(no subject)

[luciazephyr]

The balls the NYT has.

Their front page story is here, eviscerating Palin's history.

It's absolutely awesome. I was thinking of giving ya'll highlights, but it's short and worth reading. Quite a few new facts and an interesting look into her process. She's certainly efficient, I'll give her that.

-Luce

Comments

[poppyash.livejournal.com]

Short? It's five pages long! [continues reading w/ carnal enthusiasm]

[poppyash.livejournal.com]

OK, now I'm wondering: what if the McCain campaign really did vet Palin properly? What if this really is the person they want running the country if McCain dies during office? WTF!?

[lucia-tanaka.livejournal.com]

Huh. I didn't realize. :goes to read two through five:

[notpoetry.livejournal.com]

This is a really good article, but the McCain campaign is going to charge it as a hit piece and that claim will be repeated by a majority of the media, as in, "The New York Times wrote an article about Palin that the McCain camp claimed as a hit piece," and never even discuss the content of the article.

You know the situation is bad when the paper of record is so easily dismissed as partisan.

I mean, we're going to cover the content of the article. I can just see the rest of the media jumping on the inevitable conflict between the Times and the McCain campaign as a better story than some scrapping between council members in Wasilla, Alaska.

[lucia-tanaka.livejournal.com]

It's not like this shit is ancient history tho. Two, three years ago, she was mayor. Any info about that time is extremely related. I mean, this is not McCain changing a position from five or ten years ago. Her record from Wasilla is pretty much all we got.

And, rawr, rape kits, rawr. :beats that horse until it's dead: