McCain's War Against Palin

One thing I do not understand about the ongoing McCain war against Sarah Palin - do they not realize that this is more of a comment on McCain than Palin? As far as I know, she was minding her own business in Alaska when McCain decided to name her as his VP pick. So when they attack her now, as they do, they are basically making it abundantly clear that John McCain was utterly unfit to be President, did not put country first and was the disgraceful figure I always thought him to be. It is quite remarkable.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Extreme CDS | Demography Is Political Destiny: The Emerged Dem Majority >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    McCain has no real future in the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:14:39 AM EST
    He probably won't run again. Even if he does, his reputation is his problem. The last election is over. They are fighting over their future.

    The GOP intellectuals and economic conservatives are letting the social conservatives know in no uncertain terms their place in the party.

    Break out the popcorn.

    Palin: Drinking Buddy, Sure, VP, Not So Much (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    Palin is the face of everything that went wrong with the McCain campaign: the hubris, arrogance, crass political "gimmick" that McCain was supposed to be against. I knew that once the smell of the "new car" wore off, there was going to be hell to pay. Palin did herself no favors either. Wasilla hillbillies? All in all, a sad spectacle. I say let Alaska have her.

    Well (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:21:15 AM EST
    I think the "intellectual" GOP is shooting itself in the foot with this crazy war.

    They certainly are not going to win the battle this way.


    I think (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:29:33 AM EST
    that there are many in the GOP who believe the road back to relevance begins with making sure that Sarah Palin is not on the ticket in 2012.  They're afraid of the party going further in that direction.

    I'm happy to see them embark on this scorched-earth agenda because it's obvious that Palin is an asset to the GOP (even if maybe she shouldn't be on the ticket).  For example, if you're Saxby Chambliss trying to rally the faithful in order to win the runoff, no question you'd love for Sarah Palin to come to Georgia and campaign for you.  So if some Republicans want to simply destroy her reputation altogether, more power to them, from my partisan perspective.


    this must be... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by dws3665 on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:07:27 AM EST
    the "accountability" portion of the GOP platform.

    Of course, when they say it, they mean YOUR accountability, not OURS.

    Completely in character.


    Yeah, the social conservatives (none / 0) (#7)
    by WS on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:26:52 AM EST
    have the numbers on their side within the GOP.  Don't the conservative intellectuals/economic conservatives know who their electoral betters are?

    This morning (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by tres on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:20:07 AM EST
    my husband and I were talking about this and his exact words were; "If I were them I wouldn't say a damn thing because this says more about McCain than Palin. He choose her without a thought to what she knew or who she was."

    I agree -- he didn't give a thought to (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by esmense on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:33:27 AM EST
    her experience or qualifications. And it tells us much more about him than about her.

    If there is one thing we've learned in this election it is that in the much of the Beltway Village experience and accomplishment mean nothing in a woman; they are not considered required virtues (as demonstrated by the selection of Ms. Palin who lacks them), nor highly desired, respected and valued attributes (as demonstrated by the disdainful dismissal of Hillary Clinton's qualifications and experience). This is true in politics and TV punditry, and as Maureen Dowd showed in her book, "Are Men Necessary," in Village matters of romance and marriage. Women who have, over time, gained wisdom are just as in danger of denigration, dismissal and disappearance for having done so as are those women who, over time, have lost their looks.

    The Palin selection though, isn't explained as much by her age, as it is explained by John McCain's. (Although if she had been 10 years older, with more direct experience and opinions, she would probably have been out of the running.)

    McCain has spent forever among the military jocks and political jokers, the hyper-masculine power brokers, and the mostly male beltway media sycophants to which the idea of a woman holding genuine power is still an incomprehensible joke. It was impossible for him to see that offering Palin the Vice Presidency was offering her real power -- so he was shocked and unprepared when people demanded to know what experience and accomplishments he thought commended her to be trusted with that power.

    When McCain picked Sarah Palin, he didn't think like someone picking an accomplished though untraditional candidate for the role of the nation's VP. He thought like someone who wanted to make an unexpected, newsworth pick for a different, more traditional role -- his, the male hero's, sidekick.

    As a true Villager and old military man the only experience Palin had that he saw ir valued was experience that could be massaged to further HIS storyline. On the campaign trail or in the Executive Suite her role wouldn't be VP, it would be the traditional female role of loyal supporter -- hired on to buff up the hero, praise his ideas, laugh at his jokes, confirm his strength and valor, and, when necessary, with a sharp tongue, saucy hair toss and small town girl grin -- even, if called for,  a wink or two --  smite his enemies, shame his critics and charm his partisans.

    The only role, a traditionally feminine and subordinate role, a long time member of the Village like McCain can really imagine for any woman.


    A really good assessment. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:41:39 AM EST
    visually embodied when McCain was flanked by Mrs. McCain on the left and Governor Palin on the right--wife, and office wife.  Indeed, the infamous wardrobe trappings were a necessary part of making McCain look good.  I think McCain watched Mad Men  too long without realizing it was a period piece.

    "Office wife" a term I haven't heard in (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by esmense on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 12:44:05 PM EST
    decades -- but that's it exactly!

    100% correct... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Exeter on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:20:25 AM EST
    Plus, the whole blame Palin meme is absurd-- are we to believe that for the first time in history voters put aside the top of ticket, looked past the economy, and voted for just VP? Totally ridiculous.

    Reality check (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:38:33 AM EST
    The polls indicated quite clearly that Palin, probably more than any VP nominee in history, negatively affected the ticket.  Did she lose it for them?  No.  But, clearly, whether we understand the logic or not, she was a big factor for a good number of people not voting for him.  I heard a number of people express to me that the ONLY reason they voted for Obama was because they feared Palin would become president.

    She was on the ticket, she was a disaster, and she influenced the election to a degree -- a degree, to repeat, that probably no other VP on a ticket has.

    Odd but true.


    It's not really true, though... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Exeter on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:58:03 AM EST
    Obama was ahead before McCain picked Palin, McCain got a bounce after he picked Palin, and then, in part because of public sentiment for Palin declining (and the worst economic disaster since the Depression), McCain's numbers dipped back down to where he was pre-Palin.

    So, its fair to say that Palin didn't save McCain, but its not fair to say that she cost him the election-- just because she did not have a material positive effect, doesn't mean she had a materially negative effect on the ticket and McCain's performance in the election.


    a valid point (none / 0) (#47)
    by dws3665 on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    However, McCain's appeal and the key to his electability was his reputation among independents. The Palin choice was very alienating to independents (among other shortcomings and vulgarities of the McCain campaign), so choosing her absolutely was, imo, part of the reason the fortunes of his campaign reversed course.

    Only reason? Of course not.


    I agree with that... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Exeter on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:46:44 AM EST
    A VP candidate does do something to overall image of the ticket. It definitely hurt him with independents, but it also helped him tremendously with getting conservatives out to vote.  McCain tried to get somebody that he thought would appeal to both independents and conservatives, and he only got it half right.

    so mavericky (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by sarany on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:24:54 AM EST
    gosh, their maverick turned out to actually be a maverick, and um, ungovernable.

    I suspect (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:27:59 AM EST
    that the McCain campaign is simply looking for a scapegoat.

    They weren't going to win regardless of who they pick for VP. There is no magical choice that is overcoming a 100 EV loss.  

    Having said that Palin represents all the things that are wrong with the GOP.  She is a demagogue who is more interested in the culture war than pushing for intelligent policies.  

    She is the embodiment  of what is wrong with the Republican Party right now.  

    Scapegoat? Of course, because she's (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by rennies on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    a woman. Think of how Hillary would've been attacked if Obama had lost. Cherchez la femme, always. Just more of this country's misogyny -- right, left, and center.

    Think of how Hillary (none / 0) (#81)
    by lucky leftie on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 03:47:27 PM EST
    WAS attacked, when she wouldn't step aside for Obama.  The howls of rage were enough to wake the dead.

    Sadly, women are often the scapegoats when men feel disempowered or disrespected.  I was sure Palin would end up being trashed by the GOP.



    Yup ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 02:52:53 PM EST
    Having said that Palin represents all the things that are wrong with the GOP.  She is a demagogue who is more interested in the culture war than pushing for intelligent policies.  

    She is the embodiment  of what is wrong with the Republican Party right now.

    And the McCain camp's war against Palin is the first in what I hope will be a long series of battles in the intra-Republican civil war.  McCain might as well take the hit-he has nothing to lose.

    Some of McCain's actions tell me he is embarrassed by elements of his party - canning the town halls after he was asked at one of them if Obama was "an Arab," trying to calm the boos at the mention of Obama's name during his concession speech, etc.  


    I read somewhere... (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:30:23 AM EST
    ...in my travels on the interwebs yesterday about an exit polling of GOP voters that asked who they wanted to see atop the ticket next time.

    Mitt(ens) was first on the list, followed by Huckabee and bringing up the rear was Failin' Palin.

    A lot of scuttlebutt about Mitt being behind the leaking of all the harmful details about poor, poor Sarah.  Could very well be the case.

    Mitt and Palin (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:37:35 AM EST
    Could run together.  It would be like Ken and Barbie.

    hahaha! (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:39:52 AM EST
    that would be a creepily attractive ticket.  good lord.

    And now the bloodbath begins. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Landulph on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:41:18 AM EST
    Gonna be an interesting 4 years.

    I don't understand WHY they're going after her (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by byteb on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:31:13 AM EST
    at all especially with such determination. What did she do exactly and/or what kind of threat does she present to McCain and company? Do they want to make sure she never has the possibility of presidential or vice presidential run again?

    Of course, I never understood why they picked her at all. The idea of having Palin one heartbeat away from an aging President was frightening but now that it's all over, why is the McCain camp going in for the kill? Was she that offensive to them?

    Well, I think the reason they are (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by dk on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:47:06 AM EST
    going after her in this particular way is largely because they can, and the reason they can is largely because she is a woman.

    Let's face it, her views on the issues are basically no different from Huckabee's, as far as I can tell, but Huckabee was never treated with this much disrespect by anyone.


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    I guess woman shouldn't be criticized?  Or maybe you think that Palin is the first scapegoat in politics?

    No, I do not think either of (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by dk on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:23:47 AM EST
    those things.  But there is scapegoating and there is scapegoating, and to me at least it's pretty clear why the tone of this scapegoating is the way it is.

    They're going after her. . . (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:22:00 AM EST
    to deflect criticism of the campaign loss from themselves.

    McCain may be through with electoral politics, but his campaign staff isn't.


    Between Thanksgiving and Christmas (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:50:31 AM EST
    Palin should "accept" Oprah's invitation and go on teevee and tell her side.  I think she will end up in Steven's senate seat.  McCain should tell his staff to shut up.  One person I would like to see "never work in this town again" is Mark McKinnon what a slimy git.

    That's actually (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by indy in sc on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:10:39 AM EST
    a very good idea.  Oprah's couch is where a lot of people go to redeem or reinvent themselves.  She could broaden her base if she proves a sympathetic character--the bad McCain people used me then blamed me for their failures--could work.  It's risky as she could be seen as a backstabber, but McCain is an easy target now.

    I hope she doesn't take your advice because given her willingness to fully engage in the culture wars, I wish her a future of obscurity.  


    Kinda goes to show... (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:54:19 AM EST
    that the McCain campaign and the GOP in general viewed Sarah Palin as a prop all along.

    Not a leader, not even a politician...merely a prop.  A publicity stunt.

    Now I think they're kinda scared they've created a monster who could become a real player in the party...she does have the rock-star quality.

    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by eric on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:15:22 AM EST
    but I don't think that they realized that someone could be governor of a state and be so ignorant and backwards.  I don't think they thought it would be as bad as it was.

    No they thought she was a Woman (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:25:44 AM EST
    and that she would know her place and do as she was told.  Like Condi Rice.  Loyal and dependable.  Looks good in a skirt and heels.

    Whose war? McCain? Mobs? GOP factions? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jumble on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:05:04 AM EST
    Whoever has launched this first bout of hostilities enjoys institutional support from the propaganda masters at Fox.  So likely the early favored faction to grasp GOP power.

    What strikes me is how the mob mentality pervades the higher ranks of the GOP.  In the ugly closing days of the campaign, we heard how Palin, with McCain's tacit consent, was stoking the anger and bitterness of the crowd and calling for the lowest mobbish instincts in their supporters. Well, it seems that GOP contenders love to bask in the mud and behave no better than schoolyard cliques. As to McCain's responsibility in exposing and exploiting these baser impulses, I don't want to judge a defeated man too early, but I am not well disposed to clemency.

     Glad to have helped push them away from the levers of power.  Ugly,  ugly, ugly.


    I think that it is more likely (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by eric on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:28:52 AM EST
    that these people that are dishing this dirt to protect themselves these people were part of a losing campaign and don't want to be forever associated with it.  They are trying to convey the message that it wasn't their fault - Palin was so terrible, there was nothing they could do.

    and that (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Turkana on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:50:06 AM EST
    is exactly why some of us spent time revealing palin for what she is. the story about palin was about mccain.

    If you say so, (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Spamlet on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:08:28 AM EST
    I believe you.

    But it's also true that the torrent of vitriol unleashed among "some of you" by the selection of Palin belies claims to sober political analysis.


    i never commented (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Turkana on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:30:49 AM EST
    on her personal life. but she was, on so many levels, unfit to be vice president, which proved mccain was unfit to be president.

    McCain's unfitness (none / 0) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:58:17 AM EST
    for the presidency would have been evident with just about any vice presidential pick bruited about at the time, each in his/her own way--let's start with McCain's real first choice, Lieberman.  Actually, selection of a fire plug would not have made much difference.

    What do blogs. . . (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:34:14 AM EST
    have to do with sober political analysis?

    Plus, one person's ranting is another persons sober analysis.

    Palin was easily the biggest doofus nominated for Vice President since Dan Quayle.  That's a sobering (and sober) thought.


    Sure (1.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Spamlet on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    And I've already said that I take Turkana at her word. I do.

    But I think some people--Jeralyn, to begin with--did try to pass off vitriolic ranting as sober political analysis. In fact, that was the reason for the public dust-up between Jeralyn and BTD in late August.


    I don't think that John McCain (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by digdugboy on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:53:10 AM EST
    really has much control over what his campaign people are saying at this point. Some poster up above suggested that this scapegoating is a function of the professional campaign team wanting to shift blame to somebody else for McCain's failure, as an attempt to preserve some future in the business. That makes the most sense to me.

    McCain's unfitness to be president was demonstrated long before he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, let alone this.

    Psychology (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:28:20 AM EST
    I really want a respected psychologist to do a study of the Pallin affect.  Why did this one woman, drive so many "rational" people to such a level of insanity.  It reminds me of the "Marie Antoinette" biography I read.  It seems that all the pent up hatred, was hoisted on this "outsider" the Austrian.  Heh, poli sci majors, go for it,  "The hysteria that woman like Palin and Marie Antoinette created on the revolutionary masses".  

    Personally, I'll be glad when the Palin (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by nulee on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:43:01 AM EST
    bashing stops all around.  

    This story makes me happy (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    The GOP sticking itself with knives.

    Happy Birthday and Merry Christmas!

    However did you... (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 02:56:01 PM EST
    ...know it was my birthday?!

    Chutzpah, thy name is BTD! (2.00 / 1) (#35)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:40:26 AM EST
    do they not realize that this is more of a comment on McCain than Palin?

    Haven't you just spent three months arguing against this very point?  That Palin says more about McCain than Palin?  That is the very reason Jeralyn has been posting "anti-Palin" material on the front page!

    That's not true (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:45:00 AM EST
    Jeralyn never connected the argument to McCain.

    And most of the stuff was BS imo.

    Frankly, this is different.I am all for fomenting civil war in the GOP. During the election, attacks on Palin by Dems UNIFIED the GOP.

    Hell, I think I am going to defend Palin on this for a while and  ask why Conservatives are taking this kind of crap from the elites in their Party.


    Red State isn't having any of it... (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:02:04 AM EST
    RedState is pleased to announce it is engaging in a special project: Operation Leper.

    We're tracking down all the people from the McCain campaign now whispering smears against Governor Palin to Carl Cameron and others. Michelle Malkin has the details.

    We intend to constantly remind the base about these people, monitor who they are working for, and, when 2012 rolls around, see which candidates hire them. Naturally then, you'll see us go to war against those candidates.

    I'd be shaking in my boots!

    It is our expressed intention to make these few people political lepers.

    They'll just have to be stuck at CBS with Katie's failed ratings.


    P.S. - Did I ever tell you how RedState was able to stock Gov. Palin's campaign plane with twenty of these?. We were glad to. And we were glad not to mention it at the time. We are rooting for Sarah Palin. Don't make us add you to our list. Do you really want to be next to Kathleen Parker in the leper colony?

    I had to go look (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    just to find out what RedState managed to get 20 of on Palin's plane.  The answer is this.

    lemme guess (none / 0) (#76)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 02:37:16 PM EST

    Au contraire. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:30:40 AM EST
    Jeralyn never connected the argument to McCain.

    Jeralyn may not have stressed this aspect in every post, but I'm sure she did state it specifically.  Certainly I pointed it out whenever the issue came up.  In any event, the criticism of Palin on substantive grounds is implicitly a criticism of McCain.

    I agree that there were occasional posts that were kind of irrelevant or self-defeating (like the selling the airplane issue) but in politics some shots may go wide of the mark.

    During the election, attacks on Palin by Dems UNIFIED the GOP.

    While this may have been true for the first week or two, it ought to be obvious that by October just the opposite was the case.  Conservative commentators were criticizing the Palin choice.  Prominent Republicans were endorsing Obama and citing Palin as a major issue.  And even McCain endorsers were coming out against Palin.

    So no, she wasn't unifying the GOP.  She may have ginned up support on the far right (it's an open question whether they would have come home anyway) but she was already wrecking the GOP.

    In fact, from the information that's coming out now, we're learning that she was even the cause of civil war within McCain campaign headquarters during the last weeks of the campaign.  If you like GOP civil war in general, you really ought to like that!


    While it is so clear (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    that Sarah Palin represents only one part of the Republican Party, I don't know if the best indication is measuring party bigwig media reaction.  Palin drove the bigwigs and the media crazy, but Hillary Clinton for instance does the same to our side's media figures and prominent supporters.  Yet the little people Dems are apparently quite fond of her.

    Maybe if McCain worked harder, and knew her better, they could've found a way to make her connect with the fiscally conservative side of the GOP while maintaining her popular appeal.  But they did not and their rollout was absurd.


    As much as I disliked the (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:58:04 AM EST
    one-stop bashing of Palin here, J did say her motive was to emphasize McCain's poor judgment in picking Palin as VP.  Although, from news accounts at the time of the pick, it seems obvious McCain wanted Lieberman or some other obscure governor.  

    Slow news day? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:53:32 AM EST
    Clark (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Gustavion on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:58:28 AM EST
    Congratulations to President Obama.  Now it's time for us to see some results.  Personally, I would like to see some environmental reform.  Further, I think it is important for us, as consumers to support 'green business'.  For example, http://www.simplestop.net stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment.

    Environmental reform... (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:08:40 AM EST
    I heard a very heartening rumor yesterday that Obama is considering RFK Jr. for head of EPA. I almost don't want to say it out loud, because I am SO hoping this may be true. What a wonderful, bold move this would be. It would send such a clear signal that he will really care about, and act on, environmental issues.

    Arrrgghh, please stop (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by jes on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:52:30 AM EST
    the spambot. Ten comments - all a simple variation on the same advertisement.

    Wasn't she a Journalism major? (none / 0) (#8)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:26:58 AM EST
    Wouldn't she know these things?  I can believe the diva stuff they are saying about her, but not knowing Africa is a continent, that just seems absurd.  Though the die hard republicans don't care.  For them it doesn't matter who, what, where Africa and its country are, it just matters that Gays and women know there place.  

    One of th scarry things to me is how much the press would give her a break on not knowing this information.  O'Reilly says, well you can tutor her.  What?  And even journalists that aren't partisan hacks might have allow this manchurian candidate to be elected.

    Have you (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:32:54 AM EST
    ever been in a situation where people expected you to know more than you really did and you wound up missing the answers to question you know?

    I'm certain she knows about Africa.  But she was overwhelmed by expectations to know things she didn't.

    She didn't flop because she didn't know certain facts.  She flopped because she went from Single A ball straight to the majors and she didn't know how to hit the media curve ball.  

    Instead of giving evasive non-answers to questions she didn't know the answer to she gave silly incoherent answers.


    We may get another look (none / 0) (#16)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:49:12 AM EST
    Talk is that she may run for Senate or replace Stevens, if he wins, and is forced to step down.

    Might now be a bad move (none / 0) (#22)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:59:37 AM EST
    That would be a humbling experience for her, though.  Being a junior senator from generally non-influential state is not going to get her a lot of limelight.

    A senator is a senator (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:29:02 AM EST
    junior or otherwise.  Only two per state, only one hundred in the Senate.

    It gets her out of Alaska and into Washington (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by JoeA on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:44:06 AM EST
    and allows her to maintain a national profile for the next 4 years and build up her credibility.

    Of course the suggestion from some of the articles coming out now isn't that a little coaching will get her up to speed as a credible candidate for national office,  but more that she is just not very bright at all and no matter how much cramming or experience she gets it's difficult to see how she can overcome that.


    Do we believe all this (none / 0) (#83)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 08:43:46 AM EST
    or take it with a grain of salt?

    Isn't at least part of the Palin bashing an attempt by McCain's campaign to pass the buck for the failed campaign?  Wasn't it the campaign manager who insisted on putting her on the ticket?


    She would be in a similar position (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:35:30 AM EST
    to Obama's when he first arrived as the Jr. Senator from Illinois, but already in the limelight based on his speech at the DNC.

    You believe these people? (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:59:53 AM EST
    I don't know why these slimeballs in the McCain camp are suddenly credible just because what they're saying confirms our prejudices.

    I think the likelihood that she literally doesn't know that Africa is a continent is pretty close to zero.


    That's what I was thinking, gyrfalcon (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:05:28 AM EST
    Did she really say this, or is this just another example of lefties believing any rumor that makes them chortle? Inquiring minds want to know.

    If you listen to her (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:23:28 AM EST
    responding to reporters' questions, her sentences wander all over the place almost in free association.  Deconstructing those sentences as if they were formal policy white papers, as the media and the blogs have been doing endlessly, is ridiculous.

    She also very clearly gets more rattled than she appears behind that incredible poise.  I heard a brief interview a while ago in which she reached for the name of that energy commission she headed up in Alaska to make a point-- and couldn't come up with it.  Does anybody really want to try to conclude from that that she literally doesn't know the name of the commission she was in charge of?



    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by dws3665 on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM EST
    These problems do, however, make her a very poor candidate, irrespective of her actual knowledge base. She comes across as a nonsensical talking point machine, and that does not make for a strong candidate.

    Deconstructing those sentences as if they were formal policy white papers, as the media and the blogs have been doing endlessly, is ridiculous.

    Why is the attempt to understand what the potential VP is saying during an interview ridiculous? And if there were any Palin white papers or formal policy positions, this kind of over-focus on her interview responses would have been unnecessary.


    Bur she wasn't The Candidate! (none / 0) (#56)
    by Fabian on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:31:53 AM EST
    That's the funny part.  Palin came out of nowhere and stole the spotlight from McCain.  Total irony.

    Palin probably did McCain a favor because if the media spent more time on McCain, he'd may have looked worse than he did.


    I agree entirely she is/was (none / 0) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 08:44:40 PM EST
    a poor candidate.

    As for deconstructing her sentences-- I saw no, zero, zip, nada attempt to understand what she was saying.  I saw only attempts everywhere to do gotcha on her as a way of continuing to ridicule her.  She quite obviously has no formal policy positions on anything that isn't part of Alaskan affairs, she was just trying to give McCain's positions, to the extent she understood them.

    Ridicule her for her incoherence, but don't pretend to take her literal words as a policy prescription and then bray about her weirdness.

    It's a lot like critiquing the policy prescriptions of a 10-year-old.


    Local news just reported it was (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    "unnamed sources" via FOX. Lawyers from the RNC are apparently following her to Alaska to investigate her clothing . . . . {rolls eyes}

    The McCain people know ... (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:28:24 AM EST
    that one of the easiest cases to sell in the media is that a Republican is stupid.

    Biden can say FDR appeared on television, and no one bats an eye.  No one believes that Biden thinks FDR really appeared on television.

    Nor would they believe that Obama thinks the US has 60 states.  And so on.

    But they can say that Sarah Palin didn't learn to tie her shoes until she was 30, and the media will report it uncritically.

    Clearly, Palin's not the sharpest tack in the box.  But I think much of problem in those interviews had to due with her lack of knowledge about McCain's positions, than simple lack of knowledge.

    She'll do better when she's arguing for her own agenda.  And Americans love a comeback.  So I wouldn't count her out by any means.


    And she excites (none / 0) (#84)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 08:47:30 AM EST
    the Repub base.  It is their opinion that matters, not ours.

    McCain doesn't want to accept any responsibility for his egregious error in judgment.  He just can't be labeled with such irresponsible behavior.  So, the longer the finger of blame can be pointed in her direction, eventually her overall ineptness  becomes the complete discussion, rather than the judgment, or lack thereof, of the one who hired an unqualified person in the first place.      

    McCain 'anonymous insiders' against Palin (none / 0) (#52)
    by S on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:26:30 AM EST
    let's get real...simple answer...rats jumping ship...people who obviously mishandled McCain's camp and now need to dump it all on the easy target 'Palin'...and the MSM is so ready to oblige...sound familiar?

    the woman is always to blame in this election season...Hillary experienced the same trappings...

    perhaps some of these 'anonymous' people are Romney people in disguise???  self interest...the blame game...oh, never...

    the knives come out in both parties...

    exactly what i said when he picked her (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:54:46 AM EST
    He put her in a position that was untenable and created the firestorm.  He should have counseled her on her inch deep knowledge base and told her to prep for 2012.

    As a leader, you simply cannot appoint a person who is clearly not up to the job, "great job Brownie".  

    If he wants to blame his campaign managers for shoving her down his throat I could see that, but he still made the decision, as the "decider".  

    Foxnews says it all this morning.  they have on the frontpage the "new leadership" of the repub party, and it is Jindal, Pawlenty, Crist and i forget the 4th.  No pic or top billing for Palin.  For a newssite that was highly supportive of her, it is more than interesting that she would not be one of the four.

    They may be the "new leadership" (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:07:34 AM EST
    but none of them got the nod from whomever persuaded/forced McCain to choose Palin.  

    bad advisors? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:17:01 AM EST
    I think many swing voters would be hard pressed not to consider Pawlenty or Jindal.  I don't think the same argument can be made for Palin.

    David Brooks (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 03:16:32 PM EST
    can play the latte drinking, volvo driving, NASCAR hating, we're the real Americans card, but oh-the-humanity and injustice when repugs accuse him of elitism.

    I almost laughed my as* off the other night listening to Brooks whine about being hoisted on his own petard.