Regarding Palin, the Obamaites and Pelosians can barely keep themselves from calling her "trailer trash," which is what they really think about her and about many of the people whpose votes they need. But they know how that would play among independents and moderate Democrats. So Palin has succssfully driven a huge wedge right into the heart of the non-Clnton Democrats hypocrisy, and the Dems don't know what to do about it.

Do you notice how reluctant Hillary has been to attack Palin? She is very smart. Too bad Obama didn't have the strength and confidence to put her on the ticket.

Word...

I really believe that Obama is going to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory and lose this thing...Women are abandoning the Obama-Biden ticket in the hope of seeing a woman in the White House, her anti-family and woman  policies  notwithstanding...

What a mess...

I can't even imagine what four more years of Republicant misrule will be like...Well, we can thank TNR and Marty Peretz for shoving Barack Obama down our throats...

Picture yourself in a boat on a river with tangerine trees and marmalade skies. Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly, a girl with kaleidoscope eyes...

Even if you aren't trippin', copyright that concept Eos.  Counterfactual history written before the event has happened. Or you could get a website and compete with Nate, call it theworldwillneverbethesamesincehillarylost.com

The end is nigh so I don't have to quit smoking, I can check out at young but married...(no names) and I think I'll apologize to all I treated unfairly. I can waste those who deserved it.

Jeeze, I hope you're correct here. Obama-Biden win and I'll be in a heap o' trouble. But while you're at it I need some picks for other races that are now ruined by the Hillary Effect. Nate hasn't given me the sort of odds I'm comfortable with so I might as well make a few wagers before the world ends.

But first, are you experienced? Have you ever been experienced? Well, I have

Eos, before you become irrationally exuberant, please note the tone and substance of Obama's and Biden's assessment of Palin. I don't think they are insincere or hypocritical, and the Obamaites themselves are momentarily stuck in shock, disillusion, and (if you'll allow an ironic use of a vulgar sarcasm) penis envy.  With luck, Obama can point the way back to sobriety, and the 'ites will listen. For the moment at least, liberals' fur is standing on end, and their hissing is understandably defensive. I think we may be looking at a wholly new dynamic taking shape in this race and I wouldn't count anybody out...yet.

TheOne__, please don't panic. This thing has just begun.

"Well, we can thank TNR and Marty Peretz for shoving Barack Obama down our throats.."

Yeah, damn that all-powerful Marty Peretz for preventing Hillary from competing in the caucus states.

Yikes, I defended Marty.  I need to go take a purifying bath.

Cute, Michael. Original.

If Obama had the strength to put Hillary on the ticket, things would look very different right now. If he loses, we will look back at his decsion not to pick her, and the Dems failure to nominate her, and the selection of Palin as the key events.

A few instructive points:

After the Democratic convention in 84, when Mondale picked Ferraro, and then again after the first debate in which, by common consent, Mondale crushed Reagan, the race was momentarily tied.  We all know how well that worked out.

At the height of his "bounce," Obama led McCain by 8 in Gallup on Monday, 9/1, and 6 on Tuesday, 9/2 in Rasmussen.  As of today (9/8), McCain leads Obama by 3 in Gallup and 0 in Rasmussen.  It is entirely possible that those leads will increase, but that remains to be seen.  More realistic numbers will be available by about Wednesday or Thursday.

Just about three weeks ago or so, Nate's model had McCain with the winning percentage, and Politico's map showed McCain winning the election.  In fact, on 8/25, McCain went ahead by a point in Gallup.  Then just *before* the Democratic convention--in fact, before the Biden pick, even--all was reversed.  Let the McCainiacs have their brief moment of exhiliration.  Unless I see a consistent McCain lead by next weekend, I refuse to panic (but I'll probably make a donation).  Life is too short.

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

"Word..."

The first time I recall hearing this expression was about a year ago on YouTube.

Did you ever see or hear of Sue Teller? Well, Mountain Dew was testing (I guess) a possible viral video to advertise the brand. My entree was that the actor is an octogenarian mother/in-law of close friends here in Los Angeles. Those net-mercials (there were two released) were among the funnier things I'd seen in years. So it seemed the were for Letterman and Leno, who followed up with invites to appear on their shows (which didn't happen ultimately).

Hearing "Word..." coming from an old lady I knew (she calls herself that without shame) was a total non-sequitur. I lol, and mystified. I love language.

Eos, if Obama had put Hillary on the ticket, McCain would not have needed Palin to pull ahead in the polls (if indeed Palin is making a difference).  Hillary would have done it for him.  She can energize the hard right every bit as much as Palin--that's one of the (many) reasons Obama did not pick her.

If you think that selecting a female governor of Alaska is all McCain needs to become President, then please mail me some of whatever it is you're smoking.

Eos said

"If Obama had the strength to put Hillary on the ticket, things would look very different right now. If he loses, we will look back at his decsion not to pick her, and the Dems failure to nominate her, and the selection of Palin as the key events."

You may be right, but I don't think it was lack of strength, not at all. It took strength *not to choose her* and again it reflects well Obama's sound judgment. Both ran on policy (despite the rhetoric strongly suggesting Hillary was the feminist candidate - that was a facade), and both strongly believe in their own policy priorities, which in turn flow from their personalities and most of all, philosophies. Had Obama run with Hillary the tension between they're very strongly held views and orientations would inevitably lead to disorganization and polarization. It's too bad, but I think that was and is the case. I also believe they both know it and have resolved to make the best of their respective strengths and weakness in their respective domains. That way they could arrive at an effective alliance that won't at the same time be a hindrance to the other.

You miss the point...Not only did the pick of Sarah Falin  energize the rabid right wing base, it peeled off some of Senator Obama's female support...According to Rasmussen* Obama's lead over McCane  among women went down from fourteen to seven points... If Obama is only winning among females by seven points on election day this race is going to be perilously close even given the fact that females will comprise a larger share of the electorate...People seem to forget that only one of four white males identifies himself as a Democrat...

BTW- I keep hearing that Mondale and Reagan were essentially tied...

Was that after the Democratic convention or both of them?

Big difference...

Also, the only time I remember the race being close was after the first debate when Reagan started free associating and got lost on the Ventura Highway...

I'd like to see a link...

*I am not fan of Rasmussen's methodology but that is all we have to work with now...

This whole talk about whether putting Hillary on the ticket would cause Obama to be in a better place is absolute nonsense.  

1.  As tomeg correctly states Obama very wisely decided not to put her on the ticket because they would not have been able to work together effectively either during the campaign or while in office if elected.  Hillary would chafe at taking directions from Obama to a huge degree and Bill would be too much of a distraction.  It would be a disaster from any rationale standpoint.

2.  There is no way McCain would have picked Palin if Hillary was VP.  McCain only picked Palin because he wanted to benefit from Obama NOT picking Hillary and because he needed to galvanize his base.  If Hillary was on the ticket there would be no female democrats to poach and no need to galvanize the base because the base HATES Hillary.  McCain would have picked a more moderate running mate and used his convention to drive toward the center rather than to the right.

A word on McCain's rise in the polls.  Chill out people!  As Silver points out, over the last week a huge confluence of events have occurred that the American people have not had time to properly digest.  I believe McCain's picking of Palin was smart short term strategy and disastrous long term thinking as is his particular wont.  The more people find out about where Palin stands on the issues, the more people consider the contradictions/hypocrisies of McCain's newly adopted advocacy of change, and the more we hear about Palin's past (Troopergate), the more it will come to be realized that McCain made a fatal mistake in choosing her.

But hey, I could be wrong and the American people are really bigger morons than I ever thought possible.  If that's the case we will get exactly the disasters that will come with a McCain victory and we will have no one but ourselves to blame.

All that saying "it peeled off some of Senator Obama's support" means is that more women than men were shaken in their (already light) allegiance.  McCain's bounce numbers had to come from *somewhere.*  There is no reason to suppose that temporary gains are any more or less temporary because they come more from women than from men.  In fact, if the reason is as superficial as "she's got ovaries just like me," that may make them *more* temporary.

Remember, McCain has to do more than register an increase in polls.  He has to *keep* that increase.  Why assume he will be any more successful at it than Obama?  I give the McCain campaign people sufficient credit to believe that *they* know this is temporary, and that they're trying hard to figure out how to turn a temporary gain into something more lasting.  I doubt they can.

I have no links.  But I'm sure if you google you can find poll numbers for immediately after the Democratic convention in 84 as well as after the first debate.

"A word on McCain's rise in the polls.  Chill out people!  As Silver points out, over the last week a huge confluence of events have occurred that the American people have not had time to properly digest.  I believe McCain's picking of Palin was smart short term strategy and disastrous long term thinking as is his particular wont.  The more people find out about where Palin stands on the issues, the more people consider the contradictions/hypocrisies of McCain's newly adopted advocacy of change, and the more we hear about Palin's past (Troopergate), the more it will come to be realized that McCain made a fatal mistake in choosing her."

You have too much faith in the American electorate... Two words:

Dan Quayle

Last week Palin benefited immensely from low expectations. It was the same thing that happened in 2000 re the first Bush/Gore debate: prepare people for a drooling village idiot, and then hit a home run by presenting a candidate who can tell a few jokes and talk a little game.

At this point the Obama strategy seems to be the opposite. Biden is complimenting her for being tough, smart, and formidable in order to ratchet UP the Palin expectations to prepare her for a disastrous fall when she finally talks to the media. We'll have to wait and see what happens, I suppose.

I just hope ABC asks her  real questions, and not an endless stream of soap opera bullshit about balancing family with work, etc.

If Sarah Falin  goes through a media interview without drooling the American people will embrace her while the so called  intellectuals crow how stupid she is ...

That's why the Republicants have controlled the White House for thirty six of the last fifty six years and were able to convince the American electorate in 2000 that peace and prosperity sucked...They know that running for president is like trying to be America's next Idol and vacuous Sarah fills that role...

So far the conventional wisdom on Palin has been swinging like a twitching seismograph. First, Who? She must be incompetent because she is unknown and a former beauty pageant contestant. Second, Tabloid rumors. Third, her teenage daughter is pregnant! Fourth, she sure can deliver a speech, and does mocking and sneering well. Fifth, wow, she is everywoman! We love her and who is that old guy running with her?

Reality? No, she is not everywoman, although she might be right-wing-fantasy-woman. Her actual record does not quite match her rhetoric, and she's told a few whoppers, and if she ever does take questions from the press she'll be asked about them. Her views on abortion are well to the right of the national mainstream (like it or not, the mainstream wants abortion to be legal but rare). If she ever talks to the press, she may be asked if she really thinks a woman who would suffer long-term health damage from carrying a pregnancy to term cannot be allowed to have an abortion, or if a 12-year-old girl must be forced to carry her rapists child. Maybe she'll answer those questions well, but we'll see. Her Trooper scandal is showing new dimensions, because at least one of her staffers referred to information contained in at least two different confidential files. Going after your ex-brother-in-law by digging illegally into personnel and workers comp files is not what most people think about when they talk about reform. It's lucky for her that the Trooper is a jerk. And meanwhile, there is no evidence at all that she has thought even slightly about a whole host of national issues -- she admitted to not having thought about the Iraq war beyond general support for the troops and for whatever position Bush took. She's smart, so she has time to prepare for the limited public fora in which she might be asked about those things, but her lack of record on many issues is not in any way similar to whatever is said about Obama. We really don't know how it will turn out when she is asked to show more in-depth knowledge or thinking. All we really know now is her biography, and her ability to deliver slogans and zingers in a speech written for her. And that she has plenty of charisma,

The bottom line to me is that the needle is still swinging and hasn't settled down at all. Unless she continues to be the target of silly tabloid and below-tabloid rumors (which will fuel a backlash), I really doubt that many women are going to find her compelling unless they were leaning R anyway. She certainly is not the one to appeal to disaffected Hillary supporters. It seems a given that she will bring the religious right out in droves, and will rope in some leaners, but it is far too early to know whether her appeal will be sustained for the next two months among those who are not already part of the base.

Clearly McCain did not make a fatal error in choosing her, though. Look at his alternatives. None of them would have brought the positives she did. All were snore-inducing. If she had fallen on her face in her opening appearance, or at the convention, then it would have been a fatal error. That was a real risk, so he truly was gambling. But she didn't, so he has cleared the first round and remains all in. If she says something really ignorant and stupid, or faces the press and can't answer the questions, or the Trooper scandal turns up something worse, or she flails helplessly in the debate, then the negatives will come roaring back. I would not bet on any of these happening, with the exception of the Trooper scandal, but all are possible. If not, her "bounce" will fade in any case as people learn more and move beyond infatuation. Nobody knows where it will end up.

My counterfactual is all looking back. The great regret is Hillary and Bill refused to admit their race was lost while they continued to create chaos and conflict which they may or may not be able to repair. It certainly should not have been necessary to devote the precious hour of the convention to prove, really prove, really, really prove all as OK. It isn't a leap to imagine the Clintons out, active and behind Obama as early as April. How many hard feelings developed toward Barack after she was mathematically done? I believe she need upwards of 60, then 70, then 80% of pledged delegates after April and it was not going to happen. She also lacked the supers and only managed to freeze them. Add to those stunts the fight over Florida and Michigan and all the whining over a format she thought would favor her.

The logic seems to be: Barack needs Hillary on the ticket to secure voters Hillary pissed off and are looking at Sarah. Would McCain have taken Sarah if Hillary didn't screw with people's minds and allow the poorest excuse for the job apply based on gender?

Sorry, I don't know if the GOP wished to see Hillary and Barack share a ticket and fire up their base on the cheap but the next best thing was to have the Clintons working against Barack for as long as possible. But the "She wrecked it and only she can save it."  smells like "I shot my parents and now I'm an orphan."  

Sarah Palin would not have been on McCain's list if Hillary was off the ticket but solidly with Obama for several months at the end of the primary.

I can make a case that Hillary and her mixing it up created the best reason for McCain to turn to Sarah well before Hillary was not the VP. The opening for Sarah only existed because the Clintons created it. McCain picked a female but it was not because Hillary was not the VP. He's hoping Palin can ride Hillary's coattails of people pissed off because of her antics in the Spring,

Hillary broke it, she damn well better find a way to fix it.

That's sad you are  already conceding that Obama will lose and blaming that  impending loss on Hillary and Bill  Clinton...Really sad...Maybe it's because the Republicants have so far succeded in Dukasizing Obama like they did Kerry and Gore...

It's up to Obama to unDukasize himself...

Maybe they opposed him because they knew he was a sure loser...If he loses when every available metric says he should win it's his own fault and the Clintons are political geniuses for identifying it before the rest of us...

Too bad he will go back to his tony home on Chicago's South Side  while the rest of us will have to live under McCane-Falins reactionary policies...

Or maybe that was the plan of those who propped him up all along...

I refuse to blame Hillary for much of this at all. It's anyone's right to run for office and the fact that Hillary-bashers typically omit is that she did have almost 18 million votes. That's enormous support - and no reason for her to drop out of a race.

Michael says: "It certainly should not have been necessary to devote the precious hour of the convention to prove, really prove, really, really prove all as OK."

I much prefer devoting an hour of a convention to showing the two biggest names (Hillary and Bill) getting behind Obama than what the substance of the entire Republican convention was: pandering to the extreme wing of their party.

TheOneIsHere2008:

You seem to want Obama to win but you can't find a single positive thing to say about him. Instead of spouting off about people "propping him up" to ensure a McCain victory, why don't you make some effort to get your preferred candidate elected. Start by finding something positive. I think you might find it refreshing.

michael said:

"Hillary broke it, she damn well better find a way to fix it."

Yes, of course, if Obama loses, this could not POSSIBLY because of liberal nut jobs spinning absolutely ridiculous smears about Palin not being the mother of her own baby.  Nor could it POSSIBLY be because of the weaknesses of Obama and Biden themselves.

Yep, it's all the Clintons fault.

"Maybe they opposed him because they knew he was a sure loser"

Yes, that's it. Hillary Clinton decided to run for president so she could be the anti-Obama. And he had such a big lead in the polls heading into the primaries, too! No wonder she lost.

"If Sarah Falin  goes through a media interview without drooling the American people will embrace her while the so called  intellectuals crow how stupid she is ..."

Take Obama's and Biden's words about Palin at face value, pllease (or at least try to, if only as exercise).

She is a smart, articulate, hardworking (in spades, I've read elsewhere - she's taking advantage of every minute of every day studying for the role *and the job.*), with an innate understanding of strategy and tactics of a political campaign. Believe it! She is so not a dummy, if we don't stop thinking/hoping/wishing she is not a formidable running mate, we'll be blindsided.

She's the real deal, as Hillary put it. She is not aiming for Obama or Biden, even though she will continue her present line of ridicule. Her record of remarkable success in Alaska politics tells me she will run as an anti-establishmentarian, just as she and McCain now say they will run against Washington. Believe it, they have declared their game plan, no tricks, no surprises.

Palin's a populist candidate, a clear counter to Obama, who has the charisma to be a populist if he wanted, but he doesn't, it's not his game plan. He's running on policy issues - job creation, tax relief for the middle class, rebuilding the military (don't believe me on that, he said it on This Week this very morning, and I believe him), attacking the deficit, reforming Medicare (again, from his remarks earlier today).

Though his theme is change, the reality is Obama is an incrementalist; he truly wants to bring "change you can believe in" meaningful, quantifiable change. He has an agenda. McCain and Palin do not, except in the vaguest terms. They are running as the populist ticket. Ask Pat Buchanan, he saw it immediately, and got more excited than I've seen him in a over a decade.

JEFF FREY, you are right to caution patience, wait and see how the numbers shake out in the next week and following. I think the race is still a virtual tie, with Obama slightly ahead.

Eos and The oneis here2008 are Republicans, more thank likely paid for by the McCain Campaign or the RNC.

Eos deserves no explaination, we've all been reading the talking points straight from the RNC for two months. It's obvious.

Theoneis here2008 is even more obvious. Even the name is dumb. It's a reference to "The One" or Obama, but every word drips with disdain for the "TNR shoved down our throats." Sigh. Just dumb, dumb, dumb talking points. These blogs are getting absurd.

In any event, Obama was up by 9 last week. Down by 3 today. Yeah right. You see Obama throwing hail mary passes, lying with every breath, doing the things people running from behind do? No, McCain is. He knows what all the chicken littles don't - he's going to lose.

If Obama loses it will be because the Republicans were successful in defining him as an effete intellectual who looks down on average Americans and pals around with wanna be domestic terrorists like Bill Ayres and religious nut jobs like Reverend Wright...If you ignore the nuttie ties you have Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Mike Dukakis, and John Kerry...

Only the Democratic party could take an election where every available metric favors them and turn it into a loss or a nail bite or worse a lossr...

John Stuart Mill said the Tory party of his day was the "stupid party"...I wonder what he would say about the Democrats...

The issue still comes back to McCain's judgment.  Palin is red-meat for the Fundamentalist wing of the party - and McCain chose her because he realized (or was helped to realize) that he had no shot unless the Fundamentalists were motivated to get out and vote.   In the end, he made the decision that he thought was necessary to win.  Not to govern effectively, to win the election.

Two thoughts spin out from this:  One, McCain has no long-term plans.  None.  He may be one of the most short-sighted candidates we have had for quite some time.  Two, if I were McCain, I would hire a food taster, as Palin is clearly ambitious, savvy, and perhaps more than a bit Machiavellian (amoral, not evil).  

The Fundamentalists will not be put off for long with Palin on the ticket, they will begin to demand to hear about the 'culture of life' more and more explicitly.  'W' was able to put them off time and time again.  McCain has already shown that he cannot.

Nobody has to convince me that Obama and Biden are more infinitely qualified to lead than McCain and Palin...That's not the point and has never been the point...McCain and Palin would be a disaster...

But in order to govern you must win...If the election is about issues we win...If it's about faux narratives we lose...

Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry...

I have seen this movie before....

Per Troopergate, all I can say after doing some research is small stuff. (It really is.)  It is messy and, yes, maybe Palin overstepped, but really, it's not a winning issue, it's scarcely an issue at all. "Who doesn't have family problems. They should just leave them alone." Just as with her daughter, there's no there there.

"Eos and The oneis here2008 are Republicans, more thank likely paid for by the McCain Campaign or the RNC."

-mpatrickhendri

If I am a Republican you're a genius...

Oh, your powers of deduction are sorely lacking as is your power of analysis...I have been theoneishere ojn various boards since 2005 or so... It's a cool handle, at least to me...

But if you want to obsess about my handle so be it...You can even obsess about me as long as you keeps your hands above your waist...

What is happening to these threads? Why are we once again debating Hillary vs. Obama? Save it for November 5.

If Obama loses, and I see little reason yet to predict that he will, the causes will be numerous and complex, but a short-lived, fast-retracted "smear" that rushed in, along with a horde of far more disturbing if less salacious facts, to fill the informational vacuum created by the surprise announcement of a far-fetched candidate will not, I promise, be foremost among them. Far more influential are the neverending, long-lived smears of right wing nut jobs, repeated almost gleefully and I think knowingly even when proven false.

And can we admit that we have no idea what would have happened if Hillary had been picked for VP? Or P? You don't think the Schmidt/Rove sump pump wouldn't have found ways to tar and feather HRC had she appeared on the ticket? Talk about naive.

Obama/Biden is a good ticket, far better than the alternative.  

Trust me, dude or dame, no obsession. Just bored with reading the same brainless talking points. You're proving nearly as good at hitting on the lame Republican points as Eos.

Sorry I didn't realize you had been using that handle for so long. And you're right, super cool handle. Can I be a your friend on facebook?

I don't have a facebook or myspace but I see you are familiar with those sites and since you insulted me I will not be one of your "friends"

Every available metric favors the Democrats...It's the most hospitable environment for a Democrat since 1932 and yet the race is a pick em or push...Why is that?

And if I was a Republican why would I say that conditions in this country are worse than at any time since the Great Depression?

Could it be that Barack Obama was a great primary candidate and a lousy general election candidate?

Let's have a look at the typical talking points so far:

1) I really believe that Obama is going to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory and lose this thing...Women are abandoning the Obama-Biden ticket in the hope of seeing a woman in the White House

2) Well, we can thank TNR and Marty Peretz for shoving Barack Obama down our throats...

3) Regarding Palin, the Obamaites and Pelosians can barely keep themselves from calling her "trailer trash," which is what they really think about her and about many of the people whpose votes they need. But they know how that would play among independents and moderate Democrats. So Palin has succssfully driven a huge wedge right into the heart of the non-Clnton Democrats hypocrisy, and the Dems don't know what to do about it.

4) Too bad Obama didn't have the strength and confidence to put her on the ticket.

5) If Obama had the strength to put Hillary on the ticket, things would look very different right now. If he loses, we will look back at his decsion not to pick her, and the Dems failure to nominate her, and the selection of Palin as the key events.

6) Not only did the pick of Sarah Falin  energize the rabid right wing base, it peeled off some of Senator Obama's female support...According to Rasmussen* Obama's lead over McCane  among women went down from fourteen to seven points... If Obama is only winning among females by seven points on election day this race is going to be perilously close even given the fact that females will comprise a larger share of the electorate.

7) People seem to forget that only one of four white males identifies himself as a Democrat..

8) If Sarah Falin  goes through a media interview without drooling the American people will embrace her while the so called  intellectuals crow how stupid she is..

9) That's sad you are  already conceding that Obama will lose and blaming that  impending loss on Hillary and Bill  Clinton...Really sad...Maybe it's because the Republicants have so far succeded in Dukasizing Obama like they did Kerry and Gore...

10) Maybe they opposed him because they knew he was a sure loser...

11) Or maybe that was the plan of those who propped him up all along...

12) If Obama loses it will be because the Republicans were successful in defining him as an effete intellectual who looks down on average Americans and pals around with wanna be domestic terrorists like Bill Ayres and religious nut jobs like Reverend Wright...

13) If you ignore the nuttie ties you have Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Mike Dukakis, and John Kerry...

14) Only the Democratic party could take an election where every available metric favors them and turn it into a loss or a nail bite or worse a lossr...

15) John Stuart Mill said the Tory party of his day was the "stupid party"...I wonder what he would say about the Democrats...

16) Nobody has to convince me that Obama and Biden are more infinitely qualified to lead than McCain and Palin...

17) Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry...

I have seen this movie before....

I know that the conventional wisdom is that the metrics favor the Dems but actually the metrics are not so overwhelming.  The predicted recession did not materialize.  Growth rate forecasts for 3Q and 4Q look good.  OECD forecasts a 1.8% GDP growth for the US in 2008, better than Japan or Europe.  Non-financial sector earnings are good to excellent and look to improve.

I think that no matter who the nominee is this was going to be a close race.  The US is a deeply conservative country and in every national race since WW2 the Dems have had an uphill battle.  It would have been an uphill battle with HRC and it is with Obama.  Maybe if he was white or she had divorced Bill, it would be easier, but still not easy.

But for Ross Perot, Watergate and some dead voters in Chicago found by Mayor Daley Snr, the Dems would not have won any non-incumbent Presidential races in more than 50 years.

I don't think Palin changes anything.  In fact, she may yet be McCain's undoing.  It is early days yet.

Let's have a look at the typical talking points so far:

1) I really believe that Obama is going to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory and lose this thing...Women are abandoning the Obama-Biden ticket in the hope of seeing a woman in the White House

That's my opinion based on the fact that McCain has reduced the gender gap in half

2) Well, we can thank TNR and Marty Peretz for shoving Barack Obama down our throats...

Marty is an unrepentant Clintonphobe...That's like saying water's , errrrr wet...

3) Regarding Palin, the Obamaites and Pelosians can barely keep themselves from calling her "trailer trash," which is what they really think about her and about many of the people whpose votes they need. But they know how that would play among independents and moderate Democrats. So Palin has succssfully driven a huge wedge right into the heart of the non-Clnton Democrats hypocrisy, and the Dems don't know what to do about it.

That's not me...

4) Too bad Obama didn't have the strength and confidence to put her on the ticket.

That's not me but that would have prevented McCain from choosing Palin and improving his position

5) If Obama had the strength to put Hillary on the ticket, things would look very different right now. If he loses, we will look back at his decsion not to pick her, and the Dems failure to nominate her, and the selection of Palin as the key events.

That's not me either...Too early to tell...

6) Not only did the pick of Sarah Falin  energize the rabid right wing base, it peeled off some of Senator Obama's female support...According to Rasmussen* Obama's lead over McCane  among women went down from fourteen to seven points... If Obama is only winning among females by seven points on election day this race is going to be perilously close even given the fact that females will comprise a larger share of the electorate.

That's a fact.

7) People seem to forget that only one of four white males identifies himself as a Democrat..

That's a fact...If the doc tells you you have cancer is he a bad guy?

8) If Sarah Falin  goes through a media interview without drooling the American people will embrace her while the so called  intellectuals crow how stupid she is..

That's a supposition ...Are making suppositions confined to Republicants

9) That's sad you are  already conceding that Obama will lose and blaming that  impending loss on Hillary and Bill  Clinton...Really sad...Maybe it's because the Republicants have so far succeded in Dukasizing Obama like they did Kerry and Gore...

Yeah- a poster was blaming the Clintons for a loss that never happened... And yeah, the Republicans succeded in clowning  Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry...

That's why they only won with the anti-Dukakis-Bill Clinton

10) Maybe they opposed him because they knew he was a sure loser...

The Clinton's say believe he can't win...

11) Or maybe that was the plan of those who propped him up all along...

Yes, the MSM is controlled  by corporate elites who are best served by a Republican president...Why wouldn't they help nominate the weakest Democrat?

12) If Obama loses it will be because the Republicans were successful in defining him as an effete intellectual who looks down on average Americans and pals around with wanna be domestic terrorists like Bill Ayres and religious nut jobs like Reverend Wright...

True...Why else would he lose in the most favorable political climate for a Democrat since 1932

13) If you ignore the nuttie ties you have Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Mike Dukakis, and John Kerry...

See 12

14) Only the Democratic party could take an election where every available metric favors them and turn it into a loss or a nail bite or worse a lossr...

Res ipsa loquitur

15) John Stuart Mill said the Tory party of his day was the "stupid party"...I wonder what he would say about the Democrats...

Res ipsa loquitur

16) Nobody has to convince me that Obama and Biden are more infinitely qualified to lead than McCain and Palin...

????????????????????????????????

17) Stevenson, McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry...

I have seen this movie before....

???????????

Sherlock Holmes, you are not...

I had a really long post...

But your forensic skills, mpatrickhendri, are weak if you assume anybody who disagrees with you and/or is less than enamored of Senator Obama is a Republican...But when your whole argument is built on a logical fallacy i.e. ,ad hominem, your argument is dead on arrival...

Reading through this string so far reminds me of The Sherlock Holmes classic "The Hound of the Baskervilles".  Remember the dog that didn't bark?  The dog that doesn't bark here is that nobody wants to even think about the possibility that the message(s) the Democratic base loves cannot, once again, produce a Democratic victory.  Would Hillary have made a difference?  Perhaps.  But on policy, Hillary's theme was not much different than Barack Obama's; it may well have been a tad to the left of Obama's.  It was certainly notably different from the vibes thrown off by Bill Clinton, who obsessed on occupying the middle ground while running successfullly for the presidency twice.  The political truth is that the themes popounded by both Obama and Hillary Clinton both have sounded much more like Gore and Kerry than "the big Dawg".

If I am right, how has this happened:  First, I think there has been inadequate recognition of the fact that the Democratic congress is even more unpopular than Bush; they just haven't been as unpopular for as long a time.  The people expect the Democrats will control congress again; indeed the media hold out the possibility of a veto-proof congress.  Maybe, just maybe, the people don't hanker for Pelosi, Reid, et al, and a president who not only won't control  them, but may cheer them on.  They remember the combination of Clinton and a Republican congress with considerable affection.  Maybe, just maybe, they think divided government is not such a bad idea.

Second, Palin.  She isn't the second coming, but she does give a big hunk of the Republican base the same boost of energy that a big hunk of the Democratic base has gotten from Obama and Hillary.  That has been lacking heretofore.  I will be astounded if she actually attracts people who were devoted to Hillary.  What she does is to give the Republican base a chance to balance the votes of  of the Democratic base.  Whatever happens, it looks like a squeaker to me, just like the last two elections, with the ever diminishing swing vote deciding the outcome.

Third, Obama has sounded a little flat since he wrapped up the nomination.  I expect he will recapture his "voice".  He is a formidable politician.  What I don't know is whether he will tack left or right.  Tacking left will re-charge the faithful, but could lose the election.  Tacking right, could make him look more Clintonesque (Bill), but turn off the enthusiasm of the base.  Not an easy choice at this stage of the campaign.  

Fourth, I tend, perhaps out of an excess of idealism, to discount race as a decisive factor.  On a crude basis, I think energized students and African-Americans voting for the first time will balance-out voters whose choice is going to be determined in the end by negative racial considerations.  Hope I'm right.

Them's my thoughts.  Have at me!

Polls mean nothing in this case, because they're not anonymous. The Bradley effect will kick in. It's unfortunate, as we'll have that crazy far-Right bastard called Sarah Palin in the White House, but that's it.

lsernoff said:

"Maybe, just maybe, they think divided government is not such a bad idea."

Not only is divided government not a bad idea, it is probably the only hope for our country.  In my opinion, two of the worst Congresses we've ever had were these: the Congress in 1993-94 (following Clinton's first election in 1992, and where the Dems had control of the WH and both chambers) and the Congress in 2001-06 (where the Republicans had control of the WH and both chambers).

Just look at the Iraq War - it was a bumbling stumbling disaster, until the Democrats finally took control of Congress.  Now, I give the Democrats ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT WHATSOEVER for making things better in Iraq - except for one thing - they were not the idiot Congressional Republicans, and they sparked the firing of Donald Rumsfeld (aka Worst Secretary of Defense Ever).

When the Congress and WH are controlled by the same party, they think it's their chance to finally implement all the stupidest ideas that their ideologues believe in.

So absolutely, each November in an even numbered year - PRAY FOR DIVIDED GOVERNMENT - never give one party of both houses of Congress and the WH if you can help it.

2008,

Yawn. If you're really not a republican you appear to have swallowed every talking point being pushed over the past ten years. If you're a disgruntled HRC supporter, God help you.

And by the way, I'll take you more seriously when you can write a coherent sentence that doesn't end with an ellipses.

I look forward to hearing Monday's talking points in the morning.

At least one good thing has come out of the Palin pick: it has energized sleepy to attack the Republicans rather than the rest of us. Yay, sleepy!

I fear to make any comments lest I be called a Republican...

I'll just make two points, quote John Adams, and call it a night...

The points:

The Democratic primary voters often force Democrats to take positions that are anathema in the general election...

And they have a uncanny ability to chose candidates that the Republicans are able to define right out of the main stream...

Now, the quote:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

-John Adams

P.S.

McCain is now leading Obama 54-44 among likely voters in the latest USA-Today Gallup Poll

www.usatoday.com/.../2008-09-07-poll_N.htm

PEACE

TheOneIsHere2008

"And by the way, I'll take you more seriously when you can write a coherent sentence that doesn't end with an ellipses."

-mpatrickhendi

If you think that adding two periods to the customary one undermines my arguments there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion. (.) (.)

And pointing out grammatical errors and spelling mistakes on "the internets"  is usually the last refuge of someone  on the losing side of an argument. (.) (.) The funny thing is I did neither...

But the funnier thing is the paucity of time it took for me to expose you. (.) (.)

KISSES

THEONEISHERE2008

lsernoff said:

"Third, Obama has sounded a little flat since he wrapped up the nomination.  I expect he will recapture his "voice".  He is a formidable politician.  What I don't know is whether he will tack left or right.  Tacking left will re-charge the faithful, but could lose the election.  Tacking right, could make him look more Clintonesque (Bill), but turn off the enthusiasm of the base.  Not an easy choice at this stage of the campaign."

I commend viewing the video of ABC's This Week, aired this morning, Stephanopoulos interviewing Obama. From my watching I believe Obama is quietly tacking right. He might pull it off and keep his base, now that the Repubs have shown their hand. The Obama campaign is striking the right tone in its fundraising appeals, virtually every one stressing the need not to lose the momentum they (the base) have fueled. So far it seems to be working. I hope McCain's campaign doesn't catch on to the subtle shift in Obama's thinking.

TheOneIsHere:

Keep making your points. Some members of the echo brigade aroiund here like to practice insult and a bit of thuggery. Don't let them distract you.

lsernofff:

The Dems have this foolish system for picking nominees that favors candidates out to the left.

I disagree that Hillary was to the left of Obama. National Journal has her as a moderate among Dems based on her Senate votes, while Obama is the most liberal Democrat in the US Senate (Biden is third most).

Hillary had positioned herself for the general, and this required remaining in the center. It cost her the DailyKos, TNR,  and MoveOn fanatics, the fringey yuppies and post-yuppies in the caucuses and around universities, and the San Francisco-inspired cosmo crowd--all of whom play a disproportionate role in the Dem primaries.

The other problem Hillary had was Obama's racial appeal. The fact that he is black is still the best reason that I have for voting for him, and it has garnered him unprecedented sympathy from the press and made him partially immune from serious press coverage. But unfortunately, it made the Dems completely lose their minds. No one had the sense or the guts to tell him to stop stealing Hillary's nomination and to come back in eight years when he had grown up and done something besides run for office and feather his own nest. My God, HE LOST NINE OF THE LAST FOURTEEN PRIMARIES!!! He never should have been nominated.

bufaloboy:

I agree that the idea of Pelosi and Obam running the entire federal government is pretty scary. It would finish Dems for twenty years.

michael:

One of the tropes around tnr has always been that Hillary is to blame for everything. This election is Obama's and the Democrats responsibility. It is not Hillary's business anymore.

lsernoff - the curious incident of the dog in the night-time is from "Silver Blaze" rather than the novella "Hound of the Baskervilles".

Sleepy, is there really reason to believe that the Bradley Effect will prove significant at all in November? I believe it's possible, but I would like to see some evidence.

tomeg:

Obama has been flat since he won the nomination because all the air went out of the campaign as soon as Hillary left. You could feel that enery again the night she spoke at the convention.

Don't look now, but McCain is up by 10 (yes, that's ten) points in Gallup's poll of likely voters.  This just from ABC News' Jake Tappers' blog.  Of course, there's plenty more time left in the campaign, and a lot of stuff can happen.  

McCain Pulls Ahead in Gallup

September 07, 2008 9:41 PM

Not the daily tracking poll, the actual Gallup poll, has Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pulling ahead of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

The numbers among registered voters are 50 percent to 46 percent -- and 54 percent to 44 percent among likely voters.

Obama's campaign always said before the American people made their final decision about him, the Democrat would be judged on three things -- the VP pick, the convention, and the debates. Now two of the three have gone down, and the American people have liked McCain's stuff better.

- jpt

blogs.abcnews.com/.../mccain-pulls-ah.html

TheOneIsHere:

Keep making your points. Some members of the echo brigade aroiund here like to practice insult and a bit of thuggery. Don't let them distract you.

September 8, 2008 3:15 AM

I didn't know using ellipsis points makes you stupid.... It's a habit I picked up writing on the internet...

The Republicans are succesful at portraying our candidates as out of touch elitists. Anybody who denies that ,denies it at their peril...That was the beauty of Bill Clinton...He was whip smart but part of being whip smart is not to let people know you think you are smarter than them even when you know you are...Nobody likes to be condescended too...

It's depressing to be in a fight for your life in an election you should win easily...

P.S. An an aside I have been reading TNR since I was in Grad School in the 80's ... I can remember when Mort Kondracke was the editor...

The Gallup/USA Today poll should have all Democrats somewhat panicked. That's a huge jump. Palin is going to give millions of voters a reason to vote against an African-American. They can tell themselves they're still voting for a historic ticket and set their conscience at ease.  

No, it's not over, but the trendlines don't look particularly good. And I'm certainly not very confident that Obama, the master of the teleprompter, will best McCain in the debates. Leave it to Democrats (including me, who voted for Obama) to nominate perhaps the only candidate who could lose in the most favorable political year for Democrats since 1964, and perhaps 1932.

I quite disagree, TheOneIsHere.

The One has left the building, because his Alzheimer's is upon him.  Empty head, empty suit.  

The only thing the Democrats have to learn from the Republicans in order to win this election and a whole bunch more is that, whatever people may say, dirty politics pays big dividends in America.  It's how Bush beet McCain, Gore, and Kerry.  McCain learned his lesson after having his hero act trashed by Bush who avoided Vietnam.  

McCain has been framing Obama as Paris Hilton, and Obama has been letting him do it.  As soon as they start framing McCain with being too confused to run the country, way out of touch with the problems faced by working families, and committed to continuing the failed policies of the Bush administration, the election will be over.  But they have to come out swinging because they have procrastinated.

For some time, this race has reminded me of the tortoise and the hare.  Obama was way out in front in Feb, but has coasted ever since. First he lost race after race to Hillary, and then when he was the sole candidate  his campaign fell flat.  He is still using the same basic stump speech, picked a DC insider for veep, and is still hammering away at change, but basically his campaign has been napping under a big tree.  He woke for a few minutes, when he thought they could get McCain on the "I don't know how many houses I have" thing, but that was pretty weak.  Meantime the tortoise found a turbo charged relay partner, and the finish will be close and fascinating.

I keep waiting for Obama to impress me.  He reminds me of the student that shows so much promise, but never turns the paper in or sleeps through the final.  He better start cramming for the debates, and not sleep through them like he did with the Rick Warren disaster.

It is quite possible, certainly, that you are right, Eos and TheOneIsHere2008 (dang, your handle is really hard for me to type, I suppose I'll have to autotype it), though it is still way too early to assess what the polls are really describing. I still believe the bumps will smooth out and we'll be back to +/- 1 to 2% split down the middle. Palin's pick did release a lot of energy firing up the conservative base. Perhaps that is what we're seeing. Then again...

My investment this year first and foremost was to change the party. Win or lose Obama's candidacy has initiated a process I believe will lead to that necessary change. With Hillary at the top of the ticket I couldn't see how there could be a comparable shift. If the election is another loss, my hope is the momentum will be toward a new generation of Democrats. I just didn't (and don't) have confidence in anybody other than Obama, win or lose. It may be too soon - or too late - to expect the party to change its spots. Perhaps the Repubs have. If so the Presidency might rightly be theirs. By 2016 the Dems will have changed or we'll

roid:

Why do you always think that if you're losing then soemone must be cheating you? Don't you get tired of playing the poor mistreated victim?

And why do you so often insult people using terms theat invoke mental illness or terms like "Alzheimer's" that denote devastating mental loss? It is exactly the same as if you called your political opponents "retards." You should know better.

This thread sux.

That's my learned assessment.

"I quite disagree, TheOneIsHere.

The One has left the building, because his Alzheimer's is upon him.  Empty head, empty suit.  "

-roiduboulo

Quite illiberal to make light of something as serious as Alzheimer's (Disease) but you know that because you are illiberal...Do you know that if people with Alzheimer's Disease live long enough to be killed by it and not some other disease they  literally forget how to swallow...

That's hilarious , isn't it...(SIC)

I'll check back in the morning...Maybe you can entertain us with HIV jokes...

tomeg

I don't see how anything positive can come from losing this election if we do.....If we lose this election it would be as if Franklin Roosevelt lost to Herbert Hoover...IMHO, it would demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt the Obama model was rejected...Why would you want to use it as a template?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

Th Bounce Arriveth and the Hands Wringeth! My god, people, McCain got a good bounce out of his convention--a bounce, per Gallup, about the same size as Obama's. You'd think the election was tomorrow.

I think what's really going on is that the posters on this site are trying to figure out what their fellow Americans think of Sarah Palin because if they think highly of her then they must think pretty lowly of posters on this site. I'll speak personally. I tremble at the thought that Palin might be popular. The thought induces all sorts of panicky second-guessing: "What if he'd picked Hillary? [we will *never* know] What if he weren't black? If only Bill could run again! I don't care what Obama has to do or say so long as he can get himself elected. Boy we Democrats sure must suck."

But these polls, though troubling for all sorts of reasons, are far from predictive. I think the Obama campaign has made a few dumb mistakes (e.g., fake pillars), but I also think they've done better than we're giving them credit for. Did you see Biden's post-convention riff on what he *didn't* hear at the GOP convention? Good stuff. Pitch perfect. On message. And Obama was good in Terre Haute.

I do agree that a lot now hangs on the debates, but a lot always hangs on the debates. If memory serves, Gore had a considerable post-convention lead in 2000 until he started harrumphing and sighing in the debates. Obama's lead last weak meant almost nothing. Likewise McCain's this week. Wait and see.

TheOneIsHere2008 said:

"I don't see how anything positive can come from losing this election if we do.....If we lose this election it would be as if Franklin Roosevelt lost to Herbert Hoover...IMHO, it would demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt the Obama model was rejected...Why would you want to use it as a template?"

The conventional wisdom until now has been that Democrats had a huge built-in structural as well as popular advantage this year primarily due to the unpopularity of Bush. Bush is unpopular even in his own party, it is true, but he has accepted that without complaining (which to say the least is unusual). However, the appeal of the ideology he ran on did not change for social conservatives, they just had lost faith he would be able to implement it. John McCain, as told umpteen times, is no friend to social conservatives, but compared to Obama, he has always had the chance to enroll them. They were just waiting for a sign that McCain understood their disaffection and was willing to turn and say I'll fight for you, too. Palin was that sign. As I said a couple posts back, that released an enormous energy that has fired up the base and opened a tap for money and grassroots support. It was always there for the taking, and now McCain is cashing in, thanks to his campaign team's advice. It's hard to tell yet how much and for how long the boost can carry him. The *real campaign* has only just begun, now that the tickets are filled. Lot's of time for most anything to happen.

So, I strongly disagree that this is a year of historic opportunity for the Democratic Party to retake power. Instead, it is a year when the Party decides to go in a new direction, or not. Win or lose, this is that year. Obama's candidacy is merely the beginning of the change (or beginning of beginning). Democrats either will get that they have a choice to change direction, or they will be out of the White House another 4 to 8 years, or longer, until they become willing. I hope it's this year. We shall see.

TheOneIsHere2008, whatever happens, I'm glad to have you with us. Eos, you too. Go ahead, drive us crazy, it's alll good. (isn't it?)

Mrpatrick: Having read this thread carefully ... here is my judgement: Eos is PCCostello and TheOne is LiberalReformer.  Everyone has been wondering where they went - well, they just changed handle.  PCC/Eos defending Hillary and TheOne - well, who knows.

Hemlock: I agree entirely with you on Sleepy.  The insults are still grating, but they directed away to people who kinda deserve it, so all good.

Aero: honestly ...

Nippers: great observation.

Rasmussen's tracker for the same time period says it's a tie at 48.

come => cometh. arrive => arriveth.

Not "arriveith."

tomeg, I thought Troopergate was small potatoes until I found that her staff had accessed confidential files and used the information in them. That is actually a big deal, not to mention illegal. But you have to hit on it the right way, because the Trooper in question is not a sympathetic character. Nevertheless, there is no good reason for a Governor's staff to be snooping in the confidential files of state employees who the Governer happens not to like.

The Palin team is stonewalling at the moment, so perhaps there is something more that will come out, but as of now it is a story that only tells itself in the context of a clearly focused attack -- a job for Joe Biden or perhaps Hillary if she is up for it.

icarus: I agree the insults are grating, regardless of who they're directed at. I'm not exactly taken with the Republicans at the moment, but insulting them only lowers the level of discussion and its value. (I was being tongue-in-cheek.)

Of course, if hurling insults is a compulsive tic on Sleepy's part and is thus inevitable/irrepressible, it *is* a minor relief that they are no longer "in-coming." At least for now.

So, I strongly disagree that this is a year of historic opportunity for the Democratic Party to retake power. Instead, it is a year when the Party decides to go in a new direction, or not. Win or lose, this is that year. Obama's candidacy is merely the beginning of the change (or beginning of beginning). Democrats either will get that they have a choice to change direction, or they will be out of the White House another 4 to 8 years, or longer, until they become willing. I hope it's this year. We shall see.

-tomeg

I don't get it. The goal of elections is to win. Everything else is misery. If the Democrats lose in 08 and Heaven forbid lose in 012 they will have been out of the White House for SIXTEEN YEARS and FORTY Of the last SIXTY YEARS. Ordinary people who look to the government for relief and minorities who look to the government for protection will get nothing while starry eyed intellectuals  reminisce about a glorious past and dream about a future that will never arrive.

The good is not the enemy of the perfect...

Yeah, I supported HRC in the primaries but I support Obama now because the alternative is so f-ing scary. This is the most reactionary ticket since Calvin Coolidge took Channing Cox and we weren't in the middle of a culture war...Obama is our General in a war against the forces of reaction  and if he loses we lose...

How did we get in this mess?

This election was ours to lose and if we do I assure you history will render a harsh judgement on those who let it and made it happen. It did not have to be.

This is awful.

Thank you, tomeg.

I think the fundamental issue with Palin is that she dramatically exposes the Democrats' trailer trash problem--the extent to which upper echelon (I'm trying to avoid the words "culturally elite") Dems despise, have contempt for, and do not understand the middle and lower middle strata in this country. This is part of what drove the contempt for Hillary because culturally she is much more like those group--e.g., no fist-bumps, compulsive visits to the gym, or endllessly repeated declarations about having gone to Harvard.

JEFF FREY:  

We already won in 2006 on "culture of corruption" and the 'surge of '06' was accomplished, so we're back to politics as usual. Troopergate won't move many voters, it is "real" but not significant; *unless serious crimes were committed* - murder, millions of dollars discovered in the Caymans, perhaps Palin's having a secret abortion, kidnapping, etc.

The "Christianists" have their hero, fait accompli, and unless she is a member of a coven or a Satanist,  that could be fatal to Obama/Biden. Never have I longed for Joe Lieberman...

So we're smack dab back to identity politics, social conservatives rabid with desire.  Who knew?

Under the 2-party system, the Democrats subsume what would be at least two European parties.  A Labor party and a Liberal (Liberal Democratic, Free Democratic) party.  The contradictions between these two groups are simply greater than those between Business conservatives and Evangelicals.  This is why the Democrats implode regularly.

Here's a deal the LIberals (aks "professional middle class") can make to the working-class base of the DP.  You vote for Obama - we will actively pursue union-drives at OUR workplaces.  In other words, NYC and Chicago yuppies would organize Wall Street IT shops, Seventh Avenue Fashion Houses etc.

This would show a willingness to take a risk, a willingness to adopt a working-class perspective, a sense that American workers have more to teach American yuppies than the other way around.

On board?

Eos, you're welcome. Hillary might have done better, but that is not certain, any more than Obama. They have different appeals, and electoral strategies. Roidubouloi thinks Ohio will once again be the crucial state, and G-d help us, unless as roi contends the right frame is found and pressed with a vengeance.

Maybe TheOne is right, Clinton should have been the headliner, Obama for VP. If Obama loses, well, there is still Hill for '12 or '16. But she would have to be the change for the party, a real shake-up and reframe that is not the movie "Identity Politics 2016: Revenge of the Undead."

dc2412, I've had similar thoughts recently about Liberal/Labor connection. Obama really is the European candidate, without a doubt. He would need real fire in the belly to fight the good fight. Maybe he can generate it, or at least fake it convincingly. A traditional fight a la Gore and Kerry would have succeeded had they caught fire a couple of weeks earlier (Dukakis, too).

"This would show a willingness to take a risk, a willingness to adopt a working-class perspective, a sense that American workers have more to teach American yuppies than the other way around."

Novel thought. With a lot of luck, It might do the trick. Can the Obama organization mobilize in time to accomplish?

Has anbody looked at www.intrade.com lately?

The race has gone from approximately 3-2 Obama to 6-5 Obama?

What will be said of our party if we lose the most "winnable" election in a generation?

Are there parallels to other democracies?

I know the  Labour party  in Israel and the Conservative party in the U.K. lost "winnable" elections because of rank fecklessness?

I will only say this once. I am a yellow dog Democrat. I have never pulled the lever for a Republicant in twenty or so years of voting.

Bill and Hill , especially Bill were able to mitigate Democratic losses among down scale voters because they emphathized with them and not condescended to them. Barack Obama has shown no such talent. The Democrats can win without carrying that demographic but they can't get shut out.

I know it's popular to point to shifting demographics and say we can win without down scale voters. I don't see it . And with this economy I see a lot more down scale voters being created.

I know the  Labour party  in Israel and the Labour  party in the U.K. lost "winnable" elections because of rank fecklessness?

FIXED

empthazized=empathized

The leading brand should never pay attention to the tactics of the challenger brand, and switch strategy. Obama should keep doing what he's been doing.

McCain switched from "experience" to "change" for a reason. It's the way to win. Obama has a better story. It's all about Bush (not Palin).

McCain's camp wants this to be all about Palin to take the focus off Bush. No need to panic. The Democrats can bring out the Clintons and other heavyweights in the last four weeks, and it's the last two weeks that count for independents.

And don't underestimate the largely invisible internet effort of the Obama campaign. It's remarkable.

One suggestion: Get Republicans and former heavyweights from the financial world to start doing speeches and op-ed pieces in the WSJ endorsing Obama's economic policies. Obama's campaign seems to have little interest in running print. A lot of working class households who don't get cable still get the morning paper.

tromeg

gotta run, but good last line. ha!

"Fecklessness," as WhoThinksHe'sHere puts it, has nothing to do with it.  Even the NYT is able to take note that McCain spent a month before the Republican convention framing Obama by attacking his character.  That framing process creates the climate on which McCain's own claims about character find a reception.  It not only frames the opponent, but frames the race in terms that are favorable to the candidate who is successfully doing the framing.

Obama has been losing the framing battle because he has not even been fighting it.  I don't know why.  I shudder to think that it is because he or his campaign people actually believes his campaign rhetoric about changing politics.  He can change politics after he gets elected, not before.  The fact is that the Republican lie and smear campaigns work.  Bush did it successfully to McCain, the war hero, calling him dotty due to his time in the Hanoi Hilton.  Bush also did it successfully to Gore and Kerry.  If any of the three had counter-punched consistently and aggressively, they would have won their races.

This phenomenon has a meta-level too.  Not only is it about which candidate successfully frames the other, it is about the willingness to fight.  Americans want to know that they person they elect as president has the steel to confront enemies.  If a candidate is body-slammed and doesn't get up off the floor and punch the other guy's lights out, he loses.  Whether or not this is a rational proxy for the willingness and ability to defend the country against enemies is beside the point.  (In Bush's case, there was the willingness, but no ability on account of his and his counselors terminal stupidity and ideological blindness.)

Obama needs to stand up and start punching McCain's lights out, in every venue, with every medium available to him, with themes that cut the legs out from under McCain.  Easy targets:  McCain's age-related confusion about most everything, McCain being completely out of touch -- indeed ridiculing -- the problems faced by ordinary working families, McCain the serial flip-flop-flip-flop-flip-flopper (you can go to You Tube and see clips of McCain serially contradicting himself), McCain as absolutely nothing more than a Bush clone.  "George Bush and John McCain .  .  .  "  "George Bush and John McCain .  .  . "  "George Bush and McCain .  .  .  "

This is urgent.  There is still time now that everyone's attention is fully on the race, but the time is fast slipping away.  If Obama doesn't start carving McCain a new one (while giving himself uber-deniability for being nasty), he will eke out a very tiny victory at best, and he may well lose.

Fecklessness?  Bullshit.  All the Democrats have to do is start fighting dirty like the Republicans and there will be no contest.  The Republicans live in the gutter, and this enemy can only be defeated where it lives.  Anyone who thinks him or herself too decent to get down in the gutter in order to fight the good fight needs to get another career than politics, at least in America where Americans lap up slime while protesting about how much they hate it.  Just ask Sarah Palin.

Time to fight with whatever it takes.

"The leading brand should never pay attention to the tactics of the challenger brand, and switch strategy. "

-fougasseau

Sounds like how the American automobile industry reacted to the Japanese challenge...

I don't see how surrogates can make the case for the candidate. The candidate has to do that himself.

"We" know Bush= McCain but that meme is confined to us...

"Fecklessness," as WhoThinksHe'sHere puts it,"

Me thinks your attacks on my handle are puerile. (.) (.) But at least you're not attacking my use of ellipsis points. (.) (.)

Let me give you a political lesson and rescue you from your naivete .

Since 1988 the Republicants have been using the same game plan and reaping the benefits...Lee Atwater was the father of this strategy; depict their opponents as out of touch elitists with contempt for the common man and woman. and their values...It has worked every presidential election with the exception of 1992 and 1996 because Bubba didn't fit the archetype...

You can infer from the above what I think Senator Obam's Achilles' heel  is...I thought any Democrat could win this election cycle because of objective conditions... The state of this campaign is causing me to rethink that...

WhoevertheOneisWhoThinksSo says:

"'We' know Bush= McCain but that meme is confined to us..."

Duh!...

The point of a political campaign is to paper the consciousness of the voters with the memes you want them to have in their heads when they step into the voting booth... This is done, if it is done successfully, partly with straight-ahead claming, but mostly with the manipulation of symbols... There is a wealth of material with which to tie McCain to Bush in a completely "truthy" way...

You are going to rescue me, HeWhoThinksHeTheOne, from political naivete?  And someone with that handle can actually accuse someone else of being puerile?  

Have you ever actually been in politics?  I am.  I win elections for my people, consistently.  Of course the Republicans paint the Dems as out of touch elitists.  The frame the Dems.  If the Dems want to win, they have to frame the Republicans as corrupt, out of touch, incompetent, and predatory.  Shouldn't be too hard as they are all these things.  But the Repugs aren't going to frame themselves.  The Dems have to do the dirty work.

Hillary certainly galvanized the right before 2008.  But by running to Obama's right in the primaries, and more importantly by reaching out to all the bitter yokels that liberal elites disdain, she made more than a few people take a new look at her.  That seems to be a trait of hers: people like her more when they get to know her.  

She wouldn't have been as good as Jim Webb, but she still would have been pretty good.  

Allow me to shamelessly plug my new blog that is itself a shameless rip-off of The Onion.

www.therutabaga.blogspot.com/

Wow! Nate delivers the first bad news and we've become cannibals. [Book of Pogo. Chap1. Verse 1]

I apologize for a strident tone and blame-laying as I don't hate Hillary. She was my 1st choice through mid-'07, I was prepared to back her as the winner but honestly believe her admirable tenacity went on too long. It isn't just that she convinced too many Democrats that Obama is less qualified than he is, it isn't that I believe she is hoping for Barack to fail and it is not up to her to negate the Palin Effect.

But we have to suck it up and go with the ticket we have because the alternative is worse than four more years of Bush-Cheney. If only we had to worry that things won't get worse with McCain-Palin. No, even Bush has figured out and indicated his failures which McCain is still championing.

Which crowd do we want in charge? The mob at Mile High in Denver or the Zombies in St. Paul? John had more than enough heroic qualities for a statue 40 years ago. But even if he tops the list of Greatest Living Americans that would not qualify him to run this show for the next four years. He denies, ignores and refuses to indicate that the most significant issues need more than a Reagan fix. Shining City, we can do it, USA, USA.

Any TNR subscriber should be ashamed if they allow the GOP to show more confidence and pride in McCain-Palin than this topic reveals about our level of support for Obama-Biden.

I can't imagine the sense of loss Hillary supporters feel. I can't mitigate the grief or anger with a pep talk but no supporter of Hillary will be gloating if McCain wins. It may take months or longer, but anyone who campaigned their guts out for Gore, Kerry or Hillary will awaken sometime in the next four years and be struck by how wrong McCain is. I'm not saying "Get ready to be blamed.". I do believe any animosity toward Barack won't matter when McCain-Palin fucks up all we hold dear.

We can argue, insult and be in a panic for two months. We can be so offended that the ticket doesn't match our wish that a McCain win would be the proper revenge. Please, try and feel that joy of sticking it to Barack and compare how it will feel as he and Michelle go home, have a great future and we're stuck with a nightmare.

I'm a person of few regrets but most of my mistakes were caused by emotion or pride or plain stubbornness. Can we agree that on November 4th we can only lose if we beat ourselves? One ticket, one chance and one vote. Us against them and they're counting on us to fuck it up. Imagine that! Bush-Cheney and Rove bein' right three times in a row.

How bad do we want to prove those fuckers wrong? We'll find out 'cause they're counting that their lack of conscience will break our will. We can ruminate and worry or we can act like a party with something to win. If we don't take it back it's three in a row and they want it bad. Bad enough to go for Palin...

President Sarah Palin.

That would be regrettable.

Yesterday McCain sort of acknowledged that people were suffering economically.  

Then he offered his solution: keep government out of the way.

Sick 'em, Barack!

"John McCain has--belatedly--acknowledged that in today's economy people are losing their jobs, that people are losing their homes, that some people are even having trouble putting food on the table.  So what does he offer to do to help?  Get out of the way!  Does he want to provide any assistance for American families who're having trouble making their payments?  Does he offer to use the tools of government--the keys to which he wants you to hand over to him at the ballot box--does he offer to use those tools to help?  To change the law so that predatory lenders cannot play with people's aspirations for a better life and destroy them?  Does he offer--as I do--to use the tools of government to create 5 million new jobs in clean energy technology?  Does he offer to help with job training for laid off workers and better, cheaper childcare for working parents?  Hell, no!  He offers to stand aside!  He offers to stand there with his hands in his pockets while people get run over by the runaway bus that is this George Bush economy."

I commend to you all this column from today's FINANCIAL TIMES which brilliantly analyzes the Democrats' fundamental problem before and beyond this election.

Namely, Democrat Party leaders and their fellows in the media disdain the very people the claim they wish to help.

www.ft.com/.../f1984d88-7cd5-11dd-8d59-000077b07658.html

Democrats must learn some respect

By Clive Crook

Published: September 7 2008 19:03 | Last updated: September 7 2008 19:03

This article is not the first to note the cultural contradiction in American liberalism, but just now the point bears restating. The election may turn on it.

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.

It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.

Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.

Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palin’s nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about – yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.

For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over. This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.

Little was known about Ms Palin, but it sufficed for her nomination to be regarded as a kind of insult. Even after her triumph at the Republican convention in St Paul last week, the put-downs continued. Yes, the delivery was all right, but the speech was written by somebody else – as though that is unusual, as though the speechwriter is not the junior partner in the preparation of a speech, and as though just anybody could have raised the roof with that text. Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain. Every four years, many take their revenge.

The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination was telling. Mrs Palin (and others) found it irresistible to skewer him in St Paul for “saying one thing about [working Americans] in Scranton, and another in San Francisco”. Mr Obama made a bad mistake when he talked about clinging to God and guns, but I am inclined to make allowances: he was speaking to his own political tribe in the native idiom.

The problem in my view is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him. The prevailing liberal mindset is what makes the criticisms of Mr Obama’s distance from working Americans stick.

If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be easier – and Republicans would have to address themselves more seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.

The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to keep it primed. You just have to laugh.

The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.

It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.

Send your comments to clive.crook@gmail.com

Read and post comments at Clive Crook’s Washington Blog

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Bullshit, Chan.

Republican talking point numero uno.

Does Obama disdain working class people?  Evidence that he does?  Do NOT trot out the "bitter" comment.  There was no disdain at all therein, just a possibly fumbling attempt to reach some understanding.  Does Ted Kennedy disdain the lowly?  Joe Biden?  Hillary Clinton?  Bill Clinton?  Come on.

In sizing up yesterday's tracking polls, which show McCain getting a nice bump out of his convention

The fundamental problem with white working class alienation from the Democratic problem stems from affirmative action.

A friend formerly in the steel industry, an Obama supporter, victimized by the decline of the steel industry, told me a story over this weekend about how, in the late seventies and early eighties, black steel workers with low seniority were advanced ahead of white workers with more seniority. It was a bonehead move on the part of management to institute such a policy as a result of pressure from government agencies. The result, massive production of Reagan Democrats, was utterly predictable.

Call it racism. But if it happened to you, you would react negatively as well. Another friend, a very staunch Democrat working for the Community College with great inter-racial credentials, was denied tenure in favor of a black woman whom she considered far less qualified. She is suing.  

aeromonas, if you read the article you will see that the author exempts Obama from the general criticism.  

Take the time to read this.  It is a very useful critique from an Englishman who doesn't appear to have an axe to grind.  

It is not a screed.  It is a thoughtful critical analysis.  

Frightening.  Truly Frightening.  For my part, I just made my first ever campaign donation.  Obama-Biden '08!!!!!

Too much intellectualizing up there:  "What's the Matter With the Democrats?" v "What's the Matter With Kansas?"  Especially from Chan, as usual.  No, the Democrats do not need a brain transplant to win this election.  They just need to take all of the gloves off and start punching John McCain until his campaign is a sputtering, smoking piece of wreckage.  It can be done.  You just need the stomach for it.  But if the Democrats don't have the stomach,they should get out of political life because that is how the game is played in the current Rovian era.

It is really all too simple.  Negative campaigning works, time and time and time again.  That's why politicians do it.  That's why the addition of Karl Rove's people and his tactics to McCain's campaign has had a tonic effect.

This fire must be fought with fire.  There is no other way.  Either Obama successfully undermines the image of McCain's character, ability, intelligence, and loyalities -- as George Bush did to him in 2000 -- or McCain will continue to have an open field upon which to do the same to Obama.  "Frame the other guy or he will frame you.  There is no middle ground."  said roidubouloi, 2008.

E.g.:  John McCain, who backed every policy of George Bush, now says he's for "change.'  Really? How is that possible when John McCain has been a big part of the problem for all of the eight long years of the failed Bush administration -- an unnecessary and badly fought war in Iraq, a major American city destroyed by hurricane Katrina with no federal response, an economy that has exported millions of good jobs to China and is now forcing millions of Americans out of their homes, a great nation mortgaging its children's future while relying on foreign oil.  John McCain supported George Bush every step of the way.  John McCain isn't the change we need to find and fight our enemies, to regain our energy independence, or to build a strong, competitive economy for the 21st century.  All he offers is just more of the past, the same-old, tired, failed policies of the Bush administration, politics that we can no longer afford.  [clips of McCain backing Bush, hugging Bush, being Bush interspersed.]

Or:  John McCain now says that he's for reform, for standing up to lobbyists and special interests.  But it's already much too late for John McCain.  The Washington lobbyists already own him, lock, stock and barrel.  [quickie lobbying affiliations of all the lobbyists with McCain positions, starting with Phil Gramm].  If McCain really wanted reform, the first thing he'd have to do is fire his whole staff.  Not going to happen.  John McCain isn't the reform we need.  He's the politics we can no longer afford.

The key is lots of truthy facts supporting the charges.  Easy to do as they are all true.

Go get him, Barack.  Punch the lights at of that senile, decrepit old man.  He's waiting to fall over.

 John McCain now says he's for "reform."  But it's already too late for John McCain.  The Washington lobbyists own him, lock stock and barrel -- followed by a rundown of all the lobbyists in Mn

gennitydo:  Do a google search combining "dog that didn't bark" and baskervilles.  

Roid wrties, "...Either Obama successfully undermines the image of McCain's character, ability, intelligence, and loyalities -- as George Bush did to him in 2000..."

Roid, unless Obama can reveal that McCain too has American terrorists for political supporters and friends, he ought not go there.

Chan: Everone knows that McCain is a Manchurian candidate, bred by the North Vietnamese and China to destroy the United States from within.  His first act was to get Bush elected: eight years of economic decline and indebtedness to the Chinese; destroyed alliances and shattered image of the US abroad; over-stretched military; and so on.  We're act two.  At the age of 72 with uncertain health, he has selected an unknown, inexperienced running mate who has never travelled out of the United States, who has no education to speak of and little knowledge, other than how to smile while being sarcastic - learned as a Beauty Pageant Runner-Upper.  Act Three starts if he wins.  He'll destroy what's left of the US economy and military prestige, and then hands power over to a character right out of a sitcome - The Office.  Then the Chinese can come and take over the United States by calling their $2 trillion worth of debt.

Far-fetched?  This is a more plausible than your "American terrorist" nonsense.  Give it up.

Not at all Chan.  Yours is just more of the standard Republican bullshit intended to intimidate Democrats from going just where they need to -- for the jugular.  "Sure dirty, lying, smearing politics work for us Republicans, but if you Democrats try anything nasty, it will backfire."

McCain is a war hero.  Bush put it out there that McCain had lost his marbles while in that POW camp.  Who won?  Bush.  

Obama doesn't need to impeach McCain's loyality to America.  All he needs to do is to demonstrate that McCain the war hero has been eaten alive by Washington lobbyists who now have his loyalty.  Since it is absolutely true, it shouldn't be hard to do.  Yes, it is necessary to simplify, but out and out lies, like the Republicans engage in, are unnecessary.

Another good ad would be clips of McCain's lies, followed by, "That's a lie" followed by the impeaching evidence.  "Is it possible any more for the Republican party to run a political campaign that isn't built on lies and smears?  Maybe they're just too far gone.  John McCain says he is a man of honor.  Then it is time for him to pull the plug on the campaign operatives who are doing this dirty work in his name."

lsernoff:  Yes, and when you do, you discover that gennitydo is, of course, right.  It's a common mistake because the Hound of the Baskervilles is a Sherlock Holmes story about a "hound," but the curious incident of the dog in the night-time comes from "Silver Blaze" -- a story about the theft of a race horse.  The clue was that the dog didn't bark when the horse was stolen, indicating that it knew the thief.

ChanRobt, our very own David Brooks.

jhildner and gennitydo;  I give up; not having read The Hound of the Baskervilles since Eisenhower was president, and never having read Silver Blaze.  I thought the google search vindicated my citation; but am ready to strike my flag on the literary attribution.

roidubouloi writes, "..ChanRobt, our very own David Brooks."

Roid, given the bipartisanly acknowledged quality of Brooks' thinking and writing, thank you.

If you enjoy being compared with David Brooks, chan, more power to you.  He is nothing but partisan spin, 24/7, perfectly willing to contradict himself from one column to the next like the good party-line shill that he is.  He would have made the perfect bespectacled Stalinist.  If the party line changes between sunset and sunrise to its exact opposite, there is Brooks.  Whatever the party needs with never the slightest hint that he is embarrassed or even notices that he has completely contradicted his earlier earnest column on the same subject.

I used to send him e-mails telling him that he was too stupid actually to be Jewish.  I got bored after a while, but the sentiment holds.

The only thing I am enjoying about this election is the knowledge that the Republicans cannot win.  If Obama pulls it out, they are going to be slitting their wrists.  Good.  If McCain wins, the mess already underway thanks to Chimpy Bush will be so devastating after a short time, and it will be so evident that McCain, with his incipient Alzheimer's, is about as incompetent as Bush (not to mention hogtied by the wacko neo-con and evangelical right) that we will be headed straight for the generational political shift, a la 1932, that Frum worries in this week's Times magazine is happening to the Republicans incrementally.  Too bad that so many Americans will have to suffer until the country rights itself, but, hey, I got mine and there's a limit to how many tears I am willing to shed for the poor, stupid sods who are still willing to vote for Republicans who screw them to the wall every time.  If, as I think will not be the case, it takes one more lesson for these benighted souls to get the point, then that is what it will take.  Then we will have 50 years to straighten out our country without having to worry much about the permanent minority Republicans.

The Democratic party is the only political party in existence since the dawn of our Republic.  It is the party of Jefferson.  It will still be here long after the Republican party has evaporated, like the Whigs and Federalists before them, and something else has sprung up in its place.

One more small point for my good friend Channy:  Any good Democrat would NEVER think to give actual advice to Republicans about how they can win.  And I don't believe for an instant that any of you right-wing types, be you reactionary, neo-con, or evangelical, or speaking directly to God (did I leave anyone out?) would intentionally give any Democrat good advice either.  Hence, the one thing I am certain of is that when you say Obama should not do x, such as systematically trashing McCain's character, honesty, and ability, you are worried that he will.  

Given the level of your political analytical skills, we cannot assume that the opposite of what you suggest IS the thing to do (only stupid Republicans like Bush make policy simply by doing the opposite of whatever the Democrats do), but we can be damn sure that your intentions are bad.  Hence, you must forgive me for taking note that all of your advice to Democrats is complete horseshit and must be read with that in mind.

roid, I don't read Brooks' column every time, so I can't testify one way or t'other about the contradictions you claim.

Also, as a Rightist, he's fairly moderate.  Quite acceptable as a token from the other side in the NYT Op Ed menagerie.

I find him most interesting for his social parfait concepts.  He identifies groups and their attitudes in a very interesting way and has a lot of original observations.

You are pretty extreme and doctrinaire, roid, so I'm not surprised you find someone you perceive to be at the other end of the political spectrum from you too dumb to be a real Jew.

Maybe some wannabe Jew can impress you by expressing and idea you agree with.

Brooks has adopted a mild-mannered demeanor that makes him the darling of liberals who want to think of themselves as willing to listen to the right.  But, with frequency, he says breathtakingly idiotic thinks.  Interesting?  Well, if, with terribly earnest solemnity, you can be on all sides of a question within a matter of days, I suppose you can say something interesting.

When he used to write on occasion about economic issues, I would write back pointing out his absurd mistakes and tell him that he had better have Paul Krugman correct his columns before publishing else he would continue to make himself look like a horse's ass.  Mercifully, he has more or less stopped writing about economics (and I'd like to think I had some small part to play in that).  Now he confine himself to the cute cultural observations that always end up in the same place:  anyone who doesn't get on board with the endless class war in which the well-off and privileged continue to screw everyone else is effete, un-American, a traitor, elitist (how perverse is that), etc., etc.  David Brooks is boring because his head is about as empty as it gets.  

Doctrinaire?  You crack me up chan.  How doctrinaire do you have to be to fail to notice that John McCain -- all ready to fight, fight, fight -- cannot figure out whom we are fighting and what we need to accomplish by doing so, as nicely documented on the Op-Ed page of today's NYT (a rag that is only liberal by comparison to say, the Washington Times or the WSJ).

roid, your last post reveals your world view cogently, via your perspective on Brooks and the NYT.  A useful insight for me, as our conversations go forward.

I'm saying that straight, no snark intended.