If you’ve never read Tuesday Morning Quarterback, you’re missing out. Gregg Easterbrook provides among the very best football analysis around AND some of the best social/political commentary around. It’s so good that I’d recommend it even if you’re only interested in one or the other.

Today, as part of his column, he has a roaring critique of the bailout trend, including Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s proposed $700 billion blank check bailout plan.

Sure, you could read scathing analysis at HuffPo, DailyKOS, or some other online news source more typically geared toward politics, but why not interlace your politics with some of the best sports commentary around?

If you haven’t seen this Daily Show interview with Tony Blair, geaux thare nao, then come right back.

Two things stick out for me in a big way. First, Blair has officially drunk the Bush Doctrine, war-on-terror Kool-Aid. He explicitly equates Islamic terrorism in any country anywhere in the world–Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and so on.

Blair mimics Bush’s foreign policy: We’re on a war against one giant team of Islamic terrorists, they’re all on it, and we have to take the fight to them.

Second, Stewart gives him a much harder time than most members of the press would or do. He quotes a faux old British expression, “Don’t invade Iraq; it’s a nightmare,” and makes Blair respond. After an awkward silence, Blair is forced to invoke his equivocation between all armed Islamic groups; he’s maybe 8 words in before he says “al Qaeda”, and he specifically mentions Palestine, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iranian-backed militias, etc.

Just a bit later:

Stewart: I thought they all want different things. I mean, Hezbollah and Hamas, you could say, are just absolutely localized, they have certain issues that, … And al Qaeda is really the only one that seems to have a worldwide…

Blair: You might have said that some years back–

Stewart: Before we invaded.

Blair: No, I don’t think so. Ya know, there was September the 11th.

Stewart: I believe I lived (?) very near that.

The exchange makes Blair look like the clown. This worldly political figure, the former premier of a G-8 country, has to invoke 9/11 in a foreign policy debate with a New Yorker.

Stewart politely reminds Blair that the most tragic events that day happened in his back yard, the subtle implication being, “Stop invoking our pain for your political gain.” Go Jon.

While this is awesome, I’m saddened that the hardest hitting journalist on TV just may be a comedian. I guess when our national political discourse is just a big joke, it’s somehow fitting.

Here’s a minilink from Lokman:

Media Bloggers Association launches blogging insurance program

This is actually a reasonable next step for blogging as it becomes a major media outlet and big business. It’s little different than Errors & Omissions insurance for other professionals, including media producers such as filmmakers.

Again: Hey, Obama team, here’s another ad for you!

Part I (ominous music):

Sarah Palin may be a woman, but she’s no friend to women who’ve endured the unthinkable. After Palin became mayor, the town of Wasilla started charging rape victims for the tools necessary to investigate their own sexual assaults.

Part II (happy music):

Barack Obama has been a tireless advocate for victims of sexual assault. In the Illinois state senate, Obama cosponsored a bill to make sure victims don’t have to pay one cent. In 2005, Joe Biden and Barack Obama sponsored a similar federal bill. Because victims deserve better.

Even better: Hillary does the narrating and appears on-screen. Unsurprisingly, she was also a cosponsor, but the message this would send–vote Dem for women’s issues–would dominate the news cycle for 2-3 days.

Over at HuffingtonPost, Howard Schweber has the best analysis of Obama’s ad strategy–or lack thereof.

I’m wondering if there’s anything I can do to get the campaign to start plagiarizing from BraveNewFilms ASAP. Robert Greenwald’s studio, which is posting its McCain criticisms at TheRealMcCain.com, is a national treasure.

RealNetworks’ recent decision to sell DVD ripping software, RealDVD, has the public asking: “Why not rip DVDs like CDs?”

Doing a Google News search today for the software, I got over 200 hits, many from decidedly mainstream sources like USAToday and USNews. Those of us who pride ourselves on some modicum of tech savvy have long known that this was possible, but RealDVD has enough financial backing, perceived legitimacy, and user friendliness that it may reshape how many people watch movies.

The next big question is when the motion picture industry will send out their lawyers, waving the DMCA’s Section 1201 in RealNetworks’ faces. While it is probably the best publicized program to do so, RealDVD is just one of many brave commercial programs trotting out onto this legal minefield. From the EFF DeepLinks blog:

Real has chosen to follow in Kaleidescape’s footsteps. Apparently, it is not alone — CEPro has an informative article summarizing all the DVD media server solutions for the home theater market that were announced at the recent CEDIA conference. Looks like Hollywood’s iron-fisted grip of DVDs is slipping a little every day.

Ironically, I’ve been falling behind on these developments as I focus on my dissertation on DRM politics. I’d assumed that the free programs, like HandBrake and MacTheRipper, were still filling this vacuum. It’s good to catch up, and even better to hear that somebody’s fighting and winning against the DVD-CCA.

RealNetworks has made a splash of late with their RealDVD software. Other small-scale commercial programs have come and gone; most memorably among them was 321 Studios‘ DVD X Copy. Under the pressure of Hollywood’s massive legal onslaught, 321 folded up shop.

RealNetworks may not fold over so easily. They are a much more substantial company, and the studios are more likely to negotiate something mutually acceptable.

I’m not sure which side is helped more by viral internet politics, but the email circulation of partisan political discourse is certainly becoming a more important part of the campaign.

Three bits I’ve encountered suggest some of the possibilities.

First, consider the Anne Kilkenny letter. Written by an actual Wasilla resident, it documents all the local’s concerns about Palin’s time as Mayor and Governor. Penned just last weekend, it’s already exploded as a much-forwarded email.

Next, the cliche example is YouTube, but consider it as a vehicle for sharing less-visible public appearances by candidates. This rally speech excerpt by Joe Biden, “The Silence is Deafening,” went up on Friday and has already been viewed almost 80,000 times and earned over 1,400 reviews averaging 5 stars. It likely would have been lost in the weekend news cycle to many, if not most, of these viewers, myself included. Emailed links to the video on YouTube kept it alive.

Finally, consider the Daily Show. This week, they have been fiercely criticizing the Republicans during their convention. Even for those who didn’t watch the first time around, the show’s encyclopedic video library allows the sharing of these gems:

Sarah Palin–Vet This! (Start about 5 min in. Best summary of the Giuliani and Palin speeches starts just before the 8 min mark.)

John McCain, Reformed Maverick (Narrated by Ian McShane)

John McCain’s Big Acceptance Speech

I don’t doubt that the right also has a hall of fame of viral emails and videos that are also mobilizing their base. While I’m not going to dig up the source to link to, I’m pretty sure viral internet video is a phenomenon that has much greater resonance among the young–that age and online video consumption are inversely and strongly related.

While the impact may not be necessary or sufficient, I think the Obama/Biden ticket stands to accrue a unique benefit from the widespread adoption of home broadband. This is especially true since young people are by and large sold on Obama but may still need to be mobilized to vote. If every few days, a different friend is passing along a relevant video, young people may be more likely to register and vote than in previous elections.

As a debate champion who spent 12 years in the activity, I am utterly appalled at the repugnant, personal attacks that Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin leveled at Obama and Biden tonight. I would be shocked to see such juvenile antics from a high school freshman.

If I tried to document every ad hominem blow, every sleight-of-hand straw-man attack on policy issues, and every bit of shallow mockery of Obama’s life of service, it would take me all night. Here are a few bits from what I see as particularly low: Read more »

There are already thousands of blog posts about the revelation that Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. This post is not just another addition to the pile; rather, I think the story has a couple lessons about online political communication.

First, the (insert adjective) blogosphere has become a magic talisman in discussions of current affairs; it is whatever a speaker wants it to be. Second, this only accelerates the right’s remarkable ability to shoot the messenger.

As strongly pressed by the Obama team (Obama to media: Back off!), there is little political hay to be made over Bristol’s pregnancy. The Palin pick gives Dems plenty of ammo without touching this story. Even beyond her obvious inexperience, Palin carries very many serious liabilities, and we’re likely still learning more. Her family’s baby count isn’t a wise target. At best, it’s an opportunity to talk about sex ed policy, a position on which Palin is far out of the mainstream.

The crazy part of this story centers on the allegation (which I am not making) that Gov. Sarah Palin faked her fifth pregnancy to cover for Bristol–that the Palins’ youngest son, Trig, is actually their grandson. No political figure or news outlet of any weight will touch this allegation except to treat it as an internet rumor.

While most official news sources credit anonymous bloggers (even Huff Post does it) for their source on this allegation, it is most specifically attributed to dedicated DailyKos diarists–users who do not speak for the site. One user in particular stoked the flames with pictures and details; the original post was deleted in the last few hours in an obvious exercise of the site’s policy against poorly-sourced allegations of conspiracy and the like. Another user’s conspiratorial entry remains up for now.

The surface-level analysis would lead us to view this as an instance of one person getting attention in a way that was just not possible in the offline world. But why did it gain traction?

The few who chimed in on Kos and elsewhere would have remained on the fringe had the right not seized the opportunity to blame “liberal bloggers” and strongly insinuate that the Obama camp had a hand in it. Frankly, this is a crap allegation. Real lefty bloggers have plenty to say about Palin without picking on her daughter. In fact, here’s a mini linkfest summarizing the collective verdict of the actual, established liberal blogosphere:

Lee Stranahan, @ Huff Post: Palin ‘Definitely Pregnant’ With Trig

RJ Eskow, @ Huff: ‘Hey, Pundits, Leave Them Kids Alone‘

Kos: ‘I don’t think the evidence is there to claim Trig is Bristol’s son‘ (headline: ‘So Much For Abstinence-Only Education’, a more-or-less legit policy swipe at Gov. Palin)

Faiz @ ThinkProgress: basic rehash of pregnant daughter story, gratuitous swipes on reproductive policy issues

Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic is the most legitimate source I could find even discussing the allegation as something worth rebutting, and he assumed it was false, urging Palin to release the medical records. “And then we can move on.”

For conservatives in this story, the liberal blogosphere serves as a magical uber-enemy: nameless, faceless, with untold power to spread lies to gullible swing voters. This talismanic quality is often attributed to the blogosphere, both in negative and positive terms. Liberals (Joe Trippi) and conservatives (Hugh Hewitt) alike have long sold partisan books promising that the internet will set “our side” free.

The truth about the internet is subtle, complex, and evolving. Things are different by a nontrivial yet nonrevolutionary degree. We could attribute any and every rumor to the internet, but until the mainstream media picks it up, it still doesn’t exist for most people on most days. I learned of the Palin story from NPR’s All Things Considered, and I study internet politics. In short, concerns about this rumor’s internet life were more theatrical than genuine.

One important difference that rarely gets described in adequate detail is the degree to which the internet allows collaborative, distributed production of knowledge and opinion. Many sources offline and on (including Drudge) explicitly credited DailyKos with the conspiracy theories expressed by unauthorized Kos diarists; this is either a convenient smear (again, Drudge) or a sign of real ignorance. A Kos diarist has almost as much free rein as a Blogger user; we don’t blame Google for the junk they host, but once a blogger hosts a blogging service, people get confused or deliberately muddy the issue.

Both search engines and browsing habits reward sites for getting inlinks. This leads to swarming. If there’s a noteworthy story, the internet collectively decides it is noteworthy by saying, literally, “Go read this.” This can also have the occasional effect of amplifying the visibility of garbage. (Think “girls” and “cup”.) With enough inlinks or the right kind of inlink, the linked-to site gains an authority it did not previously have; if this isn’t the lucky break for somebody who actually produces quality material, that visibility will wane over time.

This all fits quite well with the shoot-the-messenger trick that the right does very well. Whenever one is facing news that can be cast in a bad light, it can sometimes work very well to go on the offensive and blame those who would make hay of such news. Karl Rove should give PhD’s in this strategy.

If nobody’s talking about it because the story hasn’t yet broken, or if you need a newsworthy hook to bring the matter up on your terms, there’s no reason you can’t create the ideal media enemy. Rove did so with Bush’s cocaine bust and, possibly, with the forged Bush military documents leaked to CBS.

Of course, I have no specific evidence to support what I am implying here about the Palin conspiracy theory, but it was awfully convenient that the best-known liberal blog that allows end users to create their own posts just happened to have an incredibly well-documented post on the issue.

I can’t even take credit for this idea; many comments on the original post noted the similarities to earlier Rove tricks (including a joke about typeface) before the offending post was removed. The user had just one post prior to the story breaking out, but the removed post had many more photos and links than one would expect from a total noob.

Before you start making me a tin foil hat (follow the link above; this really has become a pattern), note at least one more piece of pertinent data: Palin’s staff removed an official state website containing a number of family pictures, replacing the site with a raw HTML page that reads as follows:

Object not found!

The requested URL was not found on this server. The link on the referring page seems to be wrong or outdated. Please inform the author of that page about the error.

If you think this is a server error, please contact the webmaster.

Error 404

gov.state.ak.us
Tue Sep 2 00:29:26 2008
Apache/2.0.55 (Ubuntu) PHP/5.1.2 mod_ssl/2.0.55 OpenSSL/0.9.8a

Screencap of Sarah Palin photos site

Frankly, this is all just a little too convenient. A total noob at a top liberal blog adds to an infinite pile of diary entries, important people in the other camp notice and get offended, and the entry gets lots of link love–including links from Drudge and the official site of the public official who’s been implicated.

The story just happens to give the public official the perfect opportunity to take a swipe at the other team without actually naming names, all while embarrassing a hated blogger. And when it comes out, it provides an awesome vehicle to dwarf the story-ness of the actual, embarrassing story, making the news story about the messenger rather than the political figure at the center of the message.

If this truly did fall into Palin’s lap, she and her team made Mt. Everest out of a molehill. But excuse me if I’m suspicious of the nameless Kos diarist’s sincerity.

Thankfully, those who are actually important members of the liberal blogosphere did not bite. This could’ve been much worse.

UPDATE: Here’s a better link explaining how the 2004 CBS fiasco went down.

Also, I was somewhat relieved to talk to Tina this morning and get her impression of how the major media outlets are representing this. For those whose media world doesn’t include FReepers or Kos diarists, apparently the story is about how sloppy McCain was to pick Palin without a thorough vetting.

The Times, for instance, has a front page article quoting political figures on and off the record who claim that the vetting was shallow to nonexistent. Here’s my favorite quote:

Representative Gail Phillips, a Republican and former speaker of the State House, said the widespread surprise in Alaska when Ms. Palin was named to the ticket made her wonder how intensively the McCain campaign had vetted her.

“I started calling around and asking, and I have not been able to find one person that was called,” Ms. Phillips said. “I called 30 to 40 people, political leaders, business leaders, community leaders. Not one of them had heard. Alaska is a very small community, we know people all over, but I haven’t found anybody who was asked anything.”

Alaska has a small population and a microscopic group of politically connected folks. If a Republican former House speaker will go on the record that she doesn’t know anybody who got asked, it’s because there was very little if any real vetting.

Incidentally, that’s the second most emailed article right now. Number 1 is a piece by Maureen Dowd mocking the Palin pick as something that would strain credulity in a movie, let alone real life.

Also, ABC notes that the bipartisan state Senate committee investigating the Monegan firing was scheduled to release a final report on October 31. The Democratic state senator in charge of the investigation, Hollis French, alleges that McCain’s team is trying to stall this process to move the release date past the election.

French also echoes Phillips’ take, saying that nobody on the committee was contacted by the McCain team during the vetting process. The Alaska Daily News has a veritable roll-call of everyone who should have been contacted but was not. Neighbors, the recently-fired Walt Monegan, and a bipartisan roll-call of legislators all attest that nobody asked them anything.

I’m not sure McCain will back down, but this pick has at least resurrected the ghost of Tom Eagleton.

I suppose that’s enough partisanship for now…

ANOTHER UPDATE: Okay, I can’t resist. Check out the TPM post, Palin: A Scandal We Can Believe In!, complete with a YouTube clip of the local CBS affiliate’s coverage of the scandal.

This whole thing is absolutely crazy.