but saw her fortunes fade in recent years, died Sunday after going into cardiac arrest, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Murphy was pronounced dead at 10:04 a.m. at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, hospital spokeswoman Sally Stewart said.
Murphy was transported to the hospital after the Los Angeles Fire Department responded to a call at 8 a.m. at the home she shared with her husband, British screenwriter Simon Monjack, in the Hollywood Hills.
She was just 32.!! :(
The death was first reported by online gossip site TMZ, which added Murphy was found unconscious in the shower in her LA home by her mother. TMZ says the LA coroner will begin an investigation into Murphy's death today.
Murphy has been married to screen writer Simon Monjack since 2007 and has no children.
Although I'm not a GREAT fan of her But it still a Shocking news To die in such a young age like that !!!
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech .... Here's the full text for the speech
- Weather you agree he deserves it or no ........ The man get it !!
We hope he work more and more for peace :)
He started his speech in Oslo SAYING :
"Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations - that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize - Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela - my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women - some known, some obscure to all but those they help - to be far more deserving of this honor than I. >>>>>>>>>>>> ((( I agree )))) ;)
He continued saying ,,,,,,,,,,,,
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty three other countries - including Norway - in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict - filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease - the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics, and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations - total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of thirty years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations - an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize - America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, and restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
If Reading bores you ....... Just like me :) You will find The video for the Full speech at the end of the article
Down
,,,,,,
continue ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago - "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another - that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths - that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations - strong and weak alike - must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I - like any head of state - reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates - and weakens - those who don't.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait - a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention - no matter how justified.
This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries - and other friends and allies - demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen UN and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali - we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant - the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.
I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior - for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure - and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: all will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma - there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings me to a second point - the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists - a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.
I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests - nor the world's -are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side
Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach - and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable - and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights - it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that is why helping farmers feed their own people - or nations educate their children and care for the sick - is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action - it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more - and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities - their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal linesMost dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint - no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith - for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached - their faith in human progress - must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that - for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
He of course Finished his speech with his famous self-confidence smile Accompanied by clubbing and cheers from the audience
First your cell phone should be able to run Android 1.6+ (i.e. Donut or Eclair)
Google said on its website
that a picture is worth a thousand words.No need to type your search anymore. Just take a picture.!!!
Find out what businesses are nearby.Just point your phone at a store.
This is just the beginning - it's not quite perfect yet.Works well for some things, but not for all.
Your pictures, your control.Turn on 'visual search history' to view or share your pictures at any time. Turn it off to discard them once the search is done.
This video help you to know
"How to use Google Goggles ,or,Googles ;) _in case you miss-spelled it !_
Google unveiled its new Google Goggles visual search tool for Android on Monday, bringing a high-tech twist to accessing information on the go.
Let's explore !!!
Google Goggles: An Introduction
Google Goggles -- not to be confused with Google Mail Goggles, the company's inebriated e-mailing preventer -- lets you search from your cell phone simply by snapping a photo. Want more info on a product? Take its picture. Need info about a business? Photograph the storefront. Put simply, this thing packs some serious power, and its capabilities stretch far.
Google Goggles currently supports photo-based searching for (take a deep breath): books, DVDs, landmarks, logos, contact info, artwork, businesses, products, barcodes, and plain text.
Here's how it works: When you capture an image, Google breaks it down into object-based signatures.!!!!
It then compares those signatures against every item it can find in its image database. Within seconds, it returns the results to you, ordered by rank. Some results are returned before you even snap a photo, too, thanks to seamless integration of GPS and compass functionality.!!!
But enough on the nuts and bolts. Let's put search-by-sight to the test.
Hands-On With Google Goggles
I started out with something easy: a book. After opening the app, I followed the instructions and took a photo. Google Goggles started analyzing the image. Sure enough, seconds later, I had the results.!!! Soo easy !!
Just from seeing the book's cover, Google Goggles gave me the full name and links to compare prices or even preview the text!!!!! Woooow !!!!!
. Below that, it returned regular search results for the title. Not too shabby.
The app worked equally well with a DVD: I photographed the cover of Swingers and received information about the movie, followed by pages of relevant Web results. (I
How about something a bit more involved? I grabbed a nearby bag of chips to see if Google Goggles could grab the logo. Once again, no problems: The app saw that the chips were made by Lays and gave me a screen of info about the company. Amazing !!!!!
I didn't mean it to be an advertisment ;)
Even an obscure product like a tub of protein powder seems to work without so much as a hiccup. Google Goggles matched the actual photo to an online image from a retailer's Web site, then gave me ample info about the stuff. more amazing news !!
Next up: art. Luckily, I had a book of Magritte paintings in my office. I flipped open to a random page and took a photo. Google Goggles got it.!!
Good work !! (Thumb up )
The Google gang says the app can detect and detail wine, so I figured it was worth a shot. This one took a couple of tries -- the first bottle I attempted didn't work -- but Goggles was able to pull up details about the second label I shot.
That's not Every thing !!!!
Gogglesuses data from the phone'sGPS and compass to deliver live augmented-reality results as well. You just point your phone at any location -- a business, for example -- and the app places a button with the business name at the bottom of your screen. Tap the button, and Goggles loads info about the business from a Web search. No snapshot is needed.!!!!
I think this scandal has been powered by silence and mistresses .!!
Until yesterday. At last, the Tiger Woods scandal got a decisive comment from Woods himself !!!! , which served as the confession most wanted to hear.
Of course, he didn't get too specific about his "transgressions" and continued to demand for privacy.((It's my OWN life ,...,...,iI need some privacy ,...Don't disturb me ,....bla bla bla))))
But the Tiger Woods scandal is now a little closer toward the end, as soon as his mistresses stop talking.
What really made the scandal go on so long was the golf legend's denial. As more and more conflicting details came out about the car accident, and about Woods' alleged affairs, the calls for a response were deafening. Though he maintained privacy, the details and evidence finally became tooooooooooo much.
While the media debated on whether he still had a right to privacy or no !
, SHE came forward to give them actual evidence.
After that, the scandal became too loud to ignore, so Woods gave the press their statement, and his quasi-confession.
Though he wouldn't go into any detail about the affairs, and the women, it may be all that the press will get from him. As such, now that he admitted to some of this, the Tiger Woods scandal has a much shorter shelf-life. :D
Now that the debate over whether he should talk is over, most of the legitimate media seem ready to give him that privacy. His famous friends still stand by him, as do his corporate sponsors, so there isn't too much need for him to speak anymore.
Though the scandal isn't quite over, Tiger Woods now has more breathing room. He doesn't have to play golf again until January 2010, and by then, the alleged mistresses should have exhausted their 15 minutes. Whether his family will still be intact by then is unclear, but he can focus on that task more clearly.
Woods himself no longer has any reason to talk, but that won't stop the mistresses and TMZ.
I think the Woods gang should then rest until he returns to the links.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
book,
campaign,
going,
new,
palin,
rogue,
sara,
sarah
Sarah Palin may claim to scorn elites, but her new book will ring familiar to its Beltway readers.
Getting even with those who crossed her, praising her allies and generally putting a self-serving sheen on last year’s presidential campaign, “Going Rogue” is typical of the political memoir genre of recent vintage. It’s the sort of book that will send the political class scurrying to bookstores, eager to see how they fared in what’s known as “the Washington read.”
With no index, though, Palin’s book has made that ritual more difficult.
It's in stores ON Tuesday .......
oNE OF THE NEWS papers has created a reader’s guide to “Going Rogue,” grouping the many characters into three categories, based upon that familiar question insiders are already whispering to those who managed to snag a copy of the book: How did I come out?
Sarah uses to describe the 2008 presidential campaign pits most of her advisers, the endearingly-named “B Team,” against the dreaded staffers running John McCain’s campaign back in suburban Washington, often simply derided as “headquarters.”
She has especially kind words for the campaign officials she bonded with during the campaign and, in some cases, remains in contact with them .
This “B Team” includes such aides as Jason Recher, Chris Edwards, Tracey Schmitt, Jeannie Etchart, Bexie Nobles, Matthew Scully, Randy Scheunemann, Steve Biegun.
All receive generous treatment.
Biegun is even spared by a key omission in the book. Even though it has been reported that he was responsible for the embarrassing prank call Palin took from a pair of French Canadian DJs posing as the President of France, Palin only identifies the aide as “a campaign adviser.”
“I felt bad for him because he was an absolutely stellar professional, so I knew these radio guys had to be really good to get around him,” SARAH writes.
John and Cindy McCain receive fulsome praise throughout the book from Palin, him as a brave American hero and her as a mix of elegant lady and Every Mom.
She recounts telling McCain in the campaign’s hotel suite in Phoenix on Election Night that she wanted to use her remarks to thank him:
“’No these guys have it covered,’ he said, nodding in [campaign chief Steve] Schmidt’s direction. ‘They’ve got it handled.’”
Palin then writes: “I knew that was that. I thanked John again for everything and walked out of the room.”
McCain’s close friend Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut senator, also won accolades from Palin for soothing her during a stressful debate prep session.
“God is going to see you through this,” Palin recalls Lieberman telling her, noting that she found it “so heartfelt, so genuine, so sincere.”
FOES:
Much of the portion of the book devoted to Palin’s time as vice presidential nominee and her last year in Alaska is filled with her grievances against a handful of MacCain campaign aides and Media.
Schmidt, especially, receives the brunt of Palin’s blasts.
She describes him as variously quick-tempered, profane, overweight, threatening and incompetent. Plus, she notes, he was a smoker. (Though she does allow at one point that he can inspire loyalty and manage the press).
Complaining about being muzzled, she writes: “I questioned Schmidt about what headquarters would and would not allow me to say. Schmidt was a busy guy; he didn’t have a lot of time to elaborate, no doubt. He replied coolly, ‘Just stick to the script.’”
Taking issue with what she said was Schmidt’s attempt to get her a nutritionist, Palin observes: “As he lectured, I looked at his rotund physique and noted that he used nicotine to keep his own cognitive connections humming along.”
Schmidt also comes in for rough treatment in an anecdote Palin says took place between the campaign aide and Scheunemann after reports in POLITICO and CNN detailed the tensions between the veep candidate and McCain’s staff.
Citing Scheunemann, who remains a Palin adviser, she writes: “Schmidt issued a threat that was veiled enough for deniability but clear as day if you were on the receiving end: if there were are any more leaks critical of anybody in the handling of Sarah Palin, then a lot more negative stuff would be said about Sarah Palin.”
When Palin got prank-called by the two disc jockeys impersonating the president of France, she again paints Schmidt in a negative light.
“One of the first calls was Schmidt, and the force of his screaming blew my hair back. ‘How can anyone be so stupid?! Why would the president of France call a vice presidential candidate a few days out?
“Good question, I thought. Weren’t you the ones who set this up?
“As Schmidt’s rant blazed on, I pictured cell towers between D.C. and Florida bursting into flame. I held the phone slightly away from my head.”
Schmidt is also singled out on election night as the heavy who told Palin she wouldn’t be able to deliver a speech along with McCain’s own concession.
“Absolutely not,” Schmidt said. “I don’t even know why you wrote a speech. Nobody told you to.
“That set me back on my heels. I was surprised that he was surprised.”
Of Nicolle Wallace, a former top Bush administration official, Palin writes, “I had to trust her experience, as she had dealt with national politics more than I had. But something always struck me as peculiar about the way she recalled her days in the White House, when she was speaking on behalf of President George W. Bush. She didn’t have much to say that was positive about her former boss or the job in general.”
Palin also casts Nicolle Wallace as something of an insensitive snob, recalling that the campaign adviser informed her that her clothing was inappropriate for a vice-presidential nominee.
“She flipped through my wardrobe with raised eyebrows,” Palin writes of Wallace from a scene in the candidate’s bedroom after she returned to Alaska for her interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson. “No…no…no,” [Wallace] said as she slid each garment aside on its hangar.”
And so as to make unmistakable her disdain for Mark Wallace, Nicolle’s husband, the former Alaska governor includes a picture of the aide holding up his arms at her during a hotel room debate preparation session during a photograph montage otherwise devoted to upbeat images of Palin, her family and supporters.
“This picture says it all,” Palin writes in the caption. “A dark hotel room in Philadelphia and a frustrated Mark Wallace trying to tell me which of his non-answers I should give during debate prep.”
Palin never flatly accuses any of the top McCain advisers as being responsible for the leaks against her, but she comes close in recounting a scene from the hotel pool in Phoenix on the day after the election when the Wallaces stopped to say their good-byes.
“’I think you should know that for the next few days it’s going to get really nasty,’” Palin recalls Nicolle Wallace saying. “’Negative stories in the press. You should just be ready, that’s always how it goes. Hang on your hats!’
“That made no sense to Todd—why would anything ‘get nasty?’ And how could anyone know what would be coming in the media?
“But the Wallaces waved good-bye, and that was that.”
Often, names weren’t necessary to make the point—criticizing the generic “headquarters” sufficed, as in this lament from the last weeks of the campaign: “We asked whether we could expand the message, but by then it seemed, at least according to reports like the New York Times Magazine piece by Robert Draper, that headquarters might have already given up.”
Or from campaign’s end: “Since headquarters had micromanaged everything I did and said for weeks…”
Her home state of Alaska, its denizens and trusted aides like Meg Stapleton get much softer and kinder treatment, but Palin does take after some liberal opponents from back home—and a former colleague as well.
Though not mentioned by name, John Bitney is easily identifiable as the former aide whom Palin writes “turned out to be a BlackBerry games addict who couldn't seem to keep his lunch off his tie."
The policy director on Palin’s gubernatorial campaign, Bitney was her first legislative director in Juneau but is now a critic who is frequently interviewed by reporters.
Yet is CBS news anchor Katie Couric who is singled out for special treatment, emerging among media figures as Palin Enemy Number One.
“As for Katie Couric — where do I begin?” Palin writes, recounting what she concedes was an awful interview with the network anchor.
Though she accepts some culpability for the disastrous interview, Palin accuses Couric of having gone easier on Democratic vice presidential nomineeJoe Biden, and twice claims that the newswoman’s own clothing stylist was actually part of the team hired by the GOP to outfit the vice-presidential candidate for the campaign. Palin even takes a swipe at Couric’s patriotism.
Palin writes of a National Press Club event where Couric addressed journalists about the news media’s behavior immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks.
According to Palin’s account, Couric told her media colleagues: “The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying ‘we’ when referring to the United States and, even the ‘shock and awe’ of the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and a little uncomfortable.”
Writes Palin of this assessment: “Unbelievable !!!!!!!! .”
Among journalists, Couric may have come in for the most personal criticism but Palin also devotes considerable space to bemoaning the press corps in general. When, for example, she details her return to Alaska after the campaign, Palin grumbles about unnamed “pundits and reporters” who criticized her for “not attending the celebrity-packed events we were invited to Outside.”
Disputing some of the analysts who said then-Sen. Barack Obama outperformed McCain at the first presidential debate, Palin writes: “Granted, 90 percent of the newspeople covering the debate were liberal.”
At other times, Palin flatly accuses reporters as stalking and harassing her family.
IN BETWEEN:
Palin seems to spare those individuals who, unlike Schmidt, haven’t criticized her since the campaign or who she doesn’t seem to suspect as leakers who disparaged her, like the Wallaces.
So even though senior campaign aides Mark Salter and Rick Davis played a pivotal role in the campaign—and at “headquarters”—they are largely absent from the book.
Of Salter, she does allow that her first impression was that he seemed “friendlier and quieter than Schmidt” and was a loyal and influential adviser to the senator.
As she does with Biegun and the prank call incident, Palin appears to offer Salter anonymity in recounting the scene on election night when she was told she would not be speaking.
Even though Salter has been identified in other reports as one of the heavies who delivered the news, Palin writes only that a “senior staffer” said: “’You know you won’t be giving a speech.’”
Even though he was a Schmidt friend, her traveling chief of staff, Andrew Smith, isn’t bloodied too badly either.
"It seemed odd that we were being put in the hands of a man who had never run a campaign before, but Andrew seemed like a nice guy, and it wasn't my call,” she said of Smith, a Wall Street veteran.
Another of Palin’s top traveling aides, Tucker Eskew, doesn’t receive the praise that her other “B Team” allies do yet he isn’t scorned like other senior officials.
While calling him a “Southern gentleman,” Palin writes that Eskew stuck to her “like gum on a shoe.”
After events, she recalls, “he’d be waiting for me on the campaign bus steps with an indulgent smile that said, ‘Come over here and let me tell you what you did wrong, bless your heart.’”
