The Media: "Clinton Supporters Will All Support Obama"

The media could learn something from theoretical physics.

There's a joke I've heard (in nerdy scientific circles) that goes something like this:

Questioner: "How much water is displaced when a cow is placed in a tank of water?"

Theoretical Physicist: "Well, first let's assume the cow is spherical..."

Mention the "spherical cow" to any scientists and they'll know what you are talking about. It references the attempt to over-simplify something real and complex into something that can be defined with nice well-known formulas.

I thought of this listening to several commentators on the Sunday morning talk shows, talking about how crazy it is to think that Clinton supporters will move to support McCain now that he's picked Palin as the VP. I won't bother to even link to any of them. Just listen to any of the shows and you'll hear something like this:

Moderator: "McCain clearly hopes to gain the support of some former Clinton supporters by this pick. Will that happen?"

Pundit: "Come on, that is insulting to women. Palin does not share Clinton's view on the issues. On abortion, she is pro-life."

In making this argument, the pundit is using a "spherical Clinton supporter". For one thing, he is assuming all Clinton supporters agreed with Clinton on all of the issues. This is obviously an over-simplification. People support candidates for all sorts of reasons (including experience, for example), and rarely does a citizen find a candidate which which she agrees 100%. So, while it's true that Palin disagrees with Hillary on most issues, she could still be appealing to some former Clinton supporters who were more moderate than Hillary. Hillary did well with Catholics in Pennsylvania, at least some of which I assume are pro-life, although maybe not passionately so. (Apparently questions on abortion aren't included in the democratic exit-polls, so it's impossible to know for sure, but I think it's safe to assume that not 100% of democrats are pro-choice).

Secondly, using the abortion is as the obligatory example is deceptive. Abortion, compared to other issues, is mostly black and white. Either you are pro-life or you are pro-choice. Sure, there's some gray area (late term abortion, for example), but in comparison to issues such as the economy or national security, there is not much nuance. But on issues other than abortion, there is more room for nuance. For example, Clinton wanted to tax the oil companies. Palin also supported that in her state. Sure, their overall positions on energy are very different, but it can't be characterized as completely opposing because the issue cannot be represented as a line. It is a mult-dimensional issue. Furthermore, abortion isn't really a hot issue this election cycle.

Lastly, some people supported Hillary because they felt she was the most experience candidate and strong on national security. For those people, McCain might be the second choice rather than Hillary. This point is made well here.

Of course no one is predicting that massive throngs of Hillary supporters will flock to McCain because of the Palin pick. That would indeed be insulting to women to suggest. But some minority will move to McCain, either because they like McCain (perhaps because of his experience) or else because of Palin. And in a close election, that could make the difference.

Obama/Associated Press: "Palin is Inexperienced"

Obama, reacting to the choice of Palin for McCain's vice presidential nominee:

Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.

The thing that bothers me the most about this quote is that is completely skips the part about her being governor. Yes, it was only for a year and a half, but it is a year and half more than Obama's leadership experience. It seems, if Obama was attempting to be honest, he should have a least said, "Today, John McCain put the first-term governor of a small state with zero..." I would have given him credit for that, at least. But as the quote stands, it is deceptive.

The "heartbeat" part was a nice touch as well.

Apart from that, there has been much buzz about the comparison between the experience of Obama and Palin. Here's my comparison:

Obama's got:
* Being a senator for 3 years (when he started running)
* More time in state government

Palin's got:
* 1 1/2 years as a governor (which the AP sees as equivalent to being a state senator, apparently)
* Being a mayor (which was not mentioned in the final comparison in the AP article)

In short, Obama might have more time in legislative positions, but Palin has more time in executive positions. So at worst for Palin it's a wash. To say that "Palin has scant experience. She makes Barack Obama look like a seasoned veteran" is a stretch.

And, let's not forget that Palin is the #2. Obama is the #1. There is a difference.

Wrong Rating: 2 out of 4 (misrepresentation)

Palin: "Let's Shatter the Glass Ceiling"

Like most of America, I was shocked to hear that McCain had picked Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his vice presidential nominee. I had pretty much assumed it was going to be Romney. I wondered, as many probably did, if it was just because she was a woman. Then, as I listened to her speech she seemed to me like a good pick. She has a good story rising up in the ranks of politics, fighting curruption on the way. She has a good looking family, with hard-working roots it appears. I was beginning to think maybe she really was the best one for the job. And then she said this:

It was rightly noted in the Denver this week that Hillary left 18,000,000 cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But, it turns out that the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

So it is (at least somewhat) because she is a woman after all. If I were a woman, I'd find that offensive. I didn't like it when Hillary said in the same breath that her supporters were behind her for her policies and experience, but also wouldn't it be great to have a woman as president? And I don't like it now from Governor Palin.

Some people think having a black president once and for all will prove that America is no longer racist. Some people think having a woman president will prove we are not sexist. I disagree. I think that we will show we are not racist or sexist when a black man or a woman can lose without us blaming his race or gender. When we can have women in politics and not talk about the fact that they are women, then we will have shown that we have moved passed sexism.

While I disagree with the motive, politically I think this was a wise move for McCain. I'm a realist, and so I recognize that some portion (not a majority) of Clinton supporters were supporter her at least partially because she was a woman. Call me sexist for saying it, but that's what I think. And some of those women will feel inclined to switch now, because they never were in love with Hillary's policies anyway. It also refutes the argument Hillary made this week that the Democrats are decades ahead of the Republicans on acceptance of blacks and women in politics. But while politically wise, McCain and Palin are wrong to continue the "vote for me--I'm a woman" rhetoric.

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)

Obama: "I'm the Uniter"

Obama, in his well-delivered speech, want's America to know that he represents the death of the politics of the past:

For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us — that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it — because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

I'd love nothing more than if it were true.

Obama loves to point out, as he did again tonight, that McCain votes with Bush 90% of the time. This is a deceptive statistic, and it's time I called him out on it. What is not stated, and what most Americans probably don't realize, is that many votes that take place are bi-partisan. They don't get the coverage as the really divisive issues, but yes, there are some things the bluest Democrat and the reddest Republican agree on.

Here's the proof. If you asked the average American how often Obama agrees with Bush, what do you think they'd say? On average, I'd bet the number would be pretty low. The facts are that Obama agrees with Bush 40% of the time.

Of course it's no shock that McCain agrees with Bush more often than Obama. The point here though is that Obama claims to be the face of the "new politics." So the stat that is most interesting to me is that Obama agrees with the Democratic position about 97% of the time.

Of course if you agree with 100% of the Democratic position, that's not a bad thing for you. The only reason McCain's perceived partisanship is a problem is because Bush is not popular. But no matter what your political persuasion, these numbers prove that both of these men are part of the old partisan politics.

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)

Bill Clinton: "Inexperienced? Sounds Familiar"

Bill Clinton, reminiscing on the good ol' days when Republicans were criticizing his lack of experience:



On cue, CNN promptly put up on the screen this (irrelevant?) fact, which was cut from the youtube video:

Fact: Clinton is one of 12 pres. nominees who were younger than 47-year-old Obama; he was 45 in 1992.

Silly Republicans. Obama isn't that young, so all this talk of lack of experience is just spin, right? Wrong. Experience is more than just age. Bill Clinton had been a governor for a decade before he was president, and attorney general before that. Obama's experience in government leadership does not compare to that.

Obama's lack of experience was no more evident than when Biden was touting Obama's qualifications later in the evening: his work as a community organizer on Chicago's south side. True, the choice to help others rather than pursue loftier careers is admirable, but there are lots of Americans who have done admirable things. (serving in the military, for example). That alone doesn't prove he's ready to be president.

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)

Hillary; "I Do Not Approve That Message"

Hillary Clinton reiterated her support of Barack Obama tonight. As she's done before, she went through the key issues to show that Obama's positions are very close to her positions.

Since Clinton dropped out of the primary, Democrats and pundits have argued that Clinton supporters would surely rally behind Barack Obama since he agrees with Hillary on the issues much more than McCain. Some have even argued that former Hillary supporters that now support McCain must be racist. But that begs the question: If Hillary's positions were so close to Baracks, why were they both running? Why didn't Hillary drop out when it was clear she was going to lose, if Barack would have been just as good?

They might have been close on the issues, but the issues are not all the matters. Experience also matters. Indeed, Clinton made that a focus of her primary campaign, pointing out how much more experienced she was than Obama. The Republican National Committee has now come out with an ad using her own words against Obama:



In response, Hillary wisecracked, "I do not approve that message."

What part doesn't she approve of? She did say it, didn't she? It is this type of two-faced politics that this blog was created to spotlight. Political pundits might give her a free pass, but you won't get one from me for saying something just because it was politically advantageous at the time. If you said Obama was not experienced enough for the job, stand by it or you're part of what's wrong with this country.

And shame on the media for making excuses for her ("Oh, she ran a tough primary campaign? That's politics."). A lie is a lie.

Wrong Rating: 2 out or 4 (misrepresentation)

McCain: "Obama's Freudian Slip Makes Him Unqualified"

McCain issued this statement a few days ago:

"Barack Obama sounded as though he turned over the top spot on the ticket today to his new mentor, when he introduced Joe Biden as the next president. The reality is that nothing has changed since Joe Biden first made his assessment that Barack Obama is not ready to lead. He wasn't ready then and he isn't ready now."

Background On Barack Obama's Freudian Slip

Barack Obama: "So let me introduce to you the next President -- the next Vice President of United States of America, Joe Biden!" (Barack Obama, Remarks, Springfield, IL, 8/23/08)

Ok, so I get the argument that perhaps he picked Joe Biden to be his "mentor," but relating that to this "freudian slip" seems like a stretch to me. I've been critical of the "misspeaking" defense before, but come on, everyone slips up now and then.

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)

Pelosi: "Natural Gas is a Transition Fuel"

Pelosi on Meet the Press:

Well, the fact of the matter is--and the president knows this--is that if you drill offshore today, you won't have any impact at the price at the pump for 10 years, and then, it's 2 cents. We can move much quickly by releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve and having an impact at the pump in 10 days, in 10 days.

Her first point is debatable. Expectation of future supply does play a role in the market today. As for her second point, tapping our oil reserve is hardly a sustainable long-term strategy.

So why is--this is the oil company position, to drill offshore without any comprehensive approach to other aspects of it.

I'm not particularly interested in what the oil company position is, but as far as Republicans go, I've already argued this is a straw-man.

You can have a transition with natural gas. You can have a transition with natural gas. That, that is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels. So, so there is a way to transition this instead of doing more of the same.

How long will it take to retrofit existing gas stations to serve up natural gas? How many cars today can run on natural gas? Even if car makers started making natural gas based cars today, how long would it be until those new vehicles start trickling down to poor Americans? In the meantime, how much will those poor Americans be paying to fill up their old gasoline-fueled vehicles?

Wrong Rating: 3 out of 4 (gross distortion)

Obama: "McCain's Not One of Us"

McCain made a double-gaff this week. First, he jokingly says that a 5 million dollar income is rich. And then he forgot how many houses he owns (I can just hear his campaign staff smacking their foreheads). Now, Obama would be politically negligent not to jump all over these comments, but I'm not going to give him a pass just because he's doing what any other politician would do. After all, he's supposed to represent the new politics, remember?



For one thing, the 5 million thing was clearly a joke. He picked a high number to make the point that it doesn't matter (he has a bad habit of doing this), since he's not going to raise taxes on anyone.

Secondly, while I admit that not knowing how many houses you own is certainly strange, owning a lot of houses means nothing. Do you think there aren't plenty of Democrats that have a lot of assets? I seem to remember one primary contender that I think has been in the news lately.

But while jumping all over McCain's gaffs, Obama made a mini-gaff of his own. Just after this clip ends, Obama reportedly said:

But if you’re like me, and you got one house, or you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don’t lose their home, you might have a different perspective.

Like you? Oh yes, those millions of Americans with 1.65 million dollar homes.

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)

(p.s. I wonder if McCain's perceived stumbling on this issue will make him less likely to pick Romney as the V.P.)

Obama: "McCain Gives Oil Companies Tax Giveaways"

Obama has release this campaign commercial:



McCain does indeed want to lower the corporate tax rate for corporations (all of them, not just the big ones). You know, the same corporations the employ most of us. Yeah, they're evil. They should be taxed out of existence. You know how they're all raking in the cash in this great economy of ours.

And, contrary to what this ad implies and what the Obama campaign has been saying forever, McCain has no specific plan for lowering taxes on oil companies. The tax savings Obama sites for oil companies is simply the result of lowering the overall corporate tax rate. But if you believe Obama, you'd think McCain wanted to specifically lower the taxes on oil companies, which is not true.

The Associated Press actually has a good article outlining the issues involved:

McCain does call for a reduction in corporate taxes, from 35 percent now to 25 percent after 2014. But at least one Obama economic adviser has indicated that Obama himself might be open to a lower corporate tax rate — though not as low as McCain has recommended.

In an interview with Forbes.com last month, Jason Furman, Obama's director of economic policy, said: "He would like to cut the corporate tax rate, and it's a question that we're studying." In June, Obama also told The Wall Street Journal he might support a cut in corporate taxes. Still, Obama's economic plan aims the largest cuts toward lower-income taxpayers while McCain would give the largest tax cuts to high-income taxpayers.

The $4 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies is simply part of McCain's overall corporate tax reduction plan and does not represent an additional tax benefit. In other words, the corporate tax reduction applies to all corporations, oil companies included. Both Obama and McCain have proposed eliminating oil and gas tax loopholes.

Interesting, so Obama would also be in favor of reducing taxes on the "big corporations?" Of course I'm sure he'd find a way to exclude oil companies. We simply can't have companies being too successful in the United States. His plan would probably make companies with a high profit margin pay more taxes. Oh wait, that wouldn't work, since the profit margin of the oil companies is actually lower than many other industries.

And, according to the AP, both Obama and McCain have proposed eliminating the oil and gas tax loopholes.

Wrong Rating: 3 out of 4 (gross distortion)

McCain: "I'm Not Questioning His Patriotism"

McCain, responding to Obama's remarks responding to McCain's claims that Obama would rather lose the war than lose an election:



How do you say that someone would rather lose the war than lose an election, and then say that you aren't questioning his patriotism? McCain wants to have it both ways. He wants to attack Obama using inflammatory claims, but paint himself as above the fray at the same time. I'm not buying it.

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)

McCain: "Now Is The Time to Drill"

McCain, visiting an oil platform (and visibly sea-sick?), said:

"Americans across our country are hurting, as we all know, because of the cost of energy. Gas prices are through the roof. Energy costs have seeped into our grocery bills, making it more expensive to feed our families. Now as we prepare for the winter, it's time for us to be more serious about our home heating oil needs. ... And that means we need to start drilling offshore, at advanced oil rigs like this one."

Umm... winter comes every year. When was it time to become more serious about offshore drilling? I don't know, maybe 10 years ago, when McCain opposed it?

More from the oil platform:

"Our nation is sending $700 billion overseas every year to countries that don't like us very much. When I'm president that's going to stop. We're going to achieve energy independence, and we're going to do it by using every resource at our disposal to get the job done, including new offshore drilling."

I think the term "flip-flop" is thrown around way too much these days. People should be allowed to change their mind when the situation changes. In fact, this is how McCain has defended his change of heart. He claims his new position is based on two facts:

1) The cost of gas has increased, which is an immediate hardship on American families, and the cost is likely to continue increasing.

2) We are sending $700 billion overseas to "countries that don't like us very much." That money should be staying here.

I agree with both of those points. The problem, though, is that those facts aren't really different than they were 10 years ago. Did anyone seriously think that oil prices weren't going to increase? Did anyone seriously think that there wasn't going to be more demand, forcing us to import more oil from foreign countries? These realities are not new. McCain should have recognized them 10 years ago, and advocated more drilling then. So I don't let McCain off the hook with the "I change my mind when the facts on the ground change" excuse. This seems like a classic example of "lack of judgment" if I ever saw one. Of course, the democrats claiming, "it won't help for 10 years" isn't any better, considering they opposed it 10 years ago too!

Wrong Rating: 2 out of 4 (misrepresentation)

Obama: "See, I Was Right All Along"

Obama at the Veterans of Foreign Affairs convention:



A couple of things here:

1) McCain disagreed with the "low footprint" strategy from the beginning, and advocated for more troops long before Bush agreed with him. So yes, Obama, the success of the surge does vindicate him. Before the surge, we were in a lot of trouble. After the surge, things got better. That proves he was right. Just like Obama never got to see "what would have happened" had we withdrawn instead of surged, we also don't know how much better this situation could have been had we followed McCain's advice from the beginning.

2) Obama continues to support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and has been strengthening his position by claiming that others are now supporting it, even, to some extent, McCain and Bush (who refers to this as a "time horizon"). He artistically paints the picture that he was years ahead on this issue, and now the rest of the world is catching up, and proving he was right. Let me illustrate how this is wrong with a little story:

Dr. Smith is discussing the condition of his patient, Mrs. Jones, with his colleague, Dr. Roberts.

Dr. Roberts: "She is very sick, and everything you are doing seems to be just making things worse. You should just discharge her as soon as possible. She would be better off out of this hospital."

Dr. Smith: "No, I think we need to treat her more aggressively. I'm going to do a surgical procedure. It is risky, but I think it will work and if we don't do it, she will die. I have a responsibility to try to help her."

The two doctors argue for a while, but since Mrs. Jones is Dr. Smith's patient, he eventually wins. The surgery will be performed.

A week after the surgery, Mrs. Smith is doing much better, although not completely healed. Dr. Smith and Dr. Roberts meet again:

Dr. Smith: "Mrs. Jones is doing much better. I think we can discharge her soon with a clean bill of health."

Dr. Roberts: "I'm glad you are coming around to my way of thinking. I thought we should do that a long time ago."

Perhaps this is a silly story, but it illustrates how I view the debate over timetables in Iraq. Being "ahead of your time" is not always a good thing, Mr. Obama. If you argue that we should get out of Iraq, then it is only a matter of time before you will be right, of course, just as if you were to argue that it is cold outside.

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)

McCain: "Let Them Hire Who They Want"

When asked whether he would allow faith-based initiatives funded by the government to hire only those who agreed with their faith, McCain said that he would:



But his entire answer was largely just a pep-rally for faith-based initiatives, rather than a real discussion of the nuanced issue that was asked. Pastor Warren, sufficiently satisfied to be pandered to, didn't press the issue either. McCain's answer was sufficiently vague as to make some wonder if he had not heard the last part of the pastor's question regarding federal funds, but indeed he did. In fact, McCain's position on the matter is clearly outlined on his website.

This position is usually defended by the assertion that faith-based initiatives should have the "right to hire who they want". That seems like shaky ground to me. Do we really want to promote as a societal ideal that employers can hire whoever they want, for whatever reason they choose? As with all employers, candidates for a position should be evaluated on their ability to do the job. Of course, a youth pastor would not be a very good pastor if he or she disagreed with the teachings of the church. But, it makes no difference if a contractor hired to help cleanup after a natural disaster is Christian, Jewish, gay, straight, black, or white. If he can do the job, he should not be discriminated against.

On this issue, Obama was right to say that the details matter in these situations. It is the kind of nuanced position that Obama has mastered. Normally, nuanced positions don't score you many points in politics. But in this case he is right.

I am a religious person. The religion I belong to made a decision not to accept any government money for any of its charitable initiatives, to avoid any chance of the government meddling in its affairs. I agree with that position, and although I don't question how much good faith based initiatives can do, I question the premise of funding them with government money in the first place. If there is not enough faith from the people in the pews to find a way to fund the initiative the old-fashioned way, then should it really be called "faith-based?"

However, if faith-based programs are to be funded with tax-payer money, it seems more than reasonable to require them to follow the same rules as any other employer with regard to that program.

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)

Democrats: "Bush to Blame for Georgia"

You can tell when the democrats feel that they are losing on a particular issue when they resort to their old stand-by: "Blame Bush"

The link features Senator Daschle, but I heard the same line at least three times on various shows today. The line goes somethings like this:

"We've been focused too much on Iraq and not enough on these other issues. Obama would have focused on them and possibly prevented the invasion of Georgia."

This line might work for Americans who are hearing about the Georgia/Russia issue for the first time. Since they haven't heard of it before, it's easy to assume it must be new to the Bush administration as well. But of course the Bush administration has been involved in this situation, and doing the very diplomacy that Obama says he would have done. Additionally, McCain has talked consistently about this issue, so even if the Bush administration has been negligent, clearly McCain has not. Finally, this might be a good time to point out that the democrats have controlled congress for the past 1 1/2 years. What exactly have they done to prevent this?

Oh, but I ask too many questions. I forgot the talking points. If Obama was president, this never would have happened, and neither would have 9/11, hurricane Katrina, or the housing bubble.

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)

McCain: "The Taxman Cometh"

McCain released the latest in his series of celebrity ads (they must be working for him to keep making them):



This of course is not the first time that Republicans have made this claim. I did some research and it seems pretty clear to me that the tax increases Obama is proposing apply only to those making over 250 thousand dollars a year. He has even said that the proposed capital gains tax increase would only apply to those making over $250,000. Taxes is of course a complicated issue, so if the McCain camp has an explanation for how exactly Obama would raise taxes on the middle class, I'd like to hear it. However, I can find no such details. So to claim that "Obama's new taxes could break your family budget" seems misleading, unless of course McCain assumes most families make over $250,000.

With that said, I would not call this an outright lie. Here are some possible ways to salvage this message:

1) There is an argument to be made that increasing taxes on the rich will be harmful to the economy. That's a valid point to make, but this ad clearly is not taking that angle. It clearly implies that Obama will increase taxes on average Americans, not that the taxes will hurt average Americans indirectly.

2) Another possible saving grace for this ad is if one argues that Obama's past voting record indicates that he would raise taxes, despite what Obama might be saying now. That is another good point, but again this ad does not make that argument. It could have said, "Obama has voted for higher taxes" rather than making it appear as if Obama has promised he will raise taxes, which the phrase "Obama's new taxes" clearly implies.

3) Finally, it can also be argued that Obama's proposed increases in spending will necessitate higher taxes, regardless of what he might promise now. Again, that is a valid point. The problem, however, is that McCain has promised to eliminate the deficit in four years. He claims to be able to do that simply by curbing wasteful spending without tax increases, but that seems like a pipe dream to me. So if McCain doesn't have a solid plan to balance the budget, then he can't criticize Obama's tax plan for not being fiscally balanced either.

As if I need another reason to call him out, the memory of McCain scolding Romney for running a negative primary campaign makes these ads all the more bitter to the taste.

Wrong Rating: 2 out of 4 (misrepresentation)

McCain: "Countries Don't Just Invade Other Countries"

I recognize that each of us at times mis-articulates his position. "Mispeaking" is a fact of life, although the term is often abused and sometimes just means, "I said something I wish I didn't."

So, I try not to be too hard on politicians when they say one thing a little wrong, if I understand what they were trying to say based on other things they've said. I think sometimes we get carried away in the little things that trivialize the political debate. But with that said, I couldn't let this one slip by, as to my subjective ears, it seems this might be bordering on crossing from just "mispeaking" to "wrong". Decide for yourself:



Regardless of your opinion on the war on Iraq, you have to admit that sounds at least a bit hypocritical.

I'm sure he meant "Countries don't just invade other countries... unless they really want to."

Wrong Rating: 1 of out 4 (spin)

The Associated Press: "Most Troops Support Obama"

The associated press says:

Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said Thursday.

That's pretty remarkable. I don't know if more troops support Obama or McCain (how much they give is just one piece of the puzzle), but 6 times more? Wow. But they leave it until the last line or the article, after wallowing in wonder over the astonishing number, to explain the details:

Among soldiers serving overseas at the time of their donations, 134 gave a total of $60,642 to Obama while 26 gave a total of $10,665 to McCain.

So, apparently we can extrapolate the political leanings of the entire military force oversees based on the contributions of 160 people. I'll wait to see an actual legitimate poll, thank you. The McCain campaign was right to say,

We feel confident that many U.S. troops stationed overseas will support John McCain in the election this fall, but we suspect most are too busy doing the important work of defending this country than to make political contributions.

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)

Pelosi: "Republicans Just Want to Drill"

Nancy Pelosi says that the problem with the Republican position is that they want to vote on drilling as a single measure. She says if they would present it as part of a comprehensive energy plan, she would allow a vote.



The problem with that is that Democrats said they would not allow an amendment to the energy bill they introduced, which would, in affect, have caused the bill to become a comprehensive bill that included drilling, which Pelosi now says would be acceptable. Huh?

Democrats love to argue that "we can't drill our way out of this problem." In doing so they set up a straw-man, and frankly I'm confused why the Republicans won't call them on it. It's true that drilling alone won't solve the problem. But the same argument can be made for every other energy source. That's why we need a comprehensive plan that includes every viable energy source. The Democrats pride themselves on championing such a plan, but the truth is that the Republican plan is actually more comprehensive, since it includes everything in the democratic plan, plus oil and nuclear energy.

Wrong Rating: 2 out of 4 (misrepresentation) -- Would have been higher except that Republicans don't seem eager to clear up the confusion.

McCain: "Obama's Energy Plan is Tire Pressure"

McCain, mocking Obama's comment that properly inflating tires would save as much oil as drilling would produce:



To suggest that properly inflating tires is Obama's entire energy plan (or even a significant part of it) goes beyond exaggeration to an outright lie.

Wrong Rating: 3 out of 4 (gross distortion)

Obama: "Fill Up Your Tires"

Obama on inflating your tires:



Even if this is true, the idea that every single American with low tire pressure is going to go and fill up their tires just because the president says they should is crazy. He may be right, but if it never happens then the oil is not saved. And in any case, why does this mean we can't drill? If we can save just as much oil by filling up are tires as we can by drilling, then why not do both and save oil while producing more at the same time? Why do we need to choose between the two?

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin) -- I gave him some credit that what he's saying might technically be true, although irrelevant to the drilling debate.