Hey, remember a little while ago when there was a big hullabaloo about Sarah Palin being unaware that Africa was a continent, or not being able to name the three countries in NAFTA? How it all came from a McCain insider who later publicly admitted it on his blog?

Well, funny story (as the updated post indicates). It turns out that was all crap, the insider was a character invented by a pair of hoaxsters, and the media all fell for it.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

He had a blog, a page for the fake institute he was a fellow of, and YouTube videos. Not a bad ruse.

However, it’s odd that the McCain camp didn’t pipe up and point out that they had no idea who this guy was. You’d think even the anti-Palin brigade would have shot the story down fairly early on. Unless the team was just that disorganized that a guy with a fake name could claim he was part of the inner circle and no one was confident enough to say otherwise.

Not to mention, what does that say of Sarah Palin? It’s bad enough when someone leaks a bogus story like “Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent”, but it’s far worse when people believe it. She likes to talk about how she’s got the support of “Real America” or some crap like that, but the fact is people think she’s dumb enough that the Africa as continent story was plausible.

Sometimes I wonder if FOX’s more prominent windbags actually listen to themselves when they talk, or if they just start rambling and zone out. Brit Hume, who for some reason is often claimed to be one of FOX’s more “fair and balanced” talking heads, had nothing but praise for Bush’s foreign policy, finishing with the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a while.

Even the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which is widely regarded as terrible White House bungling, is a much more complex story than that which eventually will be told. And while people are understandably focused on the length and the casualty count of the war, at some point they’ll consider the policy path on which this president has placed us. It’s a very different one, and an amazing one. We’re pushing for democracy everywhere, not just playing ball with friendly dictators as we did in the Cold War.

Seriously now. That’s just stupid. We still “play ball” with Saudi Arabia, we “play ball” with China, and we “play ball” with Pakistan where Musharraf had no problem with declaring martial law. Meanwhile we don’t “play ball” with democratically elected figures such as Hugo Chavez, Hamas, or Ahmadinejad.

To act like the United States is now, or ever has been, this purely philanthropic nation parading about the world helping the downtrodden and standing up to the cruel is simply ignorant. We overlook tragedies when they happen in places that have no connection to us, and get involved in conflicts that don’t involve us when we have some stake in the outcome. If Saddam Hussein were in the middle of Africa, he’d still be in power now, probably having a race with the folks over in Sudan to see who could kill more people.

if Bush’s intentions were really to push “democracy” we’d have soldiers stationed all over Africa and we’d be fighting with China instead of exporting our manufacturing jobs to them. There may be legitimate reasons to think Bush has a good foreign policy outlook (though I can’t think of any), but the “spread of democracy” ain’t one of ‘em.

Here’s a noodle-scratcher for you. Keith Olbermann showed up on The View to discuss matters politic (because after the McCain appearance, Teh Vyoo now are serious show), and K-O’s declaration of not voting caused a bit of an uproar.

The ladies also pressed Olbermann on his decision not to vote.

“I don’t vote,” Olbermann said, saying it is the only thing he can do to suggest journalistic objectivity. “It’s a symbolic gesture.”

Watch as Joy calls him a bad role model for not voting, while Barbara says, “Forgive me, master…I just don’t want to be the Worst Person this week.”

Now my interpretation of this is twofold. One is an actual interpretation, the other is pure conjecture. My interpretation is that he isn’t saying voting is symbolic, but rather his decision not to vote is symbolic. Remember how much trouble O’Reilly got into when he made a big deal about being an independent and then we found out he was a Republican? Similar deal. He’s saying that by not voting he’s sticking to his “unaffiliated observer” image as a newscaster. Or something.

However (and here’s the pure conjecture), my gut tells me he wasn’t telling the truth. I’ve no doubts that Olbermann considers himself a purely unbiased observer, something I believe true in the sense that he isn’t politically biased though he is certainly ideological. Even granting that, I find it hard to swallow that he would sit back and allow a McCain victory simply in the interest of appearing objective.

So I’ve got a sneaking suspicion he did vote, but professes otherwise in the interest of the aforementioned “symbolism”. If he said he voted, we would know damn well he didn’t vote for McCain, and it’s a safe bet he didn’t vote third party either. After all, if he voted for, say, Nader (given his rants we can assume he wouldn’t go for Barr or Paul), then the right-wingers would redouble their venom in the face of that “ultra ultra left wing” Olbermann. That leaves Obama, and putting his explicit support behind Obama, or even implicit support, would compromise his image as a political commentator.

But, again, I’m just talking out of my ass.

I almost feel bad for using the “noise” graphic this time.

So, Neil Cavuto of FOX News, who has been mocked in the past for his downright hilarious chyrons, recently came out and took McCain to task over his muddled economic message. This wasn’t some half-assed “criticism” like some right-wing journalists are doing where they go after McCain for not talking about Ayers enough, this is legit.

You can’t say you’re against earmarks when you’re earmarking that kind of dough, Senator. Or adding more than $50 billion to a stimulus plan you cannot pay for…all the while blasting your opponent for coming up with programs he can’t pay for.

Frankly, neither of your numbers adds up. But I’ve come to see a consistent pattern in Obama’s. For the life of me, Senator Straight Talk, I see no such straight thing with yours. Obama argues big government d spells out why we need it…accept it or reject it.

You rail against big government, yet continue to push cockamamie spending plans that make a mockery of it. That’s why you’re losing right now, Senator McCain.

Not because you don’t have the courage of your convictions. But because on economic matters, you have no convictions, period.

John McCain has never been FOX’s favorite Republican. The very “maverick” trait that he’s trying so hard to pump up was, as recently as a few years ago, the very reason the far right disliked him so much. But when he sealed the deal, most of the hacks followed right along and turned from “McCain is the devil” to “McCain will save the Republican Party.” Some are getting their heads back on straight.

It’s worth mentioning that the reason a lot of Republicans, and by “a lot” I’d wager “most”, are defecting over to Obama’s side is because of his conduct, not his policies. I doubt many conservatives like his economic policies (he’s a liberal, after all), but his steady hand and respectful treatment of his opponent have, inarguably, showed that in an Obama presidency we won’t keep seeing the nation as being patriots and traitors.

What’s actually kinda sad is that it’s 2008 and a candidate is getting praise from all corners for something as seemingly standard as “not treating the opposition like evil America-haters.”

We throw around accusations of media bias pretty heavily on both sides here. It all comes down to a basic principle: everyone is dead set sure that the media is against them. That everyone seems to think that is probably evidence that neither side is totally right (though both can probably find copious evidence). However, there’s one thing to keep in mind: tallying up positive and negative stories is not a good way to denote bias.

The Swamp digs into the issue, also referring to an article over at Politico that does the same. Both try to explain why McCain has been slammed with a lot of negative press lately, coming to basically the same conclusion.

But, they argue, the fault doesn’t lie with them but with McCain. Basically, they’re saying: It’s not our fault you’ve run such a lousy campaign.

And once Obama was up and McCain was flat on his back, the rest came naturally. Any bias, they say, is the inherent bias in the press that favors the front-runner over the team that suddenly finds itself three touchdowns behind in the fourth quarter: No commentator ever raves about the strategic choices of the losing team.

There is a wide difference between “balanced” reporting and “objective” reporting. Just because the media has been reporting 70% positive stories about candidate X and only 40% positive stories about candidate Y doesn’t mean we’re talking bias, you have to look at the content of the stories and decide whether there was simply negative news about a candidate or if the source spun a story.

Here’s an example of massive bias: the WFTV interview with Biden. The “reporter” asked such hilariously slanted questions that Biden himself started laughing, in comparison with “probing” questions she asked McCain like “why haven’t you gone after Obama more?” That is, in fact, media bias.

When Sarah Palin does an interview and totally muffs a question like “what does the Vice President do?” it’s not “bias” if the media calls her on it. That’s how reporting goes. Sometimes, and largely so in this case, one side simply has more good things to be reported.

What the right is clamoring for is forgiveness for McCain and Palin’s transgressions in exchange for hounding Obama over things that simply aren’t news. No matter how much they’d like us to talk about it, Rev. Wright and ACORN just aren’t news any more. We’ve heard all there is to hear about the pair of them. Now, a circular firing squad with the entire McCain campaign blaming each other for how badly things are going? That IS news.

That’s why things like a seven year old clip of Obama using the word “redistributive” suddenly got blown up into a “story” by Drudge and FOX. They’re at a point where there just isn’t anything happening to attack Obama with, so they have to dig through ancient history to find things to distort. Then they’ll accuse the media of “bias” for not biting.

If you need any evidence that FOX has thrown objectivity by the wayside, all you need to know is that the higher-ups have decided to make Sean Hannity their most prominent “journalist”. Aside from Hannity & Colmes and “Hannity’s America”, it seems like they’re just throwing stuff at him for him to do.

His latest was a crockumentary about Obama primarily led by one Andy Martin. I’ve only read parts of it, but believe me that’s all you need. The size of the lies in here is just unbelievable, and The Smoking Gun has all the info on Martin and his lies.

During that October 5 program, Martin claimed that the Democratic presidential candidate was once “in training for radical overthrow of the government.” Martin offered no proof for this claim, nor was any sought by Hannity, who identified Martin as an “Internet journalist.” Nor did Fox mention the kooky Martin’s history of anti-Semitic statements or his arrest record (click here to view five of his mug shots). In fact, Martin is wanted in New York and Florida on outstanding arrest warrants.

A little while ago an Obama staffer confronted Hannity about that, and Sean’s brilliant response was “we bring on people we disagree with here on FOX.” He said it as though he had sat there and argued with Martin, confronted him about his anti-Semitism and arrest record and otherwise tried to take him to task for his sleazy dealings. But he didn’t, he just sat back and let this guy ramble about this and that, asking for no proof whatsoever. It’d be like if I’d had a “guest column” from al-Zarqawi to talk about how the American occupation in Iraq was going, and identified him just as an “Iraqi soldier.”

Probably Hannity’s biggest lie in the Gibbs confrontation was his assertion that he’s a “journalist”. Hell, I’d be willing to bet I do more research going into these articles, and I’m just a small-time blogger.

The amount of a hack someone is is inversely proportionate to how much their arguments make sense. This is why the likes of a Buckley or (occasionally) Scarborough may anger me for their viewpoints, they aren’t hacks. When they make their points, you can follow them. Not so for this idiot over on CNN who is, no joke, trying to draw a line between Bush and Obama. Really.

The items on the list are sometimes legitimate (of which there are very few):

10. Gay marriage: Both Obama and Bush agree that marriage is and should remain between one man and one woman. As far back as 2004, Obama said: “Gays … should not marry.” And in a 2007 Senate debate, he said: “I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states. … Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

This just pisses me off, frankly, but as we’re still in a culture that has people insisting religion be a part of government I suppose I’m going to have to bite the bullet on it. Ideally it wouldn’t matter if a million religious leaders thought something, their opinion is worthless in terms of governance.

Damn.

This is what we call the classic wingnut ideologue response to failure. Notice how in the midst of calling the campaign “stupid”, accusing them of “flailing”, he makes sure to point out that the failure has nothing to do with people not liking McCain, but rather he’s just campaigning poorly.

There’s truth in that, but it’s not like Obama’s gone around making things up about McCain. At worst you can say he’s bending the truth about tax proposals. That’s about the best ya got. The fact is McCain is angry, he’s erratic, he’s a loyal Bushie who’s sold his soul to get elected, he’s been a champion for deregulation that resulted in two financial crisises, and people aren’t responding favorably to it.

And Kristol’s comment about “why is Rick Davis on TV and not Palin?” is amusing coming from his side. If he’s paid attention, he’d have figured out that Palin’s numbers tank with every interview she does. The question of “why doesn’t Sarah Palin get on TV more?” is something us libs say to poke fun at the fact that the McCain camp knows she sounds like a bumbling idiot every time she gets asked a question harder than “how does it feel to be running for Vice President?”

Yesterday I found myself wondering if McCain’s brilliant “let’s toss another $300 billion of taxpayer money at the problem” plan would play well with the conservatives. If Obama is out there criticizing him for being too wasteful with the taxpayer dollar, what the hell will “the base” think?

Seems they aren’t happy at all.

In a sharply worded editorial on its Web site Thursday, the editors of The National Review — an influential bastion of conservative thought — derided the plan as “creating a level of moral hazard that is unacceptable” and called it a “gift to lenders who abandoned any sense of prudence during the boom years.”

Prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin went one step further, calling the plan “rotten” and declaring on her blog, “We’re Screwed ‘08.”

Matt Lewis, a contributing writer for the conservative Web site Townhall.com, told CNN the plan only further riles conservatives upset with McCain’s backing of the massive government bailout plan passed last week.

Having talked with many conservatives in the run-up to the nomination, it’s almost been amusing. Early on, they derided him for being “not conservative enough” to the point that he had to insist that he was. Then he got the nomination and had to shore up the base by insisting that he really was a Maverick.

Unfortunately, what it means to be a “maverick” is to defy the base. You can’t have both. Either the base is happy or you’re stepping across the aisle. The problem for McCain is that it was the right-wing noise machine that offered him good press after he pissed on the mainstream media. If he’s going to go “socialist” on us, he’s going to lose them as well.

This might explain why the right loves Sarah Palin so much, she’s a reboot of the same BS message Bush spouted in 2000.