Open Sarah Palin Thread

1) She’s an anti-Cheney pick.
2) Given how deep the Alaskan state government is in the pockets of mining interests (and their environmental consequences), how is she different from picking a West Virginian?

Following Brian’s time zone post of the other day, it’s also historic that we’ll either have a president born in the Hawaii time zone, or a VP who most recently comes from the Alaska time zone. I haven’t checked, but I wouldn’t be surprised if both Delaware and Arizona are so far unrepresented in the white house as well.

Can wait until Jay Nordlinger starts fret about all of Palin’s “kvetch[ing] about glass ceilings.” (My God — did Thatcher, Gandhi or Meir ever stoop so low?)

I think the pick is going to backfire. To begin with, it’s obviously a craven political choice. Palin wasn’t chosen because she brings anything substantive to the ticket, but rather because the McCain camp thinks having a woman on the ticket — no matter which woman — will swing undecided women voters toward the GOP. But American women aren’t stupid, they’re going to see through the trick. And, more to the point, they’re going to see that McCain didn’t nominate a woman — Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for example — who could interact with him as a peer. No, he picked a lightweight with a pretty face.

Can he take a mulligan?

A woman, oh glory a woman. Call the NOW.

So, it’s not Michael Palin? Damn.

Here, some background:
http://www.slate.com/id/2198949/?from=rss

…The “Draft Palin” movement picked up momentum in more mainstream media, including a column last summer by Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard. Others followed, including talk over the past couple weeks from conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. [Actually, Limbaugh’s been chatting up Palin since Feb. 2007…

“But if she’s smart, likable, and unwilling to put her foot in her mouth”

She placed second for Miss Alaska. Probably can fake it well enough, at least.

She’s very well-regarded and fairly well-known in pro-life circles.

It’s an interesting, but fairly desperate, pick; if you are the Republican candidate, you shoudl have the pro-life vote sewn up by the convention.

She will energize Republican-leaning women who would otherwise sit out the election. This assessment is based on a N=1 sample.

It’s a shame that it’s got to happen to such a fresh face, but Ms Palin has to be smeared with the same brush that paints Bush, Cheney and McCain.

I don’t want to hear about how we have to have a “hands off” approach to the delicate Ms. Palin. It’s “take no prisoners” time.

If she’s got an “R” after her name, she’s scum who wants to bring all but the richest Americans to their knees. If the GOP is going to try to claim that by associating with an old Weatherman, Obama has dirtied himself, than we’ve got to hang every single filthy Republican around the ex-Miss Alaska’s neck.

I hope the Dems’ oppo research is ready to do a number on little Sarah. And if they find pictures, so much the better. We cannot afford 4 more years of Republican rule. No how, no way.

I’m sure they wouldn’t admit it (and maybe it isn’t true) but I think this is an attempt to shake things up and hope the McCain ticket gets lucky. While it is true that McCain hasn’t been far behind, the fundamentals of this election and the charisma gap between McCain and Obama make it seem unlikely (to me, anyway) that McCain was going to win without doing something startling. It still probably won’t work, but I can see the logic.

However, practically, I don’t think she is a good choice for a prospective president who is as old as McCain–people will probably focus a bit more on her than they might if he were younger.

McCain wants to make history too. Unfortunately, it is still not as dramatic or cataclysmic as the first black Democratic Nominated Candidate for President being named so on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech. Beyond that are the women voters willing to give Hillary a chance that gullible that they would simply switch to McCain simply because he has a female running mate? Women are emotional creatures, but we’re not stupid creatures. There is a vast difference between Hillary and this woman. We realize that. This was a calculated risk, but not completely thought out. This is consistent with the Republican Party – they always underestimate the American People.

All the lefties here miss the point that Palin has more Executive experience as Governor than anyone else running.

So did Dubya.

Women are emotional creatures, but we’re not stupid creatures.

Certainly there must be some stupid creatures among the women? All they need is 2-3% of them all.

Well I like her. I think she is a good pick. I even like her more than McCain, and like them both more than Osama Obama.

We have enough professional politicians in government.

As far a Obama goes, no “victims” in the White House is my policy. He played to the I’m / You are a victim crowd to get where he is at today.

I would think what Biden can’t do in the debates is be patronizing and patriarchal. If he treats her as an equal and pounds her into dust that should be fine. it would be calling her sweetie or honey that would be bad

Those who say that this will cramp Biden’s attack dog style in the debates seem to be operating on the assumption that his target in those debates has to be Palin, but that’s just not so. Biden can be gracious to her, can talk about how wonderful it is that the GOP has nominated a woman, and then skewer McCain for everything under the sun.

The philosophically inclined may be intrigued by Palin’s membership in Feminists for Life, as they have adopted the slogan “Refuse to Choose”.

http://www.feministsforlife.org/index.htm

All the lefties here miss the point that Palin has more Executive experience as Governor than anyone else running.

In discussing executive experience, are we constrained to considering governmental types of this experience? I remember Mitt Romney making great hay out of his running the Olympics, for instance.

Why is being governor of a tiny [in population] state whose legislature is in term for 90 days a year (making her actual executive experience a paltry three months) more impressive than running a successful national organization for nearly two years?

[Being the head of one’s campaign is not strictly analogous to the duties a President or Governor has, but they are similar enough; it is a type of executive experience, even if it’s not hyped as such. Or am I wrong? What types of activities would a Governor have to deal with that is not covered as campaign head? )

dr, your last point was beyond valid.

Dr’s point is not valid. Like everything else in American politics, the debates are not about what is being said. It’s all about the tone, the makeup, grimaces, gestures, other kinds of body language, etc. Biden can’t look aggressive no matter what he’s saying. Neither can he look meek. He is fucked.

they like weak men even less than they dislike brutes

I think something has gone wrong with this sentence…

[url=http://s3.amazonaws.com/0SAJ7JN5VFAWT249NNR2.anigifdel/52655a293dd83d8907715bb13c7dc39d] The Dems react to McCain’s VP nomination[/url]

Alaska is only State in Union whose border is next to Russia

I really really really hope they run with this one, as it has to be the most profoundly silly Veep-related argument since we were told that Dan Quayle’s youthful good looks would bring female voters to the GOP in droves. And from the looks of things, I’m going to get my wish. Yay!

I’m trying to cheer myself up by thinking of some possible Rovian reason he picked Palindrone.

The best I can do is that its a charisma and experience Jujitsu move. The idea is that the reaction will be to say she she’s inexperienced they have to quit talking about experience but that leads to comparing Obama with Palin. That’s the grand plan…once the comparison becomes Obama and Palin you play on the subconscious racist/sexist tropes of who is an assistant versus who is in power: smarts, looks and ambition are for upstarts.

I gotta hand it to them for trying but still… not a WASP among the four of them.

yea, it seems the narrative that is playing out is that mccain is a dumb ass :P original maverick!

My best guess is McCain sees it as a mavericky, no-nonsense thing to do. I don’t see it as cynical at all.

As for Palin herself, she reminded me a bit of Dana Perino. Her style, as best I could gather from her acceptance speech, is very much in the (affected) humility tradition of George W Bush, where putting up a candidate without any great qualifications or achievements, somebody who seems small in comparison to the office they’re proposing to occupy, reads to true-believers as a kind of piety and faith in the institutions of government. In this mindset, we don’t expect the government to do much, the best it can do is kind of stay out of the way and fulfill basic functions. A connection is implied between qualified, ambitious candidates, and over-ambitious, arrogant government. The subtext is that a barely-qualified, mediocre(-by-any-objective-measure) candidate is somebody who will run things the way “you” (the conservative voter) would run things, won’t have any big plans for the government, and won’t mess anything up too bad. Valuing intelligence and qualification is elitist, and elitism is bad because it means somebody might be smarter and more qualified than you and they might use those capabilities to do something you might not want them to. Knowledge is power, and therefor it is feared.

“She’s been the governor for a short time, but look, she’s also a mom, with X kids, and isn’t that the really difficult job, being a mom?” It’s appealing, even flattering to people with a strong sense of community and modest material ambitions. Or to put it a bit differently, people who believe their material ambitions to be modest because they’ve never had to deal with, aren’t really aware of systematic injustice, and therefor don’t see the need for ambitions like providing affordable healthcare to everybody or ending poverty. The “more humble”, more appropriate ambition is to take care of yourself and your own family. That I think is the kind of mindset somebody like her appeals to, and if there wasn’t such widespread dissatisfaction, I think it would be effective. It may be anyway.

This is why attacks and negativity are so crucial to Republican politics. It’s because there isn’t actually a lot to recommend their candidates, and this is true even in the minds of supporters. The adoration that true believers have for figures like Dubya is very non-specific and has to do with their being “historic” or other vague notions. Character strengths don’t really matter to people who have bought into this mentality–and I think there’s enough of an anti-intellectual current in the US that many, many people do buy into it to some extent–only character flaws, so Republicans make their campaigns all about character flaws. That’s why attacking the opponent’s strengths works, because the expectations for the Republican candidates are already low, but people connect with them on the level of identifying with them. If they keep people from connecting with Democratic candidates in the same way, and Democratic candidates don’t have a really strong game in that regard, like Kerry hunting, or Dukakis in the tank, they fail.

I think the best way to fight this is to expose the underlying psychology and highlight the contradiction between having respect for the institutions of the presidency, etc., and wanting to fill them with less-than-most-qualified individuals. And of course doing as much as possible to make Democratic candidates easy to identify with and likable. That’s why this is so important for Democrats, because they are trying to appeal to people who demand real qualifications, as well as to people for whom qualifications are, potentially, irrelevant (they will imagine people they identify with as being qualified, objective standards be damned) or even somewhat threatening.

Just a brief correction to an aside in the post: Harriet Miers nomination was not withdrawn because of her temperament or style. It was withdrawn because the hard right feared that she was what British Tories would call “wet,” and also understood that her manifest mediocrity would be less useful for her than a reliable conservative ideologue with serious judicial chops. Their fear was that she would turn out to be a David Souter, not merely that she was unimpressive or gaffe prone. And the very effectively pressued the Bush administration into prioritizing ideology over cronyism (the latter being the driving factor in the Miers choice). For their part, Senate Democrats basically sat on the sidelines and let the GOP rip itself apart for a few days (not a bad choice, really), but then rolled over and refused to filibuster the real right-wing dream candidate who followed Miers: Samuel Alito.

The comments reflect a sense of incoherence and panic which is what McCain intended. Perhaps he can’t win but it did not hurt his chances.

I just love the casual elitism of bicycle H paladin and others here, people who obviously are possessed of that “Vision of the Anointed,” only true “progressives” may harbor and who obviously value their own “intelligence” highly indeed. I especially liked Hussein’s bit about democrats appealing to people who demand “real qualifications.” Considering the paucity of Obama’s footprints in the accomplishment/qualifications arena, I’m not sure that’s a road lefties want to go down. Palin has more solid accomplishments where the rubber hits the road under her belt in the short time she has been in politics than Obama has achieved in his lifetime. And her spouse, unlike Obama’s affirmative action wife with her make-work political payoff job at the Univ. of Chicago, has at least accomplished real things on his own merits. And he and her children are bi-racial as well, but I guess that only “counts” in the Donkey Party.

The choice of Palin shows two things: (1) The Skull is having trouble with the hard-right Republican base, and (2) he likes doing surprising, bounce-off-the-wall things. Which we already knew.

Ultra-conservatives will be a little more energized to come out — and because this is a close election, it may make the difference.

But when Democratic women find out Palin’s views on abortion and the environment, (global warming is not man-made?!,) they will not be crossing over.

McCain/Palin have clearly made the decision to position themselves as anti-corruption reformers, as fresh mavericks — but these are not issues that really work against the Dem ticket, since they are not accused of corruption and of course Obama presents an historical change too.

Perhaps they are hoping to bring up drilling in ANWR as the solution to energy woes, but on the energy problem the Dems already have smart and serious positions, so Palin’s choice doesn’t necessarily work to advantage.

McCain’s other main selling point, the fact that he was in the military and fought for the country, was mentioned by Palin a few times in her speech today. But the Dems effectively counterattacked at their convention that this does not provide a lockhold on patriotism, nor does McCain’s voting 90% with Bush demonstrate good judgment.

On another issue brought up in comments here above: the whole “executive experience” thing is greatly overhyped. The presidency is a position held entirely by amateurs, and everybody knows it. People won’t vote for someone who is obviously callow or shallow, and none of the candidates can be accused of that anymore.

Obama has maintained a slight lead in the total electoral college but Palin doesn’t help McCain much with that, since Alaska has only three electoral college votes.

Still it’s a very close election, as your less-than-humble reporter predicted many moons ago, and it is likely to be decided in the first couple of debates between the tops of the tickets.

@62, My observations about Palin were more about how she markets & presents herself and the experience she has than about why she was chosen and what that experience actually is. Her demeanor has been very casual and understated, not trying (it seems to me) to come across as somebody as exemplary as I think we usually expect presidents to be. G W Bush has a similar style, in my opinion, and a lot of people are baffled by that–by how candidates who sound so casual about what they’re doing–clueless, even–could appeal to anybody at all. Democratic politicians affect a lot more gravitas, at least it seems that way to me. And, I think, if they didn’t, they’d be pilloried for it in the press. If Obama said he didn’t understand economics as well as he should, or what have you…

As for their actual qualifications, something (maybe it was terms like “lefties” and “casual elitism”?) tells me a discussion over what it means that McCain mixed up Sunnis and Shi’is, or Bush’s incompetence in general, much less the extent of Obama and Palin’s actual qualifications, would be a waste of time. Not that I’m totally enamored with all of Obama’s statements, mind you, but he has yet to throw out a whopper like Iran funding al-Qaeda, and most of what I’ve heard him say has actually been pretty intelligent, at least with regard to those parts of the world and issues I know a little bit about.

@67

It is one thing to assert that Palin has the same level of experience as Obama; however, it is quite another to over come her various public utterances about ignorance of what the VP does all day or that she has never really thought about Iraq. And so on.

Exactly–the thing is, I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s being a little bit modest about this (though, I wouldn’t take it for granted that she actually knows more, either, since she hasn’t been planning a run for VP anywhere near as long as Obama was planning his run), but I don’t think that kind of statement is something you would ever, ever hear from a Democrat. If anybody can provide counter-examples, by all means do so.

And I don’t think that’s entirely because Democrats are more concerned with projecting an image of competence, or entirely because they are more thoughtful. I think it actually reflects different values and different expectations about government–a “minding the store” approach on the part of conservatives, with a very cavalier view towards foreign policy and the importance or relevance of other countries, vs a “grand aspirations” approach that Democrats prefer. Of course a lot of what Democrats call “grand” aspirations, like a national health-care system, are things that many other countries have achieved. Other “grand” aspirations are about serious moral issues like entrenched social injustice. Democrats might talk about a grand aspiration of overcoming centuries of racism, while Republicans don’t (at least from what I’ve heard) talk about having a grand aspiration to protect the unborn–it’s just something you should do, I guess?

I can’t quite wrap my mind around it, in any case. Those important issues are important! People should treat them that way. I don’t think the political tactic of portraying that casualness as an indicator of being out of touch is really wrong or disingenuous.

Okay. Let’s never throw the “Obama isn’t experienced” card out there again. She became governor in 2006… She answered a question on the rumors of her becoming VP with the answer “What does a VP do?” Just a month ago… She is being investigated right now… Go do some searches. You’ll see she flip-flopped on why she fired the guy. First she said it was because she wanted him in a new job to focus on alcohol abuse in Alaska. And then, less than a month later, she said she fired him because she didn’t believe that he could control alcohol abuse in Alaska. And she replaced him a guy with a sexual harrassment and letter of reprimand against him. And she knew about it. She has been in charge of a state with more reindeer than people. There is a big different in pushing the button to switch on the lights in a god-forsaken town in Alaska and having your finger on the red flashing button. What happens, God forbid, if something happens to McCain (if he becomes President) and she becomes President. The sad thing is that there are many more competent women he could have chosen from. But he took this decision because he will do everything to become President. He did it because it is good for him. Not what is good for this country. It is a sexist decision trying to play “women” to get their vote. Shame on McCain.

Angry, remember what Obama said: we all put our country first. Your line of attack is supposed to be out of bounds. Yes, she was elected in 2006; Obama began running for president in 2006, after two years as a Senator. Was he unqualified then, only to become qualified while running? How does that work? Can you tell me, what will Biden do as VP, if he were elected? Is it possible that Palin knows more about the role than you? It may well be that Palin flip-flopped on why she fired someone, but it isn’t clear why we should care. I mean, Obama has told several versions of the Rezco story, but I don’t think you’re interested in getting to the bottom of that. Am I wrong?

Bubba, that’s ok, I’m not running for president. If I were, I wouldn’t be so casual, and I’d proofread these all-important comments before posting. I think I have a much higher IQ than you do.

I think I have a much higher IQ than you do.

You let me know when your IQ solves The Great Rezko Mystery.

@64: “Palin has more solid accomplishments…in the short time she has been in politics than Obama has achieved in his lifetime.”
No, I don’t think so.
Also, what you say about Michelle Obama is unwarranted.

On experience:
Obama:
In the US Senate, has served on the Foreign Relations Committeens, Homeland Secuirty Committee, Veterans Affairs Committee, Health, Education, Labour & Pension Committee.
– In the US Senate Obama has written 890 pieces of legislation, and co-sponsored 1096 pieces of legislation.
– Before getting to the US Senate Obama served 11 years in the Illinois State Senate.
– has a law degree from Harvard Law School
– also has a degree in Political science specializing in International Relations.
– worked in Chicago, Illinois as a community organizer
– as the director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago, helped set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants’ rights organization
– worked as a consultant and instructor for a community organizing institute.
– worked as a Civil Rights lawyer for 9 years.
– University of Chicago Constutitional Law Professor for 12 years.
– the author of 2 best selling books,
– the leader of the Democratic Party, the winner of more than 19 million votes in the Democratic Primaries

Palin:
– was mayor of a very small town of approx 6,000
– has been governor of one of America’s smallest states for 18 months (and is under investigation for abuse of power)
– has a BA in Journalism from the University of Idaho

“Unwarranted”? Why not say “incorrect”?

Paladin, thanks, interesting comments.
Maybe I’m thinking about a different kind of Republican, but I think you misunderstand them, they do have aspirations. The usual right-wing aspirations: national unity, national greatness, that kind of thing. These are, in a sense, much ‘higher’ aspirations than your universal healthcare stuff.

Same story with the ambitions. Their politicians are ambitious, they will ‘restore honor and dignity’, they will ‘unite’, they will ‘lead’. A politician will make a speech – the nation will unite, raise to the occasion – now anything is possible. Universal healthcare is a pathetic little aspiration, the Grim Reaper himself will be defeated. These are huge ambitions indeed.

In this context it’s understandable why they want a person who speaks simple language, who’s not an intellectual, not an experienced manager, not intelligent even. Not intelligent, but clever in some folksy way. Someone who talks about “controlling legal authority” can not, obviously, ‘lead the nation’; the one who says “hunt ’em down” just might. In Russian fairy tales it’s always helpless Ivan The Fool who defeats the evil, wins the prize, and in the end turns out to be the wisest of them of. This is a powerful fable, man.

Unbelievable choice for VP. If I was a Republican I would be pissed.

Sarah Palin: The Real Dope (pun intended)

“I can’t see (m)any Hillary Clinton supporters switching to the Republicans on the basis of this.”

I don’t think Palin is meant to appeal to Hillary Democrats. She’s supposed to appeal to soccer Moms who aren’t Hillary Democrats. I don’t know how many are in this set, though.

If she’s acceptable to republicans who aren’t creationist etc then she’ll be a threat in coming years.

I’d never heard of Obama until he was chosen to give the nominating speech at sombody else’s nomination and people talked about what an up-and-coming politician he was, and nobody much had heard of her until now.

For those just coming in who haven’t bothered to read the whole thread, I’d just like to give big ups to bicycle Hussein paladin–his/her comments at #58 and #68 are remarkably perceptive. I’ve rarely, if ever, seen the psychological underpinnings of US politics laid out so cogently. Very well done.

The comments reflect a sense of incoherence and panic which is what McCain intended. Perhaps he can’t win but it did not hurt his chances.

I partly agree with you here–this choice, and the way it was rolled out, was to some degree a short-term tactical move. What McCain hopes is that he’s neutralized the entire Democratic convention bounce. He’s succeeded at grabbing the US Labor Day media buzz away from Obama’s terrific acceptance speech; a speech lauded at the time as one of the greatest such in history, and 12 hours later, it was down the memory hole as if it hadn’t happened at all.

Of course, what goes on on CNN and political blogs, and what goes on in voters’ minds, are not necessarily the same things–many voters actually watched Obama’s speech, so they don’t necessarily need people to keep talking about it. And winning the media cycle only helps you in the short term; we’re still a couple of months away from the election, with debates and the home stretch still to come. Two weeks from now, everyone’s strategy and punditry will have adjusted to Sarah Palin’s presence. Picking your VP with an eye to flattening the other party’s convention bounce with a big confusing surprise is not necessarily wise.

Andrew Tannenbaum on electoral-vote.com was discussing exactly this scenario months ago, and pointed out that McCain could spectacularly dominate a few media cycles by picking Palin. He then wondered what we’re all wondering–whether the longer-term negatives would outweigh that for McCain. (And even he eventually got faked out by the trooper scandal into assuming Palin was out of contention.)

Palin is the embodiment of the Pioneering Spirit that opened this country. She is a strong woman who has the guts too stand up to Biden. It takes a strong woman who has 5 children and still looks young. A Governer is higher than a Senator and needs more smarts in domestic and foriegn affairs too hold the office.

…many voters actually watched Obama’s speech, so they don’t necessarily need people to keep talking about it.

But they do. Without talking heads telling them, they will never know what they think about it.

Smedvik my mother was born in Briton and was a WAC in the War. I have many relatives in London and your comment is just as biased as MAC. Many Brits support the US in IRaq as they see what a mess lies just below the surface in England and Europe. Your countries have been infitrated by Muslem Terrorists and your communities have poor sections full of out of work Arabs where the epicenter of the Sh-te(in OLD English )will hit the fan.

Bubba, I’m just having a bit of fun with you, quoting the uber-smart Joe Biden.

Bubba, I’m just having a bit of fun with you, quoting the uber-smart Joe Biden.

There was no offense taken. I was just having a bit of fun with you for using Rezko as a scare without being familiar with the circumstances.

Hmm. I lurk on CT a lot more than I post, and I daresay I recognize most of the regulars and irregulars, earnest and trollish alike. This thread is a day old and it already has 107 comments, many of which come from people I have never seen on the site, and a good number of which (Studi, I’m looking at you) are well below the normal level of discourse on the site (again, earnest and trollish alike).

Wonder why that is? Just asking.

“It takes a strong woman who has 5 children and still looks young.”

Yeah, cos that’s what’s important in a woman/potential leader.

Sarah Palin also has a strong populist streak in her. She admires Ron Paul in this MTV interview she says:

She also left the finances of her town Wasilla in tatters. She is incompetent and corrupt. Personally, I think McCain should have nominated his horse, that would give this circus the right flavor.

#112: “I don’t think politics is politics anymore, it seems to have become theatre, . . . “

The only rational explanation for the choice of Palin is that John McCain is a performance artist engaged in a critique of politics-as-usual, as a real-life Jack Tanner. Why else shoot himself in the foot this way?

Studi: 102:

I think I was clear in stating that world politics will be greatly impacted by the U.S. election and that a change is needed to facilitate a move toward positive relations between our countries.

However, it is also clear that we differ in our opinions of what that direction should be. But I said I was offering you an opinion from someone who lives here and speaks for a lot of people. Take that for what you want.

The Bush administration is held in disdain and that disdain is projected onto the American people…which isn’t fair. We don’t see a distinction b/w Bush and McCain. Again, it’s that simple.

I applaud the efforts of our allies and countryfolk in previous wars. As I do McCain’s valiant struggle. Our histories are fraught with war heroes. But that doesn’t mean we should still be fighting the Germans.

Obama made a great impression in the EU. It’s that simple. We are looking for a change too.

Scare tactics should be a thing of the past. Let’s hope anyway. I do not fear my local neighbours. I fear poor world leadership. And I include our own leadership in that lot.

bicycle Hussein paladin 08.30.08 at 12:27 am

Where do you get that there is panic? … It could be she is just a really mediocre choice, and that’s all there is to it.

The panic shows up in the frenetic commentary. If she were ‘just mediocre’ nobody’d bother to pan her; instead, we have the Obama supporters coming seriously unglued on this thread.

she’s the perfect retrograde woman and she never met a corporate interest she did not like. Perfectly republican.

I live in Tennessee, and all it took for me to go from suspicion to contempt was to find that Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Hyper-Republican from here) just loves Sarah Palin.

Oh, well, at least Tina Fey will be making a few guest appearances on SNL before long, if looks are any indication.

117: I suspect the freneticism has more to do with television news ratings than it does anything else. It certainly has succeeded in diverting attention from the real issues.

Just saying, but people who would crawl a mile across broken glass to avoid voting for a Republican probably should not be too confident in their judgment as to what appeals to people for whom casting that vote is a live option. Palin doesn’t get your vote, but so what, it was never available to be gotten.

If the general public shared your view of these things, Democrats would win every election…

Sadly agreeing with B.Bellmore.
Palin will continue to galvanize the same audience that elected Bush at the bidding of the Unseen Authority behind the television’s blinding curtain.

Even more sadly no one to agree with that the catharsis of sports-analogue politics is what’s in play, all that’s in play. Not issues, not policy. The game, winning and losing. The only issue that gets trotted out is abortion. And that’s not even foregrounded now.
People here should spend some time watching FOX and MSNBC.

Substance, issues, the fundamental differences between the two candidates as per the real world and its affairs, missing entirely.
Numbers, strategy, points gained and lost, that’s it.

noen:
Politics has always been theatrical. Rarely theater.

#108 Maurice, It appears to be happening on most of the blogs and news sites I read, too. It will be nice if we find a few independent thinkers out of it — but it is also very hard to believe that Rove & Co. haven’t fired up Troll Central.

This is probably a necessary “cover-all-your-bases” tactic, but it could also be a waste of campaign money on this new medium, since it has no effect on the two largest factors: (1) there are two months to go, so people can’t be prevented from thinking about this all the way through, and (2) there is another convention and major debates to come, so most of what is written now will be forgotten.

WOW.

131 caps it for me.

I thought I’d found a site that was open to discourse, but in reviewing the on-going commentary I am whole-heartedly disappointed.

All I’ve found is more fear of other. Aren’t we full up on that yet?

Good luck to those of you who clearly have the best interests of all people in mind.

BUH-bye.

PRIOR POST: but rather because the McCain camp thinks having a woman on the ticket—no matter which woman—will swing undecided women voters toward the GOP. But American women aren’t stupid, they’re going to see through the trick.

RESPONSE: oops. sorry. hit hte wrong button and it jumped into cyberspace.
Anyway, my logic agrees with you. But if so, why do we hear so much about HCRs supporters going to McCain rather than support Obama? If there were greater differences between HRC & Obama, or less difference between McCain and Hillary/Obama I could see it. But given the present choices, I haven’t understood the logic for a long time .

@117 What’s trollish you ask? Okay, see #123? That’s trollish. Barack Obama is a Muslim and Muslims are untrustworthy liars? I mean, come on. Nevermind level of discourse, that’s not discourse. I’m not saying we should censor comments like that, unless they grow in volume to the point where they drown out real discussion, in which case I think it would be totally appropriate to censor them. But, are you seriously going to tell me that’s not trollish? That right there is the bottom of the internet leaking in through a crack in the tubes or something. It’s either a run-of-the-mill internet prankster (that is, a troll, by definition), or a serious whack-job.

It’s either a run-of-the-mill internet prankster (that is, a troll, by definition), or a serious whack-job.

It’s a Two Worlds collision. Real trolls have no fixed political ideology. They merely wish to disrupt and will change their political “beliefs” to suit whatever community they find themselves in. They are in a word sadists.

There are a large number of people who really believe that Obama is a secret Muslim, that entitlements should be eliminated, that corporations should not be regulated and so on. They knew about Sarah Palin and were rooting for her long before anyone here heard of her. “Trolls” are sometimes people who show up in the wrong community and try to argue from their perspective. Usually all you get is a flame war. That’s too bad.

Liberals can sometimes be just as closed minded as any conservative. Just as liable to label as troll anyone that strays from the accepted social norms. As an experiment try going to a liberal site and argue for a position outside of what is accepted and see what happens to you. Remember to do this as a conservative, not as a liberal pretending to be a conservative. You’ll get labeled a troll and flamebaited and banned even if you do your best to be polite. (Not everywhere but some places this is true.)

I don’t know of any neutral space where people from the many online communities could go to meet and discuss issues. It would have to be heavily moderated I suppose. Something like that is needed I should think or things will remain as balkanized as they are now. That can’t be good.

Is it okay for Christians to lie us into a war? Pardon the people who would provide the evidence of your own corruption?

Yes. There are a large number of Christians today who believe that once they are saved they can essentially do no wrong. If God speaks to you and you are doing God’s will then any means towards that end is justified. It is the “God exists, therefore all is permitted” kind of thinking. As long as you are following God’s will. In fact, they are the majority of Christians today and their numbers are growing.

@138
Yeah, I realize there are people who sincerely believe Obama is a closet Muslim trying to destroy the country, as there are people who genuinely believe a lot of ridiculous things, that doesn’t make them not ridiculous. I would put the odds that people saying what #123 said are malicious and disingenuous in some way a lot higher than the odds that they are people who just happen to disagree and wandered by. I mean, how are you supposed to dialog with self-identified neo-fascists, white supremacists, or hateful fundamentalist whatevers? Isn’t there a point where you just say, “we don’t welcome that kind of talk around here”?

No doubt this has been rehashed a zillion times, but… the fact that a certain ridiculous belief is mostly held by liberals or conservatives or Jews or Muslims or any other group doesn’t mean we should act like it’s not ridiculous. If I were to waltz on in here and start arguing that you’re all going to hell or that white people are inherently more intelligent than brown people, or that the US and Europe should be violently coerced into adopting communism, I don’t think the community would be out of line to call me a fool for saying those things. If I believe one of those things (and you know this somehow, say because I self-identified as a strongly believing “born again” Christian) but I don’t ever bring these beliefs up in discussion, I think it’s a much harder case to make that I should be declared a whacko or a troll just for believing something (I certainly wouldn’t try to make that argument).

The more I think about this, the more I think that the most effective strategy for Democrats is to ignore Palin. McCain made his big splash by picking her, but she isn’t particularly appealing to women. Moreover, to Hillary’s most ardent supporters this choice just rubs salt into the wound. It’s the same old story: if you’re a woman you need to be young and pretty to achieve power. And you’d better gather those rosebuds now because when you get older people will make cracks about your thighs, represent you as a cackling harridan, and resent you for daring to run for public office.

Her real appeal is to religious conservatives. McCain might as well have chosen Mike Huckabee–also a likable character with a folksy political outsider image. And this pick won’t get him any more mileage than choosing Huckabee or any other folksy religious conservative unless Republicans manage to keep the faux-feminist theme alive.

A youngish, good-looking women has been picked to play second-banana to a powerful male. That’s an old story–hardly another crack in the glass ceiling, and certainly not a feminist victory.

Kaveh Hemmat @136: If you go back and read what Maurice Meilleur wrote at 108, you’ll see that his use of “earnest” and “trollish” does *not* refer specifically to this thread but rather refers to CT in general. Meilleur: “I lurk at CT a lot more than I post, and I daresay I recognize most of the regulars and irregulars, earnest and trollish alike.” That sentence is about the blog, not about this thread, and so is my response at 117. Maybe he’s right that there are “trollish” regulars and irregulars, but I was raising a question about that. So while I agree with you that the person who commented at 123 is nuts, that is tangential to the point I was trying to raise.

As to whether 123 and similar comments should be censored, my answer is no. They should be able to write and post any nonsense they want, subject only to basic restrictions involving libel/defamation and, perhaps, obvious obscenity. A concerted attack on a site by posts of this kind might raise a different issue, but that does not appear to have happened here.

@142
I now think that I took this too far off topic. It is something that interests me though and frankly I’m bored with Palin. She’s not that interesting. Basically I was just wondering out loud about the great divide of our times and thinking it might be a good thing for the two worlds to meet. Or maybe not, but not here.

People really are not that stupid. Those who think McCain may have made a diabolically clever choice should relax; it’s actually just as dumb and crazy as it seems.

The last two Presidential elections, ’04 particularly, disagree with the first. As to the 2nd point, “diabolically clever,” might be used if they win, but prio to that perhaps calculated desperation may fit better. The possibility of the R’s going 12-16 straight after the first 8 is pretty slim, but they have had a bit better long game of late than the other team; sometimes there is a strategery possible to punting on 3rd and long.

Given the choice of someone who cooked squirrels in a popcorn maker or whatever, or one who stalks the great bear in the woods, who would RR have picked [subject to Nan’s approval of course]?

@ LFC 146, Okay, I see what you’re saying. fwiw I agree about if/when comments like #123 should be censored.

The more I think about this, the more I think that the most effective strategy for Democrats is to ignore Palin.

I think that’s right. I think there’s a danger (for the democrats) that somehow an illusion is created that Obama is running against Palin and McCain against Biden. That would be bad.

I don’t want to hear about how we have to have a “hands off” approach to the delicate Ms. Palin. It’s “take no prisoners” time.

Yeah, I don’t think delicate is really a problem — she hunts, she fishes, plays hockey, was nicknamed ‘Sarah Barracuda’ playing point-guard in high-school. Or so I hear. And I bet she doesn’t bowl 37. And she strikes me as something very much unlike a convention, conservative Christian women. Look at the admission of inhaling when smoking pot. Or the curiously hippie-sounding names of her kids (Willow, Track, Trig).

She has glamor comparable to Obama’s but of a very different kind–the Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain, frontier sort of glamor. The ‘Deadliest Catch’ kind. Not the tall thin man from Harvard in a beautifully tailored suit kind. Interesting contrast.

And you could argue that her political rise is more attractive than Obama’s — an insurgent, outsider campaign to unseat an incumbent governer. Rather than, in Obama’s case, a campaign that was launched with legal maneuvers to get his opponents tossed off the ballot, followed by careful grooming by powers-that-be in the Illinois legislature.

Palin may turn out to be in way over her head, but Americans will give her a chance to show otherwise — I expect a lot of people will be tuning in to the vice-presidential debate. And the idea that Biden will necessarily wipe the floor with her is doubtful. Biden, after all, has something of a history of speaking disasters — claiming Neil Kinnock’s coal-mining ancestors as his own, obviously, as well as the famous “my IQ is higher than yours” boast.

McCain/Palin’08.

McCain: Pale In ’08.

@153: Fair enough.

Read the wikipedia entries of the four people in question. Is that a way to see who is up to snuff and who is not? I think so, at least to some degree. It’s a good starting point anyway…

What I came away with from that activity is that: (a) Obama and Biden have quite a bit of coverage over serious and relevant matters spanning social services and constitutional law, and (b) McCain seems average and he’s been around a long time, and (c) Palin has a minor in political science and something of a ‘homecoming queen’ foundation for being President. Yikes.

If these were résumés I was reviewing to fill a position, I would definitely think more highly of Biden and Obama.

In alphabetical order…
Biden
McCain
Obama
Palin

Let’s face it, Palin’s biography is compelling, equivelent, more or less, to Obama’s. What the veep selection has been very succesful at – and this thread is just one small example – is that the headlines, chatter, and excitement have all moved quickly from BO to JM/SP. That being said, if you view the veep selection as the first presidential decision of a candidate, the Obama wins hands down, without question.

@156: speaking disasters? You mean the one time he made the same point that Neil Kinnock had made, and failed to point out that, while true of himself also, he was not the first man to say it? Gosh, that’s right up there with blurting out that your daddy was in the KKK.

Really, I would be more bothered about facts like Palin’s opposition to abortion for rape-victims. Go there, really, people should.

I’m guessing Palin won’t have much effect on democrats, Hillary supporters or not.

The big effect is to bring in republicans who otherwise might want to sit this one out. The kind who thought that Bush was a good Christian man.

What I dont know is how it will affect independents. When I think Independent I think of people who’re like me. I didn’t care about the Democratic Party until the GOP turned so eldritch. Now I wind up supporting Democrats because by comparison they’re the party of sanity. But maybe a lot of independents aren’t like me. Maybe some of them would vote for McCain because of Palin, who would otherwise not vote or vote for Obama. I dunno. Independents are probably a pretty diverse lot.

Slocum, do you care a white about whether Palin is remotely capable of performing her duties given the substantial probability that she’ll become president if elected?

Republicans seem to care about this purely as a tactical move, akin to cheering on Team Red. Your party is simply not serious about governing. That’s what this pick means.

Now that it has come out that Palin’s unmarried daughter is five-months pregnant, all these comments are obsolete. We are now in the midst of a world-class soap opera.

More proof that history is indifferent to considerations of good taste.

I hate having to retag every paragraph.

Like it’s ever anything other than a soap opera. And how could it be when you vote for a person rather than a set of policies.

Sure—but it’s not at all clear that her resume is thinner than Obama’s

Yes, it’s clear.

Marc, a vote for Palin is a vote for motherhood. A lot of people are in favor of motherhood.

Jonathan Martin:
“Let it be noted that McCain aide/blogger Michael Goldfarb was on the Palin train way back in February, when he was still writing for The Weekly Standard.
He touted the little-known Alaska governor so much, actually, that editor Bill Kristol had to rein him in.
That is, until Kristol also caught the Palin fever.
Appearing on Fox in June, Kristol (perhaps with a touch of humor) predicted McCain would tap Palin.”
http://tinyurl.com/652584

Daily Kos:
Q: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance
http://tinyurl.com/5t6x2k

Better than regular:
http://tinyurl.com/5jjlge

if we get to November and still have no idea what Palin’s position is on those issues, or find she has no position, or feel that she generally doesn’t know what she’s talking about

Quite right. It’s September and we are not allowed to have opinions yet.

“I was talking about Obama’s image, which is one of elegance…” #183

Oh give me a f…..ing break. He’s a skinny black guy with big ears. Quit trying the Rove trick of making him into the snooty guy at the country club. It won’t work.

Obama has a urban, elegant kind of coolness. It’s an attractive image, and it fits him.

Let me agree with Slocum just for fun, while noting that it’s not hard to look polished next to the current occupant of the White House, or the current incarnation of John McCain for that matter.

Similar?

I don’t think so. Rove’s bit tells you a whole lot more about Rove himself. It’s probably the case that to some people “X is graceful” – an innocuous and true statement in the case of Obama – means “X is a FAG!” but those are unlikely to be the folks a Democrat needs to win over in any case.

Check this out.

“Sarah Palin on Foreign Policy:
No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org. ”

http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm

I don’t know about senators, but Brits often express amazement that most Americans don’t have passports. The difference is that we don’t need them in order to go to the beach or to go skiing.