How is this for fast pace–in the space of less than 24 hours, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama transformed himself from the “post-partisan” new age politician he had claimed to be, into a “come out swinging” old time politico, while the Republican party found itself making history with John McCain’s selection of the 44 year old Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

It’s okay to take a breath now….I think?

Omaba used his acceptance speech in Denver before some 80 thousand people to attack John McCain vigorously in a way and manner he had thus far not done during this campaign. He attacked McCain’s support of Bush economic and foreign policies, and he attacked McCain’s implicit suggestion that , because he is a war hero, he is somehow more patriotic than is Obama.

Normally, this well received speech would keep the “experts” talking throughout the weekend. But before 24 hours even passed, McCain shocked just about everyone and turned the media’s attention to him and his newly picked Veep candidate.

If all this can happen in the space of one day, can you imagine what might happen in the time left before election day?

An interesting observation in today’s New York Times about Barack Obama, the now official Democratic Party nominee for President….That he may be the first candidate made for this age of 24/7 news.

In a front page article by Jodi Kantor, the reporter talks about how careful Obama seems to be about just about every move he makes–as if he is aware that the slightest blunder will be amplified to death by the 24/7 cable news channels as well as countless blogs in cyberspace.

“Mr. Obama, 47, is the first presidential candidate to come of age during an era of relentless 24 hour scrutiny,” writes Kanor, who goes on to quote one Congressman as saying, “He (Obama) is more than any other contemporary political figure, a creature of these times.”

Left un-said—whether this is a good or bad thing?

I guess if you want to be elected president you pretty much have to tell people what they want to hear no matter how disingenuous it might be?

Remember all that rhetoric about Barack Obama being the candidate of change; the candidate who wanted to bring fresh voices to Washington?

Joe Biden’s voice will no doubt be fresh…probably because Obama had to wash his mouth out with soap for saying just a year ago that Obama is not yet ready to be president.

No matter. That didn’t stop Obama from picking the senator from Delaware as his running mate.

A judgment call

And then there is a matter of that “judgment” thing….you know? You remember? Obama saying that Hillary Clinton’s judgment was bad because she had initially voted in favor of going to war with Iraq.

Only now, the army boot is on the other foot: Biden, too, initially voted for the war in Iraq, so doesn’t that mean, in Obama’s view, that Biden’s judgment is at least as faulty as Hillary’s? And, since Obama argued that because of her bad judgment, Clinton should not be president, doesn’t it follow that because of his bad judgment, Sen. Biden should not be vice-president and, perhaps, someday, president?

See the problem here?

But Obama is no more about change than any other mainstream politician who runs for the highest office in the land. His top aids, mostly, come with resumes honed while in service to Bill Clinton or even Jimmy Carter. And now, his vice-presidential choice, is the 65 year old chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Clearly, Obama is smart enough to know when he might be in over his head and needs some help.

Now, if he can only level with the American public and admit he is just another politician running for the White House–and does not represent the second coming of Christ !

Of course, by picking the establishment Joe Biden, maybe he already has made his confession?

It’s happening again. Another major newspaper chain announcing dramatic cutbacks in newsroom personnel.

The latest is Gannett, America’s largest publisher of newspapers, including USA Today.

The aim there is to shrink the chain by 1,000 editorial positions–reporters,editors,photographers and such.

The blame, as always of late, is being placed on the loss of advertising revenue which goes hand in hand with loss of circulation.

And,if this were not bad enough, Gannett is saying even more cuts may be needed!!

More cuts???

Newspapers are soon going to run out of people to cut at this rate.

“Georgia is a sovereign nation, and its territorial integrity must be respected,” President George Bush declared Sunday, admonishing Russia for sending convoys of troops to Georgia and clobbering the tiny nation by air.

Well, I was mighty proud of my president for taking time between events at the Summer Olympics in Beijing to weigh in with clarity and resolve on this dangerous conflict that apparently began with Georgia’s attempts to rein in breakaway South Ossetia that is said to favor union with Russia.

The president’s humanitarian words really resonated with me. I was so very happy that he respected Georgia’s status as a “sovereign nation,” and I was cheered by his assertion that its “territorial integrity must be respected.” Thank you for that, Mr. President.

Then I remembered Iraq.

It is amazing listening to the television “experts” and pundits as they pontificate on the morals–or lack thereof–of former presidential candidate John Edwards who now admits he did have an affair after repeatedly lying and insisting that he had not.

Let’s see:

Are they surprised that a politician would lie? These alleged experts can’t be that dumb? Can they?

Are they shocked that a politician would have an affair? Haven’t they ever seen French cinema?

Are they astonished that a politician would run for president while messing around with another woman? Haven’t they heard of Bill Clinton who actually did it in the Oval Office of all places?

Sex Scandal?

An Associated Press report refers to this as a “sex scandal”–but, is it, really? I mean, it’s not as if Edwards had sex with a goat or buffalo. That, I would admit, would qualify as a sex scandal.

But, a grown man, a good looking and powerful and rich one at that, having sex with a woman other than his wife, in the 21t century, is hardly a sex scandal. Jesus, in France or Italy, it is a sex scandal if a politician is not having an affair.

If Americans keep gunning for every politician who is cheating on his or her spouse, there wouldn’t be a politician left in Washington or anywhere else. Now, one might argue this would be a good thing, but someone has got to pass all those bills spending our tax money.

Many American presidents–including some of the finest –had affairs before, during and sometimes after leaving office. Many historical figures–kings, queens, generals, dictators, emperors–had affairs and the world did not fall apart.

Some of the media frenzy on the Edwards story is because the 24/7 cable outlets, not to mention countless blogs, have to fill time and space with something, and why not with Edwards?

The sad thing is, Edwards had some pretty good political ideas and the energy to probably make a good leader. But Americans don’t want to elect a politician to the White House, they want to elect the Pope!

Of course, Americans also have a fairly short attention span–the result, no doubt, of years of television watching combined with blog “reading.” So, the NEW Edwards is probably just around the corner.

Who knows, he may yet be president someday. I mean, we already know he has at least one talent that seems useful in the Oval Office!

Just as many in the blogosphere crow about liberating us from an oppressive dictatorship of experts–a loopy concept that we mention prominently in our book–a school system in Conroe, Tex. may soon free its students from the crushing burden of insightful literature.  

Following objections from a student and her God-fearing, Bible-thumping parent, it is considering banning Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451“–about a futuristic society that torches all books as a means of thought control–from a classroom reading list. Although the novel is widely regarded as a classic, the daughter and father found some of its language and other parts blasphemous.

Ban a book that warns of the evils of book banning?  That would be hilarious if it weren’t so scary.

The ABC News investigative reporter whose 2001 anthrax stories are generating controversy now over whether he and the network were badly manipulated by unnamed “sources” into drawing a link between Iraq and anthrax mailed to several Americans (we now know–and have for some time, that Iraq played no role in this domestic attack) has given an interview to the blog TVNewser.

See previous post for background on story.

In the interview with TVNewser, Brian Ross explains–to some degree–how he reported this story years back and how certain key information turned out to be wrong. But in my view, he doesn’t really respond to a series of important questions being asked now by several prominent journalists and academics.

They have called upon ABC to reveal the sources for the story, making the argument that once sources lie to a reporter, the reporter no longer has an obligation to shield their identity.

Bloggasm’s Simon Owens interviewed some of those who are calling for a fuller explanation from ABC News. He was kind enough to send me a link to his posting.

Was ABC News manipulated in 2001 to advance the Bush administration’s now well reported hunger to invade Iraq even though it had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington?  Questions are increasingly being raised now about ABC’s reporting of the anthrax attacks in 2001now that the U.S. government scientist who was reportedly the Fed’s key suspect apparently committed suicide last week before the FBI could move in.

Back in 2001, ABC News, in a series of reports, quoted several “sources” who effectively linked the anthrax that had been mailed to several well known and less known people in the U.S., to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

Does ABC News Have Blood On Its Hands?

The protracted Iraqi war has now claimed the lives of more than four thousand U.S. soldiers, an unknown number of Iraqis and seriously wounded tens of thousands of U.S. troops. So, it is vital that ABC News tells the American public how it came by its anthrax stories to see just who it was who manipulated the network and for what purpose?

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, who has been covering this story for some time, raised many questions in a posting a few days ago—and again today.

Academic journalist Jay Rosen amplified them on his own blog–as did journalist Dan Gillmor on his.

The postings point out that ABC News need not protect “sources” who lied.

Here are three key questions for ABC News that Rosen ,Gillmor and others are asking ABC to respond to:

1. Sources who are granted confidentiality give up their rights when they lie or mislead the reporter. Were you lied to or misled by your sources when you reported several times in 2001 that anthrax found in domestic attacks came from Iraq or showed signs of Iraqi involvement?

2.It now appears that the attacks were of domestic origin and the anthrax came from within U.S. government facilities. This leads us to ask you: who were the “four well-placed and separate sources” who falsely told ABC News that tests conducted at Fort Detrick showed bentonite in the anthrax sent to Sen. Tom Daschle, causing ABC News to connect the attacks ti Iraq in multiple reports over a five day period in October, 2001?

3.A substantially false story that helps make the case for war by raising fears about enemies abroad attacking the United States is released into public debate because of faulty reporting by ABC News. How that happened and who was responsible is itself a major story of public interest. What is ABC News doing to re-report these events, to figure out what went wrong and to correct the record for the American people who were misled?

As I said, these are some key questions being raised by Rosen, Gillmor and others. They seem to me to be fair and they also seem to me to be deserving of serious answers from ABC News!

Democrats and Republicans will not launch their national conventions until Aug. 25 and Sept. 1 respectively. But the media’s plank watch has already begun.

The misplaced emphasis  on planks in the parties’ platforms, that is.

For example, the Los Angeles Times reported Aug. 1 that some of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s supporters are demanding that the Democrats’ new platform say that the 2008 primary elections and party caucuses “exposed gender bias in the media.”  They call on party leaders to take “immediate and public steps” to condemn such behavior in the future.

Count on TV newsers–especially cable’s 24-hour crowd–to latch on this as a major issue, something that they can inflate far, far out of proportion to it its true news value–about zero.

Firstly, even if there was gender bias, the statement attributes it to “the media,” which implies that “the media” are a monolith, a single unit that acts one. That’s ridiculous. But more to the point, who cares about planks in party platforms–who outside of those in the media who make it a big deal every four years, as if the presidential election will hinge on them?

Does anyone ever go back and read planks in past party platforms? All right, smartypants readers, can you–any of you–recall a single plank in the 2004 platforms of either party?

2000?

1996?

Uh huh. I didn’t think so.