Obama Runs New Ad After Palin Selection

Here is the video of Obama's new ad. Here is this description:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama begins airing an ad Saturday that responds to rival John McCain's selection of a running mate, carefully avoiding any direct criticism of Sarah Palin, the Alaska governor whom McCain chose for the GOP ticket.

. . . "Well, he's made his choice," the ad states. "But, for the rest of us there's still no change. McCain doesn't get it, calling this broken economy 'strong.' Wants to keep spending ten-billion-a-month in Iraq. And votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time." . . . "So, while this may be his running mate..." as an image of McCain and Palin appears on the screen. The image then shifts to a shot of McCain with Bush. "America knows this is John McCain's agenda. And we can't afford four more years of the same."

It seems the Obama campaign has much more sense than his supporters.

By Big Tent Democrat

< If You Must Make The Argument . . . | Ras Poll: Palin Makes Good First Impression >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That's the smart line of attack. (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Pegasus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:27:10 AM EST

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:50:28 AM EST
    Don't attack her, continue to focus on McCain.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:29:04 AM EST
    Obama's first comment will stick & blowback... (none / 0) (#115)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:39:41 PM EST
    BTD, this is a curious statement from you: "It seems the Obama campaign has much more sense than his supporters". It was Bill Burton, Obama's campaign spokesman, who issued the campaign's first thoroughly derisive and dismissive statement about Palin.

    That's the statement that will end up in McCain campaign ads and come back to haunt Obama in the debates. He misrepresented Palin's experience and took a clumsy swipe at small towns. Here's how I see it, in a comment I made last night.


    Sounds fair to me. (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:27:42 AM EST

    they are starting to show some (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:31:36 AM EST
    real sense, let's hope it continues.  This race is not about Palin and it is a bonehead move to make it that.  Kudos to O's team.

    Oh, You Can Hope (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:17:46 AM EST
    they are starting to show some real sense, let's hope it continues.  This race is not about Palin and it is a bonehead move to make it that.

    The campaign may try to distance themselves from Palin now, but they already shot themselves in the foot by releasing these absurd remarks within minutes of her introduction, only to backtrack hours later with their tails between their legs.

    Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Gov. Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil, and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same.

    And while this ad is a start in the right direction, Obama's cheerleaders in the media and the blogosphere will continue to do a disservice to him but bring her "experience," gender and McCain's apparent pander-pick into the discussion.

    • Obama is no more experienced than her, and he AT THE TOP of the ticket.
    • Palin will receive the same sexist/misogynistic treatment that Hillary got that no one in Obama's camp (himself or his high-level surrogates) did to tamp down
    • Obama chucked Hillary (his one sure-fire move that would have presented him the keys to the White House) aside; opening the door for McCain to walk right through with his pick.

    Those 3 topics are where Dems will lose the argument big time, and Obama's friends on the blogs and in the media (talking heads, Olbie, Tweetie, Cafferty) will ensure those arguments stay right up there in voters' faces.

    And if you think the McCainites, GOP high-rollers, and the Christian Cons./Evangelical base won't protect Palin -- like the Democratic equivalents failed to do for Hillary -- think again.


    Well now is the time (none / 0) (#75)
    by TomStewart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:52:43 AM EST
    to make they're stupid remarks, when frankly few are really paying attention (hey, it's labor day weekend!). It would have been smarter to get the lay of the land before shooting off their mouths, but there ya go.

    It's a good ad, and more people will see this than read the ill considered remarks. Personally I think Palin will burn out when the media starts digging around a bit more.

    I do like the fact she scrubbed her Wikkipedia pages...


    really (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    how did that creationism in schools go in kansas and Pa?  the will of the people and the far right does not have enough support is creationism should be taught at the church of their choosing not their schools.  

    I missed the bonehead statement and they obviously need a better leash though.


    Some Obama staff have more sense (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:36:43 AM EST
    and some do not.  It's pretty bad when, at this point in the campaign, he had to publicly diss his own staff yesterday for that first, stupid reaction.

    This is not proving to be as good and disciplined a campaign as it was trumped up to be.  Axelrove got it that there needs to be fast reaction to the other campaign -- but that's when the Dems are attacked.  

    Obama was not attacked yesterday.  To launch an attack, and such a stupid and self-destructive one, may have cost the Dem ticket.  Because it made them look scared and defensive while also offensive to a lot of voters they need, and all at once.

    So Axelrove still is fighting Chicago primary-style.  If this stupidity keeps up, the Dems will lose.  And for once, I will not fault Obama for his style of blaming his staff.  This time, they deserved it -- and if this is what it takes to get them to get the message, and since they have been warned, then he had to do it.  

    But if can't even run his staff (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:05:33 AM EST
    how will he run the government?

    The Democrats looked more than scared (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:59:04 AM EST
    The rapid-fire launching of unsubstantiated, and twisted facts on the Republican VP pick was boilerplate for the Democratic Party behavior toward women.

    Appears really obvious now that the democrats just can't stand the idea of a woman in the WH in #1 or #2 spot.

    If this ticket for McCain benefits from the shameful behavior of the democrats, we'll have 4 years of the center frame for State of the Union being 2 women, 1 man. It just won't be the democrats enjoying that honor.

    Get. Over. It.


    Not as good a campaign? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:41:56 AM EST
    They already beat HRC, the clear favorite, and who was considered unbeatable a year ago. So they've done pretty well.

    Despite all the attacks McCain has never been ahead in the RCP poll average.

    Now if you want to talk about a bad staff let's look at HRC's operation. Did you read the special report over at the Politico website?


    If Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:44:44 AM EST
    is so terrible then why is Obama's campaign constantly expecting them to pull Obama's butt over the finish line?

    Obama is the nominee because the super delegates decided he was going to be not because he ran a better campaign. His general election campaign has been horrid so far. Being tied with McCain is pretty dismal considering how much the public abhors the GOP right now.


    Actually (none / 0) (#20)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:48:35 AM EST
    He's not tied, he's ahead. Consistently.

    He won the delegates which is why he's the nominee. According to the Politico article HRC's staff didn't even understand the delegate process.

    I don't think HRC herself is terrible, actually I like her a lot. Her staff and operations though was seriously lacking.


    He wasn't tied last week (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by BrianJ on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:52:12 AM EST
    He was losing.  538.com had McCain with a more than 50% chance of winning.

    He's got a nice little convention bounce, but his supporters are stomping all over it with their baffling misogyny.  And given that they've been such sore winners, one can only shudder at the mayhem that will ensue on the evening of November 4...


    On 538... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Wander on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:42:07 AM EST
    And 538.com hasn't had McCain with more than a 50% chance of winning since he became the Republican presumptive nominee, and his 50.5% chance of winning has evaporated into thin air, yet again.

    Obama is pulling ahead in a number of States, closing gaps in deep red states, flipping purple states to blue and showing a consistent lead in national polls - his floor is 45%.  That's McCain's ceiling.


    Mark Penn defined her (none / 0) (#24)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:53:06 AM EST
    And when she broke free from him, which was the smart move, she had Wolfson saying all the wrong things.

    Hillary would've won without those two in my opinion.

    But moving on...


    They already beat HRC? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by OisforOpportunist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:16:12 AM EST
    No revisionist history please! Obama "won" primarily because of four factors:

    1. Manipulation of the caucus system.
    2. Overwhelming favoritism by the corporate media.
    3. Confabulation by the DNC (Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, etc.)
    4. Manipulation of the racial issue.

    Let's not forget that Obama's defining characteristic is his opportunism. Even though it's true of other politicians to a greater or lesser degree, the fact is that Obama will say and do anything to get elected, regardless of principle, history or consequences. He himself has said that he is a "blank screen upon which others project their desires." To take just one of his defining "issues": the war and the vote for the authorization resolution. Do you really think that, in the light of his vote in favor of FISA, he would have voted differently than Hillary on the resolution had he been in the Senate at the time?

    Honestly (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by zvs888 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:13:53 AM EST
    Leave it alone; even if you fully counted Michigan (with 0 Obama votes) and Florida; Obama still leads by 100 pledged delegates even if Clinton got the popular vote by that measure.

    He won the pledged delegate count by any measure and that's how the Superdelegates choose because overturning the pledged delegate count is overturning the basic result since the "popular vote" is too sketchy to rely on due to the caucuses.

    Just to remind you, Obama won under the exact same system that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry won under; by "manipulation of the caucuses", you mean actually going and competing for those states which is just good strategy in a close primary where you need to squeeze every delegate out.

    Hillary would have won the primary if she competed in the caucuses, which is no one's fault but Mark Penn's, so please just leave it alone.


    Wrong again. I thought (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    well of one of your other comments, but now I know.  Not credible.

    Yep (none / 0) (#51)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:33:43 AM EST
    yeah, he won, HRC lost. You can come up with all the excuses you want or rationalizations. He still won.

    I prefer: he was nominated. (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:43:09 PM EST
    I cannot believe that you are still talking about (none / 0) (#99)
    by nrglaw on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM EST
    this crap. PUMAs are simply off the political charts at this point. They are not a movement, they are a cult. These sort of political anomalies crop up from time to time--they make interesting history, but they don't move elections.

    I agree with the post. Best not to give Palin much attention until she gets up in the D ticket's face. But a good start for everyone would be to start ignoring the PUMAs online and remain focused on issues. The overwhelming majority of Hillary supporters--like me--have moved on and Obama is our candidate with a vengeance. PUMAs obviously have issues. Forget 'em. They are irrelevant to the election at hand.



    Point one, nothing was said (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:02:11 PM EST
    about PUMAs in the comment to which you reply.  So the reply to you is:  Get over it.  You are the one who not done so.  

    Point two, you are claiming evidence from polls not previusly seen here.  So please cite your source (if you can't link for some reason) for overwhelming -- and vengeful, yet -- numbers of former Clinton supporters now for Obama.  Not per polls we've seen.

    Point three, if you do not have such evidence, and then the previous polling still applies, you are doing no good for your candidate by ignoring realities that still need to be addressed, not dismissed.


    Hope, did you know (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    Robert Indiana did a graphic on your name on behalf of the DNC?  Don't know how I missed that 'til this a.m.



    Gabby, yer outa yer league here (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:22:33 AM EST
    so go play in the other blogs.  

    You blogclogged cutely here, distracting others with your bright shiny stuff -- but it only proves my point:

    You're stuck in the primaries, too.  I'm talking about a staff that yesterday faced its first day of the general election for real, and its first big test -- one it knew was coming, even if not who it would be -- and it failed.

    It failed so badly that its candidate had to diss his staff again.  This is not good for a candidate who has started to get a reputation for blaming others.  (Again, in this case, he was correct.)

    So Gabby, go ahead and dream of winning all the caucuses in November.  See where it gets you.  Get used to the loser label.

    Until then, get outahere with your tricks, if you don't want to stay on topic and address my point.


    I get it you are upset (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:47:38 AM EST
    HRC lost. Turns out she was not such a good candidate as her supporters hoped for. Such is life.

    HRC is very good at some things but managing large and complex organizations is not her thing, as this election and the health care fiasco showed.


    Nah,. Get over it, Gabby (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:05:16 AM EST
    as you're the one who's still stuck there.

    I just don't like liars.  Facts are facts, and you're playing with them.  That's like playing with fire here.  And you got burned.  Bad.


    Gaby? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    jaja, do you really think that grade school taunts work?

    Listen, HRC lost. She ran a terrible campaign, in many ways similar to her health care disaster. Obama ran a better campaign and won.


    It's just that you're so gabby (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    here to no purpose whatsoever.

    And that I've got Gabriels and Gabrielles throughout my family, French Canadian as it is.  And they all use the nickname Gabby.  It suits some of them, too.

    Now, 1 away!  It's keeping you busy with something else besides filling bandwidth with your untruths.


    ***BLOGCLOGGER ALERT*** (none / 0) (#113)
    by Pol C on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    After being subjected to some of Cream City's abusive comments on another thread, I decided to check out her comment history. There were over 75 comments yesterday across various threads, and today there are over two dozen so far--and it's only an hour or so past noon on the East Coast.

    Administrators, please ask Cream City to dial it back and limit her comments per day. Some of us would like to comment on certain threads before they fill up, and we don't like dealing with people whose first instinct is rudeness. Perhaps if Cream City had to be more discriminate in the number of comments she makes, she'd slow down and be more civil.


    Pol C, oh that's rich... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    I may be mistaken, but I believe it was Cream City who coined the term BLOGCLOGGER (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyway Jeralyn loved it and adopted it a few months ago.

    I DON"T think it applies to Cream City ever.


    Sure. I know, you like Palin (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:09:08 PM EST
    as I can see from your website.  So you had your own reasons for being upset yesterday, I can see.

    For me, as long as the antifeminism dials back here, I've got other work to do.  And another place to go to now, with the fun posters who used to be here.

    (They're even funnier now that they can swear there, btw.  I bet you wish you could here.:-)


    Don't go, please (none / 0) (#126)
    by eleanora on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:19:51 PM EST
    IDK where the fun spot is, but I'd miss you something awful if you left :(

    Hey, Cream (none / 0) (#138)
    by suki on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:35:54 PM EST
    Can you share where the other place is?
    I'd love to visit.

    Btw, if you thought (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    being called out for pretzeling was abusive, then please stick to your far better straight and logical style.  And especially when littered with literary allusions.  The one about Obama's stage looking like the site of Pericles' Funeral Oration was perfect.

    So you do have a sense of humor, too.  Hope you get it back for the good of the rest still here.


    You're garnering more support (none / 0) (#12)
    by indy in sc on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:43:28 AM EST
    for McCain with comments like this.  The primaries are over--let's all move on.

    agreed (none / 0) (#94)
    by thinkingfella on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:46:52 AM EST
    Gabriel I think you are a McCain troll. That is all.

    Obama Campaign Mostly on Message (none / 0) (#91)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:30:48 AM EST
    about Palin.

    Consistently after one initial swipe at her political career as mayor of a small town and governor for 19 months.

    That was followed with Obama's positive comment about a groundbreaking candidacy, and Obama and Biden both calling her with congratulatory messages.

    They rightly left it to surrogates like Clinton supporter Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the media to question her credentials.

    As to campaign disconnect, McCain's has shown considerably more, as with the memorable 'John McCain doesn't speak for the McCain campaign' meme back in July.


    Did Obama reprimand his staff... (none / 0) (#118)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:46:31 PM EST
    i.e. his campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, for the first statement he released on Palin?

    Here's the link to the ad: (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by steviez314 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:38:34 AM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:43:02 AM EST
    Not a good ad. (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:42:18 AM EST
    It's another "things are terrible" ad. Well, yes, people agree with that but Obama NEVER explains in these ads how he is going to change things for the BETTER. This is the same mistake Kerry made in 2004. Remember Bill Clinton and his campare and contrast ads? This is what he needs to do. Obama continues to preach to the converted 45% of the country but do nothing to add to that.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:43:22 AM EST
    It's a very good ad imo.

    That's (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:45:33 AM EST
    because you are among the converted.

    I am not converted (none / 0) (#38)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:09:47 AM EST
    but I think people agree that things are really bad so it doesn't hurt. Although I also agree with those who are saying he should have included a more positive note. If he weren't so determined to ignore Clinton's record he could point out, as Hillary did, that Democrats fixed a Republican mess in the 90's, a fact my party ran away from instead of shouting from the rooftops.
    I did notice that Obama pointed out Clinton's record in his acceptance speech but I think that was just for party unity and will not be repeated much.

    What a ridiculous statment. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Faust on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:50:53 AM EST
    You (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    have to look at things objectively. If you choose not to that is certainly within your right.

    No it is a ridiculous statement (none / 0) (#143)
    by Faust on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:07:30 PM EST
    because I think it is you that has lost objectivity. I suppose it would have been better to call it a deeply ironic statement. I have disagreements with BTD but he's far more likely to make objectively true statements than you. But you wouldn't notice that. Because you have been "converted" in a different direction.

    Disagree (none / 0) (#25)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:53:34 AM EST
    Good ad - keep comparing McCain to Bush, ignore Palin.

    It's an okay ad ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:07:23 AM EST
    but they need to tag with Obama's policies.

    And he still needs a good ad on the economy.

    Here's a reminder of what a good ad on the economy looks like.


    The ad starts out with change. (none / 0) (#72)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:47:31 AM EST
    The 2 people look depressed. Cut to McCain/Palin.
    First, Palin is change. Obama only says more of the same (as in Bush 3). We are led to what, forget about the 2 depressed people. Why, then, show them at all. The "hope" of "change" should be within the people's reaction to Obama's change which he never tells or shows us. Not a very effective (and boring) ad.

    It's a very good ad (none / 0) (#142)
    by elmey on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:54:33 PM EST
    It's a Bush 3rd term ad, very effective.  This is a case where you don't need policy prescriptions.

    We doged a bullet (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by barryluda on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:45:28 AM EST
    I think the ad gets it just right.  And it builds on what I think was Obama's effective "Enough" bit in his speech.  The ad takes what could have been a distraction, and puts the focus right back where it should be.  We can't afford another minute, much less four years, of the Bush / McCain policies.

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:47:29 AM EST
    but Obama never defines what he stands for. I see that as a mistake because McCain will now define what Obama stands for. Once again Obama is leaving a huge opening for McCain to drive a truch through.

    No disrespect (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:56:03 AM EST
    But if you don't know what Obama stands for, I'm not sure you are really listening, or want to listen.

    I tuned him out for most of the primary, but he's laid out his plans and has a pretty clear direction he wants to take the country.

    Whether he can do it or not is my question, and I'm really not sure. But I'm willing to give it a shot as opposed to another Bush term.


    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:00:02 AM EST
    just started explaining his stances on issues Thursday night. Like Phil Bresden said he needs to start telling the voters what he is going to do to make their lives better in ten words or less. When he starts talking about issues so many times I'm more confused after he starts talking than before.

    The fact that he has done major flip flops on issues doesn't help either.


    I'm sick of "flip flop" (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:05:05 AM EST
    Pandering is one thing, but I have zero problem with flip flop. That's like saying Hillary's vote for the war, and now opposition is a flip flop.

    It's not. The American people were deceived, and have learned new information and changed their minds.

    The idea that it is somehow wrong to take a stance on something, then learn new information from experts, and change their position - it's baffling.

    I WANT someone who is willing to shift their position if they learn new information.

    Even Bush has flip-flopped many times recently. Like when he called Obama an appeaser for using diplomacy with foreign countries. Now they are doing it, and it's working.

    Or Obama's time-table is wrong - oh, now it's right.


    What (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:13:05 AM EST
    I have seen is that Obama is willing to compromise every stance he previously had away. Two major examples: Fisa and campaign finance. NAFTA is another one though I never believed anything he said on that in the first place.

    Why don't you reset your watch? (none / 0) (#102)
    by nrglaw on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    The convention is now over. The party has two good candidates--do you support them or not? I was unhappy with the FISA vote, but I will worry about it again in January. For now, you are either a supporter of the ticket or not.

    Which one are you?


    Oh, geez (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:01:47 PM EST
    more sledgehammer unity. Obama will do nothing about it in Jan. Quit that delusion. You're either with us or against us right? And people wonder why Obama reminds them of George W. Bush?

    My opinion: We have a candidate who supports bad policies while we have one that has no policies. Which one are you?


    He's been explaining for months now (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:06:42 AM EST
    to anyone willing to listen. You don't have to agree with him of course bit he has explained himself many times.

    filibuster/FISA (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:12:01 AM EST
    Yeah, I was paying attention both times.


    Be more than Not-McCain.


    You were paying attention? (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:31:34 AM EST
    So you noticed HRC didn't filibuster either?

    Hillary-against. Obama-for. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:33:24 AM EST
    Any further questions?

    That wasn't a flip flop, that was a back handspring with a half twist.


    Oh (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:39:10 AM EST
    so it's not the substance of the issue that you care about, only the optics of it? Should have said that earlier.

    Well, when someone promises (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    to do his best to defeat a bill and then votes for it, what should I think?  Reliable?  Constant? Dependable?  Trustworthy?

    I could point out (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:53:51 AM EST
    it's politics and all politicians do it, HRC being no exception. Such is life.

    Senator Clinton didn't promise (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by eleanora on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:34:50 PM EST
    to fillibuster the FISA cave-in; she promised to vote against it. And she did. She's not the nominee--Senator Obama's promises may be reasonably compared with his actions without dragging her into it now.

    I menat dodged, of course ;) (none / 0) (#17)
    by barryluda on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:46:04 AM EST
    McCain and Bush hugging should be in EVERY ad (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by steviez314 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:48:04 AM EST
    If that ends up being the image in voters' minds when they enter the booth, the election will not be close.

    I wish they would run an ad (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by magisterludi on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:51:43 AM EST
    about job creation and debt data under R and D administrations.

    Pretty much says it all for me and most reality-based people I know.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:56:45 AM EST
    can Obama not put anything POSITIVE in his ads? That point seems to be continually overlooked by his campaign. He needs to explain specifically what he is going to do to make the lives of voters better. Right now the whole campaign is McCain is worse than me. That plays right into where McCain wants the campaign to be because, believe me, the GOP is masters at the lowest common denominator politics.

    Yeah that worked for Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:01:26 AM EST

    That's (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:14:28 AM EST
    pretty much what I'm saying. Obama is rerunning Kerrys notbush campaign from 2004 and hoping it works this time.

    He tries to avoid (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM EST
    doing this because he is trying to disappear Bill Clinton's legacy. Clinton championed the poor and working class but they want to shift the party away from that.

    Check out the last five paragraphs of Ryan Lizza's article in the New Yorker describing the goals of the campaign's new western strategy. I'm not making this up.


    Well, in the speech Thursday night (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:57:24 AM EST
    we saw a new populist stance from Obama.  I personally was thrilled with it, and thought that he might finally be listening to the people, integrating some of Hillary's and Edwards' ideas into his campaign, and hoped like hell that it would last.

    He also started talking about the relative prosperity of the Clinton years.  He has to begin to own those years, as part of the Democratic party's legacy.  It absolutely crushes the typical (and usually effective) "tax and spend Democrats" meme that the Republicans use.  And it provides the stark contrast question of asking whether you were better off ten years ago or not.  This is crucial.  To avoid it would be really foolish.  But he has to mean it.  It has to be really part of his planned policies.  That's what I haven't figured out yet -- if he means it.


    Awesome observation (none / 0) (#74)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:48:39 AM EST
    There is a large segment of voters that don't view the current situation as being quite as "desperate" as it's being made out to be.  McCain wants those voters.  Palin, as an "authentic" working-class optimist, is hoped to provide contrast in an attempt to persuade voters that may not feel quite aligned to a "dire straits" message.

    Positive Like Hope? Like Change? (none / 0) (#95)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:47:21 AM EST
    This is funny.

    When he was airing positive ads with descriptions of his policies, people complained he wasn't tough enough, said he needed to be answering all the McCain attack ads.


    He's doing both. He's done both.

    Some people will never acknowledge any of his campaign's strengths and successes because to them he is just WRONG. Whether it's that he isn't HRC or that they just can never get behind his candidacy, the lens they see him through distorts the reality.


    If you (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:11:29 PM EST
    noticed, I have talked about compare and contrast. All his ads are either depressing or hopey/changey. How about a good combination with the bad stuff at first and then a positive message from Obama about how he's going to change all that? It's not that hard. And, yes, his ad campaign has generally stunk. This ad doesn't show that he's learned anything. He had to pull all his ads he was running previously for "retooling".

    You're in Georgia (none / 0) (#147)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:45:29 PM EST
    so you've seen considerably more of his ads there than I see in New York. As in: I catch the few national ones and the ones on the internet.

    But the ones that I catch on the internet are all over the board. Some I like quite a bit like (most recently) Don't Know Much.

    Some, as you suggest, rather stink.

    And some are not so bad/not so great, but okay.


    Eeeek! (none / 0) (#110)
    by nrglaw on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:21:06 PM EST
    Really, what piffle.

    You think the economy is "delicate"? Come on out here to Michigan and to Ohio next door, where our industry is moribund and the city's are dying. Detroit, Flint, Cleveland--these are big city's and they are slipping away daily. Then tell me its "delicate."

    It damn well is a disaster and Obama went to great pains at the convention to demonstrate that he understands the gravity of the situation. He could forget about MI and OH if he were to start going delusional about the economy.

    Fact is, I just don't get your post at all. Phil Gramm could have written it.


    Why run an ad with her at all? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Saul on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:56:15 AM EST
    When you react to something many times it's because you are afraid that your loosing  and this is also showing your hand to the opponent.   If you want to show how confident you are  and that Palin is of no consequences then you let it go and do not react defensively.    By playing the ad it signals to McCain
    OH OH they are worried about Palin
     and from there McCain prepares his strategy for their counter ad

    That is what they did (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:59:23 AM EST
    They didn't even mention her name. Just said he's chosen his running mate, and went right back to tying him to Bush.

    I think from this point on, you will see McCain really distance himself from Bush and his policies. Even in his speech yesterday he was talking about "Changing Washington"...

    Sounds like he's trying to use Obama's message.


    He's been talking about (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:09:40 AM EST
    changing Washington for quite some time.

    Haven't they ALL? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by magisterludi on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:23:24 AM EST
    While consistently voting with Bush 90% n/t (none / 0) (#59)
    by independent voter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:57:21 AM EST
    From This Point On? (none / 0) (#97)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:49:48 AM EST
    re:I think from this point on, you will see McCain really distance himself from Bush and his policies.

    Don't you think it is a little late in the game for McCain to, now, all of a sudden, "distance himself from Bush"?  He has voted with Bush over 90% of the time but with only 3 or 4 months left for the Bush presidency, McCain suddenly sees the light.  

    So for McCain "change" means opposing the very Bush policies that he helped support and implement.    

    Trying to appropriate Obama's message means that McCain needs to act like a Democrat.  But don't you think that given the choice between the real thing and someone acting like a Democrat, the public will choose the real thing?


    Bush will be talking at the Convention...... (none / 0) (#107)
    by nrglaw on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:14:24 PM EST
    for pete's sake. He is going to have a hard time distancing himself from the guy while W has a national audience telling everyone that McCain is Bush's guy.

    They should be worried ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    ... not about Palin per se, but about the fact that McCain's path to the Presidency is through disgruntled Democrats, and he's making a major move for them.  Palin isn't the end (or the beginning) of that effort.  Obama's campaign has got to fight for those voters.  

    During his stadium speech (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:09:27 AM EST
    I gained a new respect for Obama when he made it a priority to thank and compliment Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.  I was really touched.  I thought, finally, he is giving her the respect she deserves.  

    I have enough experience and skepticism to know that one speech doesn't change everything, so I can't say I was completely convinced, but I truly opened up to a new perspective with this campaign -- something I didn't think would happen.  I had hope.  I was willing to believe that things would be different going forward.

    Then, less than 24 hours after that historic event, the progressive blogosphere was again rabidly attacking a woman, the Obama campaign issued a derisive statement before the woman even got a chance to speak and before McCain even introduced her and named her the VP candidate.

    I couldn't believe it.  What happened to all the ebullience, the tears and the good will?  It was gone in a flash.

    I'm diametrically opposed to most of Palin's positions on the issues.  But that doesn't mean I hate her.  What is spewing from dkos and other corners of the PB right now is just pure hatefulness born of insecurity and, it seems, misogyny.  I hate to say it.  These people are my supposed allies.  I thought we had come around.  I thought we had learned a lesson.  When Hillary spoke at the convention, many people seemed to realize that they had been egregiously wrong to treat her the way they did.  But apparently those generous feelings toward her were simply the product of getting what they wanted, and of seeing her bowing down to their preferred candidate.  

    As for Obama, his statements were appropriate.  But they came much too late to undo the damage done.  He was with Biden when he made the more respectful statement and made excuses for his campaign and their "hair trigger" response.  I hope that Biden helps him deal with this going forward and I hope he really straightens out his PR people.  I also hope the campaign gets in touch with the A-list bloggers and sets them straight too.  

    This is a test for me, of sorts.  I've never been convinced that Obama wasn't purposely letting his surrogates do the dirty work for him.  If he is sincere, he will put a stop to it, just as he could have and should have done with the hate and misogyny shown to Hillary.  He can do it with one strong statement.  How hard would that be?  The way he explained that his campaign sometimes issued hair trigger responses did not seem quite sincere.  He had that almost amused look on his face.  It might just be the way he looks when he's uncomfortable.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

    I'm stunned by all this, and disgusted all over again.  

    I wonder how Michelle Obama feels about this.  Can't she get through to him and his supporters?

    Come on, Obama.  Show me that I'm not a fool for beginning to believe in you.

    I think most of the attack on Palin (none / 0) (#44)
    by elonepb on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:15:50 AM EST
    Is coming from the idea that McCain chose her only because she was a woman, and really for no other reason.

    There are some legitimate criticism of her, especially considering McCain's own qualifications for CIC.

    However I agree with you misogyny issue. Although I think most of the progressive blogosphere would be launching the same attacks on any candidate, this one kind of shocked everybody and people reacted way too quickly - including me!

    It will be an interesting test for her. I hear a lot of positive things about her, minus all the issues that I'm completely on the other side of.

    Obama campaign has to be very careful here. But I think the McCain campaign has to be even more careful and not make it look like the ONLY reason he picked her was because she was a woman.


    Mostly Because She is A Woman (none / 0) (#100)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:54:37 AM EST
    And that she is a solidly right wing choice.

    After Romney, the most buzz I saw in conservative Republican sites was for Governor Palin. In fact, that's when I first heard of her last spring.


    Oh gawwd... (none / 0) (#106)
    by nrglaw on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:11:00 PM EST
    What tiresome stuff. Obama cannot personally make nice to every Hillary supporter--like me, btw--and make it all go away. There is now a campaign to run. Hillary is making the smart bet--she is going to work hard for the campaign. You should follow her example. You could have written a small check to Obama/Biden in the time you spent on this long painful post.

    This attitude (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    is why Obama is having problems with Democrats. He expects them to vote for him. He needs to accept that he isn't "owed" anything and has to work for votes. No one else can deliver them for him. He went on vacation twice. He could have spent that time trying to get Dems on board but apparently lounging on the beach was more important. He went on a disastrous european tour instead of trying to get voters on his side. He's spent a lot of time doing lots of things other than trying to win voters.

    I'm sorry that you feel that way (none / 0) (#146)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:02:59 PM EST
    Hopefully the Obama campaign has more sense than you do.

    "Personally make nice to every Hillary supporter"?  That's nonsense.  I'm talking about showing me by what he says and does going forward.  How silly of you to think I'd expect any kind of personal response.


    Good ad. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:35:03 AM EST

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Kevin on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:52:13 AM EST
    that Obama will do what BTD is saying, simply because there is no point going after her for them at all.  Maybe they will have ads spotlighting her agreement on stem-cells with McCain and Bush and other policy issues, but she really is a non-issue.  

    I don't think Biden will do anything bad at the debate either.  He'll just look incredibly prepared and knowledgeable compared to her.  Even if they spend weeks and weeks preparing her, she still wont be able to talk about such different national and international topics with the same detail as Biden, and that will show without him ever having to make fun of her.  He'll save the bullets for Bush and McCain.

    Ignoring Palin (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by zvs888 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:07:47 AM EST
    To be honest BTD; the Obama campaign has always had more sense than its supporters (and I say that as one of his supporters although I did support Clinton till March).

    But yea, this line of attack is perfect.  Keep Palin off the table and just go after McCain which is who people are going to be voting for.

    The most idiotic thing the Obama campaign could do is to go after her "inexperience" because it will just highlight Obama's, which is the double-edged sword, while rallying voters to her.

    Biden needs to just attack McCain during the debate and the next two months.  There's no reason to go after her during the debate, just stick it to McCain on foreign policy since she can't defend him credibly there.  As long as he doesn't seem like he's talking down to her (which is a huge risk) it will be okay.

    Biden would be wise to stick to issues (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:41:14 AM EST
    in the debate.  There are plenty of issues to go after: ANWR, the Republican party, offshore drilling, global warming, anti-abortion regardless of the circumstances, Iraq war, etc.

    He should stick to the issues and refuse to answer any questions about petty personal issues that might be thrown out by the moderators.  

    He can treat her with respect, acknowledge her positive record, and just hit the issues.  We win on the issues.


    True, Biden needs (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    to focus on McCain....who is now lurched very far ro the Right in picking Palin.

    If McCain would pick Palin for VP, who would he pick for the Supreme Court?

    By the time of the debate, over a month from now, Palin should be irrelevant.  Biden should go after McCain, boost Obama, and ignore Palin.


    I don't think he should ignore her (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:11:18 AM EST
    He should debate her on her stance on the issues, and on the policies and legacy of the Republican party.  That's all fair game, and we win on those issues.

    To ignore her during their debate would be a mistake.  He's there to debate with her, and he should debate with her.  He should just avoid any personal issues and the whole inexperience thing.  He should debate her as a peer, treat her with respect, but destroy her stances on the issues.

    If he simply talks about McCain all the time, it's like saying he doesn't take her seriously or doesn't accept her as a candidate on the ticket.  It might seem like only men are deemed worthy of debating issues.  That wouldn't be right.


    I see your point (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:02:41 PM EST
    Biden definitely needs to acknowledge her with dignity and respect....It all depends on the format and questioning.....and whether such allows the candidates to interact.

    If the questions are general and not specifically tied to the VPs, then I think Biden (after acknowleding Palin) should go right after McCain and make sure everyone remembers he is a Republican and what that means....

    But, yes, you make an excellent point....It is a bad idea to diss Palin personally--even by not acknowleding her or rudely ignoring her.  Everyone will like her and if she is unqualified, everyone will know it. Do not make anyone feel sorry for her, or mad at us for being sexist (please, no, let's no go there anymore.)


    And it could be fatal (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM EST
    to underestimate Palin.  She is knicknamed barracuda and she will go after Obama; and because everyone will like her, she could get really nasty and get away with it.....

    Biden needs to be ready to defend Obama big time.


    Young people (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    finaly got to see the real thing. All they knew was the demonized version of the Clintons that the right created and a lot of people on the left adopted - the most disturbing thing IMO. Democrats did all they could to demonize Reagan but the Republicans turned him into the second coming of Christ. He is still worshipped and never criticized even though a lot of our problems are a direct result of Bush's reimplementation of Reaganomics. And it was Reagan who took us off the path to energy independence. We were really moving in that direction as a result of Carter's policies (something else the Dems never mention) but Reagan undid most of them and we are paying the price today. (Not that the public will ever hear Democrats say that.) So who Ronnie is revered and Clinton who cleaned up his mess is treated like a failure and disappeared by his own party. And don't give me that scandal excuse. Reagan's Iran Contra travesty was a violation of his oath of office, while Bill only violated his marriage vows.

    Maybe the picture is of McCain & Bush hugging (none / 0) (#4)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:31:21 AM EST

    What a missed opportunity (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:26:04 AM EST
    It's the anniversary of Katrina and another hurricane is on the way.  I would be running commercials reminding America (with the birthday and guitar pictures) of what Bush and McCain were doing while the levees were overflowing in New Orleans.

    Thank goodness it's being handled better this time around with the new hurricane threatening NOLA.  It doesn't absolve the Bush admin. for failing to restore NOLA and the levees and such, but at least the people are being taken care of this time.


    VP are mostly useless for general elections (none / 0) (#14)
    by Gabriel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:44:57 AM EST
    Has anyone ever voted for a ticket based on the VP pick?

    The danger for McCain is that Palin has hardly been vetted and is under investigation.

    It depends... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:15:29 AM EST
    ...on what you mean by "based on."  If you mean that the VP is the majority of the reason for voting one way or the other, then I'm sure only a vanishingly small percentage of people vote that way.

    If you mean does the VP pick act as the tipping point to convince someone who was undecided which way to vote, then I suspect a lot of people are influenced that way.  I think Bill Clinton's pick of Gore helped him considerably in the '92 race, and I suspect that Biden will likewise help Obama this time around.

    Palin is a problematic pick for the Dems, because it's so easy to go overboard in criticizing her.  In particular, the VP debate with Biden will be a real test of his restraint.  Instead being able to go all out to beat her as he would most other contenders for the pick, Joltin' Joe will have to walk a much finer line.


    You're missing the point (none / 0) (#69)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    and it's not clear that the VP slot is as unimportant as it used to be.  Sometimes it is important.  This could be one of those years.

    When you've got someone (none / 0) (#83)
    by TomStewart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:07:02 AM EST
    like McCain, as I said before, is an old man whose had some health problems, and th efact fact that ex-POW's don't usually do so well in their later years, the VP selection is a big deal. If he wins (lord forbid) McCain could be picking the next president. As it is, he's probably picking the repub front runner in 2012.

    Anyway. Decent ad from Obama. Now what?


    For the next week (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:19:44 AM EST
    I think they should lay low a bit.  When the Republicans inserted themselves into the Dem convention, I thought they looked like fools.  Let America see their convention at the "Nutter Center" and let them see the contrast for themselves.  Their work will be done for them, and for free.

    Run commercials on the issues.  And hammer them on the anniversary of Katrina, emphasizing what McCain and Bush were doing while NOLA drowned.  Over and over, show the pictures of the guitar and the birthday cake.

    After that, treat Palin with respect, as an equal, just as if gender doesn't matter.  Take some time to get to know her -- facts only.  Then go after her on the issues, avoid the inexperience issue, absolutely avoid anything even close to misogyny, and just show how wrong she is on big issues like ANWR, anti-abortion regardless of circumstances, her support of the Republican party, etc.

    Some time has to be spent on finding out her stance on issues like Iraq, economy, education, etc.  Then go after those issues too.

    Give her credit where credit is due, and oppose her on issues where she is wrong.

    And most of all, reign in the campaign, surrogates and supporters and tell them to knock off the sexist stuff right now.


    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by eleanora on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:25:04 PM EST
    I hope people like you are advising the Dems and the campaign. The firehose blast of misogyny turned on Governor Palin yesterday from the fauxgressive left is stupid politics, does nothing but help the opposition, and oh yeah, it's fricken' wrong.

    How do you know she hasn't (none / 0) (#77)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:55:45 AM EST
    hardly been vetted? (If you're gonna use the argument that they haven't spent much one on one time together, please use another argument).

    How right you are (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:04:10 AM EST
    The media graced the country with non-stop, repetitious coverage of how great the One, and trashing Hillary and her supporters up until yesterday. Oh, and the obsession over "will he pick her, should he pick her, he must pick her" dominated the news while Obama vacationed, Hillary campaigned for him, and the media kept McCain's activity out of view. No one wanted to hear what McCain was doing. Oh well.

    Who can say they know anything about what the Republicans did in their vetting process? I heard Palin was under consideration months ago, though.


    For what it is worth (none / 0) (#93)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM EST
    Disclaimer: I have said this before here, but I will disclose that I am a Republican that visits this site for its political analysis and discussions which are the most reasoned on the left.  Where I have had dialogue, it's been very positive and instructive.  My comments are few, but in the last couple of days have been more frequent.  I'm fascinated by the "strategy game" and if I'm sounding like I'm spinning on this post that is not the intention.  'Nuff with that.

    I've been very disappointed with the Republican party for many years, primarily in how they have lost their way on fiscal conservatism.  Though I've been committed, I've also been very pissed that my own party can't currently control its appetites for the sake of politics.  

    I have been following Palin closely for the last 6 months.  I had been really hoping that she would be the pick for the reasons that seem to be lining up now, though I was not very optimistic.
    I kept a close eye on the grassroots "Palin for VP" site.  On Thursday evening, a mystery poster appeared on that site (campaign operative?), and to a small group started leaking small pieces of information at a time.  Normally, I would be quite skeptical, but this poster was consistently a few hours ahead of the curve of what later was coming out in the press. At around 11PM PST, he told us while he couldn't give out specifics, he believed we would be "very happy tomorrow".  Shortly thereafter, another poster started piecing together the flight plan, etc. and before long we pretty much knew it was hers (pretty cool, about 10 hours ahead of the press).  Retrospectively, the poster was dead-on-accurate in everything he said.

    Speaking purely with an "analyst" hat on, I'll offer to this group one theme that came out. I'm paraphrasing now, but basically he said that the leak of information to the Palin for VP blog was a "gift" and that McCain had been watching the activity on this blog for a very long time.  Given his accuracy on everything else, I see no reason to dispute this.

    Since the mystery poster was accurate about so many things, my conclusion is that this was not a last-minute reactive decision made by McCain's campaign.  Though it may have only been a done deal recently, it had some substantial probability for some time.  If I am right, and that's a big if... then unbeknownst to us all, Palin has been likely studying her behind off and is walking into a well-scripted last act of the campaign.  My guess is that the McCain campaign wants to the attacks to happen in order to keep expectations low, giving her every opportunity to hit it out of the park.  Whether that will actually occur is entirely up to the capabilities of Palin and this is all super risky, but if successful a stroke of genius (in my opinion).

    My reason for bringing this up is that while I am a male, I do think that the constant sexism discussion is not only destructive to your party's cause, it is also generally destructive for all of us, independent of party.

    Being a Republican, I'm probably stupid to even bring this up to you, since perpetuating the attacks probably only helps my own political interest in this election.

    If you are sincerely interested in knowing "how the other side thinks", I can tell you that, as a Republican, I see all of the qualities that Palin brings to my interests first, and then I see that she is a woman.  My pride is sincere, though some here will probably argue that it is misplaced.  My wife and I were practically in tears during yesterday's speech since, since for many reasons - not just one, this sends a positive signal to us.

    Thanks for letting me prate, and if anyone thinks I am just trolling well... I'm just sorry about that.  Though I am a Republican, my statements are in the interest of objective analysis and will hopefully be taken in that spirit.


    I don't know if your post is (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:19:19 PM EST
    genuine or disingenuous, however, I, too, cried listening to Gov. Palin's speech. She represents some policies I am against and I want to find out more that we might agree on. I like strong women. I have a friend who lives in Wasilla and am eager to find out more about Gov. Palin. There are negatives out there, no one is perfect. I also believe that I do not want to stay where I am told I am not wanted, needed, important, or viable anymore. I am now an Indy, sad about it and excited at the same time. I am a feminist, I am inclusive, I am a single mother, a patriot, a lover of my country, a participant in my country, and a proud leader. Thank you for your comment.

    I cried too, but I was dicing onions (none / 0) (#114)
    by nrglaw on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:33:45 PM EST
    I can't connect in any way with Ms Palin. The nomination of a right wing, evangelical, anti-choice advocate of teaching creationism in the public schools is not a cause for celebration. It's a damned shame.

    The fact that she is a woman doesn't enter into it.


    Which to me (none / 0) (#121)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:54:41 PM EST
    is a much more reasoned view than some being expressed.

    I have been invited to take a look. (none / 0) (#139)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:05:45 PM EST
    That was more than Sen. Obama offered me. So far, including Friday, a republican, yes, a republican, has treated me with respect. I, sadly, cannot say the same thing about the dems. Even at this site, this wonderful, informative, usually open-minded site, I was reviled, called names, chased, made fun of and called an idiot. Perhaps the other side will end up there, as well. But they were treating me with some kind of respect in this election, before they were asked to or felt they should. I am not a repub. and never will be. But now I understand how staunch dems can cross over once in a while. Thought it could never happen to me. Sometimes you have to wait a little longer for what you want and I haven't stopped wanting. It is better for me to wait, then to make a huge mistake. I have 2 months to decide. I am now officially an indy and I like it.

    One of Sen. Obama's themes (none / 0) (#145)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:49:16 PM EST
    is to bringing "change" to Washington. The fact that there is so much vile between the parties is something Obama says he wants to change. Saying Gov. Palin is inexperienced, saying you don't agree with her policies and why, is legit, attacking her because she is a woman (experienced or not)to me is unacceptable. Saying you were peeling onions and that is why you cried is insulting to me and cynical, a trait I thought the dems wanted to change. I want to change the tone as well. Giving McCain/Palin a chance to change the tone is worth my time, respectfully. That is part of my contribution to what Sen. Obama seems to ask of dems., indys., and repubs.

    Fascinating insights (none / 0) (#124)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    and thanks for those.  For the rest -- thanks, too.  We need more moderate Republicans again.

    People might vote against ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:25:46 PM EST
    e.g., McGovern '72.  But that is the last time I can think of that the VP pick, in the end, had a large influence, and that was because it reflected badly on the guy at the top of the ticket.  Maybe you could argue 2000, in that if Lieberman had kicked Cheney's ass rather than kissing it that might have swung enough votes to get Gore over the hump, but that's not quite the same.

    Palin is a smart tactical choice for McCain, but not a game changer - the question is could it flip just enough votes in a close election to change the result.  By itself, I'd say not, but I doubt it's the end of McCain's efforts to wedge off Clinton supporters.  

    Ironic that we've become the battleground in this election overnight ...


    Good Approach (none / 0) (#61)
    by santarita on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:03:21 AM EST
    Gov. Palin sounds like the Oil Companies pick for replacing their favorite Western Oilman, Dick Cheney.  More of the Same.

    I absolutely loved Barney Smith (none / 0) (#65)
    by joanneleon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:18:23 AM EST
    and I loved the way the crowd reacted to him, chanting "Barney, Barney".  

    As I said that night, I think we might be seeing more of Barney Smith.  I hope so.

    Nice ad (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:10:42 AM EST
    It sounds like they just filled in the blank!  Which is just as well.

    So, what now? (none / 0) (#87)
    by TomStewart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:12:19 AM EST
    What will Obama do this week? Try to distract the media from the repub convention? Run contrast ads? Campaign hard and try to get as much tv coverage as possible away from McCain?

    And who thinks the repub convention is going wall-to-wall anti-Obama, 24/7?

    Repub Conv (none / 0) (#92)
    by zvs888 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:41:32 AM EST
    Well it's going to be hard to do that.  Everyone probably had speechs on experience ready.

    Who knows, they'll retool it to make Obama look like a European socialist most likely and just ditch the experience line.

    They'll just say his judgment is too dangerous for America 24/7 for 4 days.

    Seems like he's going to get ads out and go through the swing states low-key, which is probably the best way to deal with it.


    They'll hit him hard (none / 0) (#101)
    by TomStewart on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:01:26 PM EST
    with everything they got. Every speaker, when not lying about McCain or praising the POW experience, will be sliming Obama. Remember the disgraceful spectacle last time, with the purple bandaids.

    I don't know if he should go low key on this. I think the only thing the repubs have going into the convention is the buzz over Palin (no one expects much of a speech performance from McCain), I think Obama can exploit the media to turn some attention away from McCain and make him play some defense just when he's trying to get the whole 'I'm John McCain, love me' meme out.


    They don't have the rumored worst (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:18:54 PM EST
    on Obama -- the stuff that has been peddled, prattled about, etc.  That is clear.  Senator Obama and the Dems are in the clear on the 527 ads that were feared after the conventions.

    That's what this risky pick by McCain told me.  If there was anything to the rumors about Obama, the GOP would not have gambled this big.  

    They would not have had to take a risk, if they had anything on even one of the rumors.  They don't.  

    So now, it is up to the Dems to behave themselves.  To not behave as they did yesterday.  That nonsense could depress Dem turnout.   If so, Dems always lose.


    though a lot of damage to recover from (none / 0) (#88)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:15:53 AM EST
    since they played the gender/misogyny card all day long yesterday and they played the inexperienced card all day long yesterday. Now you'll see the repubs make a lot of hay of that misstep. Repubs can run with the gender bigotry reaction (think Obama in SC) and the what about Obama's experience reaction for days and days or weeks. Simply the stupidest day for democrats this whole election.

    I think it is a weak ad (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:50:46 AM EST
    It promises to keep this race tight.  What will Obama do, how is he going to help this country.....put some of that out there and watch all people get excited.  This is just an ad promising neck and neck to the bitter end as everyone argues out McCain's maverick times and not so maverick times which shakes out to neck and neck.  Come on Obama, get off your arse put some real cards on the table.

    Good ad (none / 0) (#108)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:16:11 PM EST
    However, I don't see misogyny in everything the Dems and MSM do in questioning her experience.  If Pawlenty or Jindal were chosen, they would have also been hounded about their lack of experience.  It makes it seem that since she is a woman any attack is based on sexism and we have to use kid gloves.  

    The point is she was attacked (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:21:34 PM EST
    because she is a woman. As BTD rightly pointed out, if Obama had picked Kaine, he wouldn't have been attacked because he is a man.

    No, he would have been attacked... (none / 0) (#119)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:50:01 PM EST
    by the right for his lack of experience.  Or do you think they would have ignored it?

    No, she is being attacked because she is McCain's running mate.  Whoever he chose would have been in the left's sights.


    If it had been Kaine, he would have been (none / 0) (#144)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:44:16 PM EST
    attacked for his lack of experience, and nothing would have been said about him being a man. Gov. Palin has been attacked first because she is a woman (they said and still do that he's pandering) and then for her lack of experience.

    It ain't the criticism per se that's sexist ... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:59:39 PM EST
    ... it's that criticism of experience has not been applied equally, and gender has been a major factor in that.  Speaking for me only, as someone around here says.

    Disagree about the ad... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Oje on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:22:29 PM EST
    First, when the ad says "for the rest of us," the image is of a young man and young woman.

    Then, in two separate shots, he only shows an image of the VP, and uses the word "this" to describe the woman as if something about her physical appearance speaks to what we need to know about her. Personally, my sense is that the ad speaks to the blogger boyz set that thinks there is something risible about the idea she was a beauty queen.

    The implication that the ad seems to make is that telegenic woman is a prop to distract us from George Bush. In fact, no image of Gov. Palin had to be shown to make the explicit point that the ad wanted to make. A gratuitous shot of Gov. Palin  at the end, with the text "this is his running mate," seems like more of the derisiveness flowing from the faux progressive blogger boy. The Obama campaign has yet to demonstrate that they see Gov. Palin as a politician, and not some superficial surface.

    to rephrase last sentence.... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Oje on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:24:39 PM EST
    **The Obama campaign has yet to demonstrate that they respect Gov. Palin as a politician, and not disrespect her as some superficial political ploy.