Sarah Palin and the 'skeletons'
Updated on 03 September 2008
Inside the morning meeting.
The morning meeting starts with discussion of the Republican convention - and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is a much bigger talking point than George Bush's video-linked speech on John McCain.
The latest polls show Obama's lead has widened since the self-styled "hockey mom" - that's a more working class version of a "soccer mom", for non-US sports fans - was adopted as the Republican vice-presidential candidate on Friday.
Although the staunch conservative "seems to be damaging McCain in the wider context, diehard Republicans love her."
"Everything single woman commentator has something to say about Palin. Is it worth us looking at this not just as an American political thing, but in terms of the implications for womankind?"
We're on the ground to gauge opinion among "real Americans" - it's important to look at the story both with and without politico glasses on.
Interest still in the "Swat team" the Republicans sent up to Alaska at the weekend - to bury any bad news about the new candidate.
"I think it's normal to send a team up there when you've just announced such a big public appointment."
"They should have sent them before this stage."
"There's a precedent of picking someone who is known - like Biden - there wouldn't be a team in Delaware as he's been in public life for 30 years."
But everyone has skeletons in the cupboard, someone notes sagely.
Our science correspondent Julian Rush is at the court in Maidstone where Greenpeace activists are calling a top climate change scientist as part of their defence for painting "Gordon" on a power station chimney.
The group caused £30,000-worth of damage, but argues that this is less than the environmental cost of the redevelopment of the Kingsnorth power station.
The amount of damage caused means the case is being heard in front of a jury - and there is a precedent for the public seeing the protestors' point of view. Peter Melchett and 27 activists used a similar defence for damaging GM crops in 1999.
Whether the argument will hold up in relation to climate change today remains to be seen.
