking at the timing and rabidness of some of the early replies in this thread. She scares you. You've said so yourselves. So you assumed the worst.

 

That's unfortunate and it's not good politics.

This might be true if I'd heard only that Palin was using her private email for state business. That could be a bad program, or just lack of good security judgment. But the stories I read all spoke of skirting an audit, communicating in a way that wasn't subject to subpoena, and smacking down a co-worker who goofed up and used the regular program. Perhaps I was lead to this conclusion but I certainly didn't jump to it.

[ParanoiA]

If Obama or Biden can/will show they don't use their personal email accounts for any government business, then I'd be inclined to take this seriously. Only because that would prove it's not a common practice. I have a feeling it's not, but I haven't heard any other politicians come clean on it either.

 

Regardless, it sounds like the "mandate" needs some teeth.

[Phi for All]

Regardless, it sounds like the "mandate" needs some teeth.

If it's a state mandate, who do you appeal to when the *governor* defies it?

[iNow]

.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html

While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a BlackBerry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.”

 

Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business.”

 

On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account.”

 

Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!”

[Pangloss]

The earliest I saw anything about Palin's email being hacked was yesterday, Wednesday the 17th. I just did a search on Google News on "Palin email" and sorted it by date, and it doesn't go back before the 17th. I believe you that it started a day or two before that, but I'm kinda curious what sites you're reading that had that information before the mainstream media. You're always telling me how non-partisan your news sources are, but that sounds like a blog revelation to me. You should pass that along -- it would stand as evidence that partisanship has merit.

 

Edit: Okay, so four days. Thanks.

 

This might be true if I'd heard only that Palin was using her private email for state business. That could be a bad program, or just lack of good security judgment. But the stories I read all spoke of skirting an audit, communicating in a way that wasn't subject to subpoena, and smacking down a co-worker who goofed up and used the regular program. Perhaps I was lead to this conclusion but I certainly didn't jump to it.

 

The story's four days old and you've already drawn conclusions. I think that fact speaks for itself.

[iNow]

August 21, 2008: AK State Policy Regarding Personal Use of State Office Technologies

 

 

http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/Personal%20Use%20of%20Electronic%20Equipment.pdf

 

 

And I read a lot of sources (mostly science related), so please quit with trying to paint my reading habits as partisan spin before you even know what they are. Is that pre-emptive partisanship on your part?

 

 

 

 

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/33965

The Alaska Attorney General issued an opinion on August 21, 2008 concluding that state employees have a right to privacy while using state-issued communication equipment shortly after it was revealed that Governor Palin and her staff used their state-issued blackberrys and computers for communications related to Governor Palin’s efforts to have her former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, fired.

[Pangloss]

Huh? Those are sources for the regulations themselves. Obviously they predate the story -- one would assume that. They don't say anything when her email account was hacked and when the story came out. You might as well claim that you've been following the story since February 7th, since that date appears in the New York Times story.

[Phi for All]

The earliest I saw anything about Palin's email being hacked was yesterday, Wednesday the 17th. I just did a search on Google News on "Palin email" and sorted it by date, and it doesn't go back before the 17th. I believe you that it started a day or two before that, but I'm kinda curious what sites you're reading that had that information before the mainstream media.

Anchorage Daily News, from the 15th:

Even before the McCain campaign plucked Palin from Alaska, a controversy was brewing over e-mails in the governor's office. Was the administration trying to get around the public records law through broad exemptions or private e-mail accounts?

 

The story's four days old and you've already drawn conclusions. I think that fact speaks for itself.

Perhaps Obama's campaign has done too good a job equating Bush with McCain. Rove has soured me on email shenanigans and lack of accountability.

[Pangloss]

Yeah I cross-posted with iNow up there, so I agree we're at four days.

 

I take your point as solid at the end there:

 

Perhaps Obama's campaign has done too good a job equating Bush with McCain. Rove has soured me on email shenanigans and lack of accountability.

 

Well put. This is where I agree with bascule as well, and I think Rove took things to a whole new level back in the 2000 campaign. Has anyone else noticed the irony of McCain utilizing attack ads? It's really crushing for this long-time McCain fan to see that sort of thing.

[Phi for All]

Has anyone else noticed the irony of McCain utilizing attack ads? It's really crushing for this long-time McCain fan to see that sort of thing.

It bugs me a lot really. And you know it's got to bug McCain to have to take on the Bush baggage after what they did to him in 2000. McCain didn't deserve that kind of dirty trick from his own party members and I've lost a lot of respect for him for stooping to Rove's level.

 

Did you see the recent Fox interview with Rove where he talked about the lies coming from both camps? The bastard stumbled when he tried to say "truth", like it was such a foreign concept on his lips.

[iNow]

Did you see the recent Fox interview with Rove where he talked about the lies coming from both camps?

 

For those who did not, here it is:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNdtZGqZA2Y

 

 

I love how he states that you cannot trust the fact checking organizations.

[Pangloss]

Yeah I saw that the other day after a similar discussion on another site, and was pretty appalled. Even more appalling were the conservatives who tried to tell me that this CNN story about Rove's words...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/index.html

 

...was an example of media bias on CNN's part because it didn't include his criticism of Obama's campaign! My reaction to the above story was, "okay, this is a top Republican and a former negative ad master, and HE says McCain is too negative?! -- THAT's the story", i.e. CNN was right on target.

 

(I hope you don't mind my passing that along -- it's not a sneak attempt to actually promote those conservatives' point of view.)

[Phi for All]

Did you *ever* think Rove would be the pot calling the kettle black?

 

I don't remember seeing this before, but the Guardian is reporting that the use of official government email channels is more than just a mandate:

Official government communications are required to be preserved under federal law.

 

I wonder how the law is written, how Rove got around it, and how breaking a federal law will affect McCain / Palin.

[ParanoiA]

It almost sounds like you give up your privacy rights if official government communications are required to be preserved. Unless they're heavily investing in the word "preserved". I suppose they can preserve them, without sharing them with anyone.

[iNow]

An amazing piece in Newsweek by Sam Harris, very well worth the few minutes to read it (although, I imagine many of you will have already seen it). Enjoy.

 

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/page/1

 

Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated.

[Pangloss]

Sounds like Harris might've read that amusing Maureen Dowd piece in the New York Times the other day featuring an Aaron Sorkin-penned scene depicting a meeting between Obama and Sorkin's fictional president from The West Wing (played by Martin Sheen). Partisan as heck, but it had a hillarious bit about elitism that had me in stiches for hours.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21dowd-sorkin.html?_r=2&em&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

Here's a quote that's somewhat peripheral to the elitism angle but which had the best line from the whole piece:

Because the idea of American exceptionalism doesn’t extend to Americans being exceptional. If you excelled academically and are able to casually use 690 SAT words then you might as well have the press shoot video of you giving the finger to the Statue of Liberty while the Dixie Chicks sing the University of the Taliban fight song. The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it.

 

Ouch! Sorkin sure has a way with words.

[Phi for All]

Ouch! Sorkin sure has a way with words.

That's it, if Obama and Biden don't absolutely slaughter McCain and Palin in the debates, I'm voting for Jed Bartlett.

[iNow]

He's nothing since Leo died.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

This is too funny!

 

Sarah Silverman is one hilarious chick:

 

 

 

<contains adult language>

 

h/t

Edited September 26, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[iNow]

Below is a link to a parody of the Palin/Gibson interview. It's just over 4 minutes long and is pretty funny:

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Am I the only one who thinks that Tina Fey is much hotter than Sarah Palin?

 

http://www.clearspring.com/widgets/4727a250e66f9723?p=48df947ceaa94b97&flv=logoLink

Edited September 28, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

No, you are not! I'm afraid her impressions of Palin haven't been all that well written, though, relying on angry Palin-bashing rather than seeking real comedy. SNL is really off to a weak start this year. There were some good spots in the second episode, but not too many.

[Phi for All]

 

If the SNL producers don't pony up the dough for a propagating prosthetic proboscis for Tina Fey's next sketch, they don't know what funny is. This just cracked me up.