TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 11:48 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:20 AM
December 01, 2008 | 10:16 AM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
November 29, 2008 | 3:23 PM
November 29, 2008 | 2:18 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
04.09.2008
Palin Missed Her Chance

All right: Sarah Palin’s speech was well-delivered, charming, an opening-night hit. The anchors and pundits now analyzing it on CNN are falling all over themselves: “I think Republicans have to be thrilled with what happened here tonight—the most macho speech of the night was delivered by a woman,” Republican consultant Alex Castellanos marveled. But this all had been a foregone conclusion. People have questioned her experience and her background; nobody really questioned whether she could give a good speech, especially after her successful rollout address last Friday. Tonight, diminished expectations combined with Palin’s known-to-be-remarkable charisma made for the speech-making equivalent of putting a champ bowler two feet in front of a set of plastic duckpins.

She did make an audacious choice in the speech: to double down on exactly what critics have attacked her on, her main source of executive experience--serving as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska--and her quirkily provincial, small-town background and family. “From the inside, no family ever seems typical. That's how it is with us,” she chuckled. She referred to herself a “gal.” “I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA,” she explained. Message: “Way-ell, I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment!” (She amped up the twang tonight too, for maximum authentic-America effect.)

As for running Wasilla, she gestured towards an argument Peggy Noonan floated this morning: “But executives, even of small towns, run something,” Noonan explained. “[T]here are close to a hundred thousand small towns with ten thousand people or less. … We are a nation of Wasillas, not Chicagos." Being the mayor of a small town, this brazen theory goes, actually better prepares you to be President than something more hoity-toity, like being a U.S. Senator.

Palin pointed to Harry Truman, who had small-town experience growing up in Independence, Missouri. Well, I don’t mean to be credentialist, but Harry Truman also served heroically in World War One and was a U.S. Senator and the nationally-known head of the Truman Committee before becoming FDR’s running mate. He took a long road from his small town to the vice presidency—a lot longer than Sarah Palin’s.

That’s the problem with the positive case Palin made for herself, with its emphasis on all that small-town stuff: It convinced me that she makes a good PTA mom, that she may make a fine mayor, that she hasn’t totally bombed as the essentially brand-new governor of the third-least-populous state in the Union, even that I might like to have a beer with her, or a glass of fermented whale milk or whatever one drinks with mooseburgers. But just because we’re a nation of a hundred thousand Wasillas doesn’t mean all those hundred thousand mayors ought to be in the White House. Tonight, she sounded for all the world like an unusually sharp version of those “regular people” they drag onstage at conventions to tell their stories in the off-primetime hours.

There was a way she could have made her small-town story more pointed, twisted it more effectively to her advantage: Contrast it more personally with Obama’s sojourning, placeless, hometown-less quality, his cool, hard-to-penetrate personality; in other words, play on people’s vague sense that Obama somehow isn’t of them and doesn’t really know them. That’s an impression of Obama found more widely than only among closet racists, and she could have deftly painted that portrait of him, such a contrasting image to her own, and made a bigger case about why this moment in history calls for, yes, as he puts it, judgment—but a small-town, pragmatic kind of judgment more attuned to ameliorating the kind of economic hardships people face every day than to reversing great deficits in national “hope.” But she didn’t do that. She got rough with Obama, but her slicing-and-dicing had a fuzzy lack of focus, a gripe of Noam’s about the convention as a whole. Rudy was better at painting a coherent negative picture.

She was likeable enough, to borrow a line of Obama’s. Maybe even lovable. But I don’t think she neutered the argument that she’s not ready, that her reformist record isn’t what she claims it is, that she was a cynical pick, or that she—as a poll released today found that a big majority of likely women voters believe—undermines McCain’s claim to “experience.” I don’t think she did much more than anybody thought she would do.

And her case for John McCain? Let’s just say I hope he has a better one for himself in store for tomorrow night. Extremely heavy on the POW material, it sounded less like an argument for a presidential nominee and more like the introduction to a Lifetime Achievement Award.

--Eve Fairbanks

Related: More from TNR on Sarah Palin's Big Convention Speech

 

Posted: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:32 AM with 45 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

rrnewman said:

Palin's is one of the stupidest speeches I have ever heard. Stupid in the sense that there is no coherent development of any thought or policy. One line after one line after one line delivered one after another. Lots of jabs at Obama - lots of jabs, no doubt written by others. But it is finally just an incredibly stupid speech. There is no doubt that I will vote Democratic. What is very evident from this evening's Republican convention is that there is no recognition from any of the speakers of the difficult balancing act between the values of freedom, equality and security. We seek to act in such a way that these values mutually support one another, even as they remain in tension. But the Republican speakers tonight excluded equality completely as a value to be furthered. In fact, it embraced the notion of liberty as unencumbered freedom in the economic realm. One would never think that the greed that Stiglitz exposes in his New Republic essay was a central moral dilemma for the United States, a greed that knows no bounds and severs itself from any limits or obligations, casting the financial markets as the equivalent of a rigged form of gambling. Instead all we are told is that reducing taxes is all that is needed to heal the economy. The very fact that Palin did not stumble over her words will make it seem like she was a great success (although give me speech writers and I can give an effective speech). But the intellectual dishonesty that is concomitant with our politics will no doubt lead Republicans to praise her. I have not been uncritical of the Democrats regarding their dishonesty on the effectiveness of the surge in Iraq. But the stupidity of this speech, and the night as a whole, trumps any of my reservations with regard to the Democrats.

September 4, 2008 12:44 AM

Annabella2 said:

A stunning replay of the politics of the past...against Washington (as if a Democrat had been in the White House the last 8years)... against, the media, against "elites"... It may play, yet again.. but do that many people want 4 more years like the last 8?

We'll know in 8 short weeks.

September 4, 2008 1:02 AM

Eos said:

Are you kidding, Eve? Everyone expected this to happen? She missed her chance?

You can't just right what you would like to be true. It has to have some slight degree of correspondance to what is outside your head. Your preferences are not the same thing as facts.

Here is what Craig Crawford, who was very hard on the selection of Palin by McCain, wrote tonight:

"I have covered every national party convention since 1988, and attended many as a civilian going back to 1972. I cannot recall any speech better than Sarah Palin's incredible performance on Wednesday night.

Indeed, I cannot think of anyone who even came close to Palin's cleverly common touch and devastatingly pleasant attacks on the opposing party. Her down-home delivery was perfectly balanced between the rowdy needs of a crowded convention hall and the private calm of a quiet living room. Her tone was expertly conversational, and without the slightest hint of self-conciousness.

You would think that this woman had been giving major convention speeches her entire life. And yet, this was her first. Veteran politicians who have been tackling such venues for decades could not approach Palin's skill.

But did the Republican vice presidential nominee hypnotize or energize? Have I been brainwashed into some "Palinomic" state of temporary insanity, or is this woman a genuine leader worthy of a manic following?

I look forward to figuring this out."

September 4, 2008 1:04 AM

tar036 said:

Does anyone else think it's cynical that the McCain camp is charging the media with sexism, but all the delegates are wearing buttons that say "Coolest State, Hottest VP"?  

September 4, 2008 1:04 AM

ironyroad said:

Palinfatuates = Obamaniacs.

September 4, 2008 1:22 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Indeed, irony: goose, meet gander. Wasilla : Annenberg. "Community organizer" : "hockey mom." Olbermann : Hannity. Lifestory / identity politics candidate: lifestory / identity politics candidate.

One can hope that seeing the shoe on the other foot may finally teach our dear TNR friends that shmooping and partisan hackery are ridiculous, no matter which flag the shmoops fly.

Can we just admit that Palin has lots of potential but is, as of 2008, not ready for the WH? And that Obama has lots of potential but is, * * * as of 2008 * * *, not ready for the WH.

September 4, 2008 1:46 AM

woland said:

Eos = McCain plant.  Ignore everything he or she says.

September 4, 2008 1:47 AM

tomeg said:

Well, G-d bless Craig Crawford, eos. It certainly didn't surprise me how well she delivered her speech - she's a keen operator, everything that has been dug up on her thus far would indicate that she had superior skills as a pol, especially a newbie.

Her rhetoric will have to go a long way to dim the light that's shining on her public record from now on. She is a phenomenon for now, but don't expect her glam to last long. She hasn't the power of the chief executive to long suppress the inconvenient facts about herself in her new position. Unless Schmidt and Rove can snuff out the daylight she will be looking less attractive in the morning. By noon, who knows?

September 4, 2008 1:51 AM

tomeg said:

Very good, irony. Funny... ;-)

September 4, 2008 1:52 AM

simon greenwood said:

According to the US census from 2000, ~80% of the U.S. lives in metropolitan areas.  We may be a nation where Wasillas have disproportionate power and federal aid, but we are definitely a nation of Chicagos.

September 4, 2008 2:20 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Actually, most Americans live in neither small isolated towns nor big cities. They live in the places where nearly all of the growth has been during the last 30 years, which happen to be the same areas that will swing this election: the suburbs.

Two bellwether counties to watch are Oakland County and Macomb County outside Detroit. The former is upper middle class, the latter working middle class. The former used to be Republican country club/social moderates but is now trending Democratic; the latter used to be Democratic but is trending Republican. McCain can definitely shift the balance his way in Oakland County-- sending Meg Whitman and Romney there would do the trick-- but Obama's not closing the sale in Macomb County. Palin will likely have lots of appeal there.

Oh, care to guess where McC and Palin are headed immediately after the convention? Sterling Heights, Macomb County MI. Obama's got his work cut out for him.

September 4, 2008 2:51 AM

ChanRobt said:

Eve, those hundred thousand mayors and millions of small town citizens are perhaps a little bit tired of media condescension and Leftie sneering.  ("She called herself a 'gal,' you write.)

Yeah, she and the Republicans are taking on the media, taking on the cosmopolitan, establishment of academia, Washington, NY, Hollywood, and the rest.

And there are a lot of people in the big cities (me for instance) who have had it up to here with these decades of copping an attitude.

We'll see who has the votes.  San Francisco and New York salons.  Or those little towns you so despise.

September 4, 2008 3:05 AM

ndmackenzie said:

teplukin2you writes:

--  Obama's not closing the sale in Macomb County

For the purposes of any thread at TNR Obama has failed to close the sale in the teplukhin2you household, which remains resolutely Republican regardless of how many times it pretends "our" party is the Democratic Party.

September 4, 2008 4:54 AM

ndmackenzie said:

I have little doubt Obama understood every detail of the speech he presented last week and could well have written it. Other than the excessive introduction to her family, (who I thought were off limits) I have little doubt Palin did not understand most details of her speech and could never have written it.

September 4, 2008 5:01 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Wow, lieing facists this can memorize red meat written by others, make her President.

September 4, 2008 6:27 AM

jts44 said:

"But just because we’re a nation of a hundred thousand Wasillas doesn’t mean all those hundred thousand mayors ought to be in the White House."

Exactly.  I think the residents of all those thousands of small towns in America should take a look at their own mayors and ask themselves: Are they Vice Presidential material?  Do their "responsibilities" measure up VP responsibilities?  If they answer honestly, I don't think they could also support Palin.

September 4, 2008 8:03 AM

K.Crake said:

The "sneering press and elite liberals are evil" argument works in a year like 2000 when the country is awash in economic prosperity and the candidates are splitting hairs on the issues; at such times, the "small town" pandering can play and play effectively.  This is not 2000 however, the people living in those small towns are losing their homes to foreclosure, having their job packed up and shipped over seas, and are finding themselves deep in the hole due to outrageous health care costs.  Are the culture wars going to fly in this atmosphere?  I don't think so.  Palin and Obama both gave very fine speeches; the difference is that Palin's speech consisted of mocking her opponent and puffing up her own (thin) credentials while Obama told the country what he plans to do to solve the current economic crisis.  So the election comes down to:  do we hate the press and "libruls" more than we want health care?  In good times, I would say small town folks go with hating liberals; anti-intellectualism and post-rationalism are powerful themes in small town America and the Republicans really know how to stir it up.  Unfortunately for the Republicans, 2008 isn't "good times."

Also, did anyone else almost lose it when Romney started railing against "coastal elites"?  I guess there is nothing further from the coasts than being a Harvard-educated billionaire ex-governor of Massachusetts. . .

September 4, 2008 9:01 AM

Political Animal said:

THE TRUMAN SHOW.... Towards the end of 2006, George W. Bush decided he's just like Harry Truman, who was unpopular while in office, but whose stature grew with the benefit of hindsight. Last night, Sarah Palin decided she's like Truman,...

September 4, 2008 9:09 AM

Rhubarbs said:

"Yeah, she and the Republicans are taking on the media, taking on the cosmopolitan, establishment of academia, Washington, NY, Hollywood, and the rest."

Chan, Republicans have been claiming to be "taking on" the media, coastal elites, and "liberal establishments" for at least twenty-eight years. In that time, Republicans have controlled a majority of the elected branches of the federal government for an overwhelming majority of eighteen years, including twelve of the last fourteen.

Just wondering here; how often does the GOP have to fail to do anything about these supposed liberal bogeymen before it occurs to you that maybe Republicans aren't actually serious about their campaign-season appeals to cultural identity politics?

It's like abortion. Republicans campaign against abortion, but the record is clear: abortion rates go up under Republican presidents and down under Democrats. The abortion rate went up every year under Reagan and the first Bush. The abortion rate went down each year of the Clinton presidency, falling in total by fully a third, which represented more than four million babies not aborted under Clinton (more like six million if you compare against where the abortion rate would have been had it continued to climb at the average rate of Republican presidencies). The abortion rate began climbing again in 2001 under the second Bush, and quickly gained back fully half the decline of the previous eight years. Then the government stopped reporting annual abortion data for three years. Which means that people who vote Republican for president are casting a vote in favor of aborting babies. But to be a conservative is to prefer slogans to facts, so we have the appalling spectacle of "anti-abortion" citizens voting en-masse for the party that talks about outlawing abortion but actually produces more abortions.

Thus also with the other cultural issues the GOP runs on but never acts on in office. At this point, anyone who votes Republican to "take on" "elite establishments" is as stupid or crazy, or both, as the deluded anti-abortion voters who consistently cast their ballots in favor of aborting babies and against the party that actually stopped four to six million abortions when its policies were briefly followed.

September 4, 2008 9:11 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

I found the Palin speech interesting: Her vocal delivery, sorta going out of the side of her mouth at times, was very good. She connects well with a large audience, and she is telegenic. Those are the good things, and they count for a lot in politics.

Her speech though was standard GOP mean, with the tnr observed sarcasm to boot. Also, several of her claims, while delivered well in this forum, will not hold up under any kind of give and take forum. For instance, she is more qualified than Obama? That is a seriously arguable, I would say laughable point. That she did not support The Bridge to Nowhere? All that stuff about "reforming" and "cleaning up"? After whom I would ask and the answer is the Alaskan GOP.  And the Obama criticism from again confirms that what the GOP is best at is trashing than opponents, while their capacity to govern is non existent.

But, I enjoyed Paulin's spunky speech and though I hardly think she erased doubts about her qualifications, she opened the door for Biden and the Democrats to go after her on resume, her misrepresentations, and her style. With her speech, she has now opened herself up as a player in this campaign, not a victim, and I think that that will help the Democrats in the long run.

And I still say that within a few weeks, if the GOP allows this woman out of her McCain campaign quarantine, she will have to face reporters and questions that will move her far away from last night's tightly scripted speech and into the real hurley burley of politics.

And as others have mentioned, Rudy talking about "cosmopolitian"?  Dash Riprock screeching about "elites"? Do these people really think that the American voter is as stupid as that?

and woland, last week, like you, I contended that eos was a McCain plant and he strenuously denied it, calling me all kinds of goofy names in the process (while complaining about others doing the same thing). So, I have decided to take this guy at his word and assume that he is not a McCain plant.

September 4, 2008 9:28 AM

jacksondyer said:

Looks like all the usual posters have had they usual say.

Was anything left out?

Nothing except the truth!

"Palin pointed to Harry Truman, who had small-town experience growing up in Independence, Missouri. Well, I don’t mean to be credentialist, but Harry Truman also served heroically in World War One and was a U.S. Senator and the nationally-known head of the Truman Committee before becoming FDR’s running mate. He took a long road from his small town to the vice presidency—a lot longer than Sarah Palin’s."

This is true but you should be saying it about Obama! He is the one running for President. Has he served "heroically?" Has he served at all?

It is telling that you have to diminish her accomplishments (a brand new governor in one of the least populated States, you called her) in order to make the case for Obama.

What has this big city man done except write about himself and run for President?

Small town does not equal small mind and big city does not equal big accomplishments?

While I don’t agree with Palin’s political positions on many issues, and all the clever talking points aside, she is much better suited to be VP than Obama is to be P.  This is what matters and this is the shame of the Democratic party.

September 4, 2008 9:42 AM

jacksondyer said:

 "And I still say that within a few weeks, if the GOP allows this woman out of her McCain campaign quarantine, she will have to face reporters and questions that will move her far away from last night's tightly scripted speech and into the real hurley burley of politics."

Why should she submit herself to a host of journalists asking leading questions in order to tarnish her reputation and get Obama elected?

We are not talking about objective journalism, here. If the media has decided to become part of Obama's campaign which they have (witness TNR) then she is under no obligation to submit to  their questioning.

September 4, 2008 9:46 AM

butchie b said:

It is quite striking that the media and the Dems (are they different?) are going after Palin on credentialist grounds.  All that line of attack does is to highlight the lack of credentials of your Presidential candidate.

In 1992, Perot did a great ad attacking Clinton.  He showed that AR's budget, etc., was smaller than that of Chicago.  Said Clinton had never run anything large, etc.  But Dems didn't seem to mind, as I recall.  Well, he's Rhodes Scholar, you know.

Sounds like today.  Yes, Palin is inexperienced in politics.  As is Obama.  Tell us again, in all honesty, what has he DONE (in Bobby Rush's famous line)?  Where is the "wise leader" Biden talks about?  Cite examples of his "good judgment."  Iraq?  Ok, fine.  What else you got?  Oh, he was editor of Harvard Law Review - quite good, that, except he hasn't so much as written a law review article.

He is an eloquent bundle of unrealized potential.

September 4, 2008 10:04 AM

mgmax said:

And the winner of today's most worthlessly predictable TNR piece goes to...

Really, this just read like spin on a cable news network. Shouldn't TNR be trying to, y'know, think original thoughts, not just rebut like a talking head?

September 4, 2008 10:29 AM

lungfish said:

Sarcasm doesn't win elections, and McCain has actually played this one shrewdly - Democrat attacks on Palin can quickly backfire and underscore Obama's own lack of experience (community organizing notwithstanding), and he's shooting for the top spot. And trying to paint Palin as "white trash" can end up grating on the nerves of folks who have not been given the free passes Obama has (you try landing a senior faculty position at U. of Chicago law school without ever publishing, etc. etc.)....  

September 4, 2008 10:31 AM

tomeg said:

This little piggy takes Sarah Palin at her word and no snark. It's not her creds but her rep she has to look to - in particular, the veracity of her inflated claims, as in deeds. Not long or far to look for starters, I submit my first exhibit into evidence here:

www.latimes.com/.../la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story

"McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin"

"Three times in recent years, the Arizona senator's lists of 'objectionable' pork spending have included earmarks requested by his new running mate."

Palin's a real operator sine qua non. Your small town voters aren't going to be amused.

September 4, 2008 10:46 AM

nathang said:

Which nickname do you prefer:

Snarling Sarah or Sneering Sarah?

The former fits in with her self-description as a pitbull with lipstick; the latter is more visually accurate.

September 4, 2008 11:31 AM

ChanRobt said:

Jaunty writes, concurring withothers, "...Her speech though was standard GOP mean, with the tnr observed sarcasm to boot."

Since when is sarcasm a rhetorical sin.  It is a classic rhetorical and writing device and properly done, supremely effective.  "The noble Brutus hath told you that Caesar is ambitious...and he is an honorable man..."  "George Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth" (your own Governor Richardson) "Now they're even attacking my dog, Fallah..."  etc

If any candidate or any party deserves to be at the pointy end of the sarcasm stiletto it is most certainly the Democrats this year and their candidate (the terribly earnest) Obama.

Perhpas you are confusing sarcasm, and it sister irony, with smarmy.  You know, the media and Democrat disease.

So, sorry if you girls can't handle a bit of sarcasm.  But, our girl can deal it out.

September 4, 2008 11:41 AM

woland said:

You've said a lot of stupid things jacksondyer but this one has got to take the cake.  So now you are advocating that a VP candidate who is a virtually unknown governor of a state with less than 700,000 people who was suddenly propelled on to the national scene less than a week ago and whose beliefs and thoughts on foreign affairs issues are completely unknown be sequestered from the press for the remaining days of this election and allowed to merely spout lines fed to her by Republican operatives to partisan crowds?  So much for the 4th estate and freedom of the press, huh?  So much for democracy for that matter as well.  How are we the public supposed to make an informed decision about our political candidates if they refuse to answer our questions and concerns which are reflected in the media's questions?  

I get what you are saying about the media being possibly giving Palin a hard time and all that about her record, character, and all that, but that is what we call democracy.  If someone wants my vote to be the possible leader of our nation then he or she must answer the hardest of questions and face the toughest of scrutiny.  Anything less would be a disservice to us all.  Additionally, if any of the diverse media we have in this country is biased against Palin and is overly harsh with her then it will only backfire because other parts of this diverse media will start bitching and moaning about the unfair treatment (FOX News anyone?) and the biased media will lose credibility leading to loss of profits and failure.  The MSM knows this which is why they keep going on and on assessing and critiquing the fairness of their own coverage of the news.

Stop smoking the rock and think about what you are writing before you post Jackson.

September 4, 2008 11:50 AM

ChanRobt said:

I would also point out, re "experience," while Obama has been chanting the mantra of "change" for two years, he has never in his political career done anything to change or even challenge the corrupt Chicago machine of which he is a creature.

Obama is manifestly a go along to get along guy, from the machine he joined to the church he joined.  A clever careerist who's made all the right moves.

Palin actually took on the big boys in her own party and pushed a lot of them out on the street while cutting back excessive government spending and actually executing in two executive jobs.  Including a governorship, the traditional job preceding the White House.  

I would remind you further that former governors (Wilson, both Roosevelts, Reagan, Clinton) have a higher success rate in the presidency than do former senators.  

Although former senator Jack Kennedy,  whom I much admire, redeemed himself in several ways, his lack of executive chops probably brought on both the Berlin and the Cuban crisies.

September 4, 2008 11:51 AM

ChanRobt said:

I would also point out, re "experience," while Obama has been chanting the mantra of "change" for two years, he has never in his political career done anything to change or even challenge the corrupt Chicago machine of which he is a creature.

Obama is manifestly a go along to get along guy, from the machine he joined to the church he joined.  A clever careerist who's made all the right moves.

Palin actually took on the big boys in her own party and pushed a lot of them out on the street while cutting back excessive government spending and actually executing in two executive jobs.  Including a governorship, the traditional job preceding the White House.  

I would remind you further that former governors (Wilson, both Roosevelts, Reagan, Clinton) have a higher success rate in the presidency than do former senators.  

Although former senator Jack Kennedy,  whom I much admire, redeemed himself in several ways, his lack of executive chops probably brought on both the Berlin and the Cuban crisies.

September 4, 2008 11:51 AM

ChanRobt said:

woland, the media is so obviously and flagrantly in the tank for Obama that they have made themselves the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

Why then, ought they be afforded the mantel of "journalists"?  They are, the vast majority of them, shameless hacks.  If they want the respect of having their questions entertained, let them do something to earn such respect.

As it is, the media enjoys the same approval rating as used car salesmen, ad guys, and the Democratic Congress.  Which is to say,  at 15 or so %, half that of George Bush.

September 4, 2008 12:04 PM

AB said:

I'll appoint myself arbiter of experience points.  Anyone else want to play?

Palin has four terms serving Wasilla Alaska, population squat, two terms on the city Council and two terms as mayor.  The Council meets once every two weeks, maybe for two hours, providing, maybe, 48 hours of experience in a year.

Obabma has  four terms in the Illinois General Assembly.  The General Assembly meets for something like 50 full days per year.  Ten times the experience points to Obama.

The population of Alaska is 680,000 - about the same as the population of one Congressional District in Illinois.  Obama as senator represents the entire state, population 12,800,00.  Twenty times the experience points to Obama.

Palin was voted in by 48 percent of those Alaskans who voted - grand total 114,697.  Obama got 70 percent of the vote in Illinois - a huge percent, although I can't find the number of votes.  Biden got 135,253 in Delaware in 2002.  Who knew?  Senator from Delaware earns more experience points than Governor of Alaska.  And Biden's in his sixth term.

Alaska has a 23 Billion dollar Permanent Fund from oil and gas monies that pays an annual  dividend to each resident.  $1,540 last year.  Alaska has no income tax or state sales tax.  Despite oil riches, they manage to run a budget Deficit most years.  Unique. Quirky.  Illinois - heartland of America.  They run a budget deficit the American way - fuzzy math.  Relevance of experience points to Obama.

September 4, 2008 12:24 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

O'Channy....

Sarcasm is fine as a side dish but not as a night after night main course....

That is the problem with sarcasm. Also, the dripping condescensioin that comes from every speaker about Obama is really off putting. Compare that with how Obama and Biden spoke of McCain's service, compare that to how Obama told the press and his staff that Palin's family was off limits.

There is never really any incentive for Democrats to continue to take the high road because the GOP is simply unable to reciprocate. Their playbook is made up entirely of personal  criticism, sarcasm, character assaults, and a bizarre angry sense of victimization. These are angry, mean white people. Sorry if that offends anyone but it is the truth, at least from my perspective.

Sarah Palin needs to find a way to get away from this GOP trap. If she does have a future - which is possible - is not in following the tired Rove playbook. Mean doesn't work for her. She seems like a nice ordinary person, or that was my initial take. She must resist efforts to make her into a standard issue GOP attack dog.

September 4, 2008 12:47 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Compare Palin and Obama all you like, the obvious conclusion is that they should be debating each other and Biden should be debating McCain. One of these tickets is upside down.

September 4, 2008 1:09 PM

mgmax said:

Somewhere around November 5th, they'll realize that every time they compare Obama's experience to Palin's, they make McCain look that much more presidential.

September 4, 2008 1:36 PM

The Stump said:

The McCain campaign faced an interesting choice last night: They could go for gravitas, weaving in wonky

September 4, 2008 1:57 PM

mcorey.geo said:

We have sunk so deep into George Bush no-nothing, nativist, ignorance is glorified, yankee doodle idiocy if this Costco Queen is considered just as qualified and knowledgeable as a former editor of the Harvard Law Review. Shame on us, the whole world is LAUGHING.

September 4, 2008 2:03 PM

travers21 said:

TNR, of which I've been reading and subscribing since 1984 has become unreadable in the past couple month. Fanatical devotion to a lightweight like Obama is what I expect from the Nation, Mother Jones or Andrew Sullivan. I'm an out, loud and proud gay Democrat who's voting for McCain in November. I've voted for Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry. Enough!

September 4, 2008 2:26 PM

mcorey.geo said:

Dude, if you are seriously telling the truth-- that you're gay and voting GOP-- I hope when the time comes that those hate-filled bastards come and round you up first.

September 4, 2008 2:39 PM

The Plank said:

From the Department of Visual Studies : If your life is colorful, your clothing need not be. This was

September 4, 2008 2:40 PM

reganad said:

And yes, I'll say it, she's shrill. Her soprano is shrill. And I think a female candidate who compares herself to a dog invites agreement as to which gender of dog.

I'm a woman, from a red state with less population than Alaska, and I ain't impressed.

September 4, 2008 4:10 PM

satyendra said:

NDMacKenzie, not only could Obama have written his speech, he did write it.

Lungfish, Obama was a (senior, I believe) lecturer at U. of Chicago's law school, earning him $32,000 a year.  That is not a senior faculty position as would be a named full professorship.

ChanRobt, Obama never held elected office in the city of Chicago, so can hardly be blamed for not having changed their machine.

Jaunty Boulevardier, the GOP isn't making Governor Palin mean, Governor Palin is making her mean.  Her authoritarian style has been commented upon plenty both here and in the Wall Street Journal (and probably in other news outlets that I don't happen to be reading).  I was annoyed by her sneering mannerisms within the 1st 10 minutes of her speech.

September 4, 2008 5:00 PM

sleepyavl said:

Look at ChanRobt, he's proud of Sarah Palin's sneers. If Hillary did that, she would be called divisive bitch. But Palin? She's "our girl".

ChanRobt and all other conservatives on this thread can be understood with one single rule: "We conservatives have all the rights, you all the others have none AND we will fuck you, even more so if you dare open your mouth, or are black or Hispanic".

September 4, 2008 10:29 PM

ChanRobt said:

sleepyval writes, "...Look at ChanRobt, he's proud of Sarah Palin's sneers. If Hillary did that, she would be called divisive bitch. But Palin? She's 'our girl'."

Sleepy, it's all in the delivery.  Palin was sarcastic but funny.  She just manages to punch out her zingers with a smile that ingratiates.

Hillary is just a lousy orator.  And even turns off people who agree with her.  That's the big reason she didn't win, despite all her advantages.

Meanwhile, where you extract from anything I've written that  blacks and Hispanics have no right to express their opinions, I have no idea.  Think you're getting a little over the top here, Sleepy.  Better cut out the cable watching for awhile.

September 5, 2008 1:21 PM