Why Is the Media in the Tank for Obama?

Over at ABC News, Michael S. Malone has a long, thoughtful essay (complete with examples, though not as many as I would have liked to have seen) of why the MSM is so in the tank for Barack Obama. Here's his final pitch, more or less:

In other words, you are facing career catastrophe—and desperate times call for desperate measures. Even if you have to risk everything on a single Hail Mary play. Even if you have to compromise the principles that got you here. After all, newspapers and network news are doomed anyway—all that counts is keeping them on life support until you can retire.

And then the opportunity presents itself—an attractive young candidate whose politics likely matches yours, but more important, he offers the prospect of a transformed Washington with the power to fix everything that has gone wrong in your career.

With luck, this monolithic, single-party government will crush the alternative media via a revived fairness doctrine, re-invigorate unions by getting rid of secret votes, and just maybe be beholden to people like you in the traditional media for getting it there.

And besides, you tell yourself, it's all for the good of the country …

The whole thing here.

In case you're wondering who he is, he

covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times. He was editor of Forbes ASAP, the world's largest-circulation business-tech magazine, at the height of the dot-com boom. Malone is the author or co-author of a dozen books, notably the best-selling "Virtual Corporation." Malone has also hosted three public television interview series, and most recently co-produced the celebrated PBS miniseries on social entrepreneurs, "The New Heroes." He has been the ABCNews.com "Silicon Insider" columnist since 2000.

Comments

[PiledhighDeep]

Maybe the media owed us one after pushing W on us in 2000.

[Warren]

Why Is the Media in the Tank for Obama?

This is a question?
He's the Democrat, and 98% of the media is Democrat (unaffiliated reporters are mostly communists, and support Democrats).

DUH

[Xenu Painted Roses]

Has anyone mentioned to Mr Malone that he is part of the MSM?

[anon]

stupid question: "In the tank"

WTF does that mean?

Tank like a vat?

Tank like a panzer?

Where does the phrase come from?

[Mad Max]

"why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?"

I wasn't aware of this cover-up. I have certainly heard a great deal about these gaffes - but then, maybe the media I consume isn't mainstream.

[Lefiti]

Malone is a right winger with one big fucking imagination.

[gmatts]

I've always found it odd that people constantly bitch about the bias in the mainstream media in one breath, and yet in the next constantly state that no one watches/reads these same outlets. So, if both are true, who the hell cares how biased a group is that no one pays attention to?
Also, it's 2008. There are many differetn ways to get news nowadays. We don't all sit around waiting for Walter Kronkite to give us his take on the events of the day.

[Neu Mejican]

Silly.

Just silly.

[Barack Obama!]

Vote for me, I'm inspirational! Jesse Jackson wants to cut my balls off, and Hillary Clinton wants me to get assassinated, so you know I can't be all bad.

[Hugh Akston]

gmatts,

The MSM is consumed only by other people.

[SOFL Hockey Fan]

Talk to an average Obama supporter and although they will know who Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright are, they have barely heard of Tony Rezko.

While Bill Ayers did what he did when Obama was 8 years old, Rezko is a current and developing story. There are more than twice as many Google references to Ayers than to Rezko. For that matter there are more Google "Joe the Plumber" references than there are Ayers references.

[Kilo]

stupid question: "In the tank"
WTF does that mean?

http://www.slate.com/id/1787
Slate Explainer: In The Tank

[nerd]

WTF does that mean?

You need to read slate 😉

In the good old days, a swimming pool was a "tank".

Going into the tank, was taking a dive.

In boxing, it means to take a bribe to throw a match.

Extened to politics, it means to throw your "blind" support behind someone.

[nerd]

just too damn slow today

[jbd]

The Rezko story has no punchline: alghough Obama obviously accepted a favor from a sleazebag, no one has shown any credible evidence of anything inappropriate that Obama did in return. That's why McCain hasn't tried to hit the Rezko issue hard, and why would the MSM?
McCain always had good relations with reported, and had a chance for reasonable parity in MSM coverage until he picked Palin and then basically barricaded her away from the media, save for her several disastrous performances. She still has not given a press conference. I don't think you can call the MSM unfair for distrusting the McCain campaign under these circumstances.

[John]

Obama opted out of public campagn money and proceeded to raise over 600 billion dollars mostly through small donations. Unlike McCain he will not release the names of his small donors. Further, the security settings on the Obama website have been disabled to allow people to give under any name regardless of whether it matches the credit card name.

Last I looked normally the biggest proponents for public funding of campaigns and transparency in campaign finance is the major media. If McCain had pulled such a stunt it would be on the front page every day. Obama does it and the press just doesn't cover it.

Is the press going to decide to do its job if he gets in power? Why is there any reason to believe that? If the press doesn't, who is going to watchdog the government if they don't?

[John]

600 million not billion

[John]

"MSM coverage until he picked Palin and then basically barricaded her away from the media, save for her several disastrous performances. She still has not given a press conference."

That is a steaming pile of horseshit. She talks to the media all the time. They just don't report what she says. In contrast, Obama hasn't given a press conference in weeks and is avoiding the press

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obama-shuns-pre.html

And Biden flat out won't talk to the media.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/sarah-palin-b-3.html

But only Palin gets hit for it.

[R C Dean]

I can't think of any reason why the Obama campaign would disable standard security settings for credit card donations, except to facilitate violations of campaign finance laws by their donors.

And, of course, they can collect all the money with perfect deniability - "we didn't know this money came from foreign nationals/exceeded individual donation limits."

I can hardly wait to see what people with this level of deviousness and amorality can do once they get their hands on real power.

[Jiff Woods]

LOL, Obama is clearly the only logical choice here. McBush is a proven liar whose word means nothing!

Jif
http://www.anonymity.cz.tc

[The Angry Optimist]

BAN THE SPAMMERS!

[John]

The question is RC at what point do the media finally start to get cold feet? Or do they ever? At least among media circles Obama is a cult of personality. It takes some balls to stand up against such a thing when all of your friends and colleges are a part of it. Is there going to be any MSM figure who is willing to be disinvited from all the right parties and dropped from his social circle for going after Obama or will they all step in line and ignore everything that happens?

[liberty4all]

"Where does the phrase [in the tank] come from?"

A boxing slang. Another way to phrase it would be "the fix is in." Get it? If not, google it.

[liberty4all]

"Obama is clearly the only logical choice here"

Jiff Woods -- Please enlighten us to the logic that you used to choose Sen. Obama as the next Prez. They don't call it "Reason" for nothing.

[jbd]

John, there's this thing called a press conference. You stand in a room with a bunch of reporters and take questions, randomly fired from the room, on whatever topics the reporters feel inclined to ask about. Please provide the link of the date and time when Palin ever submitted to this thing called a press conference. She is a candidate for the second highest office in the land.

Obama has not only done numerous press conferences, he went on O'Reilly. And no, John, Katie Couric is not the left-wing equivalent of O'Reilly.

[Mo]

Wow. Project much?

Seriously, there are many reasons why the media would lean towards Obama. However, the idea that people are supporting Obama because he would give their lives meaning again is ludicrous. I'm with Mad Max, I've heard all of Biden's major gaffes since he's been the VP candidate, so the media is doing a bad job covering it up.

Could the coverage of the McCain campaign be bad because McCain is running a bad campaign?

[John]

jbd,

He hasn't done them in weeks and he is avoiding the media. He is at the top of the ticket. How can he just stop doing press conferences. If you don't think that Palin, the VP candidate is doing enough, fine but call out Obama for the same thing. Is Obama a candidate or a cult leader? It is getting hard to tell.

Further, the NY Times went trolling facebook to find dirt on McCain's wife and the media people going through Palin's trash. Meanwhile, no one has bothered to interview any of the figures in the Rezko deal or ask Obama one question about it. Obama flat out lied about Ayers in the debate against Hillary Clinton when he said "he was just a guy in the neighborhood." Then in the debate against McCain he backtracked and admitted to working with him. No one ever called him out on the lie. Didn't it used to be "it is not the crime it is the cover up?" Not anymore, Obama can bold face lie in debates and the media won't touch it. Do you really want the media to have the same attitude towards a sitting President? Do you think that is healthy for the country for its media to have no interest in asking questions or holding the President to any standards?

Oh I know the media will change and magically do its job once he wins, that is it.

[economist]

Barack Obama!,
While I considered these impressive points of your resume, especially the Jesse Jackson "castration" comment, I still voted for Bob Barr. Because I'd rather vote for a lying sack of shit who won't win (and therefore will not be on my conscience) than one who will win.

[Kant feel Pietzsche]

Regardless of their political agenda, the vast majority of media-types are "in the tank" because that's the best place to put a shark.

[Mo]

John,

When was the last time McCain did a press conference? Are you really saying that Obama's lie about Ayers is the only time during this election that either candidate has flat-out lied to the American people? Take a Midol dude.

[YoungLiberal]

Yup. I'm a complete BO supporter, and even I can notice the bias.

[bendover]

RE: Media Bias

Various polling agencies and journalistic think tanks have consistently put the MSM in the 75-80% democratic camp. Media bias is often in the eye of the beholder. However, when such a lack of diversity reins in the newsrooms, excuuuse me for noticing a certain skew in the reportage.

I am, by profession< a CPA. Our demographic skews 60-70% republican/libertarian. If the two professions were switched, make no doubt, what got in the nations newspapers and how the exact same factual events were reported, would change significantly.

[John]

John,

When was the last time McCain did a press conference? Are you really saying that Obama's lie about Ayers is the only time during this election that either candidate has flat-out lied to the American people? Take a Midol dude."

Pull your haed out of your ass. When is the last time anyone asked Obama an uncomfortable question? Why haven't they covered the camapaign contribution issue? No one has pushed for publicly funded campaigns than the major media. Obama opts out and can't explain where his money comes from and they dont' even report the story. Do you honestly believe that they would do the same if a Republican had done that? If you do, you need to cram the crowbar up your ass and try wedge your head out.

[strech]

Wait, I'm supposed to take an article that uses "Why hasn't the New York Times interviewed Obama's teenaged drug dealer" as an attack on the media seriously?

And I've heard about Biden's gaffes, and the endless Wright/Ayers/Rezko/Etc. (ABC did break the "God Damn America" tape). There may just be nothing new there.

It was pointed out over the summer that coverage of Obama was more negative than the coverage of McCain at the time, although Obama did get more coverage (it's been more negative on McCain recently, however).

Why Is the Media in the Tank for Obama?

Ask Weigel.

[bendover]

RE: Media Bias

What you now have ready to replace the dinosaur media model (notice how I colored my argument by using a pejorative synonym for "old") is kind of a flashback to the original yellow sheet journalism. I don't need to tell this crowd the difference in reporting from Townhall and Daily Kos. While I applaud the greater diversity of ideas, I worry about the coming "balkanization" of the first draft of history.

Gee, wouldn't a great business model be the complete and dispassionate reporting of objective facts, along with diverse analysis in a historical, economic, or social context?

[Elemenope]

Weird. I always thought that "in the tank" referred to being in a literal *tank*, on the front lines of some battlefield somewhere. It works. too; the person is "in the tank" for someone, fighting their battles for them, etc..

I find the real etymology of the phrase...boring, and so I'm stubbornly going to hang on to my own.

Woooops !

[Elemenope]

Whoever left a hanging tag...

[Mo]

No clue why the contributions thing hasn't gotten wider play than just the NYTimes blog. Of course, I'm also not sure why Cindy McCain's father's* mob connections hasn't gotten wider play. And what's with Republicans being pissed off about not taking public financing? All of the sudden, political contributions, which are speech, are bad. Or is it just because they're going against an unappealing candidate? Yeah, some media outlets are biased for Obama, but it's balanced by other media outlets that are biased against Obama, like Fox and talk radio.

You are aware that the WSJ has higher circulation numbers than the NYT and that Fox destroys the ratings for MSNBC and CNN?

* The dude that help launch McCain's campaign.

[economist]

"Is the Media in the Tank for Obama?"
For the purposes of the general election, yes. In the primaries however, they were trying to get McCain the Republican nomination. Which seems like the best evidence there is that the MSM is controlled by a leftwing conspiracy.

[vinny gates]

John, you're right about the MSM and Obama! It must be . . . a conspiracy!

[Mo]

Wait, I'm supposed to take an article that uses "Why hasn't the New York Times interviewed Obama's teenaged drug dealer" as an attack on the media seriously?

The funny thing is the NY Times did do a story about his teenaged drug use and found that he probably exaggerated his drug use in the book, rather than downplaying it.

Obamatons bragging of their illiteracy:^)

[Sean Scallon]

I think we found out what angle Mr. Malone is coming when he included this bit in his piece:

"I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel."

I would ask Mr. Malone if he was the first to complain that the media's focus on Al Gore'sighs eight years ago was a sign of blatant bias against someone many reporters blatantly despised but I have a feeling I doubt if he was at all was bothered by it.

For every right winger bitching about media bias I can go get Glenn Greenwald and we can all have an interesting discussion about the media's coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq War and how people like Phil Donahue were run off MSNBC because of their views. But it's still amazing that conservatives and or libertarians complain about press bias and yet conviently forget that other than NPR are businesses owned by private companies or private individuals and are absolutly under no obligation to be fair or unfair to your point of view? Why then do ideolouges so rile themselves up into a frenzy or something they can't control? Do they wish to mimic their liberal brethern and establish a fairness doctrine for internet or the printed page?

Mr. Malone's argument was relevent 20 years ago when we only had one cable new network and three major networks, no internet and talk radio syndication in its infancy. Today we have a media universe of different website and news outlets. If Mr. Malone wants to see bash-Obama 24/7 he can go to Fox News, he can go to Newsmax or the Druge Report or Townhall.com or Red State and indulge himself. And voters have those options as well with a simple click of the mouse or the remote on the TV.

Long ago, many newspapers in this country used to be run by local political parties. Long ago, editors had no problems putting opinion pieces in with the news (read an old Chicago Tribune during the 1930s). Long ago, you knew where papers stood politically. There's nothing wrong with that so long as everyone's agenda is on the table and is transparent and people have alternatives to choose from. The problem in the recent past is that wasn't true and the media tried to fool people into thinking they were "objective" when everyone knew that was impossible on a human level and impossible from a business model.

So what is ultimately Mr. Malone's argument? If mainstream press is dying and no longer a relevent institution, what the hell does he care what they write or say? Does he honestly believe McCain would be ahead if they did a hatchet job on Obama?

You can't have it both ways Mr. Malone. If the industry is dying, then let it die in peace. Don't try to resurrect it by giving it powers it doesn't have. I'm sorry McCain is losing badly or that not enough Lebanese Shiites got killed by Israeli bombs to suit your tastes but it's not the media's fault such things happened.

Either they're relevent and have power or they don't so please makeup your mind.

[Jersey!]

I agree with Nick Gillespie that this essay is "thoughtful;" more so then Gillespie's comparison of the drug war with Dachau, at least.

But I think the following graph is the real meat of the story -

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

So, Malone wants the media to 1. Find the person who sold Obama drugs when he was a teenager (I think Obama admitted to said habit in high school and Columbia, and not "grad school".) 2. Interview Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko and 3. Cover Biden Gaffes.

To which I'd reply, covering 1. would be extremely dumb, although the Times did interview someone who claimed that Obama overstated his drug use; 2. really is "that hard" as Ayers is keeping his trap shut and Rezko is in jail as far as I know and 3. Good point - the Hezbollah gaffe was pretty bad; but I'm sure I can find many McCain gaffes that were ignored.

As for Joe the Plumber, I'd argue that digging into his private life was wrong, but generally a media habit and not meant to help Obama. In fact, dig deep enough and you'd find this - http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_3.html.

The union thing is bad, the drug war is bad, ignoring Biden's gaffes is bad, but the case for bias is unpersuasive, to say the least.

[Sean Scallon]

I think we found out what angle Mr. Malone is coming when he included this bit in his piece:

"I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel."

I would ask Mr. Malone if he was the first to complain that the media's focus on Al Gore'sighs eight years ago was a sign of blatant bias against someone many reporters blatantly despised but I have a feeling I doubt if he was at all bothered by it.

For every right winger bitching about media bias I can go get Glenn Greenwald and we can all have an interesting discussion about the media's coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq War and how people like Phil Donahue were run off MSNBC because of their views. But it's still amazing that conservatives and or libertarians complain about press bias and yet conviently forget that other than NPR, newspapers and other media are businesses owned by private companies or private individuals and are absolutly under no obligation to be fair or unfair to your point of view. Why then do ideolouges so rile themselves up into a frenzy or something they can't control? Do they wish to mimic their liberal brethern and establish a fairness doctrine for internet or the printed page?

Mr. Malone's argument was relevent 20 years ago when we only had one cable new network and three major networks, no internet and talk radio syndication in its infancy. Today we have a media universe of different websites and news outlets. If Mr. Malone wants to see bash-Obama 24/7 he can go to Fox News, he can go to Newsmax or the Druge Report or Townhall.com or Red State and indulge himself. And voters have those options as well with a simple click of the mouse or the remote on the TV.

Long ago, many newspapers in this country used to be run by local political parties. Long ago, editors had no problems putting opinion pieces in with the news (read an old Chicago Tribune during the 1930s or Manchester, N.H. Union-Leader). Long ago, you knew where papers stood politically. There's nothing wrong with that so long as everyone's agenda is on the table and is transparent and people have alternatives to choose from. The problem in the recent past is that wasn't true and the media tried to fool people into thinking they were "objective" when everyone knew that was impossible on a human level and impossible from a business model.

So what is ultimately Mr. Malone's argument? If mainstream press is dying and no longer a relevent institution, what the hell does he care what they write or say? Does he honestly believe McCain would be ahead if they all of a sudden did a hatchet job on Obama?

You can't have it both ways Mr. Malone. If the industry is dying, then let it die in peace. Don't try to resurrect it by giving it powers it doesn't have. I'm sorry McCain is losing badly or that not enough Lebanese Shiites got killed by Israeli bombs to suit your tastes but it's not the media's fault such things happened.

Either they're relevent and have power or they don't so please make up your mind.

[Geoff Nathan]

Being the resident linguist I investigated the issue of 'in the tank', and discovered there are two expressions:
'in the tank', meaning roughly 'hit rock bottom', 'a complete failure', and
'in the tank for NOUN', which means to be a supporter of.
I'd never heard the latter before reading this article, but found it online in various places.

[John]

"I'm sorry McCain is losing badly or that not enough Lebanese Shiites got killed by Israeli bombs to suit your tastes but it's not the media's fault such things happened."

I think the problem is not enough Jews were killed by shiites for the media's taste.

If the media bias isn't making any difference and everyone knows they are biased anyway, why are you so pissed off about someone pointing out the obvious?

Further, if you are such a believer in free speech, I assume you object to the fairness doctrine and the broad application of campaign finance laws to restrict speech? I expect you will be really riled up about those things come the next administration. Right?

[J sub D]

gmatts,

The MSM is consumed only by other people.

I have a television but I never turn it on except to watch PBS osccasionally.

[Sean Scallon]

How do you know I'm pissed off John? Right now as I write the sun is shining and I having a nice cup of coffee. What's there to be pissed off about?

I just want to shake my head to see another "liberal media is steering election to Democrats," bitch and moan piece by some neocon. As I said, the media bias argument had its day, now it is a dinosaur. So drop it. There's plenty of crticism of Obama in the media universe and Mr. Malone doesn't have to do much to find it. Instead, he and you and others are still obsessed over what goes in the New York Times.

Is this instutition dead or does it have relevance? Answer the question please and what does it matter anyway given that the New York Times is free to be as liberal as it wishes to be given that it is a private company, just as Fox News is free to be as conservative as it wishes to be?

Yes I am against the Fairness Doctrine and do not wish to see it reinstated.

[Kilo]

John | October 27, 2008, 10:28am | #
Unlike McCain he will not release the names of his small donors.

Neither of them are required to.

Further, the security settings on the Obama website have been disabled to allow people to give under any name regardless of whether it matches the credit card name.

These systems don't match names, so Obama's doing exactly as much matching as McCain in that regard.

The Washintong Post covered this yesterday. Much like ACORN it's really only a big deal if you ignore all credible examinations of what's going on and just repeat BS talking points of desperate nutbag conspiracy theory bloggers.

[TrickyVic]

Type Palin press conference in Google and see what you get. Not much.

The headline is a generalization fallacy. The media is not in the tank for Obama. The left leaning outlets may be but the right leaning outlets are not. I love the way the right leaning media has made "media" a dirty word and exclude themselves when the term is thrown around.

[J sub D]

Further, if you are such a believer in free speech, I assume you object to the fairness doctrine and the broad application of campaign finance laws to restrict speech? I expect you will be really riled up about those things come the next administration. Right?

I cringe as I type this.
Good point John.

Yes, different media outlets display different biases. Some are very transparent about it, others are more subtle, but the bias is still detectable to an intelligent reader/viewer.
This is as it has always been in a society with guarantees of free expression. Campaign finance laws beyond full and immediate disclosure and the odious fairness doctrine are like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[TrickyVic]

Obama is not running against Palin. If you want to honest about comparing press conferences. Compare Obama to McCain.

[Jim Henley]

I've been hearing about "liberal media bias" since the 1970s. And yet, during that time, Republicans have won the Presidency many times. Logic suggests that on those occasions when Republicans lose the Presidency, they need a different excuse than LMB.

[shecky]

Could the coverage of the McCain campaign be bad because McCain is running a bad campaign?

Indeed. The most obvious observation I've noticed is that Obama's strength so far has been to keep his mouth shut and let McCain dig his own grave. A very wise move. And not only does he allow McCain to show the world what a nasty temperament he has, the nature of the Palin pick very much allows Obama to run against her, too. She has rightfully drawn much attention, going from virtual unknown to extreme notoriety in the span of only a couple months. And it simply hasn't made McCain look good.

McCain has gotten lots of negative scrutiny. And it's been all well deserved.

[vanya]

The simple fact that the media treated the selection of Sarah Palin as anything more serious than McCain telling the USA to go fuck itself demonstrates that, if anything, the media has a conservative bias.

[Mo]

Further, if you are such a believer in free speech, I assume you object to the fairness doctrine and the broad application of campaign finance laws to restrict speech? I expect you will be really riled up about those things come the next administration. Right?

Right. I have no desire to see a return of the fairness doctrine. I have no desire to see an expansion of campaign finance laws. Heck, I would prefer to see a roll-back of the current campaign finance laws.

By the way, if you dislike campaign finance laws, McCain (of McCain-Feingold) is not your man. He also has been quoted as saying he wants to strengthen campaign finance laws because of Obama's huge take. Apparently, millions of small donors (I'm talking about the legit ones, rather than the fraudulent ones) are a threat to democracy. Instead, campaigns should be financed by large donors, political parties, all taxpayers and your heiress wife.

[Mo]

The simple fact that the media treated the selection of Sarah Palin as anything more serious than McCain telling the USA to go fuck itself demonstrates that, if anything, the media has a conservative bias.

When did that happen? Link please.

[zoltan]

Instead, campaigns should be financed by large donors, political parties, all taxpayers and your heiress wife.

Yowch!

October 17, 2008, 5:34 PM
Palin Press Conference
Posted by Scott Conroy| 18

From CBS News' Scott Conroy:

(NOBLESVILLE, IND.) - For the first time since becoming a candidate for the vice presidency in late August, Sarah Palin held an on-camera press conference with her full travelling press corps on the short flight from Ohio to Indiana this afternoon.

Though the media availability lasted only about seven minutes, Palin touched on a range of subjects from Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright ("He sat in the pews for 20 years and heard Reverend Wright say some things that most people would find a bit concerning.") to whether she's going to vote in Alaska on Election Day ("We don't know what the plan will be yet.")

Read the full transcript below:

Q: So how come you've dropped the attacks on Obama and Ayers lately?

A: "Well, I think that American voters are understanding that association-that it's OK to talk about fact. Of course, Barack Obama had been bringing it up, even in challenging John McCain on that, saying if you want to talk about it, talk about it, too, so McCain did that, and the association is out there. It's up now to the people of America to decide whether that association is important enough to them to research and find out more about a person's judgment and truthfulness."

Q: Just to follow up on that, you said that, you know, 'Obama doesn't see America the way you and I see America.' Do you think Obama loves America as much as you do?

A: "I know Obama loves America. I'm sure that is why he's running for president. It's because he wants to do what he believes is in the best interest of this great nation. I believe that our ticket can do a better job for America as we reduce taxes and reign in government and allow our private sector and our families to prosper, to grow, and to keep more of what they earn and produce so that they can reinvest according to our own priorities. I think that that is best to get the economy back on track. It's a better agenda for America. But I don't question at all Barack Obama's love for this great country."

Q: It's unusual for a Republican campaign to be campaigning in North Carolina and Indiana halfway through October in an election year, are you concerned you are spending resources in states and places you shouldn't be.

A: "I think it's wise not to take anything for granted and assume that any state is a lock for either ticket, so if there were more hours in the day and more availabilities I would hope that we can be in even more states even those that maybe were down in maybe those that we assume are a lock. I don't want to take anything for granted, and my input has been let us get out there to as many states as we have time for."

Q: Governor, the Washington Post and Peggy Noonan both said independently today that you are unqualified to be commander in chief. How do you respond to that?

A: "Well, we talked a lot already about my executive experience that will be put to good use as vice president and if heaven forbid, anything happened to John McCain, if we're so blessed to be elected president and vice president, that executive experience will be put to good use, as coming from a mayor and a manager, small business owner and a governor and a regulator of oil and gas. That's important, but as important is the world view that I share with John McCain and the intentions that we have there to put in place policies that will put government back on the side of the American people and we'll win these wars and help secure our nation. Those things all put together will be put to good use and if I felt I was not ready I would never have said yes, I wanna take on this responsibility, this challenge, this opportunity to run for vice president as his partner."

Q: You talk a lot about voter fraud. How concerned are you guys about that and what can you do at this point when we're just 18 days out to kind of put any safeguards in place?

A: "I think voters are very concerned about voter fraud and as more and more revelation comes in these 13 states that are now under investigation for potential voter fraud, I think that more American voters are becoming very very concerned. There are safeguards already that are in place but evidently they're not being adhered to or implemented certainly in Ohio if the secretary there not seeming to desire to reassure voters that all securities are being taken care of to make sure that there is no, there's no fraudulent activity at all, that those who are registered to vote are eligible to vote. And obviously there's proof that that is not happening right now. So American voters are concerned about this, I'm concerned about it."

Q: Did you ask John McCain to bring up Reverend Wright more and if so what did he say?

A: "No I have not asked him to bring it up."

Q:: Do you think he should?

A: "It's up to him you know and what he chooses to discuss. I think that calling someone--an opponent on their record and even on their associations isn't--it's not mean spirited. It's not negative campaigning. It is fair to the electorate to have the discussion - the debate about someone's record and associations, but I haven't advised Senator McCain on who he should bring up and what his topics of discussion should be."

Q: How often during the day do you talk to Sen. McCain?

A: "Uh, a couple of times of day. And e really enjoy being able to campaign together and I wish we could do more of that together because we have I think some great synergy and really great chemistry and we get along so well that not only is it very productive but its also fun to be able to campaign with him he's got so much energy and its always a good time for all of our camps and our families to be together but we speak on the phone on the phone when we're snot physically there together campaigning together on the trail."

Q: What do you talk about?

A: "We talk about the news of the day, about what the issues are that seem to be resonating that, certainly, that you all are reporting on. And just a lot of reinforcement and encouragement of each other that again we are on the right track and explaining to all Americans our plans to reduce taxes and to get our economy back on track. They're great conversations, and very productive, very helpful for both of us."

Q: "Are you excited for tomorrow night? Can you give us a preview?"

A: Oh man. I'm excited for tomorrow night. I have no idea what to expect because I haven't seen any scripts or anything else yet, but it will be fun. The opportunity to show American television watchers anyway that you get to have a sense of humor through all of this or even just this really would be wearin', tearin' on you so an opportunity to show that sense of humor and that side of all of this I look forward to it.

Q: Isn't Reverend Wright a lot more relevant than Bill Ayers? I mean he sat in his pews for 20 years.

A: "That's up to John McCain to decide. (Crosstalk) That's true. He sat in the pews for 20 years and heard Reverend Wright say some things that most people would find a bit concerning. But again that is John McCain's call."

Q: Last night at the fund raiser you made a comment about the area being a pro-America area of the country. I was wondering if you could explain that a little bit more, what you meant by pro-America?

A: "Every area, every area across this great country where we're stopping and where also the other ticket is stopping and getting to speak at these rallies and speak with the good Americans, it's all pro-America. I was just reinforcing the fact that there, where I was, there's good patriotic people there in these rallies, so excited about positive change and reform of government that's coming that they are so appreciative of hearing our message, hearing our plan. Not, not any one area of America is more pro-America patriotically than others."

Q: Are you going back to Alaska to vote?

A: "We don't know what the plan will be yet on there if--if I'm not there physically we will be applying for that absentee ballot and we'll do the early voting there. Yeah. And we'll do it fairly."

ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (CNN) -- With 10 days until Election Day, long-brewing tensions between GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin and key aides to Sen. John McCain have become so intense, they are spilling out in public, sources say.

Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN that they have become increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin "going rogue."

A Palin associate, however, said the candidate is simply trying to "bust free" of what she believes was a damaging and mismanaged roll-out.

McCain sources say Palin has gone off-message several times, and they privately wonder whether the incidents were deliberate. They cited an instance in which she labeled robocalls -- recorded messages often used to attack a candidate's opponent -- "irritating" even as the campaign defended their use. Also, they pointed to her telling reporters she disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of Michigan. Watch why the campaign is fighting ?

A second McCain source says she appears to be looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign.

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

A Palin associate defended her, saying that she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.

But this Palin source acknowledged that Palin is trying to take more control of her message, pointing to last week's impromptu news conference on a Colorado tarmac.

Tracey Schmitt, Palin's press secretary, was urgently called over after Palin wandered over to the press and started talking. Schmitt tried several times to end the unscheduled session.

[sorry about yet another one]

NY Times article on Palin giving press conferences

[Pete Guither]

I think the article is a bit too simplistic in its view. It used to be that the conventional wisdom was that the media was in love with John McCain. They went on endlessly about his Straight Talk Express and palling around with him at his Barbecues.

Now different people can have different opinions on how straight the candidates have been recently, or exactly what qualifies as experience, or how many press conferences of what type are appropriate, but it's no secret that the recent appearance at least, independent of the coverage, is that the Obama campaign has their act together and the McCain campaign does not.

It seems more likely that this is what the media is picking up on.

Just like when the appearance was that, since Kerry wasn't able to respond effectively to smears, his campaign didn't have it together, and the media sometimes picked up on that.

[gmatts]

"I love the way the right leaning media has made "media" a dirty word and exclude themselves when the term is thrown around."

It's because a lot of people on the right find pleasure from believing that they are under attack from all sides - whether it's the War on Christmas/Christianity, the Culture War, the big, bad liberal media, etc. Just look at the titles of the books that people like Tom DeLay, Sean Hannity, O'Reilly, Gingrich, etc write. They all have, for such a large group of non-combatants, in their titles words like "War", "Fight", "No Surrender" and the like. They live in a fantasy world where they think they are still children playing w/ their GI Joe's and M-80's.

[TrickyVic]

I think it's a little more like two minutes hate.