home

Palin's Jane Sixpack Schtick

I am watching Sarah Palin's new stump speech (she is in Clearwater, Florida) and I go back to my comparison of her to Ronald Reagan. She is delivering the same hate filled Republican attacks on the patriotism of Democrats; on supposedly "tax loving" Democrats who argue for higher taxes for "ordinary Americans" (using Joe Biden's formulation of asking the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes as an act of patriotism); arguing that government is the evil in society; Democrats as "the Other," a classic Politics of Paranoia tactic, and so on. The difference is she spends the first 10 minutes of the speech doing her "hockey mom" Jane Six pack schtick. But to me it was pure Ronald Reagan.

I thought it was politically effective while I found it personally repugnant. For those who do not know, I have argued that Ronald Reagan was one of the most repugnant figures in political history. And here is my bottom line - Palin is ten times the politician John McCain is. If we can keep the voters' focus on McCain and not Palin, it is to the benefit of the Democrats. Karl Rove makes a good point in response to Jon Meacham:

[Palin]'s a rising star who accentuates John McCain's maverick strengths and a "hockey mom" who has developed a powerful tie to ordinary voters.

That link isn't itself an argument for Palin. But being able to connect with, and inspire, the public is an asset —not a liability. As for Jon's argument against "everyday Americans" as political leaders, many great presidents have been more average than elitist. Ronald Reagan, from Eureka College, was a far better leader than Woodrow Wilson, a former president of Princeton. Wilson would have given you 100 Supreme Court opinions he disagreed with, whether you wanted to listen or not.

Here's the thing, Palin's Paranoia with a hockey mom smile is what McCain needs to do - what the Republicans must do - attack Obama's character. Rove writes:

McCain-Palin must deepen those doubts by pounding away on questions about Obama's character, judgment and values. Drawing on Obama's own record and statements, they need to paint him as a big spender, class warrior and cultural elitist; they need to say he's never worked across party lines or gotten his hands dirty solving big issues.

Palin has the personna to do it - she is Jane SixPack. And frankly, Dems and liberals have helped crystallize that image, for better or worse. Rove writes:

McCain must launch these themes in the two remaining debates. Knockouts are welcome but unlikely and unnecessary. Introducing a theme and sticking to it day after day worked this past July, when McCain successfully depicted Obama as a celebrity taken with his own press notices. The GOP nominee did it right in the first debate when his assaults were formal and indirect ("Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record …") while Obama was personal and direct ("John, 10 days ago you said …").

The problem is John McCain is an incompetent politician (he is also a reckless, feckless blithering idiot generally.) He is incapable of doing it. Palin can. She has political talent. McCain does not.

In July, it was not John McCain who made the attacks that worked on Obama - it was the McCain campaign ads. McCain himself is a political incompetent not capable of making the attacks with a smile.

And of course, the Obama campaign will not be sitting still through all of this. It has been driving the message even today - "John McCain can ignore the economy, the American People can not." Obama will hammer the economy till the cows come home now.

So long as the Obama camp does not let itself get distracted by Palin, it will win this election in a walk. If it gets distracted, the election could get closer.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Palin Calls Afghanistan "Our Neighboring Country" | The Polls - 10/6 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Palin's doing a rehearsal ... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:04:16 AM EST
    for her '12 run.  And I think she knows it.

    By which time she'll have the "experience card" under control.  Easy re-election as Governor, bunch of high profile trips to meet world leaders, book tour, etc..

    And I bet before this year is out, she'll appear with Tina Fey on SNL.

    Even if they lose this election badly, we haven't seen the last of Palin.

    Absolutely agree. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:10:37 AM EST
    I don't know if Palin has the endurance she needs, but she has almost every other skill she needs to succeed in politics - especially the ability to attract money and other forms of support.  And she loves the spotlight.  It all seems familiar somehow...

    But then again, there are no new stories, just the same old ones rebranded for different audiences.

    Parent

    There are old stories, and ... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:17:45 AM EST
    very old stories.

    Watched David Cameron (Brit Tory leader) last night, and his whole gambit is mix of old Republican stuff and the "change message."

    Like a morph of McCain and Obama.

    You follow politics long enough and it all looks like reruns.

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:35:04 AM EST
    No doubt.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Coral on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:16:59 AM EST
    And now that she has learned the pitfalls of press interviews, she will educate herself in order to handle trick questions, like what newspapers and magazines she reads.

    She's dangerous.

    Parent

    she's extremely, extremely dangerous (none / 0) (#62)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:04:19 PM EST
    I worry about our country in '12....hopefully by that time some of the shine will have rusted off of Palin, but I'm not sold that will happen, considering the same people who voted Bush in as President will see that as a good vote (somehow) and vote again for Bush, in Palin...

    Parent
    History Repeating? (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:31:04 AM EST
    In the light of this article and this one, I've got a horrible feeling that this is history repeating.

    If Bush is Nixon, Ford is McCain, Obama is Carter, and Palin is Reagan, then it goes something like this. A deeply unpopular president engaged in a messy war and viewed as corrupt seems to ensure this is a Democratic year. A moderate Republican becomes the nominee, and faces a young, inexperienced Democrat, whose principles are questionable but aims to reform government and politics itself. The Republican loses by a narrower margin than was expected in a clearly Democratic year, and the Democrat takes charge. The weight of problems - economic and foreign policy in particular - and the perceived indecisiveness of the president lead to his unpopularity. Meanwhile, a charismatic outsider who gained wide public attention during the Republican primaries, achives the Republican nomination the following election and leads a blue-collar and social conservative based revolution towards Washington, ousting the overwhelmed Democrat and ensuring Republican dominance of the White House for a generation.

    I've always thought Obama an extraordinarily weak candidate. It's why I opposed him during the primaries, and the fact that he is now the nominee doesn't change his weakness. He is absolutely the best candidate we have to choose from, but I fear that in Palin, the GOP have found their future, whilst we've thrown ours into the spotlight far too early.

    Palin is a superstar, and she's nowhere near maxed out. Obama is. If he loses this electiom, we've lost our brightest star for the future; if he wins, I worry it'll be too much, and Palin will knock him aside four years later. Two-term presidents seem to have become the norm recently, but they aren't.

    Parent

    I think Obama is closer to Bill Clinton, (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:04:59 PM EST
    the man from Hope.

    Parent
    The problem with this scenario (none / 0) (#58)
    by cardcarryingmember on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:58:02 PM EST
    is that in 1980 the Republicans were the ones with "new ideas" and energy. At this point, with the Republican brand and brain trust increasingly on life support, larger majorities of young people nationwide declared as Democrats and the demographics of the country as a whole increasingly favoring Dems, can anyone really foresee a sudden rising of the old Reagan coalition in a mere four years, let alone another "generation" of Republican wins to come?

    Parent
    There is a way to circumvent your scenario (none / 0) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:31:53 PM EST
    And that's with progressive legislation that works.  A new New Deal for the American people.

    When FDR was re-elected in 1936 the economy was still in bad shape, BUT, it was markedly improved compared to when he took office and the general suffering decreased. Roosevelt won over 60% of the vote, the biggest blowout until LBJ destroyed Goldwater in '64. Turnout was much higher than in '32, an affirmation of the Roosevelt Presidency. The nation recovered slowly but steadily except for a brief setback in 1937 and the American people trusted him enough to elect him four times.

    In our 232 years we've only been fortunate enough to have one Franklin Roosevelt, but that doesn't mean that Obama or any Democrat can't make real headway in a crisis. As Bill Clinton said in response to David Letterman's question ' ... who would want that job in today's situation,' Clinton answered, in so many words, the he would.

    If this economy gets really bad over the next year, Obama can assure re-election by making aggressive progressive moves. The public will want real action and resistence to those actions will be political suicide. Those Republican office holders who resist will be toast.

    I've complained over and over again for several years that bi-partisanism is poison.  If economic times are terrible, partisan legislation will make even Republicans 'bi-partisan.'  They'll have little choice.

    Parent

    Dress Rehearsal (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by AccidentalTourist on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:50:23 AM EST
    I agree, this is shaping up to be Palin's first act on the national stage. Also agree with BTD that she is a far superior politician to McCain. The 'stab you with a smile' routine is  Reaganesque, and often effective.

    I think the writing's on the wall for McCain this year, and in addition to the economy itself his own actions killed his chances. People will still vote for the top of the ticket - not a whole lot Palin can do for him now. But she can position herself for the future.

    Parent

    hm (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    SHe's still not selling well to the GOP talking heads.  David Brooks just came out again to say she's not qualified to be president. Though he thought she had a good debate strategy.

    Peggy Noonan is also doubtful of her substance and said Palin's tactics are somewhat dangerous for America.

    Palin is popular with some, but less popular than McCain.  Her fans are just vocal.

    Parent

    All the reason... (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by pluege on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:58:56 PM EST
    to paste her now with her bafoonery. With the help of Tina Fey and constantly pounding how ignorant, deceitful, and unqualified palin is now, she may not be around in 2012. Doing so has the added bonus of undercutting mccain by accentuating how incompetent and irresponsible mccain was in picking her. Ignoring her (as is advised in some circles) only gives her free reign to be a malignant cancer in 2012. Best to nip disease in the bud at the onset rather than having to perform surgery later. An ounce if prevention...

    Parent
    The only people I know who like her (none / 0) (#9)
    by prose on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:14:16 AM EST
    are Dobsonites.  My friend's slightly racist Republican mother hates her.  She is actually voting Obama mostly because of Palin.  Palin is not a good politician.  I will be floored if she has a serious chance in '12

    Parent
    ya (none / 0) (#42)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:04:06 AM EST
    Agreed. She is polarizing to republicans.

    Parent
    Well, I think an established Obama (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:19:32 AM EST
    would wipe the floor with her. But one never knows, and of course she could now raise the money to do it.

    Parent
    I can see a very different picture ... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:27:54 AM EST
    Obama is hamstrung by the bailout in his first two years, the economy tanks even further.  He's wildly unpopular in '10.  Republicans take back one of the houses.

    When '11 dawns, he looks like easy pickings.

    Not saying this will happen.  But it easily could.

    Parent

    I think he'll surprise you (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    in the first 100 days.

    Parent
    I said a couple of months ago (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:08:33 AM EST
    that what was keeping McCain in the game was his media shop. But a couple of months ago McCain was faced with the problem of burning through his Primary cash before he had to stop using it.

    Now McCain has a spending cap. The reason all of his ads now mention "Congressional liberals" is that, up the a point, he's allowed to split the cost of those ads with the RNC.

    But one thing is clear: John McCain doesn't have enough money available to win this campaign based on good TV ads. The playing field is just too wide for him now to be able to afford it.

    And as you say, his personality is repellant.

    I've always found him repellant ... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:12:44 AM EST
    even back in 2000 when some of my friends were fooled by his "straight talk" act.

    But he's got a weird appeal with a lot of people. His favorable ratings remained pretty high throughout the year no matter where his poll number were.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:25:02 AM EST
    the two pols I detest the most in modern politics are Joe Lieberman and John McCain. I so wanted McCain to pick Lieberman so we could finish them and Broder off for good.

    Parent
    I think you are right (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by votermom on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:12:16 AM EST
    and the McCain campaign has done something very clever here, actually. Anything Palin does is news (thanks to the media & blog obsession with her) and after her strong debate showing, and her saying there that she would bypass the media and talk directly to the public, whatever she says can no longer be ignored by the MSM. She can set the media topic with whatever she brings up. Classic offensive play.

    I wish Dems could have done something like that in 2000 & 2004, actually, to counteract the MSM shilling.


    Every time she opens her mouth (none / 0) (#11)
    by prose on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:17:24 AM EST
    the people I know (republican and dem) just distrust her even more.  The pundits say she plays well to "middle America" but I live here and I can tell you that people aren't buying it.  Here in Indiana people vote Republican because they are viewed as tough, straight-forward, level headed and reliable.  Palin doesn't have any of that.  She tries to come off tough but just sounds condescending.  And her phoniness with the "betcha"s and what-not kill "straight-forward."  Obviously she is not reliable either.

    Parent
    Hope you are right (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Coral on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:21:00 AM EST
    s tough, straight-forward, level headed and reliable

    Those qualities describe Obama. Wouldn't it be great if he pulled out a win in Indiana?

    Parent

    I really think... (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by prose on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:45:10 AM EST
    that it's possible.

    Parent
    No offense, but anytime (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by votermom on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:21:47 AM EST
    people bring up "the people I know" anecdotes it just reminds me of that infamous (though misconstrued) "quote" about how could Nixon have won when no one I knew voted for him.
    Anyway, for my own anecdotal evidence, over-sized McCain-Palin yard signs sighted here in PA.

    Parent
    The Pauline Kael moment (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:23:55 AM EST
    everyone she knew voted for McGovern.

    Parent
    Funny thing is..... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:40:53 AM EST
    I'd be all over a candidate similar to Palin in the Washington outsider, not too connected, common person who speaks commonly sense.  I've been wishing for a six-pack candidate forever, but Palin is no six-pack candidate.

    With Palin I think it's an act...the GOP is scripting everything she says, she's the same tired GOP act in new packaging.  She hasn't added anything to the debate, especially regarding the concerns of six-pack America....at least the east coast urban/suburban six-pack working class type that I'm familar with.  

     

    hmm (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:54:52 AM EST
    I dont think Palin has a chance in a national GOP primary.  Huckabee alone will eat her lunch.  2012 is not her best road, right now is.

    The good news is (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:41:39 AM EST
    the Obama campaign has so far been determined to more or less ignore Sarah Palin.  Whatever they do say about her is cooly respectful.

    The other good news is that the media kind of hates Sarah Palin, and that her major vulnerabilities (foreign policy and examples of displayed leadership) really hamstring her ability to authoritatively question Obama.  The GOP has done kind of a crappy job at presenting her as knowledgeable on foreign policy issues.  I guess they sense they're running out of time and are trying to focus on the political areas they feel she is better in than McCain.  They could've done a more credible job with her if they had started a year ago ...they could've built her into an Obama-esque candidate, an emblem of change, but of course, the GOP didn't really think of that and Palin is more or less only here because of Hillary Clinton's failure.

    Reagan the repugnant (4.00 / 1) (#61)
    by cal1942 on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 04:07:20 PM EST
    Ronald Reagan was one of the most repugnant figures in political history

    I agree 100%.  

    Ronald Reagan did grievous damage to this country.  The image of the kindly, fatherly figure is so far off track that it makes me want to vomit.  It was the "Reagan Revolution" that did terrible, lasting damage to our political life and institutions.

    Conservatives have so promoted the myth of Reagan 'greatness' that even many people commenting on progressive blogs and some syndicated pundits frequently buy this twisted myth. One of the reasons I was so turned off regarding Obama was that he said positive things in the same paragraph with Reagan's name.

    I rank him, at best, in the bottom 10; more appropriately, one of the five worst Presidents.

    Were it not for Reagan we wouldn't have George W and the corrosive, divisive political climate that's made so much of our politics a joke.

    I wouldn't stop at "repugnant figures in political history."  I'd say one of the most repugnant figures in our history, period.

    I agree with everything you wrote (none / 0) (#2)
    by rdandrea on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:06:52 AM EST
    But what you didn't write is the risk to McCain.  There is a risk of backlash among the remaining undecideds.  Palin is walking a fine line here.

    It's also coming very late in the campaign.  The conventional wisdom is "Define your opponent before he defines himself."  It's getting kind of late to "define" Obama.  While it might reinforce the doubts about him among McCain's base, redefining someone this late in the campaign is a pretty complicated thing to pull off.

    We'll see.

    How well has Obama defined himself? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:11:56 AM EST
    That's the real question.

    Parent
    Wall Street crisis last 2 weeks (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Coral on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:18:33 AM EST
    defined him -- calm and presidential in a crisis, willing to work with all.

    His demeanor, opposed to McCain's, has been reassuring.

    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:20:07 AM EST
    It was 3AM, and John McCain flailed.

    Parent
    Or willing to have ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:31:07 AM EST
    his strings pulled by his real masters.

    Six-to-one and pick 'em.

    Parent

    stock market is not reassured... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:37:14 AM EST
    Maybe the voters are?

    I know I'm not.  

    Parent

    Pablum (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lahdee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:10:32 AM EST
    still sells in some quarters apparently. Give credence to Palin and you give it to her otherwise meaningless dribble.

     

    no one is giving "credence" to Palin (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:23:57 AM EST
    he is acknowledging she is a potent political animal.
    thank god there are still those on the left still unfoged enough by koolaid to realize that and to realize every time she is the target of some stupid attack on her intelligence or speech patterns more women and independents are driven to the ticket.
    I said when she was nominated it was a brilliant move and would probably win the election for McCain.
    I still believe it.
    this election is far from over.


    Parent
    No disagreement (none / 0) (#38)
    by Lahdee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:50:13 AM EST
    I would hope the Obama campaign keeps her potency in mind going forward as they have so far.
    Is the election far from over? Maybe, but the polls don't seem to be trending to McCain.


    Parent
    What Palin lacks (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:25:53 AM EST
    is the ability to broaden her appeal outside the base.  Reagan was able to communicate in a way that brought large numbers of Democrats and Independents on board.  With Palin, her favorability numbers have dropped like a rock since her rollout, except among the base.

    Everybody loves an underdog (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:32:01 AM EST
    I predict Palin's favorables among Indies will bounce back. I also predict that she will be the most despised pol by Dems after this election.

    but she will have some working class appeal.

    This election is over. Because McCain and Bush stink.

    Palin has political talent.


    Parent

    Do you predict 2012 (none / 0) (#28)
    by votermom on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:35:50 AM EST
    to be Pres. Obama vs. Gov. Palin, then?

    Parent
    Romney (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:49:51 AM EST
    The economy will still be the issue in 4 years.

    Parent
    Romney's Age (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:22:40 AM EST
    Romney is 61 at the moment, which is incredible, I'd put him in his early fifties. In 2012, he'd therefore be 65, and though he looks young and fresh now, four years is a long time. In particular, Pres. Obama will highlight that.

    If not Palin, I'd watch out for Huckabee. He's only 53, he's incredibly charming and attractive as a person - it's hard not to like him, and that shouldn't be underestimated. In addition, he's rigidly socially conservative, but his economic views have a streak of populism. He may well play strongly in places like Ohio and Wisconsin. He's got executive experience under his belt, in which he was ranked as one of the five best governors in the country, and he's keeping himself in the public eye, with a new show on Fox.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the 2012 GOP nomination comes between Palin and Huckabee. I'd personally prefer Romney to either of them.

    Parent

    If the economy is still tanking (none / 0) (#43)
    by votermom on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    in 2012 it will be bad for Pres. Obama. Specially if Bloomberg decides to run.

    Parent
    Bloomberg is shooting for (none / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:36:42 AM EST
    a 3rd term. If they set aside the term limit laws for him, and he wins, I doubt he would turn around and run for president a year later. Plus his age may become a factor then for a national run.

    Parent
    Will they really set aside (none / 0) (#49)
    by votermom on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    the term limit for him?

    Parent
    Possibly (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:55:38 PM EST
    A poll last week had him beating both the Rep and Dem. He's pretty popular (I think they said all time high for him right now) and he's not a bad Mayor. It's rather comforting to have him as Mayor with economics the way they are. He really turned the mess he was elected into around along with the schools (still a work in progress) and has been ahead of the game on green issues. And, he's cheap! Works for $1 a year, a real NYC bargain  ;)

    I think he should run as an Indie, that way, the Rs and Ds still get an equal shot and it promotes more choices.

    Parent

    Well, I'm tempted to respond: Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:29:53 AM EST
    but I don't think Palin has the ability to be that substantive.

    Parent
    I think aspiring to be like Hillary Clinton (3.00 / 2) (#29)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:36:27 AM EST
    is pretty sad. "Hey, if I work hard enough and long enough, maybe someday I can get beaten by a guy no one heard of a couple years ago, and relegated to the back benches of the party".

    Parent
    If you think that's the state (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:37:34 AM EST
    of Hillary Clinton right now, you're sorely mistaken.

    She's more influential than she's ever been, even though she didn't win.

    Parent

    In what way is she remotely influential? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:41:11 AM EST
    She just had a huge impact (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:43:31 AM EST
    in the Kentucky Senate race. Good look at the polls before and after her visit.

    Parent
    That's not influence. It's being a workhose. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM EST
    Clinton has always been extremely duitiful. Doesn't mean she has any power. The party is about to be completely taken over by Obama and his people. People who despise Clinton. She already has it pretty tough with the likes of Pelosi and Dean. It's just going to get worse for her as Jackson, Brazille and co gain power.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:49:51 AM EST
    She has a popular base of support, and nobody cares about Nancy Pelosi.

    Parent
    Pelosi is the House (none / 0) (#50)
    by sj on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:11:05 AM EST
    so could be a non-issue.  Except that she seems to have developed a rapport with her equally ineffectual counterpart, Reid, in the Senate.  They're in a position to stymie her efforts even with a popular base of support.

    And, yes, I do feel that was a major goal of their actions this primary and pre-convention season.

    Parent

    Sure its Obama's party now (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by WS on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:32:48 AM EST
    and it should be because he'll probably be the next President and that goes with the territory.  What her game plan now is for 2016 and then it will be her chance to shape the party.

    If you want to see Hillary's influence, go back to before the primary and how you view her to now.  She was living under Bill's shadow before and now she is her own person with her own power base.  You haven't heard the last of Hillary Clinton.  

    Parent

    I'd like to think Hillary has that sway (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:29:30 PM EST
    but when I see some of her so-called supporters ignoring her entreaties and pledging to vote 3rd party, McCain, or not vote, then I have to wonder if it was ever anything she did that made them support her.  It's possible that for a certain portion of her primary voters, it really was all about hating Barack Obama from the beginning, and not supporting Hillary.  If she can't "deliver" those votes, it puts a dent in her perceived influence.

    And can we please dispense with the myth that Obama is "taking over" the party and that his allies hate Hillary?  We're all on the same team here.

    Parent

    Ronald Reagan (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.  Sarah Palin is George W. Bush.  If you have google on your internets, try googling the debates between Carter and Reagan and Bush v Gore/Kerry.

    I think you will find that Ronald Reagan speaks in complete sentences, is well versed on policy (although that is subject to political interpretation), understands the questions and provides meaningful rhetorical quips and is not lazy with the English language.

    Bush on the other hand, if you take the time to read the transcripts, speaks in good vs evil, rarely in complete sentences and has a decent grip on some policy.  

    Sarah Palin is running unopposed so to speak and could not survive the debate trials of her own party.  Perhaps an argument can be made that Geo Bush was elected twice (well he served twice anyway) and that a comparison can be made with Palin being able to flub her way to the WH but to compare her to Reagan is just plain silly.

    What have we become when we rate a candidate on the second most powerful position in the world on her ability to outperform herself?  If HRC had delivered that performance she would have been ostracized by the media and the right expeditiously.  

    The standard as has been set for this election is an aberration (sp) and she has had a free ride.  I am willing to wager than in 4 years she will not have gained any where near enough knowledge to make it out of her own party's nomination process as I fully believe her party is supporting her because they have no choice.  

    Not even close to Reagan and based on the transcripts, not even able to live up to Bush.  She is the first woman on the right's ticket, an anti-gov't candidate when people are angry about our spending and lack of oversight, a one trick pony in a derby like race.  

    I would love to see her in 10 republican primary debates when they are cutting each others legs off, you betcha the right will rear its head over Alaska and it won't be to salivate over her appearance.

    Palin: glad I provided (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    Tina Fey w/more material via the VP debate.  

    Joe Sixpack (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    is a patronizing, barely concealed swipe at what used to be refered to as "the working class", before what liberals we have left were red-baited out of openly discussing class conflict.

    As of today, the only genuine, living, breathing, bleeding class with genuine interests worth discussing over the MSM airwaves is "the middle class"; the downsized, outsourced Joe Sixpack, Lil
    Abner and Beetle Baily and the outsorcing, offshore account holding Richie Rich are too much the fodder of dangerous "class warfare" talk to be given too much attention.

    Parent