Sarah If You Had A Grave You Would Be Rolling In It! *Wink*

Can't you just see Sarah kicking the dog right now, throwing her shoe across the room, slapping Todd a few times, stomping her feet on the floor while she races to her blackberry to twitter and FB about "stars" that know nothing about politics, just like the lamestream media?~Mem

Hasselbeck supports gay marriage, calls Obama a ‘cool guy’
By Holly Bailey
Aug. 24, 2010

As a co-host of ABC's daytime chatfest "The View," Elisabeth Hasselbeck has long been known as the conservative firebrand of the show, willing to butt heads with her fellow co-hosts on issues including taxes and abortion. But Hasselbeck, who campaigned with Sarah Palin in '08, insists that she's been misunderstood, saying in a recent interview that she regards President Barack Obama as an "incredibly cool guy" and parts company with conservative culture warriors on the charged issues of gay marriage and abortion rights. On the latter front, she says she's "torn"; she offers fairly unequivocal support on the controversial question of same-sex unions.

In an interview with Fancast's Adam Buckman, Hasselbeck insists she's not "ultra-ultra-conservative on every issue." "I actually support gay marriage," she says, an admission that puts her to the left of Obama.

As for abortion, Hasselbeck confirms she believes that life begins at conception but also says she doesn't think the government should tell women what to do with their bodies. "I'm torn there in terms of supporting laws" for or against abortion, she says. "I always say I would rather a change in heart than a law."

Hasselbeck considers herself more of a "federalist" — someone who believes the federal government should leave decisions up to the states — than a "conservative." "Always trying to mandate, mandate, mandate this or that is not the way that I believe the country should be run," she says.

All of this might be news to Hasselbeck's "View" co-hosts, who have sparred with her several times over the years over hot-button social issues.

[Photos: Elisabeth Hasselbeck through the years]

In 2006, she got into a heated argument with her "View" colleagues over her opposition to the Food and Drug Administration's plan to offer the "morning-after pill" over the counter. Using it, she said, was the same thing as "birthing a baby and leaving it out on the street." When her position was called "extreme," Hasselbeck burst into tears, after which co-host Barbara Walters comforted her.

A year later, Hasselbeck got into the first of several fights with then-co-host Rosie O'Donnell, this time over the war in Iraq. O'Donnell, who opposed the war, complained about the huge civilian losses: "655,000 Iraqi civilians dead. Who are the terrorists?" O'Donnell asked. When conservatives criticized her for the question, O'Donnell trashed Hasselbeck for not coming to her defense.

Hasselbeck hasn't gotten along any better with Whoopi Goldberg, who replaced O'Donnell on the show. The two have fought repeatedly over abortion, and in 2008, Hasselbeck burst into tears again on the air, this time after arguing with Goldberg about whether it's appropriate for blacks to use the N-word.

[Photos: President Obama on "The View" with Hasselbeck, Goldberg and other hosts]

Last month, Obama appeared on "The View," during which Hasselbeck challenged the president on why his economic stimulus plan hadn't created more jobs:

Asked in the second part of Fancast's interview about that moment, Hasselbeck recalled "the intensity in his eyes." "He wasn't just answering me, he was sending through me a message to the American people that felt special," she says, admitting she was so nervous beforehand that she went and got a mani-pedi to prepare.

(Photo of Hasselbeck and Palin by Matt Stroshane/Getty Images)

ABC’s Sam Donaldson Tells Obama to Take On Fox News Posted on July 25, 2010 by Jason Easley

Posted on July 25, 2010 by Jason Easley

Today on ABC’s This Week, Sam Donaldson urged President Obama to stand up to and take on Fox News. Donaldson said, “President Obama, don’t be afraid of them. Take them on, and let the people judge.”

Here is the video on the round table discussion on This Week:

While speaking out the Shirley Sherrod story, Sam Donaldson compared racist witch hunts at Fox News to McCarthyism, “But I think, except for her, there’s enough blame to go around for everyone here. The people who maliciously and with intention misrepresented the facts, I mean, I — I believe in the First Amendment. There’s nothing you can do about them, although you wish for Joseph Welch to say as he did to Joe McCarthy when Joe McCarthy was destroying someone on television, have you no decency, at last?”

He also had a message for President Obama, “But from the standpoint of Obama and the administration, who are these people that they should pay attention to and be afraid of? Who’s Glenn Beck? I mean, who’s Bill O’Reilly? Who’s Brett whatever his name is?… I want to quote another president who also said he had enemies, I’m going to — of financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sexism. They are unanimous in their hatred for me, and I welcome their hatred, said Franklin Roosevelt, who said I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made. So, President Obama, don’t be afraid of them. Take them on, and let the people judge. You may lose, but if you lose, you will lose grandly.”

The tactics Fox News has been employing are straight out of the playbook of Sen. Joe McCarthy, and that is not a coincidence. Fox News intentionally targets African Americans who are relatively unknown and easily defined. Much like McCarthy was, they are bullies pick on those who can’t fight back. (Actually very few people have the resources to fight back against a 24/7 cable news network). Donaldson brought up a great point here. If Fox News was an actual news organization, they would not go around inventing baseless scandals and attacks.

On his second point, Donaldson’s advice to Obama concerning Fox News, I agree that there is no reason why this administration should give Fox credibility that they don’t have. If Obama is worried about FNC, he shouldn’t be. Fox News viewers represent a tiny sliver of America. These are also the people who would not support Obama under any circumstances. They can’t be swayed, and their closed minded objections render them irrelevant for political purposes.

I think it would be a mistake for Obama to go after Fox News, because that is what they want. Instead of giving credibility to their attack machine, Obama should ignore them. Fox News needs Obama to engage them. The worst thing that could happen to FNC would be if Obama simply didn’t acknowledge them. The president listened to them once and was made to look like a fool, so let’s hope that his administration has learned something from this embarrassment, and tunes out Fox News.

About Jason Easley-Author Of Post

Jason Easley: Owner/Editor in Chief A lifelong lover of politics, Jason Easley is a little older than some but not as old as others. Jason spent four years as a political columnist and the politics editor at 411mania.com, where he covered such issues as the Iraq War, warrant less wiretapping, and the daily workings of the American legislative process. Jason has also written for the Blogger News Network, and saw his 2008 presidential election coverage quoted in over 300 newspapers worldwide. Jason has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. His graduate work focused on public policy, with a specialization in social reform movements. When Jason is not writing he can be found endlessly courting his girlfriend, and expressing his loyal fandom for the Pittsburgh Penguins.

Palin's Dangerous Saber Rattling On Russia

IIan Goldenberg -Sept. 11, 2008-Huff

Sarah Palin said something very very dangerous today during her interview with Charlie Gibson.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO. Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

There are numerous problems with this statement. The most important element is that it sends a very dangerous and extreme signal to the world -- especially other nuclear powers. This type of dangerous talk reinforces the militaristic saber-rattling of the McCain campaign. From joking about bombing Iran, to talking about invading Iraq, Iran and Syria weeks after 9/11 to the misguided "we are all Georgians now," the McCain campaign is sending all kinds of horrifying signals to the world about the types of wars it would fight. Leaders in other capitals are paying attention and words matter.

Technically, if Georgia and Ukraine were to become part of NATO under Article Five, we would be obligated to protect them and even Obama-Biden support bringing them into NATO. But here's the thing...

No sane American or European leader would ever ever ever give an answer like that. You do not get into hypotheticals about nuclear war. You just don't. Palin references the Cold War. The only reason the Cold War stayed cold is because our leaders understood the stakes of getting things wrong and saying things that could lead to catastrophic nuclear war. During the Cuban Missile Crisis every word, every public statement, and any message that the Kennedy administration sent to the Soviets was checked, double checked, and triple checked to make sure it was sending precisely the right signal. This is what you are forced to do when you have thousands of nuclear weapons and so does your opponent. The stakes are simply too high. And yet there is a nominee for the vice presidency of the United States who may one day have her hand on the button and she is casually talking about potential catastrophic nuclear war.

Barack Obama would never give that answer. Joe Biden would never give that answer. They would say that we don't discuss those types of hypotheticals. That might sound like a cop out, but think of the Palin alternative and what kind of alarm bells that sets off in Moscow. Prescisely the type of alarm bells that could one day lead to mushroom clouds.

Saber rattling matters. Words matter. We've learned that from the past eight years. When George Bush said "With us or against us" it mattered. When he referred to a "crusade" it mattered. When McCain jokes about war with Iran, calls our allies "vaccous and posturing", says that Iraq is building a weapons assembly line for al Qaeda, it matters.

And when Sarah Palin, a first term Governor with no national security experience or expertise, talks about hypothetical nuclear war it really matters. It reflects badly on her and her readiness. It reflects even worse on John McCain who thought that she was qualified to be Commander in Chief.

PITT BULL IS IN THE BACK ROOM SCREAMING?

SARAH PALIN: "YOU IDIOTS! WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE BUSH DOCTRINE?"

TAEGAN GODDARD'S POLITICAL WIRE

Palin on the Bush Doctrine

Gov. Sarah Palin conducted her first interview today with Charlie Gibson of ABC News. The focus was mainly on national security and her experience. The key headline was Palin's assertion that war with Russia may be necessary if Georgia were to join NATO and be invaded by Russia.

However, the key "gotcha moment" is available on video and is also excerpted below:

Gibson: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

Palin: In what respect, Charlie?

Gibson: What do you interpret it to be?

Palin: His worldview?

Gibson: No, the Bush Doctrine. Annunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.

Palin: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism. Terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though, there have been mistakes made. And with new leadership -- and that's the beauty of American elections of course and of democracy -- is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

Gibson: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense. September 11, 2008

Making a mockery of 9/11

Joan Walsh- Friday September 12, 2008 22:13 EDT-SALON

Republicans have tried to make 9/11 their own personal day of mourning and political commemoration. But 9/11/2008 could well be remembered as a low point in GOP history. It's the day we learned beyond any doubt that John McCain put his manhood in a blind trust to win the presidency. By most reports he wanted to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate, but Karl Rove and James Dobson told him he couldn't pick them. So he chose someone who is unprepared to be president, who could well put the country at risk were she ever called to assume the presidency.

The fact that Sarah Palin sat for her humiliating interview with ABC's Charles Gibson on 9/11 is one of those strange serendipitous events that makes one believe there's order in the universe. Remember how 9/11 changed everything, especially our new seriousness about the larger world and foreign policy? Never again would we risk a president, maybe not even a senate candidate, without global experience and sophistication.

What a mockery Palin made of all that. I'll get criticized as sexist for saying this, but I would say the same thing about a man who sounded this ignorant: Talking to Charles Gibson tonight, Palin sometimes reminded me of poor Miss South Carolina, who, asked why many Americans can't find the U.S. on a map, famously said: "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps. And I believe that our education, like, such as in South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere, like such as, and I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., or should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for our children."

This statement from Palin about Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is better, but not hugely: "I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nucular weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes. We have got to make sure these weapons of mass destruction, that nucular weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran."

Alex Koppelman immediately caught the biggest gaffe of the interview: Palin's deer-in-the-headlights ignorance about the "Bush doctrine" that claims for the U.S. the right to unilateral, "preventive" war against nations perceived as fomenting threats against us. Her answer committing us to defend Georgia or the Ukraine against Russia was almost as bad, and the way she spelled out what NATO membership means, by rote, you could see the quickly crammed index cards in the back of her brain. She put Israel in charge of our Iran policy. John McCain should be ashamed of himself. Ashamed, on 9/11, to have picked someone as ignorant and unready to be president as Sarah Palin.

People who like that sort of thing are going to like Palin's interview, a lot. Apparently, there is a constituency of people who want their president to be just like them, who want him or her to be someone they can have a beer with, to be just as clueless and uninformed as they are. But I believe that's a small constituency. I believe that most Americans, most independents, and serious, patriotic conservatives, are going to see this interview and be very, very afraid. Her combative act didn't really work on Gibson; neither did familiarly peppering her sentences with "Charlie." Charlie did not seem charmed.

I think some liberals owe Charles Gibson an apology; he asked decent questions and followed up well; he really couldn't hide some natural human surprise at how poorly prepared – though well-coached – Palin seemed to be. But in fact, it's good luck that liberals savaged Gibson for his treatment of Obama in the Democratic debate last February. It will insulate him a bit from GOP attempts to shoot the messenger, which are inevitable.

-- Joan Walsh

Presidential Debate Moderators Set

PBS will host two of the four debates this presidential cycle, with Jim Lehrer hosting the first Presidential debate and Gwen Ifill hosting the only Vice Presidential debate, it was announced Tuesday. NBC's Tom Brokaw and CBS' Bob Schieffer will host the remaining two Presidential debates.

ABC News is noticeably left without a debate, perhaps a response to what many perceived as a "Gotcha!"-style debate hosted by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos (read HuffPost bloggers' reaction to that debate). *I really was disappointed in Charlie Gibson on that debate because I really do like him but I suppose he did what he was told.-Mem*

Schedule:

Presidential Debates
Jim Lehrer, Sept. 26, at Ole Miss.
Tom Brokaw, Oct. 7, in Nashville
Bob Schieffer, Oct. 15, at Hofstra.

Vice Presidential Debate
Gwen Ifill, Oct. 2, at Wash. U in St. Louis

Full press release below (via):

Paul G. Kirk, Jr. and Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., co-chairmen of the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), today announced the moderators for the 2008 general election presidential and vice presidential debates. The moderators, and the schedule and locations for the debates (as announced on November 21, 2007), are as follows:

First presidential debate
Friday, September 26
The University of Mississippi, Oxford, Miss.
Jim Lehrer
Executive Editor and Anchor, The NewsHour, PBS

Vice presidential debate
Thursday, October 2
Washington University in St. Louis, Mo.
Gwen Ifill
Senior Correspondent, The NewsHour, and Moderator and Managing Editor, Washington Week, PBS

Second presidential debate (town meeting)
Tuesday, October 7
Belmont University, Nashville, Tenn.
Tom Brokaw
Special Correspondent, NBC News

Third presidential debate
Wednesday, October 15
Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.
Bob Schieffer
CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent, and Host, Face the Nation

Each debate will begin at 9:00 p.m. EDT.

Format
The format for the debates, announced on November 21, 2007, will be:

-- Each debate will have a single moderator and last for 90 minutes.
-- In the first and third presidential debates and the vice presidential debate, the candidates will be seated with the moderator at a table.
-- One presidential debate will focus primarily on domestic policy and one presidential debate will focus primarily on foreign policy. The second presidential debate will be held as a town meeting in which citizens will pose questions to the candidates. The vice presidential debate will cover both foreign and domestic topics.
-- During the first and third presidential debates, and the vice presidential debate, the time will be divided into eight, ten-minute segments. The moderator will introduce each segment with an issue on which each candidate will comment, after which the moderator will facilitate further discussion of the issue, including direct exchange between the candidates for the balance of that segment.
-- The participants in the town meeting will pose their questions to the candidates after reviewing their questions with the moderator for the sole purpose of avoiding duplication. The participants will be chosen by the Gallup Organization and will be undecided voters from the Nashville, Tenn. standard metropolitan statistical area. During the town meeting, the moderator has discretion to use questions submitted by Internet.
-- Time at the end of the final presidential debate will be reserved for closing statements.

Participants The CPD 2008 Candidate Selection Criteria, announced on November 21, 2007, will be the exclusive means of determining the candidates to be invited to participate in the debates.

For more information, please visit http://www.debates.org/.