Americans for Tax Reform has released its 2009 Naughty and Nice List featuring a lot of well-known Democrats, including Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

In case you haven't figured it out, Biden and Pelosi are on the "Naughty" list, which also includes former Gov. Jon Corzine, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Chris Dodd, Rep. Barney Frank and Rahm Emanuel.

Why it's a virtual who's who of everybody running Washington ... and running this country into the ground.

The "Nice" list is overwhelmingly Republican: House Republican Leader John Boehner, Sen. Mike Johanns, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Rep. Darrell Issa, Sen. Jim DeMint and Rep. Tom Price.

For the complete list, visit the ATR Web site.

Allen Hunt, writing at Townhall.com, notes that the Obamas and the Bidens are not exactly the most generous people in the United States.

Based on the numbers in their 2008 tax returns, the Bidens gave a measly 0.2 percent of their income to charity, Hunt writes.

The Obamas did better, giving 6.5 percent, but Hunt points out that the Obama's generosity may have a lot to do with Barack Obama's high-profile run for president than his giving nature.

From Hunt's column:

Two observations: Biden is stingy, and Obama only began giving when he knew the public would be watching.

Vice-President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, who have given about 0.2% of their income to charity in each of the years between 2000 and 2008. Less than ½ of one percentage point given to persons in need, to ministries of their Catholic Church, to agencies that serve the poor and the hurting. In fact, this year they gave a total of $1,885 to charity, marking the first time they had even given a sum larger than $1,000 for the entire year. In every year of this decade, the Bidens' income has exceeded $200,000, and for the first time they gave away more than $1000 of their own money. Astonishing stinginess. Record-setting, in fact.

Their stinginess makes Barack and Michelle Obama appear generous. The Obamas gave away 6.5% of their considerable income ($2.6 MM) in 2008. They are showing progress. This percentage of giving (6.5%) marks their own personal best in the past decade. In fact, they gave less than 1% away in 2000, 2001, and 2002, only breaking into the paltry 1% category in 2003 and 2004, when he began to run for public office. Then, upon launching a bid for the presidency in 2005, their giving rose to 4.7%, and then 6.1% in 2006, and 5.8% in 2007.

Sadly, one has to wonder why the Obamas' giving only began to reach any meaningful level once they began to run for public office. Was it because they knew it would now be scrutinized by the public eye?

Read the full column at Townhall.com

What is this obsession photographers have with Sarah Palin's legs? At almost every campaign stop, a photographer, typically from The Associated Press, will take a ground level shot of Palin from behind. Sexism? You bet. Until we start getting some photos of Joe Biden's legs, the only conclusion is that the wire service wants to remind voters that Palin is "just a girl" and can't be trusted to serve as vice president.

Who won Thursday's vice presidential debate? Sarah Palin, of course.

From today's editorial in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Palin offered a potent debating combination. She was well prepared, at ease, folksy and, at times, full of moxie. She shot and scored early and often -- especially noting how Democrats failed to understand the coming train wreck of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and how Democrat wealth redistribution is anything but the "fairness" that Biden insists.

So, who "won"? Clearly, it was Sarah Palin -- not because she exceeded very weak expectations but because she showed she's quite qualified to be not only vice president but president, too. And that should be a major boost for a GOP ticket exactly when it needs it.

Read the full editorial at the newspaper's Web site.

PBS anchor Gwen Ifill is the scheduled moderator of Thursday's vice presidential debate between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin.

Gwen Ifill has written a book about Sen. Barack Obama.

If the Obama/Biden ticket wins in November, Ifill could have a best seller on her hands.

If the Obama/Biden ticket loses, nobody will buy her book.

So who do you think Gwen Ifill will be rooting for to win the election? Will she throw softball questions at Joe Biden? Will she go on the attack against Palin?

Why is such an obvious partisan moderating the debate?

Columnist Michelle Malkin is wondering that too.

From Malkin's column posted at the Investor's Business Daily Web site:

Nonpartisan my foot.

Random House, her publisher, is already busy hyping the book with YouTube clips of Ifill heaping praise on her subjects, including Obama and Obama-endorsing Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick. The official promo for the book gushes:

"In 'The Breakthrough,' veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama's stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African-American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.

"Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Sen. Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the 'black enough' conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history."

Ifill and her publisher are banking on an Obama-Biden win to buoy her book sales. The moderator expected to treat both sides fairly has grandiosely declared this the "Age of Obama." Can you imagine a right-leaning journalist writing a book about the "stunning" McCain campaign and its "bold" path to reform timed for release on Inauguration Day — and then expecting a slot as a moderator for the nation's sole vice presidential debate?

Yeah, I just registered 6.4 on the Snicker Richter Scale too.

Read the full column at the newspaper's Web site.

The Wall Street Journal wants voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio to pay close attention to what Sen. Barack Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, have to say about America's energy future.

Both states stand to benefit if America turns more to clean coal technology to break the grip of foreign oil. But Biden slipped again during a recent speech. If you listen closely to what Obama and Biden have to say about energy, they're more concerned with global warming and imposing a carbon tax on Americans than they are with finding clean, reliable and affordable energy alternatives.

From the WSJ editorial:

Mr. Biden, then, only stated an obvious if politically unutterable truth. The real costs of green ambitions won't be paid by well-heeled coastal liberals, but will fall disproportionately on the Southern and Midwestern states that depend on coal for jobs and power. The blue-collar voters of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and so forth will get hurt most -- notwithstanding Mr. Biden's campaign reinvention as the scrapper from Scranton.

Read the full editorial, "Biden's Coal Slaw," at the newspaper's Web site.