Fish in a barrel, Michelle Malkin edition

Michelle Malkin fails to do her homework on Joe Biden and his accurate assertion that Louisiana is losing 400 jobs a day.

Joe Biden's so-called lie

I'm posting some incomplete findings in the hopes that someone else might be able to fill in the blanks.

The right-wing blogosphere is on fire right now with claims that Joe Biden "lied" when he said that Louisiana is losing 400 jobs a day. Biden made his remarks in the course of criticizing Gov. Bobby Jindal's refusal of more than $90 million in additional unemployment funds. A local newscast in Louisiana, citing the state employment agency, claims that the state actually added jobs in December, the last month for which numbers are available.

Well, now. If you take a visit to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that Louisiana's unemployment rate rose from 3.8 percent in June to 5.9 percent in December. During that time, 45,065 people in Louisiana lost their jobs. That adds up to approximately 250 per day — not 400, I'll grant you, but a damned high number, and certainly one that contradicts the notion that the state was actually adding jobs. [Actually, yes. Biden was right. See update, below.]

Now it's nearly March. We know that the recession and unemployment have accelerated over the past two months. I don't have January and February numbers of Louisiana, but I may just be looking in the wrong places. But I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if an average of 400 people a day have been losing their jobs in Louisiana since the first of the year.

Yes, I realize that the local report I'm linking to claims that Louisiana's unemployment filings actually declined through mid-January. But remember, that same report says Louisiana gained jobs in December, which is directly contradicted by the federal numbers.

Anybody know where I can get credible preliminary unemployment estimates for January and February?

Update: The answer was staring me right in the face. Steve points out that Louisiana lost an average of 430 jobs a day in December.

A good night for Obama

In my latest for the Guardian, I round up media commentary about the Palin-Biden debate — and argue that Barack Obama caught a break, as not even conservatives thought Sarah Palin did quite well enough to be declared the unambiguous victor.

Live-blogging the Palin-Biden debate

10:37 p.m. I tend to be really bad at picking up on what most people think is important — not just the pundits, but ordinary people, too. So I'm fully prepared to see my instant reaction torn down tomorrow morning.

But I honestly don't think Palin did anything other than stand there and say stuff for an hour and a half. "How long have I been at this? Five weeks?" she asked. Yeah. And with few exceptions, everything she said tonight was crammed into her head during that time.

Biden was authoritative, knowledgeable and spoke in clear, complete sentences. He was able to point out discrepancies in Palin's statements. And when he nearly broke down in talking about his family, he humanized himself in a way he hadn't managed to do up to that time.

That's all for tonight. I'll be wrapping up media commentary tomorrow morning for the Guardian.

10:29 p.m. They're wrapping up.

10:24 p.m. If I'd been playing a drinking game based on the word "maverick," I'd be passed out on the floor right now.

10:21 p.m. Oh, my God. I don't want to cheapen genuine emotion. But Biden nearly broke down talking about his family — and given his story, that's all we're going to be talking about tomorrow. Say good night, Sarah.

10:20 p.m. Biden gets the question, but other than being self-deprecating, he doesn't answer, either.

10:18 p.m. Ifill: What is your real Achilles' heel? Palin responds by talking about how wonderful she is. In Palin's defense, Ifill's question was a little hard to scan.

10:11 p.m. Biden: "The people in my neighborhood get it." Here's his neighborhood.

10:09 p.m. Live-blogging now being powered by an alternative energy source — Harvest Moon Pumpkin Ale. Surprisingly undistinguished. Oh, no wonder. Coors makes it.

10:02 p.m. Did Biden just call Bosnians "Bosniacs"? [Post-debate update: Bosniacs, or Bosniaks, are Bosnian Muslims. Biden knew what he was talking about.]

9:55 p.m. Biden debates the Palinbot. Random, Palin-like phrases come tumbling out of her mouth in response to every question.

9:51 p.m. Biden's doing a good job of pointing out that McCain is now well to the right of Bush.

9:49 p.m. By saying Ahmadinejad is "not sane or stable," Palin shows that she fundamentally misunderstands the real issues. Just because he's dangerous doesn't mean he's crazy.

9:44 p.m. Northeastern journalism student Candice Springer is live-blogging the debate.

9:42 p.m. Palin's doing a pretty good job of driving a wedge between Biden and Obama on Iraq. Biden's comeback: Bush and the Iraqi government take our position; McCain's the only one who doesn't.

9:39 p.m. Palin says she's "tolerant" of adults "choosing their partners." Does she know what she's saying? She probably does. Biden: Obama and I oppose same-sex marriage, too.

9:35 p.m. AP reports: "The two debated for 90 minutes with little more than one month remaining in the campaign and McCain struggling to regain his footing." A little premature? Thanks, Mike B1.

9:33 p.m. Ifill asks Palin about "climate change." Obviously biased!

9:30 p.m. Biden's flashing some serious signs of cockiness when Palin's talking. Careful, Joe — disaster ahead?

9:27 p.m. Biden: Obama and I support a windfall-profits tax on oil companies. So did Palin in Alaska. Maybe she can talk McCain into joining us.

9:25 p.m. Palin: "How long have I been at this? Five weeks?"

9:23 p.m. Wow. Palin's taking a pass on Biden's health-care attack, which was pretty effective: McCain wants to tax your employer-provided medical insurance. And Palin's got nothing to say? I think I know why: It's Gwen Ifill's fault.

9:21 p.m. Biden calls McCain's health-care plan "the ultimate bridge to nowhere." Pretty good line.

9:19 p.m. Good grief. Palin just accused Obama of wanting to "mandate" health care. Didn't Hillary beat him up for not wanting to mandate health care? (Answer: Yes.)

9:15 p.m. Palin repeats the lie that Obama wants to raise taxes on "families" making as little as $42,000. PolitiFact: False.

9:13 p.m. Biden's looking right at Palin. I suppose he would anyway, but he's making sure he doesn't repeat McCain's mistake with Obama.

9:11 p.m. Biden is flat and boring tonight. Is it deliberate? I'll bet it is.

9:09 p.m. Biden lets Palin get away with the fiction that McCain "suspended" his campaign. What did he suspend?

9:02 p.m. Audio and video are out of sync on C-SPAN. Palin: "Mind if I call you Joe?"

I wasn't going to, but oh, why not? If you're interested in my almost-real-time ruminations, please tune in around 9 p.m. And if you're not, I understand.

Obama, Palin and experience

For several days now, I've been thinking about the notion that Sarah Palin is just as experienced as Barack Obama — or, for that matter, more experienced, since she's got executive experience and he doesn't. I find it ludicrous, so it took me a while to wrap my arms around it.

Though "experience" and "qualifications" are being treated in this campaign as though they are the same thing, they are not. Experience is one of the things you look at — an important thing — in deciding whether someone is qualified. But there are other factors, too.

Let's stipulate that Obama is less experienced than would be ideal, though I would argue that his years in the legislature of a large industrial state is vastly more relevant than Palin's time running a tiny town, followed by her cup of coffee as governor. Despite Obama's lack of experience at the national level, few people in public life today have done more serious reading, thinking and speaking about the wide array of national and international issues that will face the next president.

Thus the question with Obama is whether his deep knowledge of the issues, much of it theoretical and academic, will hold up once he gets slapped in the face by reality. It's a legitimate concern. Ideally Obama would have run in 2012 or 2016. But politics is never ideal, and he took the risk — a smart risk, in my view — that it was better to run before he was as experienced as he ought to be than become just one of the Washington crowd.

Obama's qualifications are his experience, his knowledge and his judgment. Voters have been probing those three elements for many months now and have gotten to know quite a lot about him.

Then there is Palin, who was thrust upon the nation less than a week ago. Most of Palin's experience is virtually identical to chairing the board of selectmen in a small New England town. Sorry, but Obama's years as a community organizer and as a state legislator, and his short time in the U.S. Senate, are vastly more relevant than Palin's years as mayor and her brief stint as the governor of state with the population of Boston — a state awash in so much oil money that the only question is how to spend it.

So what about the rest of her qualifications? Her knowledge and her judgment? That's what we're all trying to find out now. I've made it clear that I think she comes up short on both fronts. There is no evidence that she's ever given more than superficial thought to any national or international issue other than energy, and I'm not sure how her ideas differ from Obama's except that she wants to drill, drill, drill. And why not? She thinks the views of the vast majority of the world's atmospheric scientists — that humans are contributing to global warming — are mere opinions with which she is free to agree or disagree. And she disagrees.

Jon Keller, in his commentary on WBZ Radio (AM 1030) this morning, argued that experience is overrated, and that both Palin and Obama have enough. I don't quite agree, but I agree with him that that's not how voters will ultimately make up their minds.

People will vote for the Obama-Biden team or the McCain-Palin team on the basis of issues, values and party identification. In the end, experience is just something to talk about.

The Joe and Beau show

Maybe I'm speech'd out, but I wasn't hugely taken with Joe Biden's address. He was good, and he certainly did what he needed to do. But there was a ragged, stop-and-start feel to it. Clinton and Kerry were better.

Beau Biden, on the other hand, couldn't have been more moving. Judging from what I saw on television, there wasn't a dry eye in the convention hall.

Funny, but I thought Bruce Springsteen was going to come out when it was announced that there would be a "special guest."

More on Fournier and the AP

Some years ago I remember reading a profile of Ron Fournier, who was then fairly new as a political reporter for the Associated Press.

It's not likely I'm going to find a link at this late date, so I'll have to rely on my memory. What I recall was his saying he'd never been all that interested in politics, an attitude he thought had helped him break some stories. He was a hard-news reporter, not a partisan.

Well, now. I want to follow up my post of earlier today, because I think Fournier's "analysis" of the Joe Biden pick is remarkable enough that we shouldn't let go of it too quickly. It's not that Fournier's anti-Obama bias is so obvious, though it is. It's that his take is embarrassingly dumb and shallow. A news analysis is an odd duck; neither a news story nor an opinion piece, it is supposed to make sense of the news. Fournier's attempt fails dismally.

Steve Stein has posted some terrific links, and I recommend the Washington Monthly item he flags. What I like about that item, written by Steve Benen, is that it gets to the heart of how lazy Fournier is to suggest that Barack Obama's choice shows a "lack of confidence" in his reformist, outsider message. As Benen notes, you could say that about any vice-presidential pick: if Obama had chosen Hillary Clinton, it would show a "lack of confidence" that he could win the women's vote without her. You get the idea. Benen also notes that Fournier nearly took a job with the McCain campaign in 2007.

Drilling down a little further, Eric Boehlert's excellent overview — which gathers everything from Fournier's inappropriately supportive e-mail to Karl Rove to his supplying McCain with his favorite donuts (ooh, sprinkles!) — links out to a Politico piece that explains Fournier's rationale for the AP's increasingly edgy, opinionated journalism. Michael Calderone writes:

Fournier is a main engine in a high-stakes experiment at the 162-year old wire to move from its signature neutral and detached tone to an aggressive, plain-spoken style of writing that Fournier often describes as "cutting through the clutter."

In the stories the new boss is encouraging, first-person writing and emotive language are okay.

So is scrapping the stonefaced approach to journalism that accepts politicians' statements at face value and offers equal treatment to all sides of an argument. Instead, reporters are encouraged to throw away the weasel words and call it like they see it when they think public officials have revealed themselves as phonies or flip-floppers.

I'm not buying it. I'm no fan of traditional objectivity and its passive reliance on official statements. But we need tough, fair, neutral reporting more than ever, and it seems to me that the AP ought to be at the forefront of providing it. With regional newspapers cutting back on their national and international coverage, this should be a chance for the AP to shine.

In an e-mail to Media Nation, Stephen Burgard, director of the School of Journalism at Northeastern University (i.e., my chairman), writes:

I read Fournier's "analysis" before checking your blog today and was independently appalled. Since when is choosing somebody knowledgeable in foreign affairs and the Senate Judiciary Committee, who balances a ticket as well, a sign of lack of confidence or weakness?

The suggestion that the confident move would be to bring in somebody inexperienced who represents the "politics of change" and "hope" is ludicrous; it's something you might expect to see in a student lefty publication, not from the AP, which is supposed to understand how presidential politics works.

I can't help remembering that the AP's Walter Mears wrote the book on the journalistic form "news analysis." In addition to writing good ones, he was able to explain what they were when done right. Not straight news stories. Not opinion pieces. But somehow interpretive in a way that shed an informed reporter's light beyond just being a stenographer of events.

Perhaps Fournier thinks he was being "intrepretive." He wasn't. Fournier may well be in the tank for McCain, but I would feel only slightly better if he were dishing it out equally to both sides. The fact is that Fournier's "analysis" is a piece of pure opinion, unsophisticated and uninformed.

It's not just that it should have been better. It's that we depend on the AP to provide us with something fundamentally different.

Photo of Fournier by Josh Hallett and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Spinning the obvious

In an "analysis" headlined "Biden pick shows lack of confidence," Ron Fournier of the Associated Press writes:

For all his self-confidence, the 47-year-old Illinois senator worried that he couldn't beat Republican John McCain without help from a seasoned politician willing to attack. The Biden selection is the next logistical step in an Obama campaign that has become more negative — a strategic decision that may be necessary but threatens to run counter to his image.

That's because, well, Obama probably can't beat McCain without help from a seasoned politician willing to attack.

Let me lend a hand and help Fournier with what he may be writing one week from today:

For all his self-confidence, the 72-year-old Arizona senator worried that he couldn't beat Democrat Barack Obama without help from a seasoned politician willing to attack. The Romney selection is the next logistical step in a McCain campaign that has become more negative — a strategic decision that may be necessary but threatens to run counter to his image.

Any questions? Other than wondering how many brain cells Fournier fired up before putting fingers to keyboard?

David Brooks on Friday: "Biden's the one. The only question is whether Obama was wise and self-aware enough to know that."

Biden his time

Granted, the Olympics messed up the timing, and no one announces his running mate during the convention anymore. But why would Barack Obama tell everyone his choice is Joe Biden "in the wee hours of Saturday morning"?

If nothing else, we'll get to see how many Sunday talk shows Biden can hit tomorrow. There are — what — five? He can do it. The man does like to talk.