Daniel' second graf was "… her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret."
Daniel goes into the Willie Horton and the Swift Boat business from previous campaigns and then writes,
"Most troubling, however, is how allowing racism to creep into the discussion serves McCain's purpose so well."
Daniel is absolutely wrong about that. "Most troubling" is that the Associated Press let some minor, un-skilled, backroom, green-eye-shade editor step onto the main stage and interview people who actually know what they are talking about, and then use their names to legitimize an "analysis" which had absolutely nothing to do with what the political moron had asked us about.
Here's how absolutely clueless this Doug Daniel character is. The last line of his piece says this:
When the 2008 campaign is over McCain might regret appeals such as Palin's perhaps more so if he wins.
What? "perhaps more so if he wins?" Ask John Kerry how much effect he has had on national policy in the past four years.
Serious reporters don't often use the their full names at the top of their stories. Ron Fournier doesn't slug himself as "Ronald." Liz Sidoti's pieces aren't headed "Elizabeth." Dave Espo bills himself as "David" but he's been doing this for 137 years and has earned the right.
Doug Daniel had himself billed as "Douglass." If you look at the first three letters of the Associated Press and the last three letters of Daniel's first name you have a perfect …