A well known conservative writer used to support Sarah Palin, and genuinely wanted to see her succeed. But after Palin had an interview with Katie Couric, she changed her mind completely.


Watch TYT

After her questionable interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, Sarah Palin and the McCain camp decided to take a hiatus from the media. But Palin finally decided do an interview with Katie Couric. After watching the interview, people discovered exactly why she took a hiatus in the first place...she has no idea what she's talking about. Cenk Uygur makes the argument in the clip below:

Watch TYT

Katie Couric asked John McCain a great question the other day on CBS: You claim you know how to win wars? Which wars have you won?

Watch it here:




I asked the press to put this very question to John McCain about ten days ago, albeit in a little bit more colorful language. You can watch that here. There is no good answer for this because John McCain is taking credit for many things he had no part in or was only minimally involved with. He is way overplaying his so-called national security credentials.

Some might think I'm going a bit too far in pointing this out, but we should also remember John McCain crashed five different planes in his time in the service. He also finished 894th in his Annapolis class of 899. God bless him for serving anyway, but it's hard to take that record and brag about how you have won all these wars.

John McCain has a service record he can be proud of, that anyone could be proud of. His resistance at the POW camps was down right heroic. But when you put yourself out there as the man who knows military strategy and winning wars, we have to look at your record and see what's really in there.

And when you look, there is not some secret stash of wars that John McCain led troops into and won because of his national security know-how. There just isn't and when he pretends there is, it looks like forced braggadocio. If he sticks with his actual service record, he would have something everyone could agree was a big asset for him. He served with tremendous courage and honor. He doesn't also have to claim to be Dwight D. Eisenhower. Leave well enough alone.

Young Turks on You Tube

Here are some sad statistics to fathom, many young servicemen between the age of 20-24 are killing themselves at a rate much higher then the regular population. Smirkingchimp.com presents the data in this blunt fashion.

If we add the 6,256 suicide victims from 2005 to the "official" 3,865 reported combat casualties; we get a sum of 10,121. Even a low-ball estimate of similar 2004 and 2006 suicide figures, would mean that the total number of US casualties from the Iraq war now exceed 15,000...Read More on Smirkingchimp.com...

Here is the CBS report on this sad story.

Back in June, Dan Rather said some unkind things about Katie Couric's news broadcast. Specifically, he said that the CBS Evening News was "dumbing down" and "tarting up" the news, favoring celebrity coverage over hard news. There was a flap. Les Moonves accused Rather of being sexist.

There was a musical.

Now, we get this video of Couric preparing for a Nashville broadcast last week, and before she goes on the air, she spends a little time ripping Rather back. The tone is generally light-hearted, and there's no real venom -- as opposed, say, to the Olbermann-O'Reilly feud -- but the highlights should be entered into this year's pop-culture record, maybe a step or two below "Don't tase me, bro." Here are some of the better quotes from the Couric video, in ascending order:

#3: "Jeez, don't you think he deserves a little payback?"
#2: "I'm not vain...just a little vain."
#1: "This tart is ready to go."

It's worth wondering how this video got out. Leaks of TV feeds aren't that rare, but Couric comes off well enough in this one -- loose, comfortable, self-deprecating without being spineless -- that it seems possible that she leaked it herself. As media becomes more dependent upon these kinds of viral products, it becomes more and more likely that media figures will try to control their appearance and distribution.

Your move, Dan.

---

---

[Ben Greenman is the author of several acclaimed books of fiction, including the recently published A Circle is a Balloon and Compass Both. Buy it here.]

Photos: Photo of the Day

Tip to The Daily Background. These two shortages probably go hand in hand. The more you shoot, the more you get shot at.

Korean War veteran Nyles Reed, 75, opened an envelope last week to learn a Purple Heart had been approved for injuries he sustained as a Marine on June 22, 1952. But there was no medal. Just a certificate and a form stating that the medal was "out of stock." ...Read More: The Houston Chronicle

The cover of New York Magazine with Katie Couric made big news. Will we ever see the cover below?

I don't know whether CBS is "dumbing down" and "tarting up" the news these days because I don't watch CBS News. In fact, I don't watch any news on the "big three" networks. If CBS is dumbing down and tarting up the news, however, the organization is merely continuing a trend that's been taking place for decades. That's the main reason why I stopped watching.

Dan Rather himself was not above "tarting up" the news (here I'm using the term in the non-sexist sense Rather says he employed). Indeed, Rather lost his job at CBS after, to put only slightly too strongly, "making up" the news. Icon though he may be (at least to Jeff Hoard), Rather ran a story peddled by anti-Bush forces purporting to show that President Bush had shirked his duty to the Texas National Guard. This was an old and unproven story. But Rather claimed to have something new -- documents that proved the case against Bush.

These documents, however, were obvious forgeries. It took bloggers about half a day to expose them as such (you can follow the complete unraveling at the Power Line archives for September 2004 staring on Sept. 9). But Rather was in a hurry to tart up the news and tear down the president during the middle of an election campaign. Thus, apparently neither he nor his staff discerned the problematic nature of the documents, as they would have done had they met basic journalistic standards.

Dan Rather's comments about the demise of hard news on television--and some critical but not personal remarks about the Todayification of news as represented by Katie Couric--are being blown out of proportion, spun, and spun back again, all in ways that pretty much prove his point -- that news is more concerned with feuds between rich people or rhetorical brushfires than with actual issues. Here's a link to a piece I wrote on another media site (the latticework of links and crosslinks is exhausting) that tries to expose the preposterousness of how this so-called feud is being covered -- but which will, I'm sure, be read as critical of Rather or Couric.

I'm sure Dan Rather is fuming at CBS chief Les Moonves' allegation that he is "sexist." Rather's feeling may be summed up this way: What, me sexist? It cannot be, since I am a liberal!

Actually, Rather's remarks were not sexist. First, Rather's direct criticism was not aimed at Katie Couric but at CBS decision-makers like Moonves. He accused them of dumbing down and tarting up the news. Second, Rather's argument wasn't that Couric is female but rather that she is not the brightest card in the female deck, and that she prefers coquettish smiles and "light" fare over serious news. This may be true or untrue, but it doesn't make Rather anti-woman. I don't think he'd be making the same charges if Christiane Amanpour were sitting in Couric's seat.

Moonves' rapid unleashing of the "sexist" allegation tells me that the man is feeling defensive about the network's choice of Couric for CBS anchor. Rather has fired back at Moonves, accusing him of not being a serious news guy. Essentially Rather is saying that Moonves is the male equivalent of Couric, a producer of fluff.

CBS says Couric needs more time. But ultimately in the news business, time is money. When Dan talks, CBS listens, but when money talks, CBS takes action.

Katie Couric's ratings continue to plummet to Bush-level unpopularity. Now even Couric's predecessor Dan Rather has added his voice to the critics. Rather did not criticize Couric directly but he did fault the CBS management for "dumbing down" the show and "tarting up" the eligibility requirements. And since there are no other candidates for this dumbing down and tarting up, we have to infer that Rather was speaking about none other than Katie.

Couric contines to maintain her trademark chirpiness, which I guess is why CBS is paying her the big bucks. But all this must be starting to weigh on her. She must feel somewhat like Caesar did when Brutus drew his knife. "Et tu, Brutus?" But Brutus did have a point, and so does Rather.

Rather's point is that as a result of the bad judgment of the CBS management, Katie is simply in the wrong job. She was successful on "Today" and she'd do fine on "The View" or Oprah or any number of other girltalk shows on TV. But she lacks the gravitas that Cronkite had in full measure and even Rather conveyed through his grim and serious look. Perhaps it's time for Katie to start looking in her garage for that golden parachute.

From today's New York Observer:

It's the free agent's curse: No matter what else may be wrong with the franchise, the new arrival's talent is supposed to overcome it. That's why they put you in the heart of the lineup, or on those bus billboards. If there are problems that still need fixing, that means the savior is a failure. An ongoing set of adjustments means that the savior is an ongoing failure.

So each new strategy that CBS or the Yankees might try, hoping to win more viewers or more games, gets evaluated as an act of publicity long before the results come in. Ms. Couric and the CBS Evening News are going through the kind of scrutiny usually presented on WFAN: Are they sunk? Are they crazy? What were they thinking in the first place? And how long can they keep making excuses for that overpriced bum?

Currently, the Yankees are looking up in the standings at a team, the Red Sox, who are playing the Yankees' game better than the Yankees-i.e., winning ballgames with the finest team money can buy. CBS, having hired the most celebrated anchor in the modern history of morning television, now finds itself looking up in the ratings at a news team helmed by former morning-news anchor Charles Gibson.

These two mega-watt media personalities bare the burden -- and reap the benefits -- of working in New York. I have to think the same "curse" can be applied to the business world as well -- bringing in a hot shot CEO to be a savior only to see the stock tank. Anyone out there have any suggestions?

You can read the rest of the Observer article here.

I wonder why my show's a bomb

When I carry myself with such aplomb

I always think I'm such a hoot

And besides, who can deny I'm cute?

The public just can't take a gal

Those sexist jerks can go to hell

, I find it quite a bore

But girlfriend chats, hey give me more!

Leaning left is my firm rule

In politics, that shows I'm cool

Will CBS tell me "That's it"

On the flimsy grounds that I'm a twit?

Hey twits have rights as well you see

We help promote diversity!

--Katie

With all the talk about Katie Couric's aggressive interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards--particularly the way she bulldogged the Edwards on their decision to stay in the presidential race -- Couric's own personal history with cancer has returned to her in an interesting, if not exactly ironic, way.

Couric's husband, of course, was Jay Monahan, who died of colon cancer at the age of 42 in 1998, prompting Couric to become an active spokesperson for colon cancer awareness (she famously underwent an on-air colonoscopy in 2000) and then, later, other cancers. She used her highly visible career as a platform. She spoke openly about the challenges of balancing career and family illness. One thing she did not do was leave her job (though she did take breaks). When people have criticized her for her demeanor in the Edwards interview, they have accused her of hypocrisy.

Is it possible that it's not hypocrisy, but something a little more psychologically straightforward -- that she was, in speaking to John and Elizabeth Edwards, returned to the site of her own personal stresses regarding the decision? Sometimes personal crises, or feelings regarding crises, go into remission, only to recur later in unexpected ways. News reporters are supposed to be objective, but they can't help being human.

First, a reminder to everyone to watch American Idol tonight. And kudos to my colleague Dinesh D'Souza on travelling to India to investigate the Indian perspective on the rise of Sanjaya. A lot of journalists writing about AI do so from their offices or country houses.

Anderson Cooper:Katrina = Dinesh D'Souza:American Idol

Now allow me to be the last American to weigh in on Katie Couric's interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards.

Everyone with whom I've spoken agrees that it is most appalling for anyone to question the choices the Edwardses are making regarding career and family. What? John Edwards is supposed to engage in some sort of 19th century deathwatch? Give me a break.

But a runner-up in the category of "most appalling" goes to those heaping sanctimonious scorn on Katie for asking reasonable questions in a mutually agreed upon interview. She didn't ambush them. She in fact gave them a forum for showing how strong and clear thinking they are - qualities I want in my next President. (If anything I wish she'd asked about the death of their son. 70% of marriages dissolve after the death of a child. This reinforces the fortitude of the Edwardses. Then again, if she'd asked about that, millions would accuse Katie of callously reminding them of a horror - a horror that they of course live with everyday.)

If Katie had gone weepy on them and brought up her own history with cancer, then everyone would have assailed her for being soft and fuzzy or even lazy and self-pitying.

Katie is every bit as solid as Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson - and has probably logged many more interiew hours (live ones, at that). I remember a 2003 interview she did with the reliably ridiculous (and worse) Pat Robertson. He'd just offered "prayers" for three Supreme Court justices to leave the court. One of them, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just happened to have cancer. (O'Connor had a heart condition and Stevens was 83.) Katie took that son of a bitch to task but, even more impressively, was respectful and did not make the interview about herself. (If I'd lost a spouse and a sibling to cancer, as had Katie, I would have been sorely tempted to bring this.)

And just for the record: while Meredith Vieira may have many fabulous qualities, Katie never would have fallen on the ice.