Friday’s NBC Nightly News aired a story which went beyond standard liberal bias. It delivered a fabricated case against the peril of unfettered campaign ads as Brian Williams claimed those from “outside political groups...contain outright lies,” yet as proof Andrea Mitchell showed ads, not from “outside” entities, but from Republican party groups and candidates – apparently only Republicans are running misleading ads – with Mitchell focusing on the scandal of how those spots feature actors.

After reciting three examples of the supposed deceitfulness, Mitchell undermined her entire story by admitting: “It's not new that political ads use actors.” She then got to NBC’s real agenda, which she didn’t bother trying to corroborate: “But what is different is the torrent of money from corporations and anonymous outside groups pouring into campaigns this year because of a Supreme Court ruling and other changes in the law.” Following a silly clip of President Obama joking about the innocuous names of groups daring to buy TV time, Mitchell ominously concluded “it's no laughing matter for Democrats, being outspent 7-to-1 by Republicans in the battle for the airwaves.”

Bill Maher on Friday called former Alaska governor Sarah Palin a horse's ass.

In the opening monologue of his "Real Time" program on HBO, Maher brought up the recent brouhaha surrounding Alaska Republican senatorial candidate Joe Miller's refusal to express his support for Palin as a potential presidential candidate in 2012.

"So then Todd Palin, all pissed off, wrote him a bunch of emails full of like grammatical errors, spelling errors," joked Maher. 

The comedian continued, "You mess with Todd Palin, you could wake up with a horse's ass in your bed, like he does every day" (video follows with transcript and commentary): 

A young liberal group recently stripped down naked to show their, uh, support for ObamaCare. Well, now a young conservative group has produced a response video. Judge for yourself which one makes the better argument.

The Los Angeles Times really wants you to know that Meg Whitman has taken more money from "special interests" than her Democratic opponent in the California gubernatorial race.

Not so high on its list of important facts: 97 percent of independent special interest contributions to third party groups have gone towards supporting Brown or defeating Whitman. Yet despite that fact, the Times still managed to run a story today claiming in the headline that "Donations to Whitman undercut her no-special-interests claim".

After a headline, a subheading, and two paragraphs stressing Whitman's $10.7 million in contributions from special interests - contrasted with Brown's $9.5 million - the Times finally gets around to mentioning that "those figures don't tell the whole story - unions and other special interests separately spent a further $13.7 million supporting Brown through independent political committees not controlled by the candidate" (h/t Patterico).

Another great video from Ben Howe has surfaced over at Eyeblast. This time he parodies the Facebook movie's trailer:

A headline in USA Today on Monday worried, "Elections are likely to trim number of women in Congress." It wasn't until the 15th paragraph of Susan Page's story that the numerous female Republican candidates running in the midterm elections were mentioned.

Instead, the Washington Bureau Chief explained, "The prospects for female congressional candidates have been hurt by a combination of a tough political landscape for Democrats — women in Congress are disproportionately Democratic— and the nation's economic troubles. Hard times historically have made voters more risk-averse and less willing to consider voting for female candidates." [Emphasis added.]

In an accompanying graph, Senator Barbara Boxer in California was listed as an example of a female who could be defeated. The only problem? Boxer's opponent is Republican Carly Fiorina, a woman. [H/T Hot Air.]

It’s a topsy-turvy, upside-down political world out there for people who thought Barack Obama would be cruising at a 70 percent approval rating while crushing the Republicans like bugs. In fact, the opposite has happened. The Senate Majority Leader is in grave danger of involuntary retirement. Everyone in Washington concedes Nancy Pelosi is unlikely to bang the gavel in January.

So why in the world does the tone of news coverage suggest all kinds of political problems...for conservatives, as if they were the collapsing majority in this campaign?

The media elites sound like they’re resigned to the idea that a lot of Democrats are going to be unemployed in November. Their coverage seems designed now to stanch the bleeding, to devote their coverage to close races where they can bash conservative challengers in the hope of turning the tide there.

An extraordinary thing happened on MSNBC Tuesday: Chris Matthews scolded a fellow liberal journalist for endorsing all of the Democrat candidates up for election in the Senate this November.

While discussing the battle between Republican candidate Linda McMahon and Democrat candidate Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, the "Hardball" host expressed serious concerns about the latter lying about his military service.

After playing a tape from Monday's debate of Blumenthal haplessly trying to explain his position, Matthews asked liberal guest David Corn, "How do you say you served in Vietnam unintentionally when they`ve got the quotes?"

Quite surprisingly, Matthews aggressively took exception with Corn's answer (video follows with transcript and commentary):  

Ed Schultz told the One Nation rally in Washington, D.C., Saturday that conservatives are holding the American people down and want discrimination. 

"The conservative voices of America, they are holding you down," said Schultz. "They don't believe in your freedom. They want the concentration of wealth. They've shipped your job overseas...They suppress your vote." 

Not sounding at all like a uniting force wanting "one nation," Schultz continued to disparage conservatives saying, "They talk about the Constitution, but they don't want to live by it. They talk about our forefathers, but they want discrimination" (video follows with transcript and commentary):  

Greta Van Susteren on Friday absolutely skewered Gloria Allred, the attorney representing California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's former housekeeper.

In a fiery nine minute discussion on Fox's "On the Record," the host accused her guest of being "unthinkable" and "rotten" by bringing this issue to light, especially right before an election.  

"You're getting your client deported by putting a big neon sign, 'Hey, I'm here illegally, I signed documents falsely, and I've done that under penalty of perjury,'" scolded Van Susteren.  

"On the eve of an election, to raise something like this, which has the possibility of smearing unfairly, calling someone a liar and subverting the electoral process...I think all three things are rotten" (video follows with comments and highlights along with full transcript at end of post, h/t Ed Morrissey): 

In my beloved home state of Maryland, this year's governor's race is a rematch of the contest four years ago, and most polls show a close race, with current Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) up a few points over former Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R), but at or below the crucial 50 percent mark.

Enter the Washington Post, which two days ago released a poll that shows O'Malley up by 11 points, breaking the 50 percent mark. As might be expected, Post journalists are hyping the results, casting the race as possibly starting to break decisively in O'Malley's direction.

In an online chat, the Post's Chris Cillizza vouched for the poll by stating that  pollster "Jon Cohen is the best in the business, so yes," O'Malley has indeed opened up a wide lead over Ehrlich. Today, the Post's Mike DeBonis penned a column about how O'Malley is "right now, in a place where a lot of his fellow Democrats around the country sure wish they were."

Eh, not so fast, veteran Maryland political observer Blair Lee argues in an October 1 article for

The Post poll oversamples demographic groups that are O'Malley-friendly and doesn't take into account the heightened energy among Maryland Republicans and depressed primary turnout from Democrats this year, Lee argues (emphasis mine):