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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"Why Palin Scares Me"

SHE DOESN'T!  ha, ha, ha,....

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

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.  

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.  

drdannyu, well played sir. Perfect.

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."

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.

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.

William Y!  Destroys!

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.)

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.

yard- i love it. PERFECT!

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.

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?).  

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

You don't believe Lincoln was democratically elected?

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

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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,  Henry Wallace (would have been a DISASTER and lost us the Cold War in '46.  Finally Harry Truman.  Who would not have been predicted to be a great prez.)

Look at who Jack Kennedy picked.  Lyndon Johnson, a known to be highly corrupt son of a bitch.  He was a lowlife in the White House, an embarrassment to us internationally.  And as president, both highly successful (Civll Rights) and one of our greatest disasters (Viet Nam).

Look at who Mondale picked:  Geraldine Ferraro.  Would you have wanted her as president during the decisive decade of the Cold War?  Of course, I wouldn't have wanted Mondale in that era, either.

icarusr writes (quoting me), "...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..."

Oh, icarusr, you girls are getting hysterical again.  Do you think the Republicans engineered the tie in Florida so that they could have the fun of a months uncertainty and a trip to the Supreme Court?

As to the Brownshirts characterization you referenced, as you well know, it was not aimed at Democrats as a whole, but at campus Lefties.  

Most particularly the type at Columbia who in recent years have more than once forced Rightist speakers off the stage at that university.  

Those are rightly called "Brownshirt" tactics and totally unacceptable in a democracy or on a American university campus.  Yet the perpetrators were not rebuked or brought to justice by the Columbia administrators.

You yourself, in willfully misquoting the context of my attack, willfully and purposely distorted my meaning.

Which I don't mind at all, as it serves to illustrate my point about the Left.

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

Oh, I see, icarusr, even though Blackie is an American, because he happens to be living right now in Mexico he has no reason to care about what happens in our country.

The sentiments of a true patriot, ick.

As to DrDanny, reread his remarks.  He may not have totally capitulated, but he is (prematurely) imagining defeat.

And as to your last remark, please note, I made a point of saying I take nothing for granted.  This is almost certainly going to be a close run race that can go either way.

And yes, maybe another tie.

chemist, spare me your faux indignation.  If you care to rebut my points, go for it.  If you think Palin is a brilliant potential president, please use this space to lay out the reasons.  I'm all ears.

I'm quite disappointed that "Me Talk Pretty One Day" isn't on Palin's banned-books list.

Hated it.

Hate, hate, hate.

I'm a hater.

If Palin promises she'll ban it, I'll vote for her. Twice, maybe--I think my (deceased) Mom is still on the absentee ballot list.

hemlock writes, "...Debbie Wasserman Schultz is another woman who has been very willing to criticize Palin quite forcefully."

I don't know Ms. Wasserman.  She might be great for the job.  I do know Barbara Boxer, all too well, being a Californian.  A terribly unpalatable person and certain to turn off the Ohioans and Pennsylvanians you must win.

hemlock writes, "...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."

I do "relate to" Palin, hem.  At least, at first blush find her enormously attractive because she's got moxie.  And more natural zotz than any contemporary politician.  

That she has created such an enormous stir (including right here today) proves the point.

Does that guarantee she'll wear well or be a great president should she inherit that office?  No.  

But, in the context of this discussion, that's no longer the question on the table.  The question is all about politics.  And who is going to win this election.  And whether Palin is golden for McCain's cause, or vulnerable to attacks from, say, Barbara Boxer.

I'm making the assumption that Palin is going to channel white resentment in a way that McCain can't -- and perhaps wouldn't be quite comfortable doing, despite his brownnosing of the GOP evangelical base.  The question remains if that will achieve anything substantial, as history suggests that ultimately the second string is unimportant.

"I take it that the operative definition [of "truly smart"] of that is votes the same way you do?"

Hmmm, now how could I possibly have known that this would be the rejoinder?

There's no concise/formulaic way to define what I assume Wandrey means by "truly smart" in this context (which is not, by the way, a phrase I would use myself -- I'd opt for "informed decision-making" or something like that.) And any attempt to define the conditions of such decision-making would of course be open to challenge/debate. But whatever the criteria of "informed decision-making" [or of being "truly smart"] are, they sure as heck don't boil down to: "ooooooh, she's a hockey mom!!!"

Nor do they boil down to an excludes-all-other-concerns-and-values appeal to "god, guns, and babies" (to borrow George Will's formulation from yesterday's This Week.) And that is precisely what is fueling Palin's celebrity.

I wouldn't say "imagining."  Rather, "bracing myself for..."  Just in case.

ironyroad writes, "...You don't believe Lincoln was democratically elected?"

The conext of what I wrote was that democratically elected leaders have been better on average than any other kind.  My paragraph was either out of context for where you picked up, or imprecisely crafted.

Were I Obama, (Axelrod et al.) I would adopt and ceaselessly repeat some form of the argument:

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for tax and tax, spend and spend, until you and I are broke, with no hope  of relief.

drdannyu  said:

chemist, spare me your faux indignation.  If you care to rebut my points, go for it.  If you think Palin is a brilliant potential president, please use this space to lay out the reasons.  I'm all ears.

I didn't say I think Palin was a brilliant potential president. I took issue with you calling the American public stupid. I asked what your remedy might be for a political system that faces the problem of a stupid electorate. I can think of only thing. An IQ for voting rights would seem to be something you should be advocating. Do you or do you not think the American public is stupid? If not, then I have no argument with you. If you do then I ask have you given any thought to how we deal with that problem? Should we just ignore it or should we change our voting system to overcome the problem?

drdannyu  said:

chemist, spare me your faux indignation.  If you care to rebut my points, go for it.  If you think Palin is a brilliant potential president, please use this space to lay out the reasons.  I'm all ears.

I didn't say I think Palin was a brilliant potential president. I took issue with you calling the American public stupid. I asked what your remedy might be for a political system that faces the problem of a stupid electorate. I can think of only one thing. An IQ test for voting rights would seem to be something you should be advocating. Do you or do you not think the American public is stupid? If not, then I have no argument with you. If you do then I ask have you given any thought to how we deal with that problem? Should we just ignore it or should we change our voting system to overcome the problem? Are there other ways to do this other than by an IQ test for voting rights?

The latest Washington Post /ABC poll shows Obama's lead dropping from 6 points in mid-August to 1

Nippers, no apologies necessary, you're not pestering.

I think I've answered your question in one of the above posts.  At this point, we're discussing the politics of the situation rather than the sober question of "which ticket, after sober examination, do you judge the better."

My answer is what I stated above:  if Obama is elected, I know my interests and my beliefs will be compromised and countered.  I would be very worried at the prospect of Obama in the Oval office.  Right or wrong, I don't trust him.

McCain I trust.  Palin comes out of familiar soil and strikes me as having the common sense instincts of other heartland types (Truman, for instance) who proved to be trustworthy.  

Nippers, I have found in my life that when I made important decisions using a spreadsheet, I fucked myself every time.  When I followed my instincts, I always won.  There's a book about this phenom called, BLINK.

Channy -- just joking just joking! (but the syntax of the parenthetical remark was a bit weird).

I'm glad Boxer was willing to take on Palin--she is a well established politician who can take the risk. But any woman who is closer to the beginning, rather than the end, of her political career is taking a risk going after Palin.  Napolitano has already said that the treatment of Palin by the press is sexist.  I doubt you see her on the attack. Hillary has already said she won't go after her, only McCain.  She has her own future to protect, especially among moderate women. Sebelius is the only one to jump into that snake pit, and we'll see how that helps/hurts her.

But the point is, hemlock, that women are not all liberals and all pro-choice, but that doesn't mean they don't support women's rights.  I think you missed my point--conservative women can be feminists, and often are.  The world has changed, and last year's Pew poll of evangelicals proves it.  They don't expect to stay at home being baby machines.  They look forward to careers and equality in the work place.  Feminism is not synonymous with reproductive rights--that is an oversimplification of the movement that was made by radical feminists in the 1970s.  Feminism is more broadly defined by equality in politics, education, and the economy.   Aren't conservatives entitled to have their female representation?  I don't like Palin's views, but I respect the fact that  conservative women  have their representation. They aren't all waiting to get married and stay home with the kids.

I just get tired of the inaccurate stereotyping of women, saying things like "His (Obama's) policies are much better for women than McCain's."  Let women voters decide that.   Some women might agree, but others might not support partial birth abortion or higher taxes on the small business they own.  Women start and run a tremendous number of the small business in America today, and they have fiscal issues at heart, not just social issues.  Women's issues are not just social/reproductive.  They worry about foreign policy, taxes, mortgage payments, education, and other issues as well.  I don't agree with Palin on much, but I welcome her presence to open up the dialog about women--the world has to stop viewing them in such narrow terms.

Chan: "...she's got moxie.  And more natural zotz than any contemporary politician."

Agreed.

hemlock41 said:

"I take it that the operative definition [of "truly smart"] of that is votes the same way you do?"

Hmmm, now how could I possibly have known that this would be the rejoinder?

There's no concise/formulaic way to define what I assume Wandrey means by "truly smart" in this context (which is not, by the way, a phrase I would use myself -- I'd opt for "informed decision-making" or something like that.) And any attempt to define the conditions of such decision-making would of course be open to challenge/debate. But whatever the criteria of "informed decision-making" [or of being "truly smart"] are, they sure as heck don't boil down to: "ooooooh, she's a hockey mom!!!"

Nor do they boil down to an excludes-all-other-concerns-and-values appeal to "god, guns, and babies" (to borrow George Will's formulation from yesterday's This Week.) And that is precisely what is fueling Palin's celebrity.

Point taken and I have no serious argument with what you state. I've simply become annoyed of late with the sloppy arguments I've seen here. I guess I expect better from this site. People often fall into the "American public is stupid" trap. This seems to me to be pointless unless you truly espouse some sort of limitation of voting rights. The very basis of our Constitution is one man, one vote. To argue against that is dangerous. At least I think it is. But there seems to be so much of that these days on both sides. I caution everyone here. If you are basing your arguments on "my opponents are stupid and all the people that agree with me are smart" then you have no argument at all.

Ask and ye shall receive:  www.youtube.com/watch

(Obama's ad attacking the maverick shtick.)

Haven't you noticed the balance on your credit card is getting higher and higher, but you've been spending less and less, and getting less for your money. Your mortgage payment is higher now than a year ago, and your house is worth less? What happened? John McCain wants you to know that the economy is fine. What's wrong with this picture?

Banks got rich by selling loans for nothing and telling you the market would pay for it, and you would be money ahead in five years when you  sell your house and buy another one from them and so on. It didn't make a lot of sense to you, but they told you everybody's doing it, and we'll help you to do it too. So now they've sold you a house, and make money because their shareholders also like the idea of getting rich without paying for it.

And the government let them do it. Why? because the banks could afford to pay lobbyists who would promise to pay politicians if the went along. So nobody said anything bad about the idea. They were making money.

Now what just happened in the past six months. Those banks started going broke - can you  believe it? the same banks that sold you your house and said you would make money, too, very soon, they went broke - but not to worry, the government, your government, is going to pay off all the money they owe to other banks in China, and give them a big tax break.

And whose money was it before it was the banks, their shareholders, their banks, and now their 100 billion bail out by your government? Yours, right?

And now you are going to have to pay more to get less food on your table and your children make do with last year's clothes, and now you're also paying the government, the banks, their lobbyists, for John McCain's ten homes and a broken military that is finding it harder every day to protect you and your children, and getting less pay.

Whose money was it, *is it* you are losing because of the broken promises and failed policies of George Bush and John McCain. You know, you'll be paying for it for the next twenty years, the debt, the profits, the lobbyists and on and on.

That's a tax Republican's want you to believe you're not paying, and they give you what? $300.00, one time, go and buy some more they say to make the economy healthier. But John McCain wants you to know the economy is in great shape.

That's a tax on your income, your credit card, your mortgage. Welcome to the consumer tax, the homeowner's tax, the bank tax, the lobby tax, the safety tax. You're paying and they're taking, and they call it revenue and they tell you they need more of it.

They don't have a name for it, because they don't want you to know they created it. The life and living tax?

Tax and tax. Tax and Tax, tax and tax tax and tax tax and tax. Can you believe it, ladies and gentlemen? The biggest tax increase in the history of our nation. And you and I are paying for it, all of it, with our money, nobody else's.

The preceding campaign message is way too long and wordy, but the strategy is simple.

"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend." "George Bush's and John McCain's policies that will keep the economy healthy and growing, while you and I are broke, with no relief in sight."

Money quote..

"ENOUGH!!!"

"I just get tired of the inaccurate stereotyping of women, saying things like "His (Obama's) policies are much better for women than McCain's."  Let women voters decide that.  Some women might agree, but others might not support partial birth abortion or higher taxes on the small business they own.  Women start and run a tremendous number of the small business in America today, and they have fiscal issues at heart, not just social issues.  Women's issues are not just social/reproductive.  They worry about foreign policy, taxes, mortgage payments, education, and other issues as well.  I don't agree with Palin on much, but I welcome her presence to open up the dialog about women--the world has to stop viewing them in such narrow terms."

Which is all to say that "women's issues" are just "issues."  But it's not for nothing that there has been a persistent gender gap of 7-12 points over the past few decades.  That is, women, more than men, have tended to prefer Democratic candidates, and that probably has at least something to do with the type of policies they support, regardless of whether economic issues, social issues, or whatever.else is the main draw.

And it's trivial to say that it's for women voters to decide.  It's like saying in response to the claim that Obama's policies are better for Americans in general that that's for Americans to decide.  It's a claim about *why* voters should decide one way or the other.  There's nothing insidious about saying "Vote for me because my policies are better than the other guy's."

chemist writes:

"Point taken and I have no serious argument with what you state. I've simply become annoyed of late with the sloppy arguments I've seen here. I guess I expect better from this site. People often fall into the "American public is stupid" trap. This seems to me to be pointless unless you truly espouse some sort of limitation of voting rights. The very basis of our Constitution is one man, one vote. To argue against that is dangerous. At least I think it is. But there seems to be so much of that these days on both sides. I caution everyone here. If you are basing your arguments on "my opponents are stupid and all the people that agree with me are smart" then you have no argument at all."

This is sort of a narrow way of viewing things.  One can easily criticize voters without criticizing the process of voting.  For instance, I thought voters made the wrong decision when they chose Bush over Kerry, but I didn't and don't advocate a nondemocratic system because the democratic result was, in my view, bad for the country.

YOU HAVE A CHOICE

THE CHANGE THEY WANT

THE CHANGE WE'LL DELIVER

OBAMA/

BIDEN

ACCOUNTABLE!

"I'M BARACK OBAMA

I'M JOE BIDEN

AND WE APPROVE THIS MESSAGE

hemlock,

I was hoping they'd use that "Nowhere, Alaska" t-shirt picture.  That's worth more than a dozen quotes from fact-checking organizations.

Incidentally, did anyone else notice the source for the "A Naked Lie" line at the end?  The New Republic 9/8/08.  Good to know that they're reading (although they probably shouldn't make a habit of quoting blogs as 3rd party validation).

Alan is exactly right (re: narrow way of seeing things.)

Just because there are big downsides to democracy as a form of government doesn't mean there aren't some important things it has going for it, which outweigh the problems. Off the top of my head (in my current intensely cynical state), the only thing in its favor I can think of is that all the other forms of government are worse. (Variation on famous Churchill quote. Contains much truth.) In a better frame of mind, I'm sure I could come up with at least one or two other admirable features.

Yes, the "nowhere" tshirt is great. But my favorite part of the ad is the whiplash sound effect: priceless.

I also noticed the TNR reference, and under normal circumstances I'd agree about citing blogs. But right now I'm thinking: whatever works.

AlanSP writes, "...there has been a persistent gender gap of 7-12 points over the past few decades...women, more than men, have tended to prefer Democratic candidates, and that probably has at least something to do with the type of policies they support, regardless of whether economic issues, social issues..."

AlanSP, you don't break it down far enough.  Yes, women favor the Dems.  But white women, and especially married white women, favor the Republicans by 6 or 7 points in the case of Bush over Kerry.

Which means, women only prefer the Dems if they are poor or young and feel they can't take care of themselves.  

Women with stable lives, who create businesses, who have their shit together, favor the GOP.

White men have not voted for a Democrat for president in 40 years.

With the exception of well educated knowledge worker types, Dems generally only do well with people who for whatever reason, whether their own fault or not, can't take responsibility for their own lives.

Really, the biggest problem facing Obama and the Dems is that they left Denver focused on the inauguration, not the campaign.  They also stirred up a hornet's nest with their utterly beyond-the-pale ridiculing of Palin, the vicious smear about her daughter being the actual mother of Trig (even today 9/8, Vanity Fair STILL has the ridiculous post "The Authoritative Trig Conspiracy Time Line" - www.vanityfair.com/.../the-authoritative-trig-palin-conspiracy-time-line.html )

On paper, she is no more or less qualified than Obama.  So constantly repeating, over and over, that she is clearly unqualified, is simply stupid.  If she does come out saying dumb things in the next few weeks, then by all means call her on it - but at least have the good sense to wait for her to say something like that first.

Or maybe you can join the crowd up in Alaska trying to prove that she cheated at a beauty contest 24 years ago.

Regarding "trooper gate", I really doubt that the American people are going to be upset to learn that she tried to fire a state trooper who Tasered a child, drank on the job, and threatened to kill two people.  Liberals used to call somebody like that a rogue cop and try to get him fired too - not build their Presidential campaign around the hope that maybe somebody might have violated union rules by trying to get him canned.

AlanSP wrote:

This is sort of a narrow way of viewing things.  One can easily criticize voters without criticizing the process of voting.  For instance, I thought voters made the wrong decision when they chose Bush over Kerry, but I didn't and don't advocate a nondemocratic system because the democratic result was, in my view, bad for the country.

I'll post once again the comment that I was referring to originally:

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.

Criticizing voters with reasoned argument is one thing. When things don't go your way and your conclusion is the voting public is a bunch of idiots is another. I'd consider THAT a narrow way of viewing things.

I'm tired of hearing the argument that the other side is stupid. IQ isn't everything in politics. There are smart people on both sides. There always have been and I assume there always will be.

To his credit Obama himself has been very reasoned and careful in his arguments. Some of his supporters make it harder for him. How do you expect him to get votes from the undecided middle with arguments like "If you don't vote for him you're stupid". This is foolish and counterproductive.

Chan writes: "Nippers, I have found in my life that when I made important decisions using a spreadsheet, I fucked myself every time.  When I followed my instincts, I always won.  There's a book about this phenom called, BLINK."

Funny, Chan, the Bush administration used your technique and had the opposite results. There *are* books about this phenomenon, several of them by New Yorker writers, but Malcom Gladwell's _Blink_ isn't among them. (Note that Gladwell himself warns against "the Warren Harding Effect," choosing a bad but appealing president, and the Amadou Diallo approach to firing first and investigating later.) Try instead Jane Mayer's _The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals_.

Not spreadsheets, Chan. Not spreadsheets.

chemist - anyone who doesn't want to hold the party in power the last eight years accountable for their abyssmal, destructive performance is not intelligent.  They are acting from emotionality, resentment, immaturity.

I think that's stupid and I stand by it. It's Berlin 1929.

Wandreycer1 said:

chemist - anyone who doesn't want to hold the party in power the last eight years accountable for their abyssmal, destructive performance is not intelligent.  They are acting from emotionality, resentment, immaturity.

I think that's stupid and I stand by it. It's Berlin 1929.

I applaud your honesty. The election is likely to be close one way or the other. So if McCain wins with a minimal margin your conclusion is that greater than 50% of the American public is not intelligent. I honestly don't believe Barack Obama would agree with that but it is surely evidence of the split in this country.

Once again, I truly appreciate your honesty. Most people who have that opinion will not admit it.

You do realize I'm sure that the other side could come to the same conclusion. Then we have the classic standoff and nothing gets done because each side thinks the other is stupid.  I suppose that is one of the great wisdoms of our founding fathers. They realized that in a roomful of 10 people if you can't get 6 out of 10 to agree with your law then it shouldn't be enacted.

Chan

"Palin shows every sign of having good old fashioned American common sense in the Truman mode."

Nothing screams common sense more than a fanatical belief in creationism.

Science is hogwash, common sense tells her that an omnipotent being created billions of species in a week.

Feel free to believe what you want but don't say it is common sense.

chemist, I don't think people can just "come to the same conclusion" from any perspective -- in contrast to the relatively positive state of affairs in 2000, the Republicans are responsible for the following achievements over the past eight years:

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.

Is this not a reasonable invoice to present McCain with?  The idea that a majority of Americans would vote for a four-year extension of this disaster doesn't make them stupid (and it's nothing to do with IQ), but it does raise the question as to whether they find the above unobjectionable.  And if so, why?

ironyroad said:

Is this not a reasonable invoice to present McCain with?  The idea that a majority of Americans would vote for a four-year extension of this disaster doesn't make them stupid (and it's nothing to do with IQ), but it does raise the question as to whether they find the above unobjectionable.  And if so, why?

Of course that is reasonable Reasoned debate is always a good thing. My point is that roughly 50% of the public is aware of the issues you state. They would present you with a laundry list of Republican positions framed to their point of view. The way this system works is that every four years we have a debate and decide by election, one man, one vote. My objection has been to comments like this:

I think that's stupid and I stand by it. It's Berlin 1929.

There you have it. A vote for McCain is the moral equivalent of a vote for Hitler.

This is Debate 101. When you equate your opponent to Hitler you lose.

BHO has been trying to get away from this sort of thing. A lot of what I hear from his supporters here is just more of the same. I tend to believe this loses votes for him. You're trying to persuade the few out there now that are legitimately undecided. You won't do it by calling them Hitler supporters by not listening to you. But that's what I hear. If I vote for McCain I'm either stupid, amoral, a Hitler sympathizer, a racist, you name it. Who wants to be associated with people like that? Its just counterproductive.

Irony,

Thank you for that catalog. A bracing tonic of a reminder.

Hey ChanRobt, when Bush looked into Putin's soul, did he blink?

As for the intelligence of the American people, my hunch is that it is comparable to that of humanity in general. The problem to my mind isn't stupidity but inattentiveness. We invented the strategy that China's government has used so successfully to tamp down democratic urges: keep them shopping, keep them happy. Happy but also vaguely scared.

The question this election: How many Americans are still shopping?

"They would present you with a laundry list of Republican positions framed to their point of view."

It doesn't worry me that the Republican party faithful would do that, chemist.  It worries me that, in your words, "50% of the American public" woudl echo what they say.  There are, after all, some objective criteria in life, no?  If someone's kid comes home from school with a report card that has a bunch of C's on it, it's unlikely that that individual parent -- even if a conservative Republican -- would accept the excuse that they are in fact A's and if the school board were only run by conservatives, it would all change.

We have major national problems to deal with, and no indication that McCain takes them seriously -- or, if he does, that he has any reasonable sense of how to approach solving them.

"If I vote for McCain I'm either stupid, amoral, a Hitler sympathizer, a racist, you name it. Who wants to be associated with people like that? Its just counterproductive."

I see your point, chemist. But, to be fair, are McCain's followers any different? I have the impression (biased of course, but strong) that they're actually worse. After all, voting for Obama in their eyes makes you vacuous (an empty suit follower), stupid (since he has absolutely no, and I mean NO, experience, judgment or knowledge), immaturely entranced (he's a Kook-Aid dispenser), treasonous (he puts his career ahead of his country's chances of victory in war), murderous (he "supports" allowing born-alive fetuses to be killed [a total misrepresentation of his vote]), etc.

Why don't you have similar frustration and antipathy, then, for McCain followers?

That should be "Kool-Aid" (not Kook-Aid.)

ChanRobt writes

"AlanSP, you don't break it down far enough.  Yes, women favor the Dems.  But white women, and especially married white women, favor the Republicans by 6 or 7 points in the case of Bush over Kerry.

Which means, women only prefer the Dems if they are poor or young and feel they can't take care of themselves.  

Women with stable lives, who create businesses, who have their shit together, favor the GOP."

WTF??  Could you get more offensive ChanRobt?  Probably so.  Sorry I asked.

Only non-white, poor, young, unstable, shitless and business-hating women - vote Democrat?

p.s. I actually *don't* follow the "Hitler sympathizer" part of your list. (I don't see how Obama supporters are implying that McCain supporters are Hitler sympathizers.) I was not factoring that in to my comparison as it seems even more over the top to me than any of the other implied (or explicit) charges directed by one side at the other.

"Chan

"Palin shows every sign of having good old fashioned American common sense in the Truman mode."

Chan, this is absolute nonsense.  If you can find me one entire sentence that she has uttered since this gruesome farce started, that contains anything resembling the truth, you'll be he only one who has.  Please open your eyes:  everythng that comes out of the woman's mouth is an easily disproved lie, including "and" and "the" as Dorothy Parker said about Lillian Hellman.

You are projecting on to her your fantasies of what you need her to be - not what she is. Which quite patronizing, not holding her accountable for her compulsive lying and religio-gibberish beliefs, just because she's earthy and exotic to you.  Oooo a moose hunter, how Truman-esque!  Facts Channy, stick with the facts, not fantasies.

You're acting like an old coot in love - again, the entire Reoublican establshment is acting from emotionality, immaturity, manufactured resentment and couldnt give the first farthng about accountability for the last eight years.  It's like dealing with an army if 12 year olds.

Psst - Hemlock, the Hitler supporters thing I own too - that's probably where it came from.  I call Palin the Hitler Prom Queen.  Her views are totally facist.  I am not blinded by the cute butt or her fecunidty, I see her for exacly what she is.

PS  Book banning - another Trumanesque cutesy!  Just love her!

Wow.  Go home, have dinner, get some sleep... and come back to the conversation more rested.

So, scanning the comments, I'll try to pick up where I left off.

chemist, I do not literally think that roughly 50% of the American voting public is stupid.  For that matter, of the stupid people out there, I'm sure a substantial number are supporting Obama for stupid reasons.  However, I think Americans, by and large, have a number of unfortunate attributes, among them being over-fed, bellicose and incurious, that over time lead to stupid results.  The sudden Palin love-fest, despite any number of troubling issues (to say the least) about her candidacy lends credence to this concern, at least from my POV.

And no, I do not advocate IQ testing for voting rights.  We get the results we get.  "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard" -- Mencken

Great idea chemist!  Senators were appointed until fairly recently - I think IQ tests for voting rights sounds like a fine idea.  

Never thought I'd ending up mining the exact words of my old nemisis (whom I greatly admired) William Buckley.  He thought so too.  

gregstolhand writes, "...Nothing screams common sense more than a fanatical belief in creationism. Science is hogwash, common sense tells her that an omnipotent being created billions of species in a week."

Your recitation is a ridiculous cartoon.  You have no idea what Palin believes, so give it a rest.

Meanwhile, it's perfectly simple to believe that God created the universe and also believe that within that God created universe, evolution could have taken place.  And billion of other phenomenon as well.

For that matter, under the Big Bank theory, the entire universe was created in an instant.  So, if you've got a beef, take it up with the physicists.

Feel free to believe what you want but don't say it is common sense.

AB asks, in response to my earlier post, "...Only non-white, poor, young, unstable, shitless and business-hating women - vote Democrat?"

With the big exception of upscale, well educated knowledge worker types, the answer is yes.

And that's because the college educated learned that it was uncool, unfashionable, and downright mean-spirited to be a Republican.

Having a degree-- or several of them-- doesn't make you any smarter.  It just means you have a degree.  Or several of them.

Something I've learned in giving job interviews to hundreds of college "educated".  

wandrey writes, "...You're acting like an old coot in love - again, the entire Reoublican establshment is acting from emotionality, immaturity, manufactured resentment and couldnt give the first farthng about accountability for the last eight years.  It's like dealing with an army if 12 year olds."

wandrey, being as McCain just picked up a 12 point lead among Independents, there must be a lotta old coots in their ranks as well.

Meanwhile, except for lacking Ivy League degrees, Palin's resume is actually superior to Obama's.  And she hasn't spent her entire career running for president.

wandrey writes, "...I call Palin the Hitler Prom Queen.  Her views are totally facist.  I am not blinded by the cute butt or her fecunidty, I see her for exacly what she is."

Wandrey, you've become totally unhinged.  I've not seen you so off the rails since the period when you were over the moon in love with Obama almost a year back.

You got over that crush.  I'm sure you'll come out of this as well.

uh, I meant, "...For that matter, under the Big Bang theory, the entire universe was created in an instant."

Big Bang.  Not Big Bank.  Although that latter theory is damn interesting, too.

Wandrey writes, "...I think IQ tests for voting rights sounds like a fine idea."

You may recall that originally, in order to vote, you had to be a property owner.

The assumption was, that made you a stable stakeholder in the country.  It also meant you were paying one of the few existing taxes, and thus deserved a vote.

And, I suppose in a rough way, it was a way of imposing an i.q. test on the electorate.  Or, at least a test of practical intelligence.

If you've got a beef, it is with progressives who over the past 200 years, have constantly lowered the bar on voting.  Right down to suggesting you ought to be able to just go online and simultaneously register and vote on election morning.

You think the electorate is stupid, wandrey?  Maybe you've got Democrats to blame for that.

Chan, in what universe is Palin's resume superior to Obama's?  Seriously, I can (barely) wrap my mind around an argument that they are roughly equivalent.  (I don't buy it, but I can understand it.)  Superior?  My eye.  Please explain.

Superior, danny, in that I value executive experience over legislative for a president.

And, in fact, former governors have performed better in the presidency than have former senators.

Of course, more governors have made it to the White House than have senators.  For good reasons.

Again, remove Columbia and Harvard from his resume and you have an undistinguished Chicago Machine pol who served a few terms in the state legislature.  

Then, he lucked into the Senate when a reasonably formidable GOP opponent got pushed out of the race in a sex scandal (not much of one).

No sooner does he get to the U.S. Senate, where his record is entirely unremarkable, then he starts running for president.

At least Palin has focused on her job these many years.  Not running for higher office perpetually.

I realize that I'm probably spitting into the wind, but here goes...

She is governor of a state wherein the citizenry have a negative tax burden, so I'm not sure I totally buy that her experience there is of particular value when it comes to the largest economy in the world.  She was mayor of a city that she has put into long-term debt, due in no small part to simple incompetence.  She came into her current prominence by rolling over on other members of her party, which probably comprised a fair measure of informed self-interest, and didn't stop her from cuddling up to Ted Stevens.  (I would call her electoral victory as compared to Obama's for his senate seat a wash.  And he out-maneuvered the Clintons, which ain't nothing.)  She continues to tout reformist credentials that are easily refuted by some irksome little facts, to the point that even the blinkered national media has noticed.  And I am particularly tickled by your description of a year and a half as "these many years."

And why, pray, should I remove Obama's being president of the Harvard Law Review from his resume?  And you may not be impressed by Obama's ethics legislation, or non-proliferation work, but let's not pretend that they don't exist.

So, again, I don't buy your argument that her resume is superior in any serious way.  Her experience as mayor is laughable.  Her experience as governor is short.  And her narrative is duplicitous.  Color me unimpressed.

it's the cool factor.

i am convinced that the clueless are attracted to Ms Palin because McCain had nothing cool about him and she boasts a short list of cool factors that people want to associate with.

good looking, great smile, sarcastic in a happy way, moose hunter. drops her 'ings', tremendous public speaking presence, horatio alger story

i have seen at least five 'she scares me' story headlines today proving that her fundamentalist mindset

and brainwashing have been completely effective and the power of the fear of the unknown oozes from her pores as much as it appears in her oratory.

here is an explanation for how you should get over the fear and get on with doing something other than hiding under a rock before your fantasy becomes your reality.

www.salon.com/.../palin_fundamentalist

voices.washingtonpost.com/.../obama_to_palin_dont_mock_the_c.html

"Psst - Hemlock, the Hitler supporters thing I own too - that's probably where it came from.  I call Palin the Hitler Prom Queen.  Her views are totally facist.  I am not blinded by the cute butt or her fecunidty, I see her for exacly what she is."

Sorry, Wandrey, I must have missed that. Gotta disagree with you on this point, then.

Any leader who bans books, who claims it's god's will that his/her policies be enacted (whether those policies be wars or pipelines or reproductive health initiatives), and who outlaws abortion including in cases of rape and incest, would be destroying bedrock forms of liberty. (And, for the record, beyond outlawing abortion I'm not sure Palin would actually want to do any of this stuff, though there are definitely some disturbing things in her record that raise the question)  Such a leader would be intruding into the most private reaches of individual life. The difference between such 'garden variety' dictatorship and Hitler's fascism is that the former squashes liberty without  seeking to prosecute or rationalize murder on an epic scale. Both are bad, to say the least; but I think the difference is worth recognizing.

By "prosecute" murder on an epic scale I meant "carry it out".

Scared of Palin???

Sarah Palin has brought a ray of sun shine to an other wise business as usual general election. She has made her views know to all. She has shown backbone in the world of the flip floppers. She says what she believes, and has not retracted.

Obama comes from the Chicago political machine.

He has catapulted through the CPM showing no personal backbone. ( I vote present) on most major issues leaves him room to flip or flop.

Palins view on the issues will be tested. If she can withstand the onslaught of the (OPM) Obama political machine, and stand behind her convictions without flip flopping then we have nothing to fear of Sarah Palin. All you have to do is agree, or disagree.

There *is* one exception that Palin would allow in a ban on abortion: it includes cases where abortion is necessary to save the mother's life. But what about the mother's mental well-being?

Imagine a 13 year old incest victim who is pregnant by her abuser. Palin would allow her no choice.

This is a draconian position. Scary, scary, scary.

Hemlock writes, "...any leader who bans books, who claims it's god's will that his/her policies be enacted (whether those policies be wars or pipelines or reproductive health initiatives)"

She did no such thing.  She invoked a prayer that God see our cause in Iraq as righteous.  Much as did Lincoln and Roosevelt did during their wars.

I saw the tapes of her prayers.  They have been totally distorted by extreme secularists in the media such as Rachel Maddow.  A lady who is well spoken burt very doctrinaire, and worse, not real bright.  Not as dumb as Olbermann, though.  Who could be?

Hemlock writes, "...and who outlaws abortion including in cases of rape and incest..."  

She has not advocated such laws, nor would she either as vice president or president be in a position to cause such laws to passed.

"She has shown backbone in the world of the flip floppers."

Possibly, or possibly not -- but it's irrelevant in any case, because she's not running for president.  McCain is, and he has flip-flopped on all the major positons that defined his politics for many years.  He's the only politician I can think of who has said that he now wouldn't vote for his own legislation.

This election is about new directions, or four more years of the same.

From Chan's post: "Hemlock writes, "...any leader who bans books, who claims it's god's will that his/her policies be enacted (whether those policies be wars or pipelines or reproductive health initiatives)"

She did no such thing."

Read more carefully, Chan!  I did NOT say Palin herself actually did these things. I said, in the abstract, that *any* leader who does these things, be they a him or her, is squashing liberty. I then explicitly acknowledged that I didn't know if Palin herself actually even *wanted* to do these things.

By the way, I've seen the tape of her call for prayer about the war and pipeline. I agree with you about the war, but am less sure about the pipeline. I think her words on that are open to interpretation.

Based on everything I've read and on what her own aide in Alaska said in an interview on CNN the other night, I think you are wrong about her position on abortion. My understanding is that she *supports* outlawing abortion except in cases where the mothers life is in danger. The aide was asked, what about rape and incest? And, if I recall correctly, she replied by simply saying that the only exception Palin supports is to save the mother's life.

Chan,  You're right that she would not necessarily be in a position to cause such laws to be passed(that is, laws banning abortion except to save mother's life). My wording (e.g. "Palin would allow [the incest victim] no choice") may have unintentionally made it sound like she would be. That's not what I intended. I meant that, as far as I can tell from everything I've read in the press so far, Palin's ideal moral world would be one in which the incest victim would not have a legal choice to terminate her pregnancy. If I am mistaken in interpreting her views in this way, please point me toward comments she has made to indicate that she would favor exceptions for rape and incest.  OR, point me to comments she has made saying that although she herself favors no such exceptions in principle, she does not believe that law/policy should be used to deprive women of choice in such cases.

She is running for office, after all; doesn't she have an obligation to let the public know exactly what her views are on matters of public concern by speaking clearly about them? (I think her aide did so, on her behalf, the other night; but you seem to think Palin's views are not well represented by what I understood from her aide's statement. What are your grounds?)

It is surprising, but we must admit that Palin has awakened the middle class, and the Mom's of America, plus the undecided voters,  When the Palin style eye glasses have now been sold out nation wide, we must try to see beyond the end of the ballot (no pun intended!).  We must look at her context of political and American values. Don't be quagmirred in the cost of her dress or jewelry, but her influence on the average voter's life. God only knows why Hillary was not selected as VP, that was a national tragitigy. Now, we can only hope that Hillary will way defeat OBama in 2012 for the nomination. And how did America let a democratic nominee make the singe choice (denial) as a running mate when 18 million women voted otherwise? Politics needs amending, so help us God.

Palin's detailed views on abortion don't really matter much.

Even if she became president;  even if she appointed Supreme Court justices; even if Roe came before that court;  even if the Palin justices caused the court to overturn Roe; even if all those things happened, it would be up to each and every of the 50 states to write their own laws about abortion.  

Few if any of those states would exclude rape or incest as grounds for an abortion.

A friend who is overseas called me in a panic (at a dollar a minute, he confessed) to ask what was happening

The New York Times /CBS poll out today (write-up here ) has some useful insights about why the Palin

To clarify (in the interests of being precise), I mean: "If the fact that her office is under an ethics investigation for potentially accessing personnel files without clearance doesn't diminish her support from voters, it would take a large (or else salacious) scandal to diminish it."