TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM
January 08, 2009 | 5:59 PM
January 08, 2009 | 5:46 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

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

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
08.09.2008
Why Palin Scares Me

Before I get to that, let me explain what I'm not scared of, which is that Palin has somehow altered the demographics of the race. I have a hard time believing that female Hillary supporters, or Rust Belt men, are suddenly racing to support McCain because of Palin. For one thing, vice presidential nominees almost never attract demographic groups that the nominee can't attract on his own. People vote for the top of the ticket, not the bottom. More importantly, if that historical pattern somehow broke down this year, it would probably hurt the GOP ticket more than it would help. People may love Sarah Palin, but they don't think she's ready to be president.

The reason Palin scares me has more to do with mechanics than demographics: Palin is such a sensation, and draws such large crowds, that anything she says--particularly attacks on Obama--immediately become part of the campaign conversation. On the other hand, both because she has a knack for delivering barbs with a smile, and because voters don't quite see her as presidential material, McCain suffers less blowback than he would if a more traditional running mate were saying the same things. Simply put, Palin has a much bigger megaphone than traditional running mates, but gets held to a lower standard.

That's a huge problem for the Obama campaign. Among other things, it really complicates the question of how to respond. You'd normally want to ignore your opponent's running mate in these situations, but it's hard to because of her reach. And when you do respond--say, when Obama points out that she's been making stuff up--there's very little impact, because no one's conditioning their support for McCain on Palin. Call her the phantom menace.

Obama's best hope is that Palin's novelty wears off soon, at which point we can go back to ignoring running mates the way we've been ignoring Joe Biden the last week or so. I'm honestly not sure what he does in the meantime.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Monday, September 08, 2008 12:58 PM with 154 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!

ChanRobt said:

Noam, I think your insight here is excellent and your fears well founded.

To repeat what I posted on a related thread, I think Sarah Palin is a phenomenon whose presence will break all the traditional rules about vice presidential candidates.

If she performs as well in interviews, debates, and on the stump as she did in her debut speech, her popularity and celebrity will increase, not subside.

And she will continue to draw increasing interest from the public and the media (in spite of themselves) to the McCain Palin ticket.

Very little this year has followed the traditional rules and principles of presidential campaigns.  I think Palin will keep that break with the past going.

September 8, 2008 1:08 PM

jyunis said:

Noam, in response to the first half of your post about unchanged demographics; aren't you at least a little afraid? Clearly, Palin has evened out the so called "enthusiasm gap" that has plagued McCain and that David Plouffe was so eager to remind us all of.  Isn't it possible that Palin brings out the conservative base in droves, in a way that they were unwilling to do for McCain? If so, isn't that unsettling?

Also, the issue of how to respond is a serious problem for the Obama camp. It seems the conventional wisdom is that they will ignore Palin and keep attacking McCain, in the hopes that Palin-mania will die down either naturally, or by way of the media exposing her, or both. But who says the media will actually do any real reporting? And is simply hoping her celebrity will die-down really a viable tactic in challenging her nasty jabs at Obama? Perhaps they should attack her and McCain together--attack the ticket, that is--by calling them both out to be phony, corrupt, "reformers"--including Palin, who reversed her position on the bridge to nowhere, and is embroiled in the "troopergate" investigation, and so forth.

Also, perhaps attack the ticket (and Palin) as harboring far wight-wing, extremist views on many social-issues, which is true. If Palin-mania doesn't die down soon, with 60 days to go, it might not be such a bad time to really go negative for the Obama camp.

September 8, 2008 1:19 PM

kgrant1054 said:

Palin scares me because it doesn't make any difference what she says.  Not a whit.  She could read the dictionary, or the local want-ads, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference, because the people ecstatic about her presence on the ticket are excited about Palin as a concept, a cipher - that she happens to not fall all over herself giving a speech, and seems to have a sly sense of humor (or is simply a mocking 'Heathers' type of person) is mere gravy.  Nope, this is about the Fundamentalists having one of their own a heart-beat away from the Presidency.  

The only person who should be more scared than I?   John McCain, doubly so if he actually wins.

She is frightening because she doesn't merely lean right, she has fallen off the face of the flat-earth she may still believe in.  

September 8, 2008 1:21 PM

kagoss718 said:

I agree with posters in another thread.  The response needs to be to point out the lies and inconsistencies, then immediately pivot and tie it to McCain and how he represents "More of the same."  The vast majority of Americans no longer trusts Bush and Co., it's another opportunity to link the two together.

September 8, 2008 1:29 PM

cal80 said:

I disagree with your assertion that she does not change the demographics of the race.  She does and, unless she blows it with some big time revelation or gaffe, she will continue to attract female voters.  Just look at the response to Cottle's inane piece on feminism, and see how angry women are.  They are not some monolithic mass to be manipulated by the Dems.  A lot of moderate and independent women are paying attention to the race now, and in such a tightly wound environment, this could be the tipping point in the election.  Obama blew it when he said to Hillary that she "was likeable enough," and he has been indifferent to women ever since.  And please note that while he is panicked now, and has to send women like Clinton, Sebelius, and Napolitano out to fight for him, they don't seem to be too anxious to take on Palin for him.  There were a lot of moderate and conservative women sitting on the sidelines prior to Palin.  I think when the polls are analyzed, a lot of McCain's support will come from that portion of the electorate.

September 8, 2008 1:29 PM

hemlock41 said:

In addition to the "mechanics", she also helps McCain by giving him material to fuel the maverick myth. Who cares if much of what he says about Palin's maverick credentials are outright lies? People just want to hear a good story, with a hero who seems larger-than-life. This reinvigorated narrative could get the attention of, and win the support of, some independents.

Even though some in the MSM have been calling McCain out on the ear-marks and bridge to nowhere stuff, the campaign just keeps repeating this message. And voters will probably lap it up.

It's starting to make me think that Plato was, in many ways, right about democracy.

Obama should get some ads on air that attack this ridiculous maverick stuff in a no-holds-barred way. And sooner rather than later.

September 8, 2008 1:29 PM

hemlock41 said:

And I don't think the ads should focus on Palin, they should focus on blasting the McCain-as-Maverick meme, bringing in McCain's lies about Palin, but only as a way of exposing what a typically self-serving and cynical pol he really is.

Attack Palin, but only in a 'subsidiary' way. (Only in the course of attacking McCain.) And only in passing. Keep as much of the focus off her as possible.

September 8, 2008 1:33 PM

AlanSP said:

I'm also worried about the amount of attention she draws.  A quick look at the current headlines on CNN.com:

   * McCain catches Obama in new polls

   * Ticker: Rice weighs in on Palin pick

   * Who is the real agent of change?

   * McCain and Palin hit the West

   * Ticker: Will Clinton go after Palin?

   *  LIVE: McCain, Palin campaign in Missouri

   * Congress to revisit fight over offshore oil drilling

   * Is Sarah Palin being held to an unfair standard?

   * New ad declares McCain-Palin 'original mavericks'

   * CNNMoney: What Freddie, Fannie rescues mean

   * Rollins: Obama wrong to spurn Clinton, pick Biden

   * Obama, Bill Clinton to sit down for a private lunch

   * Kennedy plans to return to Capitol Hill in January

   * McCain vows to have Democrats in Cabinet

Count up the number of Palin references there.  Meanwhile, the only references to Obama are to a) his losing ground in the polls, b) his decision to "spurn" Hillary to pick Biden, and c) his plans for lunch with Bill.  It's been like this for a while now.  I'd gladly go back to when the media was treating this as a referendum on Obama.

September 8, 2008 1:37 PM

drdannyu said:

Palin scares me because she is single-handedly reminding me of how blisteringly stupid the American voting public is.  She is demonstrating that a public figure can lie like grandma's rug, and get away with it.  She is showing that people will swallow as many horsefeathers as get shoveled at them.  She is making plain that the critical thinking skills of the people who will decide the fate of the country are atrophied to the point of uselessness.  

She has patently lied about a central plank in the floor of her "reform" narrative.  She has been airlifted in from a state utterly unlike the rest of the country, with unspecified skills beyond the purely rhetorical.  She holds social views that can be carbon-dated back to the Pleistocene, which I am apparently supposed to overlook because she has "gay friends."  And she is getting away with it.

So, yeah.  McCain/Palin looks like it could win.  I'm sure Chan and tep will enjoy the balthazar of bubbly they can split when it does.  For my part, it makes me want to vomit.

September 8, 2008 1:41 PM

drdannyu said:

hemlock, Plato (and, for the record, Kent Brockman) was totally right about democracy.

September 8, 2008 1:43 PM

maybe said:

Good point, Noam.

There is a down side to the "bigger megaphone", however: the magnification of Palin's gaffes.

As others have pointed out, verbal gaffes are inevitable during such a rigorous campaign. And, because Palin is unfamiliar, her gaffes are likely to be more damaging than Biden's, or McCain's, or Obama's.

I guess the decisive factor, going forward, will be the mainstream media's willingness (or lack thereof) to call out her gaffes. By comparison, they haven't been too vocal about exposing "untruths" from the McCain camp.

Looks like Palin's first VP gaffe came today: www.huffingtonpost.com/.../palin-makes-her-first-gaf_n_124792.html. Maybe this will provide an opportunity to see how the media manage the megaphone.

September 8, 2008 1:44 PM

blackton said:

Just ask if Obama were to die tomorrow (literally), would people be willing to vote for Biden. I think it is pretty obvious Biden would win in a walk against McCain. If McCain were to die tomorrow, would people be willing to vote for Palin for President? I think it is pretty obvious Obama would win in a walk. Turn that ad around that she is just not ready to lead because we simply have no idea who she is or what she believes. Treat McCain as though he has already died.

Personally, she sounds like a truck store waitress to me. I think Whitman or Snowe would have been a far better pick (and if it had been Condi or Powell I would have been delighted) Palin scares me for completely other reasons. Frankly, she is a dipshit philosophically, just because she is telegenic (she was a newscaster for Christ sakes and a beauty queen...) means absolutely jack.

The nihilist part of me wants McCain to win just so I can get the pleasure of watching the Republican party crash and burn. It is a pity so many ordinary americans will go down with them, but if it means in four years we can finally crush these assholes for good, so be it. I, at least, have the option to spend my time at the beach.

September 8, 2008 1:45 PM

drdannyu said:

I'm beginning to think like you do, blackie.  One way or another, I will probably have little net change in my quality of life, regardless of who wins.  If America elects McCain/Palin (the latter of whom apparently doesn't really know what Fannie Mae does... thanks for the link, maybe), it'll at least give me something to gadfly about for another four years.

September 8, 2008 1:51 PM

raylward said:

Attacking Palin only serves her (and McCain's) interest.  I seriously doubt her own performance will hurt her ticket.  After all, she only has to learn a few words or phrases (freedom, terrorists, and the like) and she will pass the electorate's national security test.  Instead, I would attack Republican incompetence.  Over and over.  How that incompetence has hurt the weekest among us (New Orleans, etc.) as well and the strongest (the over-extended military) as well as those in the middle (rising unemployment and bankruptcies and collapse in home values).  Remind voters what they know and don't like about the Republicans rather than asking them to speculate about the leadership skills or knowledge of Palin (or McCain for that matter).

September 8, 2008 1:56 PM

tnmats said:

Blackton, if McSame and his pat win the race, why should you or I care if it hurts the country?  A majority saw fit to elect them and they get what they deserve.  If they win, then I'll just hunker down, take care of my own and not give a damn what happens to anyone else.  Pretty pathetic view but that's what the majority says and I say give it to them.

September 8, 2008 1:58 PM

hemlock41 said:

Replies to Cal80:

"unless she blows it with some big time revelation or gaffe, she will continue to attract female voters."

If the fact that her office is under investigation for illegally accessing confidential personnel files doesn't stop voters from supporting her, no gaffe or revelation is likely to (short of something salacious and sexually taboo.) Whoever is moving to support her is not doing so on the basis of reasoned deliberation. They will chock up any expose of any Palin infraction to a 'witch-hunt' by the media. The McCain campaign has already cynically and brilliantly laid the groundword for this reaction. (And the breathless over-reaction by bloggers like Sullivan to initial information about Palin's liabilities hasn't helped.) It's all so depressing it almost makes me yearn for benevolent dictatorship.

"Just look at the response to Cottle's inane piece on feminism, and see how angry women are. "

Sorry, but your inference here is a laugh. The people who reply in such stupid and impassioned ways to provocatively titled web articles are not representative of "women" in general. Assuming that they are reveals your own, er, hasty thought processes.

"They are not some monolithic mass to be manipulated by the Dems."

No. It's the Republicans who are much better at, and more shameless about attempting, such manipulation. (Witness Palin's initial shout out to Hillary supporters, in which she was clearly assuming that Clinton's supporters would be driven to vote by either their wombs or by rancorous resentment.)

"Obama blew it when he said to Hillary that she "was likeable enough," and he has been indifferent to women ever since."

His "likeable enough" comment was definitely a stupid gaffe. But your claim that he has been "indifferent to women" ever since is so stupid and blinkered I'm almost speechless. His policies are much better for women than McCain's. And they're not that different (if at all) from Hillary's. And it's Obama's VP pick who spearheaded the important VAWA.

"And please note that while he is panicked now..."

To quote someone apparently smarter than you, "you can't just make stuff up."

"[While he] has to send women like Clinton, Sebelius, and Napolitano out to fight for him, they don't seem to be too anxious to take on Palin for him."

OK, I guess you CAN make stuff up. But really, doing so just reflects badly on you. Did you see Barbara Boxer on Late Edition yesterday? She made a forceful, pointed, and energetic critique of Palin. She was more than willing to take on Palin.  

September 8, 2008 1:59 PM

dylanposer said:

I don't see what is so hard about crushing her.  They need to stop inflating her value, stop spending giving her so much time.  The short of it: she is a Bush-Cheney Republican.  

September 8, 2008 2:05 PM

dylanposer said:

It comes down to semantics.  In her their speeches, the GOP oriented themselves as the centrists, running against a corrupt government.  Well... THEY BUILT THAT HOUSE.  The DEMS need to begin a campaign that points out such GOP's misrepresentations of reality--how is it possible that they can claim "maverick" mettle when they ran the economy into the ground?  They are not running a campaign of consensus; Palin proves this.  

September 8, 2008 2:09 PM

dylanposer said:

In fact, I say start a "Don't let John McCain Fool You" campaign.  Just run that line over and over and over.  Beat it into the public before they get ADHD and emotional over the tender clouds of succubus love that Palin emits.

September 8, 2008 2:12 PM

nathang said:

I think the best defense against Palin is to portray her as George W. redux.

Imagine a commercial that begins talking about a governor with little knowledge but a lot of folksy charm capturing the White House.  Then show images of George W. in 2000 and Palin in 2008.  Maybe even show Palin's face morphing into George W.'s, as is done on the Huffington Post web site.

Finally, every tine Palin makes a gaffe, or merely seems inexperienced, connect her cluelesness to George W.'s.

September 8, 2008 2:13 PM

hemlock41 said:

dylanposer's right. She should be tagged at every opportunity as "a Bush-Cheney Republican."

September 8, 2008 2:14 PM

chemist said:

What's interesting is the immediate flight to the "American public is stupid" argument as soon as soon as the prospects of a particular reader's candidate of choice (read Obama) are threatened. After, it couldn't possibly be the other way around now could it?

The "American public is stupid" argument is the last bastion of intellectual fools and cowards. Its equivalent to the "Hitler " comparison. Give it up and argue like an educated adult.

September 8, 2008 2:20 PM

lamh31 said:

I'm with ya too Blackie.

I'll continue to donate to Obama, I'll continue to volunteer when I can, and I'll continue to get people to register to vote, hell, I'll even get people to the polls, but I'm through trying to figure out what the hell is wrong with voters in America.

I'm not a religious person (though I do believe in a higher being), but iIf McCain/Palin wins, I'll go bout my business the same way, and pray that when McCain dies and Palin takes over that she doesn't completely F*&% up the country Bush/Cheney style.  And if I'm still on this earth, I'll laugh when Hilary Clinton tries to run in 2012 (and loses handily to VP Palin).

September 8, 2008 2:21 PM

Lundell said:

Palin scares me a bit, simply because her beliefs seem (I said seem) to be way to the right.  I don't know if she'll change the demographic or not.  It is likely she will pick up some "small government" independents, but once her views are fully aired, and I pray to the highest Heavens that everyone who criticizes her will do it in a way that will not invite the "they're picking on me" response, she will likely lose a number of votes that may have been leaning McCain.

It will be a tight race and this choice will be debated if McCain wins or loses.

Agree with one poster up top (too lazy to look up) that feminism, not as conceived but as executed, has never been as monolithic as both sides in the debate seem to contend (any woman can correct me here as this is coming from a middle-aged guy and is merely and observation and not something fully embodied).  I've spent the past 30-plus years in politics and government and the steady influx of women into elective office seems to span the entire political spectrum and although it's safe to say more are on the left, some of the more stalwart women who have been elected are extremely conservative.  I count Palin among the latter.

September 8, 2008 2:22 PM

aduncanson said:

Will somebody please point out to Americans just how different being Governor of Alaska is from being governor of any other US state.  The biggest financial problem the governor of Alaska has, is to decide what to do with all of the left over money.  Financially, Alaska is more similar to Kuwait than to my adopted state of Indiana.  This year Alaska has a budget surplus of more than $7000 per capita.  How then does the governor retain her high approval ratings with the state taking in so much excess money.  It is simple, the people of Alaska are not paying for it.  The rest of us are!  On average every American family is paying an amount on the order of $50 in excess fuel bills this year to fund the Alaska government's surplus and Sarah Palin's approval rating.

This "taking on big oil" that Governor Palin is credited with, actually amounts to her colluding with big oil to allow the state to take more of our money while the profits of the oil companies are skyrocketing.

September 8, 2008 2:27 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

So I guess that means I'm a big old snob if I wonder about the five colleges it took to get her BA in (ironically) journalism?  I've already owned the snob and the sexists mantle on this, I am aware that my views have elements of both.

Is there any evidence of actual intelligence in this person, rather than just cunning and arrogance?  A city administrator did the financial and management mechanics of her job.  That left her free to reign in the pork.  SOOOOOOOEEEEEEEE.

Someone should make a viral youtube about the Alaska snout in tax payers troughs.

No, I do think anyone who denies evolution and global warming is anywhere near intelligent enough for that job right now - they are disqualifiers as far as I"m concerned, but then I would, wouldn't I.  I am not intelligent enough either.  I'm not foaming at the mouth bitter about that, pained enraged.  Life is unfair, some people are smarter than others.

There are alot of enormous problems looming right now that the bible won't much help her with.  I cannot fathom the selfishness of John McCain or the bovine nature of the American public.

I suppose it is rather gauche of me to point ot how much she lies too.  Loves to fire people who don't jump when she says jump.  Lovely woman.

Someone find that libraran and get her on Stewart.

September 8, 2008 2:36 PM

hemlock41 said:

chemist writes: "The "American public is stupid" argument is the last bastion of intellectual fools and cowards. Its equivalent to the "Hitler " comparison. Give it up and argue like an educated adult."

Give me a break. There is a factual and reasoned basis for the critique of Palin on this site. And, fwiw, I myself would not say that the American public is stupid. Manipulable, yes. But that's not the same thing as stupid. Even very smart people are sometimes manipulable.

September 8, 2008 2:38 PM

hemlock41 said:

drdan -- re: Plato: I'm not sure about that "myth of the metals" stuff.

September 8, 2008 2:44 PM

jacksondyer said:

"Why Palin Scares Me"

SHE DOESN'T!  ha, ha, ha,....

Obama doesn't scare me either, though he would make a poor President.

September 8, 2008 2:46 PM

dylanposer said:

hemlock,

Right?  Bringing the term "Cheney" only can help.  He has one-third of the approval rating that Bush does--why leave this addendum off of the handle?  People are numb to equations of "Bush", but not to "Bush-Cheney".

Another good Palin attack: she's Dick Cheney in stripper's clothes.  Drilling, check.  Hunting, check.  Divisive, check.  Do you really want your children groveling over that VPILF if they might start thinking about Cheney while they masterbate?  I certainly don't want *my* children thinking about Cheney that way.  

September 8, 2008 2:47 PM

drdannyu said:

Fine, chemist, if you would like REASONS I think Palin demonstrates the stupidity of the American people, I will list them:

1)  She is hailed as having meaningful executive experience, even though a large part of that "experience" is her time as mayor of a town with fewer employees and a smaller budget than the combined pediatric practices at which I work.  People seem to be accepting this statement as something other than ridiculous.  This is stupid.

2)  Her leadership of the National Guard in Alaska is cited as some kind of feather in her cap, despite her not actually ever called upon them to do anything.  This is stupid.

3)  She advocates a "wait-until marriage" approach to contraception, even though it (demonstrably) doesn't actually work out in real life.  This is stupid.

4)  She has brazenly lied about opposing a pork project that she patently supported until it was no longer politically feasible.  This is being loudly touted in her ticket's ads.  This does not seem to have affected her popularity, which is stupid.

5)  She is opposed to civil rights for gay couples, but apparently expects people like me to be mollified by the prospect that she would still willingly befriend us.  This is both nauseating and stupid.

6)  She has clearly used her short time as governor to sack a respected civil servant, while touting her "reform" cred.  While this would make her eminently qualfied to be Attorney General under a GOP administration, it hardly supports her image as a reformer.  It seems to be working.  This is stupid.

Is that enough, or shall I add more bullet points?

September 8, 2008 2:49 PM

Nippers said:

Chan Robt:

You and Bush agree: "John McCain made an inspired pick." --GWB

I don't get it. I spend months trying to figure out whether I can risk voting for a talented if young candidate. I watch the debates. I read the profiles and the analysis and the policy papers. I assess his campaigning skills and compare them to those of his rivals. Then, after several months of this, not without reservations, I support him.

You and Bush, what do you know about Palin? What's her position on health care? Education reform (aside from adding creationism to the curriculum)? What kind of temperament does she have when it comes to foreign policy? What's her fiscal policy? Her record in Alaska, a state flush with both oil money and federal pork, won't tell you much about what she'd do with the national debt.

I don't get it, Chan. I mean I could kind of understand if your main goal was to avance the evangelical agenda, but I know you're more thoughtful than that. You know she can deliver a speech that someone else wrote for her. That's enough for you?

It's like buying a house without touring it or inspecting it just because you like the realtor's ad.

September 8, 2008 2:49 PM

waynejm said:

It's a bit premature to begin handicapping the race based upon the Palin factor.  Right now in the immediate wake of the convention exposure, she's little more than the flavor of the month in ourpersonality-driven media culture.  Let's see how much of a shelf life she has.

The suggestion that media criticism of Palin is somehow off-limits because of her gender, coming as it does from the same drooling mob of reactionaries that's demonized Hillary since 1992, is both outrageous and laughable.  We can only hope that the press isn't cowed into giving her a free pass.

Obama's best strategy?  Attack Palin indirectly, as the product of the flawed, reckless and impulsive judgment of the presidential candidate  who would put her second in line for the presidency.

September 8, 2008 2:50 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

"Even very smart people are sometimes manipulable."

I love that Hemlock and I'm wantng to agree with you, I just don't see how someone truly smart could be attracted to snarling, sarcasm, division, easily disproved lies.  I just don't see where smart fits in to that.

September 8, 2008 2:55 PM

eweiss said:

This is bulls**t. In 2000, the country was at peace and was prosperous. Bill Clinton, despite all his warts, was an historically popular president, and his very capable Vice President ran against a bumbling unaccomplished idiot who would not have been hired to manage a Wal-Mart let alone run the country. Yet the Republicans won. Four years later, that same idiot had a resume full of failures that would have been hard to accomplish even if he had been trying. The Democrats had a mediocre candidate who ran a horrible campaign and lost yet again. Many of us soothed our sorrow with one of two over-wrought rationalizations: 1) the country is flat-stupid and I am moving to Canada or 2) it is better to lose now lest a Democrat have to deal with a collapsed economy and an albatross of an endless war. In this campaign, the Republicans had no viable candidates and now 8 years of historical failures to run from. A friend said to me in the Fall of 2007 that the Dems could run Crusty the Clown and win in 2008. But they actually had not one, but two of the strongest candidates in recent memory. And one of them captured a magical spirit and won the nomination. And the Republicans have an aged, boring, and tired nominee who is running on the failures of his predecessor. So here we are on the brink of yet another impossible Republican victory. How? How can Augusta Green Jackets beat 1927 New York Yankees three times in a row? Is it because they cheat? Did the umpires throw it? Not at all! We Democrats need to wake up and we need to grow a pair. We need to stop whining and stop blaming the stupidity of the American Public. We need to own up to the fact that we suck at modern politics and that the Republicans are masters. George W. Bush proved in 2000 and again in 2004 that the candidate does not matter one iota. It is all about the message and mainly about who controls it. If we lose this election, we will not win in 2012 or ever if we don’t change the way we do politics. I know that Obama spent a lot of time preaching about changing politics and hope and all, but if he does not come out now with a vengeance, and bat this freaking crap back down, we all can forget about winning. For all the successes he had in the primary running against a very capable opponent, and for all the whining about how she played unfair, he had seen nothing the Republicans would throw at him. Well now he has, and now is his chance to come back to the American People and say as he did in his speech, “Enough!” I was a strong Clinton supporter in the primary, but last night I maxed my donation to Obama. Now is the time for all of us to own this election and to take back our country. Having seen the campaign they ran against Hillary, I happen to be optimistic that they can and will strike back and will win this, but that cannot happen without an energized base who shares that belief that we must win and that we will win.

September 8, 2008 2:56 PM

Crock1701 said:

Yes, I gotta say I wonder why this is so hard.  Attack Alaska for all that is wrong with Alaska, (the pork, the utter lack of a state budget that would be recognizable in any other state)  and attack her ethics and pork and then use it to attack McCain, his judgment in putting Queen Earmark on the ticket and the seriousness about reform.  

September 8, 2008 2:57 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

drdannyu, well played sir. Perfect.

September 8, 2008 2:59 PM

williamyard said:

Palin doesn't scare me; rather, she confirms what I believe about democracies.

Democracies are doomed to self-destruct because the people who run them (the electorate) eventually find themselves, collectively, on the defensive. When that happens, they'll hire (i.e. vote for) the person who best ignore the rising waters while promising to order the Titanic's band to keep playing. Voters do not want to know what is really going on. That's the scary part. Otherwise the messenger gets killed.

Thus we have a nation (the United States of America) that is shipping over $1.5 billion a day in oil money alone overseas, mostly to people who loathe us and our way of life. To give one example: we enrich Venezuela, which now gives five times what the United States does in foreign aid to Latin America, with plenty of anti-American propaganda to go along with the aid. In other words, we are paying people to tell other people we're assholes. Just like we fund the madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere, like we recently paid for the Cossacks to plunder Georgia.

We will not stop doing this, no matter what any candidate says. We can't, because we lack the will.

We live on a planet whose biosphere we are seriously fucking with. We will not stop doing this, either. We don't want to. It's not in our character to do so. Any candidate who will tell us, straight up, what we have to do to fix things (i.e. sacrifice) will get slaughtered at the polls.

Health care? Entitlements? Balanced budget? Hahahahaha, oh, y'all crack me up!

Nice piece in Bloomberg the other day about the fact that our taxes will be going up, big time, over the next decade or so, regardless of who's elected. And yet both Obama and McCain are promising tax cuts. Give me a fucking break.

Like any great nation in steep decline, we seek those who will sing us their lullabies--hush little babies don't you cry, Sarah's gonna sing you a lullabye. Why the hell should Palin tell us the truth about anything? We can't handle the truth, like the man said.

Barack Obama has got to realize he won't win the Lying Game or the Blaming Game. He has to go on the offensive by attacking the one group he's been afraid to attack before: the people whose votes he wants. He needs to say, straight up, "Get what, folks? We're fucked. It's either gonna be bad or it's gonna be worse. With me it's gonna be bad, and here's how: I'm gonna raise your taxes and you'll get little in return. You're gonna continue to shoot up millions of barrels of oil before I can get you into detox. Iran, Russia, Venezuela et al. are gonna yank your chains and there's not a God damned thing you or me or anybody else can do about it. In fact, the only thing I'll promise you under an Obama Administration is that a hell of a lot of America's families will get sober, truly sober, for the first time since the late 1800s when we started getting high on cheap energy."

"Any questions? Okay, line up in alpha order, drop your pants, bend over and wait for the body cavity search. And shut the fuck up."

September 8, 2008 3:01 PM

jacob111 said:

Someone has probably said this before, but I don't have time to read everything above... O should attack P by attacking M for picking P. I don't think people will have a problem with attacks on a Hockey/Walmart/Wolf-slaughtering-by-helicopter Mom if a man is attacked simultaneously.

September 8, 2008 3:01 PM

timteeter said:

Palin does not scare me at all.  She is a novelty act AND an accident waiting to happen.  She guarantees an Obama victory.

Yep, that's right.  Check back in a week or two and see if I wasn't right.

September 8, 2008 3:02 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

William Y!  Destroys!

September 8, 2008 3:06 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Obama's biggest enemy now is a gullible media class that has taken McCain/Schmidt's bait, hook line and sinker, and is swimming as fast as they can into the deep Atlantic with it.

Clue: the more you focus on Palin and her inexperience, the more you undermine Obama. If Palin's story is central, Obama loses, end of story. She's not a monster, she's not Dan Quayle, she's not corrupt.

Here's some totally objective, clinical advice from one who doesn't care a fig  for Obama but who's watched this painfula nd entirely predicatble meltdown: if Obama really wants to win, he must do two things.

First, prioritize his message and platform to emphasize not more than two, max, overwhelming and very specific issues, and crystallize what he'll do and why it is absolutely essential to vote for him. The issues have to be "crystallized", as his sometime adviser Z Brzezinski puts it. No BS about change, and no rearview mirror stuff about dead or moribund issues like the Joint Resolution vote. Something as crystal clear as tax policy or healthcare. Bumper sticker simplicity.

Second, Obama if he wants to win has to do what every successful national challenger does and go directly and ruthlessly for the jugular: play the age/health/fitness card. On this score, Axelrod's simply no match for Schmidt. If Obama's serious about winning, he needs to cease with all the BS about "change", the now-irrelevant MoveOnner stuff about the war, the detailed 52-point plans, and make the case, again and again, fair or not, true or not, that McCain is borderline senile.

There you go, Obamamaniacs. Don't say I never did anything for you. (Axelrod: I accept PayPal.)

September 8, 2008 3:08 PM

waynejm said:

The erstwhile leader-of-the-free-world-in-waiting evidently doesn't know Jack about the biggest challenge to the American economy.

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../palin-makes-her-first-gaf_n_124792.html

Sorry.  How elitist of me.

September 8, 2008 3:20 PM

eweiss said:

yard- i love it. PERFECT!

September 8, 2008 3:21 PM

dylanposer said:

Tep,

Yep.

It's all about semantics and its all about attacks.  The voting public that is still on the fence will not be swayed by large-format complex policy discussions, at least not while the other side is making divisive attacks over a megaphone.  Put the "change" decal away; it was good for the primaries.  It's time to change the game; the GOP already has with Palin.  

I agree with Begala:  attack, attack, attack.

September 8, 2008 3:27 PM

eharder2 said:

What scares me about Palin is what scared me about Bush/Cheney circa 2000, the disconnect between the popular perception of the ticket and the potential reality.  The parallels are striking.  Bush/Cheney were the compassionate conservatism and experience.  McCain is Cheney and Palin like W is the empathy side of the ticket (just because she's a mom maybe?).  

September 8, 2008 3:29 PM

hemlock41 said:

Wandrey writes: "I just don't see where smart fits in to that."

I guess I see it as a combination of incomplete information (being smart doesn't mean being tuned in to all the details of politics), being beseiged by distorting media narratives, being distracted by lots of other pressures/concerns in life, being willfully misled and manipulated by political operatives, and having been failed by the various social institutions (ex. schools, families, and, again, the media) that are supposed to equip otherwise pefectly bright citizens with the basic tools of "political literacy."

But maybe I'm splitting hairs?

September 8, 2008 3:30 PM

icarusr said:

Ewiss and BillYard: great posts.

Tep: I agree with you - in part.  This election is not, and will not be, about Palin; she is a distraction, and the more we harp on her or her "gaffes", the more it is likely that the essential message of the Democratic Party will be lost.

It is not necessary to point out that McCain is senile - even though since 2000 I have thought he was probably bipolar.  It is necessary to stress that McCain is more of the same; more Bush, more hackocracy, more incompetence, more bad judgement about the world, more failure at home, more failed alliance abroad.  

And I have no doubt that Obama - and Axelrod and Plouffe - are up to the task.  Remember: he announced his bid thinking that Rove was going to be running the show; nothing so far suggests that his message of "change" in politics means unilateral disarmament.  

Right now, with the news cycle and the gullible journalist class going gaga over Palin, and with the throngs of conservative faithful out in full force to protect this female Chauncey Gardner from the depredations of big bad liberals, Obama should not launch a full force front assault against Palin.  She is not the issue, McCain is, his judgement and his policies.  His decision-making process.  His right-ward swing.  His "base".

P.s. "Bumper sticker simplicity"? Weren't you the one, throughout the primaries, asking for "the detailed 52-point plans" and dumping on Obama precisely because of the "bumper sticker simplicity" of his campaign? ;-) Welcome aboard.

September 8, 2008 3:31 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

No hemlock - very objective.  I hate that "Americans are stupid" trope too, there is nuance to it at times.  My frustration makes me imprecise.

September 8, 2008 3:36 PM

dylanposer said:

This just in: list of books Palin wanted to ban.  I am shocked to see One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich (Is she a commie?) and Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary on the list.  But there you go.

(This list is taken from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board).

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle

Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden

As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner

Blubber by Judy Blume

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson

Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer

Carrie by Stephen King

Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Christine by Stephen King

Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Cujo by Stephen King

Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen

Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite

Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck

Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller

Decameron by Boccaccio

East of Eden by John Steinbeck

Fallen Angels by Walter Myers

Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland

Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes

Forever by Judy Blume

Grendel by John Champlin Gardner

Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling

Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling

Have to Go by Robert Munsch

Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman

How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell

Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou

Impressions edited by Jack Booth

In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak

It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein

James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl

Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence

Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman

Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm

Lord of the Flies by William Golding

Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein

Lysistrata by Aristophanes

More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz

My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier

My House by Nikki Giovanni

My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara

Night Chills by Dean Koontz

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck

On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer

One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey

One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Ordinary People by Judith Guest

Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective

Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy

Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl

Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz

Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz

Separate Peace by John Knowles

Silas Marner by George Eliot

Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegu! t, Jr.

Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain

The Bastard by John Jakes

The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger

The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier

The Color Purple by Alice Walker

The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth

The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs

The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood

The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder

The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks

The Living Bible by William C. Bower

The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare

The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman

The Pigman by Paul Zindel

The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders

The Shining by Stephen King

The Witches by Roald Dahl

The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder

Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume

To Kill A Mockin! gbird b y Harper Lee

Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff

Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween

Symbols by Edna Barth

September 8, 2008 3:41 PM

ChanRobt said:

kgrant, it is your excessive and hysterical kind of attack on Palin that makes her presence on the GOP ticket so potent.

Every time a Leftie columnist calls her a Flat-Earther or some such, it engenders sympathy for her and contempt for her attackers.

If you really want to win rather than rant, you ought to back off and examine what you are saying.  Starting by examining who Palin really is.

If you despise her, you despise America because outside of Manhattan, San Francisco, and the West Side of Los Angeles, she is what Americans are more generally like.

September 8, 2008 3:45 PM

ironyroad said:

I'm somewhat in agreement with timteeter -- are Americans going to vote for a 72-year old with a wacky VP sidekick who belongs to the same party that gave us Katrina, Iraq, a health-care crisis with no solutions, the Terry Schiavo affair, the Plame affair, an energy crisis with no solutions, a taxation policy that looks like it was developed by C. Montgomery Burns, blatant political manipulation of the Justice Dept and ideological persecution of U.S. attorneys, wiping the floor with the Constitution, Alberto Gonzales, White House bullying and manipulation of scientists, a criminal degrading of U.S. diplomatic assets, a Russia policy based on the president's looking into Putin's soul, income differentials that border on the surreal, and an infrastructure that's beginning to look as if should be at a garage sale?

Maybe.  But maybe if we concentrate on the above instead of Palin's weirdnesses, people will think a bit straighter about their choices in Novemer.

America's a wonderful place, I know.  But still.  The laws of the universe aren't suspended for our benefit, and if we don't fix stuff, stuff gets worse and is more difficult to fix the next time around.  Obama's message is that we need to fix stuff, and Republicans can't be entrusted with fixing it.  It's not a bad message.

September 8, 2008 3:48 PM

observer.com said:

Howard Wolfson writes that Hillary Clinton is not going to take down Sarah Palin. He also deconstructs

September 8, 2008 3:50 PM

ChanRobt said:

By the way, Hillary Clinton is going to be no help against Palin.  First of all, Hillary doesn't want to help Obama, as I have been saying ever since she lost.  Why would or should she?

Also first of all, she's too smart to attack a phenom like Palin at the moment of Palin's greatest popularity and novelty.  It's just a no-win.  Especially for a woman.

Hillary can't express solidarity with Palin, but she sure as hell is not going to savage such a sympathetic woman.  All but the most doctrinaire women of the Left like Palin instinctively, in spite of whatever the ideology is.  

How could you not?  She has achieved everything Feminism claimed it wanted in the way Feminists always preached that women should.  Pretty much on her own, on her own merits.  Not, like Hillary, for instance, on her husband's coattails.

September 8, 2008 3:50 PM

ChanRobt said:

DrDanny, when you pile contempt upon the American public, you are piling contempt upon Democracy.

but, more to the point, it is this kind of contempt, so often seen from the Left, from the media, and from the Democratic Party, that has kept Democrats out of the White House for most of the last 40 years.

So, my advice, please don't stop.  And tell all your friends to join in.

September 8, 2008 3:54 PM

Nippers said:

But Chan, can you answer my questions above? What do you really know about her politics--not her personality or her church but her politics? I just don't see how a thoughtful conservative could possibly support Palin for national office with so little info to go on.

And tep and dylan,

If it's time to put away the "change" slogan, why is McCain trying so hard to steal it? Reminds me a little of when the Hillary campaign came back at "Yes We Can" with "Yes She Will."

I'm inclined to go with timteeter and wait a week. I'd also like to see some good Obama ads. But I do think Obama's right to give Palin a little time, and a little rope.

September 8, 2008 3:54 PM

Nippers said:

Dylan,

I've seen that list on other sites and I'm pretty sure it's bogus. Have you checked your sources? Has the Wasilla library confirmed this?

I thought that it had originated at a site called www.library.org or some such and in fact listed all the books in the US that people have attempted to ban from public libraries.

Careful with this.

September 8, 2008 3:56 PM

ChanRobt said:

blackie writes, "...I think it is pretty obvious Biden would win in a walk against McCain."

Really?  He didn't even score against John Edwards.  

You misunderestimate McCain at your own risk, Blackie.

September 8, 2008 3:58 PM

ChanRobt said:

blackton writes, "...The nihilist part of me wants McCain to win just so I can get the pleasure of watching the Republican party crash and burn. It is a pity so many ordinary americans will go down with them, but if it means in four years we can finally crush these assholes for good, so be it. I, at least, have the option to spend my time at the beach."

My, God, blackie.  You and DrDanny are hysterical.  You're throwing in the towell together already.

Real men don't give up until they're dead, blackie.  That's why McCain's got power over you.  It's also why ordinary people don't trust Democrats to act like men.  Like your leader, Obama, you're always ready to intellectualize why winning is either impossible, or "wrong".

Don't go changin'.

By the way, I'm not gloating.  And I'm not getting cocky.  I expect this to be a close race to the very end.  And expect it can go either way.  Or into another 2000 style tie.

September 8, 2008 4:02 PM

hemlock41 said:

Wandrey,

I just read a piece on Jonathan Martin's blog at Politico about an 89 yr old woman, a core Democrat, who told Biden it was "disgusting" to think someone with a name like Barack Obama might be president; he was just "pretending" to be Christian, etc, etc.  It's worth checking out (if you're prepared to be disheartened.)

Upshot: maybe there *are* forms of stupidity that I should add to the mix of things I listed above.

September 8, 2008 4:09 PM

drdannyu said:

Chan, buddy, I've thought democracy was for shit for years.  (Hence my shout-out to Kent Brockman.)

And if you think the American public is really, really smart and deserving of respect, I would invite you to watch an episode of "The Real Housewives of Orange County."  Or "A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila."  Defend America after THAT.

September 8, 2008 4:18 PM

Idefix said:

Hey blackton and drdannyu, good for you if you are out of the country, lying on a tropical beach and well provided with a trust fund. I can't possibly imagine having another four years of this Republican calamity without  the country falling into a deep, 30s-like Depression. At which point, even your trust fund will evaporate... And the economy  is only a start. Then there is the environment, and the world-wide end of us, and anti-Americanism and terrorism rampant thanks to countries fattened on our oil checks... and much more that I am at the moment too depressed even to think about.  

September 8, 2008 4:19 PM

drdannyu said:

And I'm not actually throwing in the towel.  Just sent another check this weekend.

But please, defend Palin on her merits, Chan.  Tell me why she would make a good potential president, what with her ticket-mate being none-too-spry.  Beyond her obvious talents as a public personality, please help me see her gifts as a crafter of policy.

And while you're at it, please explain why the same party of the "Celebrity" ad and the "experience" argument would expect me to consider Palin with a straight face.  Because it hits me like a spoonful of Ipecac.

September 8, 2008 4:22 PM

ChanRobt said:

hemlock writes, "... Did you see Barbara Boxer on Late Edition yesterday? She made a forceful, pointed, and energetic critique of Palin. She was more than willing to take on Palin."

Oh, hemlock, you make me giddy with happiness.  Yes, please, send Barbara Boxer out there to take on Sarah Palin.  Which of those two do you think the average voter would relate to, sympathize with, and like?

September 8, 2008 4:29 PM

ChanRobt said:

nathang suggests, "...the best defense against Palin is to portray her as George W. redux.  Imagine a commercial that begins talking about a governor with little knowledge but a lot of folksy charm capturing the White House...Maybe even show Palin's face morphing into George W.'s,"

Yeah, that's the ticket.  And then let's do a spot in which Dick Cheney morphs into Scarlett Johansson, and the voiceover says, "See, Sarah Palin is the only V-PILF."

September 8, 2008 4:34 PM

hemlock41 said:

Chan,

My point was simply that there are Democratic women who are willing to take on Palin, contra Cal80's pure assertion. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is another woman who has been very willing to criticize Palin quite forcefully. Whether your own stereotype of the "average voter" might "relate to" either of them is another question.

September 8, 2008 4:35 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Nip - "And tep and dylan, if it's time to put away the "change" slogan, why is McCain trying so hard to steal it?"

He needs to distance himself from the GOP and Bush. Obama needs to destroy McCain, through fair means or foul.

Again, I'm not expressing a wish here, just an objective view of the situation.

September 8, 2008 4:39 PM

ChanRobt said:

DrDanny writes, "...And if you think the American public is really, really smart and deserving of respect, I would invite you to watch an episode of "The Real Housewives of Orange County."

Danny, I either believe in Democracy or at least in the wisdom of crowds.  I think if you look at the 50 or so presidential elections we've had since 1787, you will find that Americans have a pretty good record of making the best choice.

Yeah, we've had some turkeys.  We've even had entire strings of turkeys.  But we've done a lot better than nations employing the divine right of kings, men on white horses, or probably even parliamentary systems.  

Probably there are more great American presidents, judged by world standards, then great Prime Ministers of England.  Though, next to Lincoln, Winston Churchill is my favorite leader (and democratically elected) of all time.

September 8, 2008 4:41 PM

ChanRobt said:

Lundell writes, "...t's safe to say more are on the left, some of the more stalwart women who have been elected are extremely conservative.  I count Palin among the latter."

Yes, Lundell, well said.  And the most stalwart woman of all (since Elizabeth I) Maggie Thatcher should be added to your list.

September 8, 2008 4:45 PM

hemlock41 said:

Chan: I can see from your relentlessly mocking posts, which pay insufficiently close attention to what the targets of your snideness have actually said, why you so readily "relate to" Palin.

September 8, 2008 4:54 PM

ironyroad said:

"Though, next to Lincoln, Winston Churchill is my favorite leader (and democratically elected) of all time."

You don't believe Lincoln was democratically elected?

September 8, 2008 4:58 PM

drdannyu said:

We have had quite the turkey-string lately.  And nothing McCain has done recently reassures me that he isn't Grade A poultry.

September 8, 2008 4:58 PM

Nippers said:

Chan,

Apologies for pestering, but you still haven't answered my question, and I am genuinely curious: how does a thoughtful conservative embrace a candidate about whom we know so little? I mean, I assume you, like McCain, conducted a thorough assessment of her candidacy before expressing your support for her. As I said above:

You and Bush agree: "John McCain made an inspired pick." --GWB

I don't get it. I spend months trying to figure out whether I can risk voting for a talented if young candidate. I watch the debates. I read the profiles and the analysis and the policy papers. I assess his campaigning skills and compare them to those of his rivals. Then, after several months of this, not without reservations, I support him.

You and Bush, what do you know about Palin? What's her position on health care? Education reform (aside from adding creationism to the curriculum)? What kind of temperament does she have when it comes to foreign policy? What's her fiscal policy? Her record in Alaska, a state flush with both oil money and federal pork, won't tell you much about what she'd do with the national debt.

I don't get it, Chan. I mean I could kind of understand if your main goal was to advance the evangelical agenda, but I know you're more thoughtful than that. You know she can deliver a speech that someone else wrote for her. That's enough for you?

It's like buying a house without touring it or inspecting it just because you like the realtor's ad. Or like the Dems putting Obama on the ticket back in 2004, after that fine speech of his, when we really had no idea who he was or what he was proposing to do.

September 8, 2008 5:01 PM

lesserliz said:

It's not that the American people are stupid it's just that the system is rigged against them. As I've often pointed out and won't bother to again elaborate on, the two major parties are both sides of the same coin-the people have no real choice(Was W and his GOP Congress any different than LBJ and his Dem one on the biggies of war and spending?). As the Roman senator said "Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they'll roar"(I didn't read Gibbons that is from "Gladiator" with Russell Crowe).

September 8, 2008 5:06 PM

ChanRobt said:

wandrey writes, "...So I guess that means I'm a big old snob if I wonder about the five colleges it took to get her BA in (ironically) journalism?"

Wandrey, I don't know the circumstances of her several university changes, do you.  But, so what?  did she flunk out of four colleges before she finally got a degree?  Was she perhaps short on money and have to stop several times to complete her units?

I would remind you that Abraham Lincoln, our most brilliant president, and most brilliant writer among presidents, only had about two years of formal education.  Everything else he learned by writing and application towards knowledge.

Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant student, but attended what were by definition provincial schools and universities (William and Mary).  Yet how many in our own age amongst politicians could match Jefferson's writing or erudition?  

Meanwhile, some of our most successful presidents don't have what you (self admitted) snobs would consider very impressive diplomas:  Truman (no degree), Reagan (Eurkea College), Andrew Jackson (no degree), to grab a few.

Meanwhile, let's look at some of the Ivy Leaguers in the White House:  the much reviled George Bush (two Ivy degrees);  first George Bush, Yale, failed to be re-elected.  Jack Kennedy, whom I like a lot.  But has essentially been eviscerated posthumously for bringing us The Best and the Brightest; Bill Clinton, Yale, Yale, impeached.  Plus Richard Nixon, not Ivy, but Duke;  Jimmy Carter, not Ivy but Annapolis.

We've had some superbly educated highly successful presidents.  We've had some ill educated highly successful presidents.  And we've had some people with no cachet to their degrees in the first rank of presidents.

To a great extent, impressive educational credentials don't seem to correlate with impressive performance in the White House.  Maybe because in political pursuits, people skills and good judgement, are more important than how gilded is your degree.

September 8, 2008 5:08 PM

chemist said:

drdannyu  said:

Fine, chemist, if you would like REASONS I think Palin demonstrates the stupidity of the American people, I will list them:

Very good. Thanks for the effort. Very good. So now I have it clear. You espouse elitism. By that I mean that a select few determine the policies for the rest of us "stupid" Americans. How might we go about doing this? May I be so bold as to suggest an IQ test for voting rights?

September 8, 2008 5:08 PM

teplukhin2you said:

ick - "Weren't you the one, throughout the primaries, asking for "the detailed 52-point plans" and dumping on Obama precisely because of the "bumper sticker simplicity" of his campaign?"

No, I said he should get real and focus on working families, economic security, help the puppies not the yuppies etc. Same as it ever was. Royal road to the WH for every Dem in any year.

September 8, 2008 5:09 PM

ChanRobt said:

Nipper writes, "...But Chan, can you answer my questions above? What do you really know about her politics--not her personality or her church but her politics?"

Very little with any certainty, Nipper.  But, I would far rather take my chances with her on the jump seat than with Obama in the pilot's seat.

Obama will bring in with him an entire population of cabinet members, most of whom I will not like.  He will appoint judges I cannot stand.  And will push for policies I find anathema.  While having majorities in both houses.

Palin shows every sign of having good old fashioned American common sense in the Truman mode.  And, much to the point, should McCain die in office, she will be surrounded by a cabinet I will trust, advisors with whom I share ideology, and should she appoint judges, I'll like find them agreeable.

In matters of war and peace, I'll be confident with McCain and frightened for my country with Obama.  

Should Palin be faced with questions of war and peace, she'll be advised by people whose instincts I will likely trust.  

And I find her temperament so far more trustworthy than that of the vacillating Obama of Columbia and Harvard, two institutions I no longer trust with America's security.

September 8, 2008 5:16 PM

icarusr said:

hemlock: when Chan is not mocking, he is accusing Democrats of being like the Brownshirts.  But in particular, I thought this line precious: "Or into another 2000 style tie."

He means, he fully expects the Republicans to steal this election as well.  Why bother arguing about Democracy, when all you need are five judges of the Supreme Court and the Governor of a major state to secure your Presidency.

Chan: Blackie does not live in the US and DrDan has hardly given up.  Come November 5,let's see who'll be whining.

September 8, 2008 5:16 PM

chemist said:

Wandreycer1  said:

"Even very smart people are sometimes manipulable."

I love that Hemlock and I'm wantng to agree with you, I just don't see how someone truly smart could be attracted to snarling, sarcasm, division, easily disproved lies.  I just don't see where smart fits in to that.

Another point of interest. Now its not just being smart... it's being "truly" smart. I take it that the operative definition of that is votes the same way you do?

September 8, 2008 5:28 PM

ChanRobt said:

Nippers writes, "...You and Bush agree: "John McCain made an inspired pick." --GWB  ...I don't get it. I spend months trying to figure out whether I can risk voting for a talented if young candidate..."

What's the first rule of politics, Nippers?  Answer:  get elected.  If you don't do that, everything else is academic.

The Palin choice was "inspired" in the sense that anybody else in the known set of candidates he might have picked would not have shaken up and changed the story and dynamics of this race the way the Palin thing did.

Jindahl might have created some stir.  But nothing like this.  And he would have taken plenty of knocks for youth (and probably racial things) as well.  

Any of the rest-- Romeny, the gov of MN, etc-- big yawns all and McCain would have been guaranteed to lose.

It has always been thus.  Look at who the sainted FDR chose:  James Nance Garner,  He