Meet the Idiot, cont.

A reader writes:

Of course, when Obama blackballs a media station or newspapers because reporters ask questions he did not want to answer, it is not suppressing free speech media outlets! What was the reason for booting the Dallas Morning News and other papers? Nobody is ever supposed to ask Obama pointed questions?

Ryan J. Rusak writes in the Dallas Morning News today:

[W]e don't have evidence that the paper's recommendation had any bearing on the campaign's decision. No one from the campaign ever mentioned it to Todd. (And neither he, nor I, nor any other political reporter or editor had any input or knowledge of the editorial board's recommendation.) The campaign says it had tough decisions to make and insists no weight was given to the endorsement.

We think the decision is to some degree more a function of limited seats, and while we're a large regional newspaper, we're not national and we're not in a swing state.

We've had similar trouble with the McCain campaign. One of our reporters left the campaign plane this week after being told there would be no room for him, and we're only getting back on this weekend because that campaign is adding a second plane for journalists. (We pay our own way, but the campaign makes arrangements and bills us.)

If one reads things other than WorldNet Daily or other stuff that simply confirms your opinion rather than challenges it (my blog excepted, of course), a whole new world would open up.

The reality is that the press -- from the most lib to the most conserv -- have trashed Sarah Palin, not because they're against women, or against Christians, or against Republicans in this election. They have trashed her because she's not up to the job. She's just a regular gal from a hick town in Alaska who happens to have a streak of ambition a mile wide and has no qualms about eviscerating her opponents. Yet she's also an ignoramus for not having the good sense to realize her own current limitations. Her decision to jump in, aided by equally ambitious political handlers and John McCain -- was impulsive, and may have ruined her political career. Had she waited eight years after serving a full term as governor and spending some time on the national scene -- either as a VISIBLE presence as a governor (as opposed to her INvisible presence until the day she was picked) or as a member of the House or Senate (she actually would have made a great opponent for Ted Stevens in the primary this year) -- she would have a solid Republican Party behind her. She doesn't embody the real conservatism that marks her as anything other than a strict populist. You, who are such a hard-core adherent to the word of the Constitution, were taken in by this sassy-talkin' hockey mom who couldn't identify a single article or amendment to the Constitution other than First or Second off the top of her head. I'm no expert either, but I'm not running to be next in line for leader of the free world! She should be brilliant, scholarly, possessive of solid judgment, AND be a woman of deep faith for good measure. She's got one out of four, and she doesn't get the job.

Latest national polls:
Gallup -- Obama 52, McCan't 41
Reuters/Zogby -- Obama 49, McCan't 44
Rasmussen -- Obama 51, McCan't 46
ABC/WaPo -- Obama 53, McCan't 44

Of these polls only Reuters/Zogby shows a tightening. The rest indicate widening due to a drop for McCan't or a bump for Obama.

Former Republican and Bush aide Matthew Dowd said on Bill Maher last week that the spread of the polls in the weekend leading up to Election Day was materially similar to the spread that decided the last two elections. Bush led Kerry by 2-3 points and won by 2.5. Bush and Gore were dead even, and we know how that turned out. Obama leads by 5-6 points, and very likely that's how it's going to end up.