Just the facts... or fiction?

Gov Sarah Palin took the podium last night at the RNC... launching plenty of attacks on Barack Obama and praise her own experience and readiness to be VP. But just how truthful was she? Check out a side by side from the AP over on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check

And before you think I'm just going after her, here's a similar article on the falsities spewed forth during the DNC... again from the AP, posted on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080828/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check_6

Both sides pretty much stretched the truth at the conventions... which I guess is common practice, to get the party fired up. but I find it interesting that the RNC seems to have stretched the truth into all-out lies far more than the DNC did.

Each one of the items listed inthe DNC fact check seems to have a grain of truth to it... albeit small in some cases. While the majority of the RNC ones appear to be bald-faced lies... like Palin's comment she "protected the taxpayers" when she "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress". So while she was mayor, the hiring of that lobbyist and her traveling to Washington to support earmarks for Wasilla totalling $27 million was protecting the tax payer?

Or the supposition that Obama hasn't authored a "single major law or reform - not even in the state senate." So I guess him working with Republicans to expand efforts to intercept illegal shipments of WMDs... a piece of legislation that became law last year wasn't a major law? Or perhaps she did mean just the state senate terms? No wrong there too... he was the leader on two big pieces of legislation in Illinois... studying racial profiling and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also so sponsored major ethics reform.

But enough about Palin and her out right lying. How did the DNC fare in their stretches of the truth? Honestly, it was hard to find the outright lies within the article. The biggest incorrect attack seemed to be on McCain's refusal to change course in the Iraq War... which in fact he kinda had...sort of. McCain originally thought we would be "welcomed as liberators" in Baghdad. But after visiting the country he changed his mind and returned to Washington calling for more troops to beat the insurgency... and kept on that course, even when his presidential campaign was put in jeopardy. So technically, he did change course... in the early part of the war... but he hasn't wavered since then, no matter the loses or changes to the situation in Iraq.

The rest of the quotes in the article all seem to be backed up with facts that support the claims.

Sounds like the RNC has taken to straight-out lying to the voters to keep the White House....