The Dow Jones editing test will be administered from 10-11 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 17, in Lee Hills 110. It’s a one-hour test. Please make sure you're on time.

We'll have a review session for the test at 7 p.m. Monday, Oct. 12 at the Missourian.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Dow test
Q: I’ve heard this internship is a pretty big deal. Is it?
A. Yes. If selected for the internship, you’re considered one of the best collegiate editors in the nation. You’ll get to take part in an intense 8-day training at one of seven sites across the nation with some of the best editing faculty in the nation. It’s a big deal for your resume.

Q: Does this internship pay?
A: Yes. You’re guaranteed a minimum base salary, plus Dow will pay for your travel to your training site and to your internship.

Q: Where could I end up interning?
A: Last year, 79 newspapers partnered with Dow, including the New York Times. Dow papers can be found all across the nation and range in size from major metro papers to smaller community newspapers the size of the Missourian or Columbia Tribune.

Q: Do I have to be a senior or grad student to take it?
A: No. Anyone can take the test.

Q: Where can I find more information?
A: Go to www.newspaperfund.org for more information and to register for the test. Old tests are available as study guides here.

Another good place to study current events is here for 2008 and here for 2009.

Looking to study the AP Stylebook online? Get it here.

   

What does the future hold for copy editors? According to one attendee at a recent AEJMC09 breakfast, not everyone likes the potential answers.

In discussing the highlights of the talk that morning, David Fisher passes along these gems of knowledge by way of Josh Benton with Nieman Journalism Lab and David Beard with Boston.com:

• A key feature of new jobs will be coaxing journalistic-quality work out of non-journalists. Actually, he says, that's always been an important skill on community papers, if you think about it.
• Solid headline writing with a good understanding of search engine optimization.
• Curation, much like the old wire editor who combined various stories into one comprehensive report - the ability to ingest large amounts of information and find the nuggets.
• Not so important: AP style, which tends to promote sameness, and the ability to shape multiple voices into one kind of house style.

I wholeheartedly agree with the first three points, and I'll give an exasperated sigh to the final point. Let's take them one by one:

1. Coaxing journalist-quality work out of non-journalists. My fellow opinion editors can certainly back me up on this when it comes to publishing letters and guest columns -- they are the lifeblood of our sections. But sometimes, those great arguments get jumbled up in typos, or confused by statistics, or mixed up with propaganda. It takes a firm but helpful hand to bring the best quality out of community writers, but the reward is sure worth it.
   
2. Solid headline writing for search engine optimization. You better believe it. Any copy editor who doesn't know about SEO at this point in the game better brush up quick. If you want people to find your stuff, don't just assume they're going to come in through the front door. At the Missourian, about 75 percent of our traffic comes from Web searches and referring links. Is that a big enough percentage of readers to convince you that vague, clever stuff doesn't work anymore?
   
3. Gathering nuggets into a bigger report. Absolutely. Adding context has always been part of our job as journalists. Nowadays, we just have new places to look: blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, et al.
   
4. AP Style. OK, I'll concede that too many copy editors put too much of a premium on following the stylebook letter for letter. What we often  forget is that there are times to break the rules. It's when we're too afraid of breaking rules that we rob stories of their voice. The stylebook is a guideline, not a Bible.
   

Another interesting note from his post:
Really? Walked out? I think he's got some valid points, though I can see why this may get under a copy editor's skin (but not enough to spur a walkout).

He's absolutely correct in that sometimes, stories need to go right to readers -- news bursts, Twitter updates and anything else that qualifies as "breaking" should publish first, edit second.

His other point, about writing for readers instead of editors, has nothing to do with new media and everything to do with the way many copy desks shouldn't be functioning anyway. Of course we should write like we're talking to readers. Who else are we writing for?

Yes, this means bag the stilted, buearacratic language and tell it in plain, simple English. But it doesn't mean slopping out long sentences with no commas, sticking to poor word choices and peppering it with typos.

Copy editors are the conscience of a news organization. They're the ones who find the nit-picky stuff that sleazy lawyers seize upon. They're the ones who ask the tough questions that need to be asked. They're the ones who verify facts, spellings, Web addresses, physical addresses, phone numbers and directions.

Copy editors make reporters and news organizations look good, often times without much recognition. Maybe that's what turns some of us into style sticklers incapable of seeing the beauty of the English language. Or maybe it's the OCD. Either way, the future of journalism really isn't that much different than it has been. We just have more bells and whistles to play with now.

One of our graduate students is doing an independent study on Twitter this summer. I'm reading his project paper, and this line really jumped out at me. So I thought I'd share. Sorry if it seems obvious, but it's something that is worthy of repeating over and over again to the folks in the media industry.

I know, obvious, right? But still important to remember.

That's all.

This message says it all:

The study is an important look at how consumers read news online and could have big-time ramifications for the way newspapers offer news on the Web. So please, help out if you can. And hey, $10 is nothing to sneeze at. There is a recession on, after all.

The good news: The Detroit News was ready to unveil a big ol' "Wings won the Cup" home page.
The bad news: It published when it wasn't true. D'oh!

Last year, on a whim, I opted to post the self-assessment my boss has us write every year. So i thought I'd share it here again this year.

Self-assessment for Jake Sherlock
Friday, May 1, 2009

Tom,

Remember last year when I applied for the job over at RJI? I am so glad I didn’t get it. I don’t think I could have done what I did this year anywhere but the Missourian. They may call it the futures lab over at RJI, and while I’m sure they’re doing wonderful work over there, I think we have plenty to toot our own horns about over here.

With that said, here’s a rundown of my toots (not to be confused with a tweet):

• The opinion section: I’ve worked hard this year to breathe new life into opinion, and so far I’ll have received is positive feedback. I’ve tried to make it the destination point for community conversation at the Missourian, and so far the results have been wonderful. We’re giving voice to community members and to students who want to learn the fine craft of column writing. Highlights from the past year include:
• A redesigned print page. Emily Ristow has crafted page templates that save me the time of designing the section, plus the new elements give us an opportunity to bring the best of the Web-only content to print. 
• The Beat. I’ve worked with the folks at KBIA to bring a regular podcast to ColumbiaMissourian.com. 
• Today’s Question. This has given our advanced reporters more opportunity to practice their skeptical writing skills while also engaging readers with topics they’re talking about on local blogs, Twitter, the radio, et al. The next step is getting them to interact online with readers through the comments field, Twitter and Facebook.
• Comments. The new voices column is a collection of short e-mails, comments and tweets about local issues that readers send our way.
• Twitter. I’ve worked with reporters, copy editors and TA’s to harness the potential of Twitter and give us a strong presence in the local Twittersphere. This year has been all about experimenting with what works and what doesn’t. Now that we have a pretty good handle on that, I’d like to start implementing more Twitter usage in the newsroom.  
• Newsroom “tech guy.” I answer a lot of basic technology questions for folks around the newsroom, which keeps Rob and his team free to tackle more of the bigger things that come up, like getting new computers online. I’m also our primary trainer for django. I’ve also tried to put more of my software skills I’ve acquired this year to work helping reporters with their convergence projects. 
• Enriched Web site content. We’ve been much better about immediacy this year, and we’re getting pretty good at SEO headlines and linking. It’s been a growth area for us, but we can do better. 
• Trainings. This year, I’ve sought training through attendance of the 2009 ACES conference, plus I’ve spent time on Lynda.com sharpening my skills in Final Cut and Dreamweaver.  
• Instruction junction. Academically, here’s a brief list of what I did this year:  
• Teaching. I taught all of 4406 in the summer, the editing portion in the fall and the design portion this spring. This coming summer, I’ll have my first chance to teach Advanced Copy Editing and Design for Joy. 
• FIGS. I continue to stay involved with FIGS to get the word out about the Missourian and how we’re moving into the future a little faster than the industry is. 
• Graduate academics. I served on two graduate committees this year (Allison McGee and Emily Mead). 
• Neighborhoods project. I’ve been leading an effort to make an archived database of all neighborhood newsletters we’ve published so far, plus I’ve worked with Nanette to bring some of the radio interviews to the neighborhoods page. I hope to have a whole neighborhoods page “sub section” soon on the Web site. Most of the hard work on this was done by our work-study freshman and a couple of copy desk staffers.
  

In addition to keeping the momentum going on the aforementioned toots, here is a list of projects and trainings I want to accomplish in the coming year.

• More interactivity in the opinion section. We have a solid readership with our opinion section, but it could be better. I’m hoping that by building more interactivity into the section, they will come. Here’s how I plan to do this:
• More promotions for opinion. 
• Explore ways to engage readers through multimedia. There is a convergence student interested in doing an independent project with us next semester – I’m hoping I can work with her to bring more voices to the section through video, Flash, slideshows, etc.
• Continue finding diverse voices for guest columns and letters. 
• Be more “assistant-professorly.” I hope to join the graduate faculty this fall, plus I’d like to get more involved in academic committee work. 
• Continue learning new software. Every year in this space I talk about how I need to learn Flash. Every year I push it off for something else. Not this year. This is the year it gets done. 
• Public Access Network. This was a project assigned to me several months ago that I just haven’t had a chance to sink my teeth into. I hope to rectify that soon. 
• Be flexible. Things change, and too often our editor team is slow to react and/or slow to accept that times they are a changing. Besides not falling into that trap myself, I want to help encourage other editors not to be scared of Twitter, video editing, multimedia storytelling, et al. And if I can offer some tips along the way for handling things more efficiently and saving everyone time (I doubt you have any self-assessment claiming someone is underworked), that would be great for our newsroom.
  

In closing, this year has ranked as one of the most rewarding and fun years of my career. It’s going to be hard to top, but I’ll find a way.

This was in my inbox this evening:

If you see her, please call the number listed.

I've been thinking long and hard about government health care, especially after we published this piece by Missouri state Rep. Chris Kelly earlier this week.

President Barack Obama, of course, wants to get government into the health care game as well. In the conservative press and among my more conservative contacts, I see a lot of good arguments against it. No. 1 on that list is cost, especially as it pertains to those who don't pay in the same amount, if any.

I have no desire to help any able-bodied person who is just too lazy to work. I expect other people to pay their bills, live within their means and not be a menace to the public good. In return, I'll show you the same courtesy.

You and me are all cool, right?

So my primary beef with government health care is the fact I don't want my tax dollars paying for some lazy bum's health problems, especially if they're of his or her own doing. Party all you want, but don't come to me to pay the bill. In return, I won't ask you for help paying my monthly premiums. Deal?

What is the solution? Well, it begins with tort reform. If you protect doctors and hospitals better from baloney lawsuits while still giving recourse to legitimate plaintiffs, insurance rates will go down. It may take a little corrective legislation to get them down, but they'll go down and the big companies can still make a nice profit.

With insurance rates down, doctors and hospitals won't be paying as much in premiums, and their fees can come down. Plus, with insurance rates down, more people will be able to afford it.

At the same time, you have to address the prescription drug problem. Let's take advantage of NAFTA and bring Canadian drugs into the country to compete. U.S. companies will drop prices like a bad habit.

And if you are going to have some form of government health care, it should be limited to vouchers. I'm all for helping the poorest among us who legitimately need assistance until you can get back on your feet. But let them have the freedom and responsibility to choose their own insurance, their own doctor and their own course of actions. And if you find anyone abusing the system, throw the book at them.

Now, let's get real for a moment: Do you see your government ever getting all of that done in any kind of efficient manner? I'm betting no; hence the title of this blog.

So why not try it. Maybe it will do some good and we'll all be happily surprised. And if it fails miserably, maybe then we can take up my free market ideas. But right now, government health care seems better than the status quo. Let's compare and contrast:

Major arguments against government health care                                                     Major arguments against current system
It's expensive                                                                                                                     It's expensive
It's inefficient                                                                                                                     It's inefficient
Lack of choice in insurance plan                                                                                       Lack of choice in insurance plan
It goes against America's free market principals                                                               It goes against America's free market principals

Now, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I'd like to share some ideas of how this could be negotiated at the state or federal level. Specifically, if conservatives are going to give government health care a shot, what should they get in return? After all, it's a big risk they'd be taking, and surely you need to find some spending somewhere that will help offset the extra costs.

Proposals:

• Flat tax. If you truly want to solve the problem of class warfare and end the argument over who carries the tax burden in this country, this is the way to go. I'll pay my X percent, Bill Gates will pay his, you'll pay yours. Thereby, nobody gains or loses because of their success. And I'll leave it to someone much smarter than me to figure out what X is.
  
• Tobacco money. Too much of it is tied up in smoking prevention, and it's a waste of money. If you don't know by now smoking kills you, I don't know what a prevention program is going to do. Yes, keep some of the money in cessation programs -- those are important when people want to quit. But take the prevention money and put it into the budget.
  
• Earmarks. Just stop them. There are just some things we can't do right now.
  

I'm sure there are plenty of other good ideas out there that could be discussed as well.

The bottom line is this: Do something. The status quo isn't working.

This video is must-see TV: Click here for the Daily Show.

I would have gladly embedded it here if it weren't for the fact that Spaces (the host of this site) doesn't support it. This is why I'm seriously considering moving to WordPress. Grrrrr!

This is just an amazing video on so many levels. I'm so sorry to see the Rocky go -- RIP Rocky Mountain News.

 
Final Edition from Matthew Roberts on Vimeo.

Here is an e-mail a sent out to our columnists tonight about the new Missourian opinion page. I'm very happy with the design of it, by the way. Emily Ristow gets all the credit.

Dear Missourian columnists,

I'm very excited to share with you the prototypes for the new Missourian opinion page, which debuts on Sunday. Here's what the new print design is geared to accomplish:

• Bring more voices into print by publishing reader comments from the Web site, from Twitter and from Facebook.
  
• Provide a better overall design to the page that will better take advantaged of our limited space.
  
• Provide teaser positions to online-only content or to columns/letters/etc. that are upcoming.

Incidentally, any early heads-up you can give me on what you're writing about gives me more time to tease it for print.

The other new feature with the page is the daily Today's Question column, which takes a skeptical look at an issue and pairs it with a question designed to spark community conversation. It's much like our now-defunct Five Ideas column, only five ideas spread out over five days of print. I hope to get this up to seven on the Web in the near future.

I hope you enjoy the new prototypes. Please e-mail me with any questions or suggestions.

The Rocky Mountain News is no more after Friday.

I'll miss the Rocky, the wars it had with the Post, and the fact that competition made both papers better in their own ways.

Unfortunately, the Rocky may not be the only paper in a joint-operating agreement that's about to bite the dust. From the Rocky's own obit:

"Today's announcement comes as metropolitan newspapers and major newspaper companies find themselves reeling, with plummeting advertising revenues and dramatically diminished share prices. Just this week, Hearst, owner of the San Francisco Chronicle, announced that unless it was able to make immediate and steep expense cuts it would put the paper up for sale and possibly close it. Two other papers in JOAs, one in Seattle and the other in Tucson, are facing closure in coming weeks."

Too many good journalists are about to be out of work, and that's too bad -- for journalism, for democracy, and for America. But we'll survive, if not in print, in some form. I just wish the Rocky would be around to see it.

I received two pieces of really sad news this week:

1. Layoffs at the Tulsa World resulted in two former students being laid off. Both of them are hard-working, talented journalists, both of whom I enjoyed working with very much during their respective stints at MU. Here's hoping both land on their feet.
   
2. My old newspaper, the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, laid off two newsroom employees this week. This is especially disturbing considering that layoffs like this never happen there or at many family-owned papers. 

Oh, and the Rocky Mountain News is about to tank. At least one person in Denver is trying to do something about it.

Want to really see something depressing about the state of the media? Follow this Twitter feed.

E.W. Scripps Co. notified staffers at the Rocky Mountain News today that the newspaper is up for sale.

In just a few short weeks, the Rocky is likely to announce it is shutting down. After all, who is going to buy a newspaper that lost $11 million in the first three quarters of the year in this economy? I hate to say it, but an asbestos factory would be a better buy at this point.

And that is a shame, because the Rocky is a great newspaper in a town lucky enough to have two great newspapers. But, like big papers in other two-newspaper towns, something had to give. And in this case, the Post will live on -- hopefully for a good long while -- but its not exactly raking in the megabucks right now either, I'm willing to bet. Who is these days?

Over the years, the Rocky has tried everything possible to connect with readers. I remember as a kid the Rocky drastically cut subscription costs with the idea it could make it up on advertising. It started bold initiatives on the Web, including a political conversation portal that was a lot of fun. The company eventually struck a deal with the Post to create a joint operating agreement, and thus was born the Denver Newspaper Agency.

One thing about that deal: I thought it was designed from the start to favor the Post, and I think readers really picked up on that. I mean, the "joint" weekend editions under both flags were produced by separate newsrooms -- Saturday by the Rocky, Sunday by the Post. And when you're not producing the city's Sunday paper -- which is always the flagship paper of the week -- you look weak.

The Post and News waged one of the last great two-newspaper-town battles seen in a long time. When JOAs were all the rage, the Post and News refused to talk deal. And when they finally had to, the Rocky was already at enough of a financial disadvantage that it had to take the No-Sunday deal. That weakened the paper even more, in my view, and told me then that when the day came one of these giants was to fall, it would be the senior of the two papers.

Barring a last minute miracle, the senior is about to be laid to rest.

So, Patrick Buchanon wrote a column about what to expect in the first 100 days of an Obama presidency. I think he's a little alarmist in some of his views, and I felt like sharing mine alongside his. Here we go:

Pat says: Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.

Jake says: Pat a little alarmist on this one; swift amnesty is hardly what Obama is planning.But, by the same assertions on that page, if they're successful, there will be less bureaucracy to navigate in securing citizenship. I just hope we have enough jobs and housing for everyone.

Pat says: Border security will go on the backburner, and America will have a virtual open border with a Mexico of 110 million.

Jake says: You think Obama wants to be the guy who let a suitcase bomber slip through? Let's at least give the guy a chance, Pat, before you damn him. 

Pat says: Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.

Jake says: Am I supposed to cry for the rich? You've had it pretty darn good for the last 8 years -- way better than I. Go cry to someone who cares. There's a "Joe the Plumber," "Everyman" kind of answer for you.

Pat says: Social Security taxes will be raised on the most successful among us, and capital gains taxes will be raised from 15 percent to 20 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and death taxes reimposed.

Jake says: Again, not my problem. And, for the sake of correct semantics, the tax cuts will expire, not repeal.

Pat says: Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with “progressives.”

Jake says: I'd rather see more of a centrist-type appointed to the court myself, but that's a pipe dream. Can't argue with Pat on this one.

Pat says: Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” will be dead.

Jake says: GOOD!

Pat says: A “Freedom of Choice Act” nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.

Jake says: OK, first of all, nobody is "pro-abortion." Abortion is horrible, grisly and must be an absolute last resort. But it is not my place to judge, nor my place to decide what is best for a mother. Her body, her choice.

Pat says: Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

Jake says: Check out the ColumbiaMissourian.com opinion section for some interesting debates on this very topic. Because that's such a hot issue in our section right now, I'm going to hold off from commenting.

Pat says: A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.

Jake says: And isn't Bush president until Jan. 20, 2009? How does this fall into Obama's first 100 days?

Pat says: The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.

Jake says: Research done by two fine reporters at the Missourian show that while Obama's tax plan would put the nation in the hole another $3.5 trillion, McCain's plan would be $5 trillion. Talk about picking the lesser of two evils. Whatever happened to fiscal responsibility?

So, I'm thinking about shaking up the columnist lineup in the Missourian. Here's what I'm going to propose to my superiors.

Because the news space in the Sunday Missourian has been so tight, and since most of the talk about print centers around a five-day a week model, now is when I'd like to start positioning the section for a five-day model. I think this notion will also play well on our Web site, since the majority of our traffic comes during the weekday between 8-5 p.m.

My proposal:

-- Move George Kennedy to Mondays and take Global Journalist out of print. Leave Five Ideas in Sunday and continue to develop it as a conversation starter/editorial. Eventually I'd like to see Five Ideas evolve into a daily editorial designed to spark conversation.

-- Do away with the short "state view" space and begin developing something else designed to start conversations. An infographic in the same vein as USA Today's snapshot a few days a week; basically, a chance to present facts visually and ask our readers to respond. A comment from the Web site on a particular issue is another possibility.  Or, heck, take the same stateview but ask a question at the end of it. We could also start a "They Said It" column of notable quotes from the week and ask readers to respond (this one would play particularly well on the Web; for print, we'd probably just do one or two quotes a week and package with reader comments).

So ya, those are just a few ideas I'm noodling.

Here are a few ideas that I hope Congress, the presidential candidates and the president will keep in mind regarding this whole bailout proposal:

• Yes, Wall Street needs a big influx of cash in order to not sink us into a depression. I get that we're potentially at a very grave risk here economically. But you can't let the greed mongers who created this mess walk away unpunished. If the government is going to buy these near-worthless assets in the hope they can sell them for something, I think the industry has to make up the difference. If the government can somehow turn these assets into $700 billion (or whatever the final number is), great. If not, the industry makes up the difference, not the taxpayer.
  
• By the next debate, Obama and McCain need to figure out an answer to Jim Lehrer's question about what are you going to delay to pay for this $700 billion. 
• We need oversight on this industry. This can't happen again. Our national debt was too high before this mess started; before the stimulus check went out. We don't need to stymie the free market, especially now, but we have to make certain this doesn't happen again. There is a happy medium; lawmakers just need to find it.
  

I am not happy with this economic news. Because these Wall Street fat cats need to be even more rich than they already are, they go and tank the economy and effect the lives of real people. Thanks, all of you who contributed to this mess. I hope you're having fun counting your millions this Christmas while good families go without because of your mess.

So a few weeks ago, I volunteered to take over the opinion section. Since then, I've worked toward these goals:

-- Bring more diverse opinions to the section. We have some wonderful local writers, but we could always use more. We could especially use more viewpoints from women, conservatives and from people who aren't white. In my mind, these are the three areas we're most lacking.

So hey, if you write well and you have something to say, e-mail me. Oh, and you should be from mid-Missouri (sorry, but I'm about to go off on a local rant).

-- I want to get as local as can be. We have the opportunity to take wonderful content from the LA Times and Washington Post, but I believe people want to read what other people in Columbia, Mo., and the surrounding area think about local issues. I'll be glad when the presidential election is over, because maybe then some of our columnists will turn their attention back to local issues (or at least discuss the election in a local context).

Just as I wrote that last paragraph, I had a brainstorm. Why not challenge everyone -- and I do mean everyone -- to discuss this question: How will Columbia be affected by the presidential election. I've asked our local columnists to answer it, I've asked Clyde Bentley to extend an invite on MyMissourian and to his editorial writing class, and I'll write a column in the Missourian asking readers to weigh in with their thoughts. Oct. 19 is Theme Week for the Opinion section.

-- OK, back to the goals: Next up, encourage more community dialogue. This means publishing comments in print. Encouraging letters and guest columns. Reaching out, having a discussion, not just lecturing to the masses. That old stuff doesn't work anymore. We're facilitating conversation now, not trying to lead public opinion.

-- Next, I need to find a better way to bring Five Ideas to the Web each week. We're doing it now, but we used to get so many more responses when it was in the old eMprint. The lessons to take from that: Set it to read ideas one at a time, and include a "send comment" button on each one. Now, how do I make that work in the current django framework?

Those are my immediate goals. I'm sure there will be a new set down the road. For now, that's my focus with the section.

So I've had some time now to chew the fat surrounding Sarah Palin's nomination for vice president. Here's what I think:

• For McCain, it was a good choice. He needed to do something to shake up the race, kind of like when he canned his whole staff during the primaries. Palin appeals to conservative voters, the religious right and the neocons. The only downside is that he took away the experience argument, although it can be argued whether or not longtime politicians are good for the government or not (and, for the record, I'm lukewarm on term limits. Yes, it's nice to boot out those who would make a career of it rather than operate in the public good, but I hate to kick folks out who do make a difference).
  
• For those whining about the way Palin was treated, well, that's politics today, for better or (much) worse. The mainstream media did the right thing in vetting her; it was the blogosphere and angry liberals who trashed her name far worse than it should have. Until you can prove the Desperate Housewives theory, be responsible and don't put it out there.
  
• As far as the pregnant daughter goes, big deal. Oh my gosh, you mean a 17-year-old didn't mind her mother? C'mon, how does that make her a hypocrit? Now, if she were pushing the daughter toward an abortion, yes, that would make her a hypocrit. This doesn't. This makes her a rare politician these days -- someone who practices what she preaches by supporting her daughter in her time of need. Good for her.
  
• I think it's sad it took 24 years to get the second woman vice presidential candidate.
  
• As far as the charge that McCain picked Palin in the hope of scoring Hillary voters -- duh! I'm sure that was one of his many reasons for picking her. And of course she's not Hillary -- she's a Republican for god sake! Why are liberals so up in arms about this selection? McCain chose the candidate he felt complimented him best. And in the end, wasn't that Obama's same reason for picking Biden?
  

What the Palin selection does do is makes things personal, which is to say, puts a spotlight on character, values and, by association, social issues. And that's where John McCain thinks he can win with what is essentially a two-pronged approach -- she appeals to the GOP base; he appeals to the independents and pro-choice Republicans. A big-tent theory, if you will.

Overall, I think picking Palin was a good move. The race needed to be shook up, and McCain did just that. It helps breed that maverick image at a crucial time, especially with Obama coming off his event at Invesco Field like a man on fire. McCain knows he has to keep it close to have a shot on Election Day, and Palin staved off most of the momentum from what is likely to be Obama's biggest event outside of the debates.

Seven weeks to go until the election. Should be fun.

I know I'm late to the blogosphere's party about John Edwards, but I wanted to actually take some time to think through all the facets of this story before commenting. And after reading many, many articles on the affair, the political fallout, the shady payment, etc. etc., I can conclude a few things:

1. The National Enquirer gets a gold star for being first and being right. But I'm also docking it two gold stars for paying for the story. The reason nobody takes the Enquirer seriously is because of ethical breeches like that (the "tabloid" design doesn't help either, nor does its placement next to the Weekly Word News, Star, et al). The Enquirer actually has a pretty good track record as far as reporting big stories. Now, if it would just take the high road in its reporting, maybe it would win some credibility and some extra readership.
   
2. John Edwards is a two-faced scumbag politician. He cheated on his wife who is battling cancer and funneled campaign cash to his mistress for making a grand total of four videos. And remember, he was the moral of the Democratic candidates for president, the one who cared about the "other America" in his "Two Americas" scenario. I still agree that scenario exists (just look at the rich-poor gap) and has for years, but he clearly was only paying lip service to the part about caring. Or, as politicians call it, "campaigning."
   
3. The mainstream media played the story too safe, which I attribute to the largely debunked piece the New York Times ran on John McCain about six months ago. The allegations in that story -- that McCain was cheating on his wife -- were based solely on anonymous sources. McCain vehemently denied it, and I think most people believed him. Now, another story about a presidential contender comes along -- one who is out of the race already -- and why would you run the risk of embarrassing yourself the way the Times did?
   

So, back to the point of this post: Did Edwards get a pass from the media? With a few exceptions -- notably, and ironically, the Enquirer -- Edwards most certainly did get a pass. He was able to release the story on his terms, and he chose a time when fewer people would talk about it. Hey, it's hard to beat Friday afternoon on the same day that the Olympics start.

Somehow, I expect we'll see John Edwards again. Certainly nowhere near the White House unless he's an invited guest. But he'll lay low for a few years and show back up again, probably in some type of partnership with Al Gore on some TV/advocacy project. I'm not rooting for the guy or anything, that's just my predication of what will happen.

I will say I feel mighty letdown by a guy whose message resonated at least somewhat with me. I liked his progressive mindset, and I appreciated his candor when he said that he was wrong in voting for the Iraq War (although I thought then as I do now that that was more of a strategic move than an honest confession; still, it was nice to hear). And, most importantly, he misused his campaign funds to pay for his girlfriend.

A real moral choice John Edwards turned out to be.