Less than 24 hours ago, Richard wrote this about Palin's interview performance: "She came across as someone who is ill-informed, clever but lacking intellectual depth and rigor, and simply not knowledgable about most of what has been going on in the world."
That should be enough for sane, reasonable people to oppose her as VP. Now the New York Times has unveiled a front page story for tomorrow, based on extensive reporting and record searches, that paints a fuller picture of what she has been like as a mayor and governor.
A pattern emerges of Palin as ambitious (when she won her first mayor's race, a friend told her "you could be governor in 10 years," she replied, "I want to be president."), vinctive (firing public officials who cross her or for personal reasons), hiring friends and cronies who often appear just as unqualified for their jobs and she is for VP (hired a high school classmate real estate agent to head the State Agriculture Commission, who cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification), giving preference to friends and shutting out enemies. She appointed as Attorney General a man no one in government had ever heard of, from such a small town practice that he had a one-room office.
Campaigning for governor as a reformer, she has gotten rid of much of the old establishment but substituted her own cronies over whom she exerts tight control; and, whereas she promised open government, she now runs her office with a secrecy "that is off the charts," according to one person who has tried to get information. Mayors and other who need to meet with the governor complain about her inaccessibility, their letters are ignored.
Hmmm ... hiring unqualified cronies for vital government positions, not very curious about the world at large, cultivates an image as tough but folksy, convinced she's right and invincable. Sound familiar? Does it scare you enough to go to work for Obama?
Ralph
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Palin in suburbia
Reading the newspapers in my neighborhood coffee shop this morning, I overheard a group of older men discussing Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin: One said, with a note of pride, "Gibson tried every way he could to trip her up, and he couldn't do it. She's smart." Others chimed in with chuckles and nods, and their talk turned to the number of Democratic women who are crossing over.
True, she has a certain kind of smartness -- but to my ears it was a combination of memorized script and glibness. She's apparently a quick study, and she has smart handlers who are quickly reframing all the things she's being criticized for. One example that, I'm afraid, will be effective is what she said about abortion. She emphasized that her views are "my personal belief," and then she sort of, almost, maybe, gave a hint that implied that she might not insist on those views when it comes to public policy.
Sounds like they've borrowed a page from Joe Biden, who gave a wonderful and thoughtful answer on that subject on TV last Sunday morning. As a Catholic, he said, he accepts his church's teaching that abortion is wrong. But, he hastened to add, this is based on his faith. And in a pluralistic society, he would never try to impose his faith-based beliefs on others who have a different view of things that are based on their faith. And with Biden this came across as something he had thought through, not just a script he had been handed; and, most importantly, he sounded even more passionate about protecting the freedom to differ than he did about his personal opposition to abortion.
Palin's handlers are smart enough to downplay her extremism on issues like this, at least enough to mollify those who want to vote Republican and are looking for confirmation that she wouldn't be as extreme as she seemed at first.
As much as there was to criticize about Palin (and I personally thought her performance was plucky but pathetic when you consider the stakes) -- still, she did better with Charlie Gibson than McCain did in his "interview" with the women on The View. She seems more and more like their best bet to win the election. She draws the crowds, not he; she creates the excitement, not he. And, in the end, I do believe she's a lot smarter than he is, even if she is woefully uninformed and unprepared. McCain is now riding her coat tails.
When the senior suburban men join the working moms and the religious right wing -- we're in trouble, folks.
Ralph
True, she has a certain kind of smartness -- but to my ears it was a combination of memorized script and glibness. She's apparently a quick study, and she has smart handlers who are quickly reframing all the things she's being criticized for. One example that, I'm afraid, will be effective is what she said about abortion. She emphasized that her views are "my personal belief," and then she sort of, almost, maybe, gave a hint that implied that she might not insist on those views when it comes to public policy.
Sounds like they've borrowed a page from Joe Biden, who gave a wonderful and thoughtful answer on that subject on TV last Sunday morning. As a Catholic, he said, he accepts his church's teaching that abortion is wrong. But, he hastened to add, this is based on his faith. And in a pluralistic society, he would never try to impose his faith-based beliefs on others who have a different view of things that are based on their faith. And with Biden this came across as something he had thought through, not just a script he had been handed; and, most importantly, he sounded even more passionate about protecting the freedom to differ than he did about his personal opposition to abortion.
Palin's handlers are smart enough to downplay her extremism on issues like this, at least enough to mollify those who want to vote Republican and are looking for confirmation that she wouldn't be as extreme as she seemed at first.
As much as there was to criticize about Palin (and I personally thought her performance was plucky but pathetic when you consider the stakes) -- still, she did better with Charlie Gibson than McCain did in his "interview" with the women on The View. She seems more and more like their best bet to win the election. She draws the crowds, not he; she creates the excitement, not he. And, in the end, I do believe she's a lot smarter than he is, even if she is woefully uninformed and unprepared. McCain is now riding her coat tails.
When the senior suburban men join the working moms and the religious right wing -- we're in trouble, folks.
Ralph
Palinese - A Few Laughs
There isn't much more to say about Palin if you've watched any of the interviews. Sure, she can talk around a subject adroitly, but that's not going to be any help in addressing problems, foreign or domestic. She came across as someone who is ill-informed, clever but lacking intellectual depth and rigor, and simply not knowledgable about most of what has been going on in the world.
That said, I offer the following email making the rounds - some of you may have seen it. It's good for a few laughs. Or would be, if it weren't so true.
That said, I offer the following email making the rounds - some of you may have seen it. It's good for a few laughs. Or would be, if it weren't so true.
Do you speak Palinese???
If you're a minority and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "token hire."If you're a conservative and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates, you're a "game changer."Black teen pregnancies? A "crisis" in black America.
White teen pregnancies? A "blessed event."If you grow up in Hawaii you're "exotic."
Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you're the quintessential "American story."Similarly, if you name you kid Barack , you're "unpatriotic."
Name your kid Track, you're "colorful."If you're a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual,you're "reckless."A Republican who doesn't fully vet is a"maverick."
If you spend 3 years as a community organizer growing your organization from a staff of 1 to 13 and your budget from $70,000 to $400,000, then become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new African Amerian voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, then spend nearly 8 more years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, then spend nearly 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you are woefully inexperienced.
If you spend 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, then spend 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then you've got the most executive experience of anyone on either ticket, are the Commander in Chief of the Alaska military and are well qualified to lead the nation should you be called upon to do so because your state is the closest state to Russia.If you are a Democratic male candidate who is popular with millions of people,you are an "arrogant celebrity".If you are a popularRepublican female candidate, you are "energizing the base".
If you are a younger male candidate who thinks for himself and makes his own decisions you are "presumptuous".
If you are an older male candidate who makes last minute decisions you refuse to explain, you are a "shoot from the hip" maverick.
If you are a candidate with a Harvard law degree you are "an elitist-out of touch" with the real America.if you are a legacy (dad and granddad were admirals) graduate of Annapolis, with multiple disciplinary infractions you are a hero.
If you go to a south side Chicago church, your beliefs are "extremist".If you believe in creationism and don't believe global warming is man made, you are "strongly principled".If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
If you have been married to the same woman with whom you've been wed to for 19 years and raising 2 beautiful daughters with, you're "risky".If you're a black single mother of 4 who waits for 22 hours after her water breaks to seek medical attention, you're an irresponsible parent, endangering the life of your unborn child.But if you're a white married mother who waits 22 hours, you're spunky.
If you're a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, the right-wing press calls you"First dog."If you're a 17-year old pregnant unwed daughter of a Republican, the right-wing press calls you "beautiful" and "courageous."
If you kill an endangered species, you're an excellent hunter.
If you have an abortion you're not a Christian, you're a murderer (forget about if it happened while being date raped.)If you teach abstinence only in sex education, you get teen parents.
If you teach responsible age appropriate sex education,including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Whoopee for Whoopi !!
John McCain was a guest on The View this morning, and those women gave him probably the hardest time of any interview he has had. Calling these recent ads "just plain lies," they demanded to know if he really approved them. He didn't deny it but tried to claim they weren't lies.
And then, while discussing Roe v Wade, he said he would appoint judges who would interpret the Constitution instead of legislating from the bench. Whoopi Goldberg jumped in to clarify: did he mean strict Constructionists? He said he meant judges who would interpret the Constitution according to the Founders' intent. Then she let him have it: "Should I be worried then about being returned to slavery? Because there were some things in the Constitution that had to be changed about that." He quickly backtracked and thanked her for pointing that out, saying she was right about that.
Listen up, network pundits and journalists. The ladies of The Vent are doing your job for you. Forget all the trivia and ask tough questions like these and don't let McCain have a free pass like you've been doing.
Ralph
And then, while discussing Roe v Wade, he said he would appoint judges who would interpret the Constitution instead of legislating from the bench. Whoopi Goldberg jumped in to clarify: did he mean strict Constructionists? He said he meant judges who would interpret the Constitution according to the Founders' intent. Then she let him have it: "Should I be worried then about being returned to slavery? Because there were some things in the Constitution that had to be changed about that." He quickly backtracked and thanked her for pointing that out, saying she was right about that.
Listen up, network pundits and journalists. The ladies of The Vent are doing your job for you. Forget all the trivia and ask tough questions like these and don't let McCain have a free pass like you've been doing.
Ralph
Palin - Makes Bush Look Prepared
Well, if you watched the tapes, read the transcripts, unless you work for Fox News there's no way to avoid the obvious - Sarah Palin isn't even close to being prepared to be President.
Obviously, she knew nothing about the centerpiece of Republican foreign policy - The Bush Doctrine. To try to excuse her ignorance by saying 'most people couldn't define the Bush doctrine' is a false argument. Most people aren't running for President or VP. Let's keep in mind, she actually could be President as quickly as 4 months from now. Four months. And she doesn't know what has been the central doctrine of our foreign policy for the last 7 years?
And on the Georgia question, what was her first answer? We could go to war with Russia.
With Russia? Things have been so easy for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan - why, I'm sure a war with Russia would be a piece of cake.
Then she backpedalled on that and said, maybe we could use 'economic sanctions'. Forget for a moment the fact that Republicans have been uniformly against economic sanctions - did Palin forget that Bush et al scoffed at the notion of economic sanctions vs. Iraq? - but to make that statement shows a great deal of ignornace about the state of our trade with Russia.
To begin with, for the first 6 months of 2008 Russia had a trade surplus of 53.6%, or $70 billion. Their imports from the US per year total just over $9 billion. Do the math Sarah. If they have a $70 billion dollar surplus for 6 months, $140 for the year, and our imports total $9 that's .06% of their surplus. Wow, Sarah, what a threat that is! So assuming we could impose sanctions, it's hard to see how they'd make much of an impact on Russia.
And let's look at who would really suffer. The bulk of our exports to Russia, 65%, are cars and engineering products - which are easily replaceable by Russia. But if we stopped selling to them, that would seriously affect US car workers.
And what about our imports from Russia? Oil - 28%, Aluminum - 17%, iron and stell - 15%, etc. Items of strategic importance.
The US has far more to lose from economic sanctions with Russia than Russia does. What Russia imports from the US is replaceable, for the most part. What we import from Russia is essential.
Before she starts shooting off her mouth about war and economic sanctions, maybe it would make sense for Sarah to have a basic knowledge base to work from.
I have been a primary caretaker for my kids. I've been a soccer and baseball Dad. I've been active in the PTA. I've run a non-profit. I have a mensa level IQ. And I am in no way qualified to be president or vice president. Yet the Republicans are seriously asking me to vote for someone who is even less qualified than I am?
What comes across in her interview is the picture of a person who has a certain degree of superficial cleverness, who can think on her feet and knows when to backpedal, but who obviously has spent little time reading newspapers and magazines, following international - or even domestic - issues and trends. Someone who just did not bother to keep up with what was going on in her country or the world.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to spend your life shooting moose and snowmobiling and taking advantage of the natural wonders in the place where you live. That's a nice lifestyle. And it might make her a nice Mayor or Governor for a state that has a smaller population than metroplitan Raleigh, NC. But ignorance of the rest of the world is not a qualification for the presidency.
Obviously, she knew nothing about the centerpiece of Republican foreign policy - The Bush Doctrine. To try to excuse her ignorance by saying 'most people couldn't define the Bush doctrine' is a false argument. Most people aren't running for President or VP. Let's keep in mind, she actually could be President as quickly as 4 months from now. Four months. And she doesn't know what has been the central doctrine of our foreign policy for the last 7 years?
And on the Georgia question, what was her first answer? We could go to war with Russia.
With Russia? Things have been so easy for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan - why, I'm sure a war with Russia would be a piece of cake.
Then she backpedalled on that and said, maybe we could use 'economic sanctions'. Forget for a moment the fact that Republicans have been uniformly against economic sanctions - did Palin forget that Bush et al scoffed at the notion of economic sanctions vs. Iraq? - but to make that statement shows a great deal of ignornace about the state of our trade with Russia.
To begin with, for the first 6 months of 2008 Russia had a trade surplus of 53.6%, or $70 billion. Their imports from the US per year total just over $9 billion. Do the math Sarah. If they have a $70 billion dollar surplus for 6 months, $140 for the year, and our imports total $9 that's .06% of their surplus. Wow, Sarah, what a threat that is! So assuming we could impose sanctions, it's hard to see how they'd make much of an impact on Russia.
And let's look at who would really suffer. The bulk of our exports to Russia, 65%, are cars and engineering products - which are easily replaceable by Russia. But if we stopped selling to them, that would seriously affect US car workers.
And what about our imports from Russia? Oil - 28%, Aluminum - 17%, iron and stell - 15%, etc. Items of strategic importance.
The US has far more to lose from economic sanctions with Russia than Russia does. What Russia imports from the US is replaceable, for the most part. What we import from Russia is essential.
Before she starts shooting off her mouth about war and economic sanctions, maybe it would make sense for Sarah to have a basic knowledge base to work from.
I have been a primary caretaker for my kids. I've been a soccer and baseball Dad. I've been active in the PTA. I've run a non-profit. I have a mensa level IQ. And I am in no way qualified to be president or vice president. Yet the Republicans are seriously asking me to vote for someone who is even less qualified than I am?
What comes across in her interview is the picture of a person who has a certain degree of superficial cleverness, who can think on her feet and knows when to backpedal, but who obviously has spent little time reading newspapers and magazines, following international - or even domestic - issues and trends. Someone who just did not bother to keep up with what was going on in her country or the world.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to spend your life shooting moose and snowmobiling and taking advantage of the natural wonders in the place where you live. That's a nice lifestyle. And it might make her a nice Mayor or Governor for a state that has a smaller population than metroplitan Raleigh, NC. But ignorance of the rest of the world is not a qualification for the presidency.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
McCain "not responsible"???
James Carville, the Cajun pit bull (sans lipstick) who helped manage Bill Clinton's first campaign and who called Bill Richardson 'Judas' for endorsing Obama over Hillary, and who now is given air time to comment supposedly from the Democratic perspective on TV, and who is married to Republican operative and Cheney spokesperson Mary Matalin (how does that possibly work?) has let out an audacious revelation:
Speaking about the sleazy McCain kiddy sex-ed ad, Carville said that he admires John McCain and he refuses to believe that McCain knew about that ad. "In my heart of hearts, I want to believe he's absolutely furious about this and somebody's being called on the carpet because this ad is blatantly completely false." Oh, sure, he's in the ad saying he approves the message. But they just tack that on, says Carville.
OK, James. Suppose you're right, and McCain didn't actually know about that ad. What does that say about him? That he has turned over his campaign to low-life, sleaze bags and he doesn't oversee what they say in his name and actually put his face and words to? Is that the way he would run the government?
Either he is responsible for the detailed approval, or he is responsible in general for the tone of his campaign. And neither is good. Nor is the only alternative: that he is a captive of sinister forces that have taken responsibility away from him. Not exactly what we want in a President and Commander in Chief either.
This is how McCain has gotten as far as he has, and why he has been able to flipflop on all the major issues without much cost -- because he has all the media people thinking he's such a good guy and is so admirable, and they make excuses for him, just as Carville is doing now. It looks like that's changing fast. James, you're a little slow catching on. Wake up !!! McCain has sold his soul.
Ralph
Speaking about the sleazy McCain kiddy sex-ed ad, Carville said that he admires John McCain and he refuses to believe that McCain knew about that ad. "In my heart of hearts, I want to believe he's absolutely furious about this and somebody's being called on the carpet because this ad is blatantly completely false." Oh, sure, he's in the ad saying he approves the message. But they just tack that on, says Carville.
OK, James. Suppose you're right, and McCain didn't actually know about that ad. What does that say about him? That he has turned over his campaign to low-life, sleaze bags and he doesn't oversee what they say in his name and actually put his face and words to? Is that the way he would run the government?
Either he is responsible for the detailed approval, or he is responsible in general for the tone of his campaign. And neither is good. Nor is the only alternative: that he is a captive of sinister forces that have taken responsibility away from him. Not exactly what we want in a President and Commander in Chief either.
This is how McCain has gotten as far as he has, and why he has been able to flipflop on all the major issues without much cost -- because he has all the media people thinking he's such a good guy and is so admirable, and they make excuses for him, just as Carville is doing now. It looks like that's changing fast. James, you're a little slow catching on. Wake up !!! McCain has sold his soul.
Ralph
Aftermath of 9/11
I also want to honor the cease-fire for 9/11 to remember that awful day and the personal loss of so many, as well as the loss to our national spirit and confidence.
While in no way wanting to excuse those who planned and carried out the destruction, I do not think it was they who caused us to lose our national spirit and our confidence. On 9/11 and the few days after, we came together, resolute in our grief and national pride. And the world, most of it, was with us. Even Iran sent word it was with us, but our government spurned their offer.
And set a course that has been disastrous for us and for the world. I cannot say that we, as a nation, have learned the lessons we should have learned from this. I am very afraid that we are about to demonstrate with this election that we learned nothing.
We must not let that happen.
Ralph
While in no way wanting to excuse those who planned and carried out the destruction, I do not think it was they who caused us to lose our national spirit and our confidence. On 9/11 and the few days after, we came together, resolute in our grief and national pride. And the world, most of it, was with us. Even Iran sent word it was with us, but our government spurned their offer.
And set a course that has been disastrous for us and for the world. I cannot say that we, as a nation, have learned the lessons we should have learned from this. I am very afraid that we are about to demonstrate with this election that we learned nothing.
We must not let that happen.
Ralph
The Palin Ticket andTerrorism
I'm glad the candidates seem to be taking a break from politics on the anniversary of 9/11, which was certainly one of the most tragic moments in our country's history. I was teaching writing to 4th graders when it happened, pulled off to the side by the teacher who was watching events unfold on her computer. I witnessed the jet fly into the second tower live, and then looked out at this classroom of children and knew their lives would never be the same; they'd never feel the same sense of innocence that they had before. I left immediately to collect my ow two children - Who knew what was going to happen? Whatever, I was going to make sure we were all together to face that.
The purpose of terrorism, of course, is to undermine citizens' confidence in their government, to make them afraid, to instill despair and a sense of hopelessness. You fight terrorism by not giving in to those instincts, by insisting on maintaining hope in the face of despair.
I was thinking of this when a friend, a woman, sent me an email.
I'm getting a scary feeling about the election. Had a discussion with a coworker yesterday and said I was concerned about environmental issues, and about getting a new pres who will be a statesman and get us on better terms with the rest of the world, she said both are lost causes and she's voting for the Palin ticket because there's a woman who can shake things up--and would be a wonderful president.
The Palin ticket?
Let's start with the obvious - that's what people are supporting. Not McCain, but Palin.
More to the point, my friend's co-worker exhibits the type of cynicism that a terrorist would love to see in the populace of the country they have attacked. She already feels issues and positions are hopeless. What she really wants is Palin to go in and throw a tantrum, break a bunch of things, throw furniture and vases around. Just smash up the room and make a mess because, well, hell, you can't actually do anything about real issues, can you? This co-worker has given up, which is exactly what McCain and the Republicans want her to do. Don't actually believe things can change. Embrace your despair and vote for someone you hope will lash out and thus allow you to vent through their childish behavior.
In a way, this McCain/Rove campaign is a type of terrorist attack on America. They are trying to make sure this election is NOT decided by ideas and positions, but by fear and cynicism. And they are succeeding. Because there are a lot of ignorant people out there.
People who actually think a neophyte governor from Alaska can go in and 'shake up Washington', in particular one where the Congress is controlled by the opposition party. Obviously, this woman knows nothing about how Washington works, or history - look at how ineffective Jimmy Carter was. Mr. Smith Goes to Wasington was a movie - it's nto reality.
A wonderful president? On what basis is this judgment made? None. No basis whatsoever. There is nothing in Palin's history, so far, that could allow any reasonable person to conclude she would make a "wonderful" president.
As Jay Leno said last night, "On the eve of the remembrance of 9/11, we're talking about make-up on a barnyard animal"
That, my friends, is the only way the Republicans can win.
The purpose of terrorism, of course, is to undermine citizens' confidence in their government, to make them afraid, to instill despair and a sense of hopelessness. You fight terrorism by not giving in to those instincts, by insisting on maintaining hope in the face of despair.
I was thinking of this when a friend, a woman, sent me an email.
I'm getting a scary feeling about the election. Had a discussion with a coworker yesterday and said I was concerned about environmental issues, and about getting a new pres who will be a statesman and get us on better terms with the rest of the world, she said both are lost causes and she's voting for the Palin ticket because there's a woman who can shake things up--and would be a wonderful president.
The Palin ticket?
Let's start with the obvious - that's what people are supporting. Not McCain, but Palin.
More to the point, my friend's co-worker exhibits the type of cynicism that a terrorist would love to see in the populace of the country they have attacked. She already feels issues and positions are hopeless. What she really wants is Palin to go in and throw a tantrum, break a bunch of things, throw furniture and vases around. Just smash up the room and make a mess because, well, hell, you can't actually do anything about real issues, can you? This co-worker has given up, which is exactly what McCain and the Republicans want her to do. Don't actually believe things can change. Embrace your despair and vote for someone you hope will lash out and thus allow you to vent through their childish behavior.
In a way, this McCain/Rove campaign is a type of terrorist attack on America. They are trying to make sure this election is NOT decided by ideas and positions, but by fear and cynicism. And they are succeeding. Because there are a lot of ignorant people out there.
People who actually think a neophyte governor from Alaska can go in and 'shake up Washington', in particular one where the Congress is controlled by the opposition party. Obviously, this woman knows nothing about how Washington works, or history - look at how ineffective Jimmy Carter was. Mr. Smith Goes to Wasington was a movie - it's nto reality.
A wonderful president? On what basis is this judgment made? None. No basis whatsoever. There is nothing in Palin's history, so far, that could allow any reasonable person to conclude she would make a "wonderful" president.
As Jay Leno said last night, "On the eve of the remembrance of 9/11, we're talking about make-up on a barnyard animal"
That, my friends, is the only way the Republicans can win.
Comic relief
Barak Obama went on David Letterman's show last night to lampoon the lipstick silliness -- and he was genuinely funny !! Relaxed, ad libbing with David and cracking him up ("I don't know where you put lipstick here in New York City"), but getting his point across with humor.
He and David scoffed at the idea of the Republicans calling a meeting because "He called Sarah a pig!" and figuring out how to deal with it. Then Obama explained the overlooked obvious: "Look, If I had meant it that way, she would have been the lipstick. The pig is John McCain's failed economic policy."
Great way to end this ridiculous day of gutter Rovian politics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/obama-appears-on-letterma_n_125509.html
He and David scoffed at the idea of the Republicans calling a meeting because "He called Sarah a pig!" and figuring out how to deal with it. Then Obama explained the overlooked obvious: "Look, If I had meant it that way, she would have been the lipstick. The pig is John McCain's failed economic policy."
Great way to end this ridiculous day of gutter Rovian politics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/obama-appears-on-letterma_n_125509.html
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Backfire !!!
Now that major news commetors are expressing outrage at McCain's sleazy new ads, this may backfire. Not just on this issue, but by changing McCain's formerly cozy relationship with the press. But we still need stronger responses from the Obama camp.
A comment on the American Prospect blog suggests this as a reply to the sex-ed ad:
"Yeah, I supported that bill, and I'd do it again. I think it's important to teach children how to identify bad touches and sexual predators. I want to know why John McCain wants to help pedophiles? Personally, I think they're sick, but John McCain doesn't want kids to know how to protect themselves from pedophiles. I can only assume that's why he'd attack my support of that bill. Strange position to take for a Presidential candidate."
Ralph
A comment on the American Prospect blog suggests this as a reply to the sex-ed ad:
"Yeah, I supported that bill, and I'd do it again. I think it's important to teach children how to identify bad touches and sexual predators. I want to know why John McCain wants to help pedophiles? Personally, I think they're sick, but John McCain doesn't want kids to know how to protect themselves from pedophiles. I can only assume that's why he'd attack my support of that bill. Strange position to take for a Presidential candidate."
Ralph
Lipstick Hypocrisy by the NEW! SLEAZY! McCain!
Chris Mathews nailed it today on Hardball when he asked one of McCain's operatives , "Do you believe that Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig?" "No," the guy admitted.
Perhaps the first instance of honesty I've seen from the Republicans in a long time. S
Mathews was visibly outraged, as we all should be, left, right, conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, over this ridiculous distraction, this discussion about lipstick(a metaphor Obama used in the context of listing Bush and McCain's policy failures).
The utter failure of the McCain/Palin ticket to provide any real policy proposals leads them to try to run this campaign by manufacturing fake issues and outrage, distorting remakrs when not outright lying about them.
And where is Sarah Palin in this? I thought she was a Big Girl, able to play hardball with the Big Boys. She can't speak up for herself? Does she really believe this garbage being spewed by the McCain campaign?
Oh, that's right, I forgot - she can't talk to those meannies in the press. They might actually ask her a question.
Perhaps the first instance of honesty I've seen from the Republicans in a long time. S
Mathews was visibly outraged, as we all should be, left, right, conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, over this ridiculous distraction, this discussion about lipstick(a metaphor Obama used in the context of listing Bush and McCain's policy failures).
The utter failure of the McCain/Palin ticket to provide any real policy proposals leads them to try to run this campaign by manufacturing fake issues and outrage, distorting remakrs when not outright lying about them.
And where is Sarah Palin in this? I thought she was a Big Girl, able to play hardball with the Big Boys. She can't speak up for herself? Does she really believe this garbage being spewed by the McCain campaign?
Oh, that's right, I forgot - she can't talk to those meannies in the press. They might actually ask her a question.
It got worse
Earlier today, I said the McCain kindergarten sex-ed ad might be a Willie Horton moment, or it might get worse. It has already gotten worse. Check out this blog on a new McCain ad linking visually and by juxtaposition Obama with a wolf going after innocent Sarah. It has race, sex, and violence all subliminally wrapped up in one ad.
This is McCain really scraping the bottom of the slime bucket. Let's hope it backfires, as it's beginning to look like it might. But Willie Horton won it for GHWBush, didn't it? They know that, and they're willing to go there.
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2008/09/the-wolves-den.html
and the original wolf ad:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/campaign-adwatch-mccains_n_125387.html
Ralph
This is McCain really scraping the bottom of the slime bucket. Let's hope it backfires, as it's beginning to look like it might. But Willie Horton won it for GHWBush, didn't it? They know that, and they're willing to go there.
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2008/09/the-wolves-den.html
and the original wolf ad:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/campaign-adwatch-mccains_n_125387.html
Ralph
Lipstick on the McCain pig
Pretty pathetic, the way McCain tries to keep manufacturing things to complain about. The latest attempt at twisting words is when he got all up in arms about Obama saying
“John McCain says he’s about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, ‘Watch out George Bush – except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics – we’re really gonna shake things up in Washington,’” Obama said.
“John McCain says he’s about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, ‘Watch out George Bush – except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics – we’re really gonna shake things up in Washington,’” Obama said.
“That’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”
McCain huffed and puffed and accused Obama of being mean and nasty to poor little Sarah, claiming the line was a reference to Sarah's line about lipstick being the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom.
Unfortunately, McCain used the same line, about lipstick on a pig, in reference to Hillary in October, then he used the line again in May.
What a fraudulent attempt to manufacture an issue. I guess when you have nothing to run on, no real platform, you have to make everything about personality. Maybe McCain should take a look in a mirror. He may see, beneath his own lipstick, a close resemblance between the McCain pig and the Bush pig.
Dishonorable McCain
Although I have never agreed with most of his political positions, in the past I had felt that John McCain was an honorable man. And I was outraged for him during the 2000 primary when George Bush allowed his minions to spread false rumors that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child (the one that Cindy brought home from an orphanage in Bangladesh).
But what honor is left when he not only embraces the man who did that to him but has now turned over his campaign to the same dirty tricksters to do the same thing to his opponent? Only this time, instead of vicious rumor, it's an official campaign ad that ends with "I'm John McCain, and I approve this message."
What does the ad say? That Barak Obama's only accomplishment in the field of education is "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barak Obama. Wrong about education. Wrong for your family."
The truth? Obama did support a comprehensive, age appropriate sex education bill, which for kindergarteners is learning to protect themselves from pedophiles!!!
The perverse beauty of this kind of dirty trick is that they don't even have to spend much money airing it. Just a few times, and then the Rush Limbaughs, Laura Ingrahams, and the Sunday preachers will continue to spread the sound bite.
Obama has already struck back, calling McCain's ad "shameful and downright perverse." But you can't erase this once it's out and echoing through the right-wing hate chambers. If this isn't the Willie Horton moment, there will be others and worse.
I really didn't think John McCain would sink this low. He is not an honorable man.
Ralph
But what honor is left when he not only embraces the man who did that to him but has now turned over his campaign to the same dirty tricksters to do the same thing to his opponent? Only this time, instead of vicious rumor, it's an official campaign ad that ends with "I'm John McCain, and I approve this message."
What does the ad say? That Barak Obama's only accomplishment in the field of education is "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barak Obama. Wrong about education. Wrong for your family."
The truth? Obama did support a comprehensive, age appropriate sex education bill, which for kindergarteners is learning to protect themselves from pedophiles!!!
The perverse beauty of this kind of dirty trick is that they don't even have to spend much money airing it. Just a few times, and then the Rush Limbaughs, Laura Ingrahams, and the Sunday preachers will continue to spread the sound bite.
Obama has already struck back, calling McCain's ad "shameful and downright perverse." But you can't erase this once it's out and echoing through the right-wing hate chambers. If this isn't the Willie Horton moment, there will be others and worse.
I really didn't think John McCain would sink this low. He is not an honorable man.
Ralph
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
$71,000 to 'stay home? And where are Sarah's tax returns?
It tunrs out that Sarah Palin billed the government of Alaska almost $17,000 per diem expenses for 312 days spent "at her home". More interesting is the fact that her children billed the state for $25,000, and her husband, $19,000. That's $71,000 the state paid Sarah and her family to stay home. That's $3737 per month she is collecting to stay home. This is on top of her salary and other paid expenses. And she has the nerve to pretend she's against wasting taxpayer money? This should outrage all conservatives and libertarians.
Although it probably won't.
This news got me wondering about Todd Palin, who seems to work part-time. How did his income compare to his per diem expenses as the Governor's husband? I couldn't find that out anywhere.
Interestingly, I have been unable to find any record of Sarah or Todd's tax returns, which I assumed would be made public like all other candidates for President and Vice President. Can anyone find them?
Although it probably won't.
This news got me wondering about Todd Palin, who seems to work part-time. How did his income compare to his per diem expenses as the Governor's husband? I couldn't find that out anywhere.
Interestingly, I have been unable to find any record of Sarah or Todd's tax returns, which I assumed would be made public like all other candidates for President and Vice President. Can anyone find them?
The Question - What are white women thinking?
The latest Washgton Post/ABC poll finds a huge shift in support for McCain among white women. Prior to the conventions, white women supported Obama by a 50% - 42% margin.
Post-Palin they support McCain by a 53% - 41% margin.
Is this a simple knee-jerk response, support for Palin only because she's a woman?
Because it's hard to imagine that 53% of the women in this country share these beliefs that Palin holds
That we are living in the last days and Palin's church in Wassilla is going to be one of the 'refuge places' people will flock to.
That creationism should be taught in schools.
That stem cell research should be banned.
But automatic weapons should be legal to own.
That we should NOT try to provide health care for our citizens and that it's "Up to people to take more responsibility to be healthy".
That our soldiers are fighting in Iraq "on a task from God".
That it's okay to censor books according to your whim, and if the head librarian in your town has a problem with censorship, it's okay to fire her.
That it's okay to abuse the power of your office and fire the State Police Commissioner just because he won't help your sister in her divorce case by firing your sister's ex-husband.
That unlimited oil drilling should be allowed in all areas of the US, without restrictions.
That if you're 43 years old and pregnant and your water breaks, it shows good judgment, and concern for your unborn child, to hang around, give a 30 minute speech, take a long plane ride from Dallas to Seattle, switch planes and fly to Anchorage, then travel from Anchorage to Wassilla - a journey variously reported as totalling between 8 - 12 hours - before you bother to check into a hospital.
That abortion should be illegal in all cases; even if your own daughter were raped.
But the death penalty is a good thing.
That human beigns have nothing to do with Global Warming.
That it's okay to exploit your children by trotting out, for applause lines, your baby with Downs syndrome, your pregnant teenager, your son who is going to Iraq.
That it's okay not to know anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What, me worry?
That living in a state that's close to Russia makes you qualified in foreign affairs.
Do 53% of the women in this country really share these beliefs? Because I'd hate to think it's racism, or simplistic gender solidarity that accounts for Palin's support among white women.
Of course, over 60% of men support Palin, but we all know that's because they vote/think with their umm, errr...well, you know what I mean
Post-Palin they support McCain by a 53% - 41% margin.
Is this a simple knee-jerk response, support for Palin only because she's a woman?
Because it's hard to imagine that 53% of the women in this country share these beliefs that Palin holds
That we are living in the last days and Palin's church in Wassilla is going to be one of the 'refuge places' people will flock to.
That creationism should be taught in schools.
That stem cell research should be banned.
But automatic weapons should be legal to own.
That we should NOT try to provide health care for our citizens and that it's "Up to people to take more responsibility to be healthy".
That our soldiers are fighting in Iraq "on a task from God".
That it's okay to censor books according to your whim, and if the head librarian in your town has a problem with censorship, it's okay to fire her.
That it's okay to abuse the power of your office and fire the State Police Commissioner just because he won't help your sister in her divorce case by firing your sister's ex-husband.
That unlimited oil drilling should be allowed in all areas of the US, without restrictions.
That if you're 43 years old and pregnant and your water breaks, it shows good judgment, and concern for your unborn child, to hang around, give a 30 minute speech, take a long plane ride from Dallas to Seattle, switch planes and fly to Anchorage, then travel from Anchorage to Wassilla - a journey variously reported as totalling between 8 - 12 hours - before you bother to check into a hospital.
That abortion should be illegal in all cases; even if your own daughter were raped.
But the death penalty is a good thing.
That human beigns have nothing to do with Global Warming.
That it's okay to exploit your children by trotting out, for applause lines, your baby with Downs syndrome, your pregnant teenager, your son who is going to Iraq.
That it's okay not to know anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What, me worry?
That living in a state that's close to Russia makes you qualified in foreign affairs.
Do 53% of the women in this country really share these beliefs? Because I'd hate to think it's racism, or simplistic gender solidarity that accounts for Palin's support among white women.
Of course, over 60% of men support Palin, but we all know that's because they vote/think with their umm, errr...well, you know what I mean
That's more like it
Every time I think Obama is blowing it, he comes through. Vis a vis my prior post, here's what he said at a rally in Michigan last night in response to Palin's taunting him about his position on habeas corpus rights for detainees.
Calling it "the foundation of Anglo-American law," he said the principle "says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' And say, 'Maybe you've got the wrong person.'"
The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, "because we don't always have the right person."
"We don't always catch the right person," he said. "We may think it's Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president."
"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting," Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. "Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."
Ralph
Monday, September 8, 2008
Barak, the Non-Attack Dog
The sudden resuscitation of McCain's campaign by the Lipstick Pit Bull has many people worrying that the Obama campaign is not being aggressive enough in its response. There is a new Obama ad out today that directly contradicts the claim that Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, and questioning McCain/Palin's honesty, since she actively campaigned for it before she was against it. It's good, but Obama in person doesn't like to do that.
He just does not like to go for the jugular. I just watched 16 minutes of an interview with Keith Olberman on MSNBC's Countdown. Olberman tried again and again to get him to do so: asking if he had considered boiling down the economic message to a simple question, like Harry Truman's saying, "How many times do they have to hit you over the head before you start asking who is hitting you?" And KO asked why not use the word "lie" to characterize the distortions that McCain and Palin are making? And he tried to get him to react to GA Congressman Lynn Westmoreland's calling Barak and Michelle "uppity." Westmoreland tried to weasle out, saying he was using it as a synomyn for elite. Come on: I grew up in Georgia. Everybody knows that's only the first half of a common racial slur, and the second word begins with an 'n'. It's a vicious attack on an African-American who "tries to rise above his station." Even David Gergen said so on This Week a couple of Sunday's ago.
Obama just wouldn't go there. He gave wonderful, thoughtful, reasoned answers. But he will not take the angry, outraged simple sound bite when it's handed to him on a silver platter. He just kept saying things like: "We just have to keep telling the American people where we want to take this country, and they are going to make up their minds."
This is pretty frustrating to those of us who have lived through two presidential candidates who took the high road and stayed wonky -- and Karl Rove made mince meat of them. And we are afraid the same thing is happening again.
I think this is partly Obama's deliberative, negotiative, reasonable nature. I think it's also a tactical decision not to present himself as the "angry young black man" and trigger that frightening racial stereotype that has limited Louis Farrakhan's and Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's and Jeremiah Wright's appeal to white people. Martin Luther King was able to find a tone of indignation and gravitas about injustice that was moving and transformative without sounding irrational or out of control. Obama wants to present reasoned answers, stay on issues, and tie McPalin to Bush 24/7 but without sounding angry or, perhaps, uppity?
The risk is that, in trying to avoid scaring Bubba and Rosie the Riveter, he is losing another whole segment who want to hear him stand up to these gross insults and lies -- and may take it as an indication of whether he would stand up to the Chinese, the Iranians, and the Republicans.
I think Obama's temperament is supremely suited to being president. The question is, is it suited to winning the presidency against the Republican attack machine? Maybe they need to unleash Joe Biden and get him on TV more. He's good at those distilled, sound-bite kind of zingers, and he loves doing it.
Ralph
He just does not like to go for the jugular. I just watched 16 minutes of an interview with Keith Olberman on MSNBC's Countdown. Olberman tried again and again to get him to do so: asking if he had considered boiling down the economic message to a simple question, like Harry Truman's saying, "How many times do they have to hit you over the head before you start asking who is hitting you?" And KO asked why not use the word "lie" to characterize the distortions that McCain and Palin are making? And he tried to get him to react to GA Congressman Lynn Westmoreland's calling Barak and Michelle "uppity." Westmoreland tried to weasle out, saying he was using it as a synomyn for elite. Come on: I grew up in Georgia. Everybody knows that's only the first half of a common racial slur, and the second word begins with an 'n'. It's a vicious attack on an African-American who "tries to rise above his station." Even David Gergen said so on This Week a couple of Sunday's ago.
Obama just wouldn't go there. He gave wonderful, thoughtful, reasoned answers. But he will not take the angry, outraged simple sound bite when it's handed to him on a silver platter. He just kept saying things like: "We just have to keep telling the American people where we want to take this country, and they are going to make up their minds."
This is pretty frustrating to those of us who have lived through two presidential candidates who took the high road and stayed wonky -- and Karl Rove made mince meat of them. And we are afraid the same thing is happening again.
I think this is partly Obama's deliberative, negotiative, reasonable nature. I think it's also a tactical decision not to present himself as the "angry young black man" and trigger that frightening racial stereotype that has limited Louis Farrakhan's and Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's and Jeremiah Wright's appeal to white people. Martin Luther King was able to find a tone of indignation and gravitas about injustice that was moving and transformative without sounding irrational or out of control. Obama wants to present reasoned answers, stay on issues, and tie McPalin to Bush 24/7 but without sounding angry or, perhaps, uppity?
The risk is that, in trying to avoid scaring Bubba and Rosie the Riveter, he is losing another whole segment who want to hear him stand up to these gross insults and lies -- and may take it as an indication of whether he would stand up to the Chinese, the Iranians, and the Republicans.
I think Obama's temperament is supremely suited to being president. The question is, is it suited to winning the presidency against the Republican attack machine? Maybe they need to unleash Joe Biden and get him on TV more. He's good at those distilled, sound-bite kind of zingers, and he loves doing it.
Ralph
Babies, Guns, and Jesus
The selection of Sarah Palin has the Karl Rove brilliance written all over it. [Please note ironic tone.] They could not have made a better political choice, and I don't believe Rove would have missed that possibility. I think their leaked story of a deadlock between McCain's choice (Lieberman) and Rove's insistence on Romney, forcing a last-minute choice of Palin, is phoney and planted as a smokescreen. The whole thing has Rove's fingerprints all over it. He's probably been planning it ever since McCain became the obvious nominee.
The disaffected religious right wing is now ecstatic. To them, her lack of experience is actually a plus. All that matters to them is summed up in Rush Limbaugh's pithy: Babies, Guns, and Jesus. And on top of that, she's an evangelical Christian and a Warrior Woman who will go up to Washington with her guns blazing. Plus not bad to look at, and she gives a decent speech.
There's no way to win over that group. The Democrats will have to concentrate on their own base, the Independents (a considerable group), and the few moderate Republicans. So far, it's a good strategy: let the surrogates take on Palin's extremism and lack of readiness, and let Obama concentrate on McCain and tie them both to Bush. Notice the headlines: Palin is more like Bush even than McCain.
But I'm getting seriously worried. This is the way Republicans win elections time and again. Find some hot wedge issue (it was gay marriage in 2004; now it's back to abortion), push that and keep the focus away from the real issues (economy, war, health care, environment, energy, education). Democrats are just learning what Republicans knew long ago: people vote with their guts, not their heads.
With Iraq calming down and even Bush coming around to Obama's positions on Iraq and Iran, the war wasn't working as well for them as their political issue. So they had to turn back to social issues. And, man, did they hit the jackpot, all packaged in a good-looking woman who appeals to working people. No experience? Not prepared? Don't worry: the Republican spin-meisters will take care of that.
Please be smart, Democrats. Find the way to fight back without playing their game.
Ralph
The disaffected religious right wing is now ecstatic. To them, her lack of experience is actually a plus. All that matters to them is summed up in Rush Limbaugh's pithy: Babies, Guns, and Jesus. And on top of that, she's an evangelical Christian and a Warrior Woman who will go up to Washington with her guns blazing. Plus not bad to look at, and she gives a decent speech.
There's no way to win over that group. The Democrats will have to concentrate on their own base, the Independents (a considerable group), and the few moderate Republicans. So far, it's a good strategy: let the surrogates take on Palin's extremism and lack of readiness, and let Obama concentrate on McCain and tie them both to Bush. Notice the headlines: Palin is more like Bush even than McCain.
But I'm getting seriously worried. This is the way Republicans win elections time and again. Find some hot wedge issue (it was gay marriage in 2004; now it's back to abortion), push that and keep the focus away from the real issues (economy, war, health care, environment, energy, education). Democrats are just learning what Republicans knew long ago: people vote with their guts, not their heads.
With Iraq calming down and even Bush coming around to Obama's positions on Iraq and Iran, the war wasn't working as well for them as their political issue. So they had to turn back to social issues. And, man, did they hit the jackpot, all packaged in a good-looking woman who appeals to working people. No experience? Not prepared? Don't worry: the Republican spin-meisters will take care of that.
Please be smart, Democrats. Find the way to fight back without playing their game.
Ralph
bonus post -- on trivia
Anyone notice Cindy McCain's makeover since Sarah joined the team? Before, Cindy looked like an ice princess: all neatly coiffed, in whites or subtle pastels, in the background.
Post-Sarah: Cindy is everywhere in bright, bright day-glo primary colors, obviously very very expensive designer gowns, hair down and often tousled, making speeches, upstaging Sarah with her looks. The picture of the three of them at the Colorado Springs rally was obvious: Cindy was in the foreground wearing a blindingly bright red dress and an equally bright green jacket. She looked like a Christmas tree drawn with crayons. (But I have to admit she also looked stunning, if you like that type.) In the background, standing at the podium, was Sarah in drab brown outfit. Johnny Mc in between, but turned and gesturing toward Cindy.
I can imagine the conversation. Cindy: "OK, Buster, choose that woman for your running mate, but just remember: I'm the First Lady, and I supply the glamour around here. See you later. I'm going shopping."
Ralph
Post-Sarah: Cindy is everywhere in bright, bright day-glo primary colors, obviously very very expensive designer gowns, hair down and often tousled, making speeches, upstaging Sarah with her looks. The picture of the three of them at the Colorado Springs rally was obvious: Cindy was in the foreground wearing a blindingly bright red dress and an equally bright green jacket. She looked like a Christmas tree drawn with crayons. (But I have to admit she also looked stunning, if you like that type.) In the background, standing at the podium, was Sarah in drab brown outfit. Johnny Mc in between, but turned and gesturing toward Cindy.
I can imagine the conversation. Cindy: "OK, Buster, choose that woman for your running mate, but just remember: I'm the First Lady, and I supply the glamour around here. See you later. I'm going shopping."
Ralph
Kiss My *&# or I Won't Talk to You?
What's wrong with this picture? Sarah Palin, according to the Republicans, is ready to step in and be the leader of the most powerful military power in the world, but she can't answer questions from a news reporter unless they first promise to treat her, basically, with kid gloves? Charles Gibson? Give me a break. Has he ever asked a question tougher than, How are you? What, she couldn't find a 5-year-old to conduct the interview?
So I'm assuming, if McCain were to kick off, President Palin would refuse to go to the UN, or sit down for talks with Putin, or Ahmadinejad unless they first promised to be nice? Or maybe she could fire the leaders of every country on our enemy list and replace them with friends from Wassilla?
Yes, she is certainly qualified to face the big, bad dangerous world of Al Queda , just don't let any of those scary reporters near her with their terrifying questions. They might ask some horribly unfair questions like, How can you claim to be against taxes when you increased tax revenues by 38% as Mayor of Wassilla, or How can you claim to be against Big Government when you increased expenditures by 33% when you were Mayor, or How can you pretend to be fiscally responsible when Wassilla had ZERO debt when you took office but $22 million when you left?
Nah, let's just ask her how to field dress a moose. Anyone who can do that is certainly capable of being president.
So I'm assuming, if McCain were to kick off, President Palin would refuse to go to the UN, or sit down for talks with Putin, or Ahmadinejad unless they first promised to be nice? Or maybe she could fire the leaders of every country on our enemy list and replace them with friends from Wassilla?
Yes, she is certainly qualified to face the big, bad dangerous world of Al Queda , just don't let any of those scary reporters near her with their terrifying questions. They might ask some horribly unfair questions like, How can you claim to be against taxes when you increased tax revenues by 38% as Mayor of Wassilla, or How can you claim to be against Big Government when you increased expenditures by 33% when you were Mayor, or How can you pretend to be fiscally responsible when Wassilla had ZERO debt when you took office but $22 million when you left?
Nah, let's just ask her how to field dress a moose. Anyone who can do that is certainly capable of being president.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
The Week After
The conventions are over, and the campaigns are in high gear (except for Sarah Palin who has been sent to her room to do her homework). The other three each had a 30+ minute interview on the morning talk shows: McCain with Bob Schieffer, who did not challenge him in a softball interview; Biden with Tom Brokow and Obama with George Stephanopolis, both of whom were tough challengers. And both handled it well, especially Biden who was more forceful than Obama. Biden was especially good at explaining why the surge was only one reason violence is down in Iraq.
Re Richard's post: that report about Hillary not taking on Sarah might be right, but unless it came from the campaign, I'd be suspicious that it's a Rovian attempt to control the news and sew dissent among the Democrats. We'll know tomorrow, when she campaigns in Florida.
I like this from Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog >http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/<. Using Sarah Palin's hockey methphor, he says her role is to be the player who provides game-changing agitation that arouses her own team while provoking the other side to a counterattack. He explains that in hockey it's always the guy who hits back that winds up in the penalty box. "Democrats would be smart to understand her as such, and I see a lot of reaction that doesn't seem to grasp what Palin is doing and the value she's providing. I see a lot of Democrats taking a lot of bait." [i.e., She attacks, Democrats hit back, then they claim sexism, demeaning to small town mayors, elitism, blah blah blah.]
Biden and Obama themselves have not taken the bait, it's mostly the surrogates, the bloggers, and the media itself. The correct response is, as Biden did yesterday, to name the behavior, even to comment that she's good at that tactic, and then shift back to the issues and to linking McCain with Bush.
Although the polls have tightened as they reflect the RNC bounce, Obama still holds a slight lead. That's good news. But it's going to be very tight.
Ralph
Re Richard's post: that report about Hillary not taking on Sarah might be right, but unless it came from the campaign, I'd be suspicious that it's a Rovian attempt to control the news and sew dissent among the Democrats. We'll know tomorrow, when she campaigns in Florida.
I like this from Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog >http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/<. Using Sarah Palin's hockey methphor, he says her role is to be the player who provides game-changing agitation that arouses her own team while provoking the other side to a counterattack. He explains that in hockey it's always the guy who hits back that winds up in the penalty box. "Democrats would be smart to understand her as such, and I see a lot of reaction that doesn't seem to grasp what Palin is doing and the value she's providing. I see a lot of Democrats taking a lot of bait." [i.e., She attacks, Democrats hit back, then they claim sexism, demeaning to small town mayors, elitism, blah blah blah.]
Biden and Obama themselves have not taken the bait, it's mostly the surrogates, the bloggers, and the media itself. The correct response is, as Biden did yesterday, to name the behavior, even to comment that she's good at that tactic, and then shift back to the issues and to linking McCain with Bush.
Although the polls have tightened as they reflect the RNC bounce, Obama still holds a slight lead. That's good news. But it's going to be very tight.
Ralph
Hillary - Palin's Greatest Ally
If what's being reported is true - that Hillary is not going to talk about Palin on the campaign trail, but focus all of her attacks on McCain - then Hillary might as well go on the stump for the Republican ticket. Hillary is the one person who can totally shut down Palin, respond to her point by point, issue by issue, in a way that will be covered extensively by the national media. Sebelious offered a devastating, and extensive, critique of Palin, but that was alrgely overlooked by the mainstream press. If Hillary focused her attack skills on Palin(to the same degree she focused them on her Democratic opponents during the primaries) the effect would be devastating.
This is the one thing Hillary can do for the Democratic Party.
And the one thing she appears unwilling to do.
Why? It makes no sense, particularly given how Palin regularly invokes Hillary's 18 million supporters as if they now belong to her by default. So why won't Hillary put Sarah in her place?
The way I see it, Hillary is still bitter about losing the nomination and would prefer to see Obama lose the election so she can run again in 4 years, probably under the slogan 'I Told You So'. So much for loyalty to the Democratic Party.
This is the one thing Hillary can do for the Democratic Party.
And the one thing she appears unwilling to do.
Why? It makes no sense, particularly given how Palin regularly invokes Hillary's 18 million supporters as if they now belong to her by default. So why won't Hillary put Sarah in her place?
The way I see it, Hillary is still bitter about losing the nomination and would prefer to see Obama lose the election so she can run again in 4 years, probably under the slogan 'I Told You So'. So much for loyalty to the Democratic Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
