Peterike – When Nine claimed foul re the editing of Palin, I went back to check if ABC had cut her statement down. Doubted that but if someone calls you…The transcript confirmed what I recalled. There was no editing of her first short and blank response to Gibson’s ask for “insight.” She left that line about being able to SEE Russia out there hanging. Gibson had to follow up. And her second shot wasn’t much better (as I detailed in my post above). I suppose you could argue the editing underscored the lameness of Palin’s repsonse – rather than thinking (as I suggested) that Gib did P a favor. But her line was not clipped unfairly – You got (and I gave) the Full Monty. It stuck out to anyone unenthralled by her persona/celebrity. (Tina Fay obviously noticed.) So…

How the hell can you tell yourself I’m a “fraud/phony”? Facts are facts. AClubbers tend to reach for the invective when you got no bullets. As I mentioned above – this is getting ridiculous. A couple threads back, somebody assured WADE – after I invoked the Kilkenny letter (avec caveats) – that Fact Check had debunked that letter. So I check Fack Check. Turns out they say explicity they had NOT debunked Kilkenny’s claims.

WADE – I go right and left in search of info. Maybe you should too. Andrew Sullivan just slammed O (rightly) for two less than truthful ads. But, man, just check Sully’s fact-checking on Palin’s expert howlers – Dig that one on Alaska producing 20% of America’s energy? She be BULLshitting on the regular!! Even AFTER her lies are exposed.

Here’s a column by a conservative columnist in Alaska re the investigation – mebbe there’s back-story here (guy could be a Stevens partisan or somebody with personal ax to grind) but Palin’s serial explanations for the firing of the State Policer does not inspire confidence…

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/528420.html

Re – Global warming – you seem to be avoiding MY point there. I pointed to here anything-but-straight talk on the subject – Could you evenk make out what she was trying to say? Another sign of an impulse to prevaricate, no?

Re O’s resume – Glad you invoked that bill re taping confessoins that (you and me both would) agree was a more significant achievement than graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School. Still – that last one isn’t NOTHING (along with the little add-on of being the Editor of the Law Review). Here’s some passages from an old National Review piece by Dean Barrett. Bit of a twit – Big Mitt man – and not much of a prophet – wondered in the same piece why O was getting no traction in the Dem primaries…But his reporting here is to the point, especially since some fools here have been pretending that O’s H-years were all about Affirmative Action (If so, his achievements make a STRONG case for race-based preferences!!!) Here’s Barrett from last year in the NR:

“The only reason I bring this barely relevant history up is to show what a stud of a law student Barack Obama was. He graduated Harvard magna cum laude. This was one honor you unquestionably had to earn. It’s a very impressive feat. Back in Obama’s days at Harvard, more than 50 percent of the class graduated cum laude, a fact that made graduating “with honors” a meaningless accomplishment. But graduating magna was a different kettle of fish. Barack Obama graduated right near the top of his law school class.

That fact, along with his presidency of the Law Review, makes his uniform popularity all the more impressive. Law schools are intensely competitive places. People who thrive to an unseemly extent, as Obama did, are usually subject to an array of resentments. After all, the lawyers of tomorrow populate law schools; pettiness and insecurity reign supreme.

The people that Obama so thoroughly charmed generally weren’t the charm-prone types. I say the following as a well known Republican partisan–the fact that his classmates so universally held him in the highest regard suggests that Barack Obama may truly be a special person.”

MURPH the SURF – I’m a leg man too!