What Digby Said On Palin

Perhaps hearing it from Digby will make it more palatable:

I really hope the Obama campaign does not take to heart some of the "advice" it's getting about going after Palin with snappy slogans over her picture that say "this is what McCain thinks is ready to lead?" After all the talk in this election about feminism, I think the Obama campaign is sensitive enough to know that that reads like a sexist dogwhistle loud enough to shatter the sound barrier. This is not a good approach.

I don't think that many Hillary followers will vote for an anti-choice zealot, but there is no point in unnecessarily suppressing the female Obama vote by thoughtlessly pushing buttons that don't need to be pushed. McCain chose Palin partially because they wanted to keep open the wounds of feminist discontent and there's no reason to help them by picking at the scabs. There are many things on which to attack her --- her social conservatism, her anti-environmental extremism, her bad policies, even her potential corruption, but her inexperience has to be handled very deftly. [More . . .]

In truth, she doesn't really have enough experience, but a lot of the criticism I'm seeing could easily be read as both sexist and elitist. Barack doesn't have a ton of experience either, but his qualifications are made manifest by his ivy league education, cosmopolitan background, urban connections and endorsements from other powerful people. I can easily see certain rural, working class voters not being impressed with big city Dems' disdain for her "big state with no people" and her "beauty queen" background. This is the kind of thing that makes the elitist tag stick.


By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Eyes Wide Open | The Obama Bio Video >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    but... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by dws3665 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:21:14 AM EST
    they just can't help themselves. The blogger boiz really are tone deaf to sexism.

    I don't let some grrrlsz (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:16:28 AM EST
    off the hook on this one.  Or the last one, Clinton, either.  It's not just the blogger boyz.  

    And that is why this is so discouraging.  


    That's what shocked me... (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    To hear LIBERAL women make vicious, catty fun of Hillary's laugh, her thighs, her marriage.

    It was like being back in the 1950s.

    I thought we were beyond all that.

    Someone on another thread here mentioned that the definition of a feminist used to be that you supported women -- didn't agree with them or vote for them, but refused to belittle or ridicule them for, say, their age or looks.



    Tina Fey in "Mean Girls" (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:35:45 AM EST
    will be the opening skit on SNL this season.  Count on it -- Palin is such a ringer for Fey.  My bet is that she already has been booked to come pack for the first show.  And I can write the script in my head, because Fey already wrote it for her flick.

    And the SNL sequel to "Mean Girls" will be even better, because this one will have Amy Poehler playing Clinton again.  

    Life imitates art.  And Dems imitate high school.


    Not The 1950s--1974: New York (none / 0) (#174)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:36:17 PM EST
    I was 19 when we were trying to get the ERA ratified in my 'progressive' state.

    Hoo, boy, was that a painful political awakening for me. To talk to people while canvassing, to listen to the (compared with Limbaugh et al today) 'moderate' radio talk shows about the ERA...opened my consciousness to the depths and breadth of ignorance, paranoia and woman hatred in this country.

    And some of the worst, the most gleefully misogynistic were women themselves!

    It was a heartbreaking coming of age. Knocked some of the idealistic stars clear out of my eyes for good.


    Yeah, (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by frankly0 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    the defense they always put up over their vicious attacks on Clinton was that "We don't have a problem with women! It's only this woman!"

    But now what are they going to say? "Oh, oh, and this woman too!!"

    Yeah, two in a row who need to be assailed as if they are the earthly embodiment of evilest Witchdom. Real coincidence there, boys.

    Somehow we're not believing you.


    Exactly. Vote suppression (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:22:08 AM EST
    by the GOP but legal this time.  And all the GOP has to do is sit back and watch as some Dems keep doing what they did before in the primary to their own then.  There is no time now to patch it together again.

    Thanks for sending me to Digby last night on this, BTD.  This post was welcome then -- and worth reading again.

    Thank goodness! (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by chrisvee on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:49:11 AM EST
    I'm very happy to see Digby pick this up and comment on it in addition to the work BTD is doing. I felt like we were whistling in the wind yesterday.

    ...supporter yesterday who asked me if I was going to vote for McCain "now that he's put boobies on the ticket."  This person was being sarcastic, but I told him the sexist crap, even joking, was a big mistake.  I would never vote for McCain/Palin, but the nastiness that is pouring out of some of the "progressive" blogs (John Aravosis' panty-sniffing and the downright libelous stuff in the comments to his post come to mind) is going to persuade at least some progressive women and feminist men to stay home or vote only down-ticket in November.

    If you don't withhold your vote for Obama, (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:01:30 AM EST
    either by voting McCain, or,  if you can't stomach that, voting third party or not voting for the top of the ticket, then there is no consequence for the Democratic Party in turning a blind eye to this kind of vicious misogyny.

    There are other reasons not to vote for Obama, but this one is emotional and more than infuriating to many women. If these bloggers keep this up, they may very well drive a lot of Democratic women to make a protest vote.

    I certainly will be making one.


    So Obama supporters are causing you (none / 0) (#128)
    by JanG on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:23:58 AM EST
    not to vote for him? Here is a thought for you, what if those supposed Obama bloggers are truly McCain supporters trying to divide the democratic party. That wouldn't suprise me a bit.. Don't let bloggers dictate who you vote for. Look at the candidate.

    I think there is a lot of that going on (none / 0) (#131)
    by joanneleon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:26:38 AM EST
    The problem is that the blog owners in most places are not dealing with it.  There is very little self-policing going on, unless it's a perceived slight against Obama.  Some A-list bloggers are even encouraging it.  It's so foolish and destructive.  I wonder if they have any coordination with the Obama campaign.  If so, why are they not telling them to tone it down and giving them some direction?

    Maybe because the Obama camp (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:39:18 AM EST
    has the likes of Daschle in its leadership.  And he just went right into this trap on CNN.  With such leadership from the campaign, the followers are just doing as they're told.  Dumb and dumber.

    I am baffled (none / 0) (#145)
    by JanG on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:40:46 AM EST
    I really wanted to find a blog that got me excited about the election, especially after the convention. You would think a blog called Talk Left would be that. However, I really feel this is a bash Obama site. Funny how they critize him on discussing Palin's inexperience but no one has called McCain a hypocrite after going after Obama's supposed inexperience. Come on he has a degree in law from Harvard, taught constitional law in Chicago. Palin has a journalism degree from U of I.  Big difference. Not to mention many other factors.
    Joanneleon- do you know of any "true" liberal blogs?

    The interesting part of your comment (none / 0) (#159)
    by shoephone on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    is that you are having trouble finding a blog -- anywhere -- that will get you excited about the campaign.

    Somehow that's the fault of the commenters at TL?



    you jumped to conclusions (none / 0) (#177)
    by JanG on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    I never said I had trouble finding a blog "anywhere". I simply thought I found the blog I was searching for when I saw the title "talk left"

    I was disappointed and feel it is somewhat false advertising.  No worries I won't be posting here anymore.


    the commenters here do not represent the views (none / 0) (#202)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:25:48 PM EST
    of the authors of the site.

    The authors of this site are Democrats in firm support of the Democratic ticket.

    Those who oppose the Democratic ticket are limited to four comments a day expressing that view.


    and handing (none / 0) (#154)
    by JanG on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:01:31 PM EST
    the election to the republican party is a way in fixing this?? Keep up the decisive talk and that is what you will get.

    I was visiting republican blogs. They are totally united. We are screwed if we keep this up.


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by shoephone on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:34:15 PM EST
    If Obama loses, it will all be the fault of the commenters at TL.

    Are we supposed to take this seriously?


    you are limited to four comments a day since (none / 0) (#195)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:32:53 PM EST
    you will be making a protest vote against the Dem ticket.

    Remember the Hillary/baggage debate? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:27:11 AM EST
    BTD opined that Hillary would take a lot of heat and essentially act as a magnet for attacks on the ticket, leaving Obama relatively unscathed.

    I hated the idea of putting Hillary out there specifically so she could be attacked and save Obama from that negative attention.  But I also thought that it would probably play out that way.  It's just the way the media works.  (and blogs)

    And now...we have Palin and what is happening?  Bingo.  

    And didn't Hillary's comment on (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:30:55 AM EST
    this pick bring dignity into the conversation.

    Digby has it right ... (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:33:36 AM EST
    but as you have said BTD, I would try to avoid elevating her importance. Talking about her too much might do that.

    And attacking Vice Presidential candidates probably doesn't help much in the long run.

    Humphrey tried it in 1968 with this ad about Spiro Agnew.  I doubt it had much effect.  Agnew, btw, had about the same level of experience as Palin.

    The Obama campaign would be better served by focusing on convincing voters they can fix the economy.  Something they desperately need to do.

    Of course the Obama camp is not (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by TheJoker on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:59:21 AM EST
    gonna attack since there is nothing so far that threatens them. Anyone who holds a candidate responsible for something said by a freaking voter that the campaign doesn't even know is seriously lacking in the most basic level of common sense. I have not heard ANYONE that has ever said "well this person I know down the street that knows my sister's  brother called Obama a racist slur, therefore McCain should be disqualified". Look I (and from the looks of the initial reaction across the country) are taking a new look at McCain's decision making, but let's be serious. This guilt by no association meme  is frankly ridiculous by any objective standard. Of course Digby is right, and her post said nothing that is different from what Obama camp is and was already going to do. Watch 60 Minutes tonight.  

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:08:35 AM EST
    politics is the realm of very intelligent people. Voters always show common sense. Nothing in the past 8 years could make you question that.



    I'm not going to vote for McCain-Palin (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Exeter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:49:22 AM EST
    But, it's important to note that I wasn't a Hillary Clinton supporter until I was angered by her sexist treatment.

    Me too Exeter.... (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:01:15 AM EST
    ...I've said that and I've been challenged by Obama supporters who seem to think I'm lying but its the complete truth. I was defending Obama on progressive blogs when he declared his candidacy back in the day and many of his current supporters were pooh poohing him. I didn't decide to vote for Hillary until the day before my primary in Maryland when I just said to myself and my family, no matter what the outcome I have to cast this vote for Hillary or I will feel untrue to everything I've believed in. They don't want to make me feel like that again in November. I won't vote for McCain, but when I'm in that voting booth I'm going to do what feels right to do from my core, not what other people think I should do.

    Same exact story here (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:30:04 AM EST
    Voted for Obama, sent money to Obama, and became a Hillary defender like many other outraged women. They really better learn to control their inner sexists with Palin.

    and for us Independents it's not a push that (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Salt on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    needed much..

    that's a reason to vote for a president? (none / 0) (#196)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:35:22 PM EST
    how they are treated by the media? Wow.

    Digby says (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:06:30 AM EST
    "In truth, she doesn't really have enough experience..."

    but cautions against pointing it out.

    That's the reason Palin isn't ready to be vice-president, isn't it?  
    If the Democrats had picked their nominee based on experience, we wouldn't be having this little dilemma.

    In truth (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:07:21 AM EST
    if you believe experience matters, then Obama is not qualified to be President.

    Well..... (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    I certainly didn't support his candidacy for that exact reason.  I supported Hillary to the bitter end.    But now I am faced with two choices:  Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin.

    Given that reality, I much prefer Obama/Biden.  

    The Palin pick has solidified my support for the Democratic ticket.


    My point is (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:19:39 AM EST
    for those Obama supporters who argue Palin is too inexperienced to be VICE President, the obvious extension of their stated views is that Obama is not qualified to be President.

    I am someone who has always argued "Experience" is vastly overrated.


    What Obama supporters (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:27:21 AM EST
    are reacting to the highest level of hypocrisy from the opposition. I would agree that Obama supporters should show restraint and not stoop to the Obama oppostion's level. McCain is just setting a trap. Unbelieveable! lol

    Yes. When you live in glass houses, you (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:13:13 AM EST
    shouldn't throw stones.  She has been a governor for the past two years, with executive experience that Obama doesn't have (and a lot of cred for fighting corruption -even against her own party).  He's spent his entire career running for the next office (and a criminal convicted on 16 counts of bribery and corruption helped him buy his house and he has never taken a hard stand on anything). The last two years in the Senate, Obama's been running for President. He had one executive task on the Senate, to be Chair of the Subcommittee on Europe, and never even called one meeting.

    Thus, it is an insane strategy, in my view, for the Obama campaign to criticize Palin's experience.  The word "experience" will boomerang on Obama, because it will trigger his lack of it in everyone's mind and the logical next thought will be that he is running for President, while she is only running for VP.

    I have to say that sometimes I despair of the Democrats' ability to run a campaign with intelligence.  


    Incorrect assertions (none / 0) (#176)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:50:18 PM EST
    Obama has held at least two meetings of his subcommittee.  

    Moreover, Biden, who chairs the full Foreign Relations committee, has said that he handled all the issues re Afghanistan, etc., at the full committee level.  Obama has been part of the full committee for almost four years.

    I understand the experience argument, but facts supporting this argument have been misstated.


    Yeah. You're right. He held his first committee (none / 0) (#185)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    meeting in April, 2008 after taking over the committee in January, 2007.  Here it is from ABC news:

    Obama Holds First Committee Meeting Before Petraeus Hearing
    April 07, 2008 6:50 PM

    ABC's Z. Byron Wolf Reports from Capitol Hill:

    Everyone is billing the David Petraeus/Ryan Crocker hearings tomorrow as the foreign policy tryout to the American people. But Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is trying to show off his time management skills and chair a quick hearing in the morning too.

    So tomorrow morning, while Senators Hillary Clinton (low ranking Armed Services Dem) and John McCain (Ranking Armed Services Republican) are having their moment with Petraeus/Crocker, Sen. Obama will not be resting on his laurels while he waits for his afternoon appointment when the Petraeus/Crocker road show stops at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (where he sits low on the seniority list). Instead, he'll be chairing a subcommittee hearing on several nominations.

    In the daybooks it refers innocuously to a "full committee hearing" for nominations, but if you take a look at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee website, it becomes apparent that the nominations all have to do with Obama's Subcommittee on European Affairs.

    This is the same committee Obama took over in January 2007 and which Sen. Clinton said Obama should have been using to hold hearings on Afghanistan.

    The nominees that will be considered tomorrow include nominations for the Ambassadorships in Finland, Slovenia, Cyprus, Bulgaria and the US permanent representative on the NATO council.


    "Helped him buy his house" (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:53:55 PM EST
    That's pretty vague....Obama used only his own money and money from his own loan to buy his house....

    One could interpret your comment as suggesting the Rezko came up with the money.....Obama never used any of Rezko's money to buy his house or the small portion of the lot next door that Rezko bought.


    "Experience is vastly overrated" (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by joanneleon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    I would probably agree with that in most elections, especially given the amount of help available by advisers of all kinds.

    But for this election, I really felt like experience was very important.  There is little time to get started on reversing the damage done by the Bush/Cheney administration, and the problems we've got are catastrophic and getting worse.  We've got an unreliable Congress, and an unstable outgoing administration.  That is why I thought that this election required somebody who could really get in there and get things moving quickly.  A Clinton/Obama ticket would have been ideal, as it would have given us some solid experience for the first two terms, and hopefully a well seasoned successor for another two terms (with the help of a former president who just happens to have experience cleaning up Republican messes).  That's water under the bridge now, and I'm not kvetching, I'm just pointing out why I felt that experience was a higher priority this time around.


    Well, yes, of course (none / 0) (#46)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:29:45 AM EST
    and that's the reality the Dems are stuck with during this campaign.

    experience question is off table (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by irishdem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:38:20 AM EST
    McCain's pick of Palin takes this issue away. Obama benefits greatly, because McCain was getting traction on this issue. Obama should tout experience of running a successful primary against a very formible candidate.

    Oh, that would be so unwise (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:48:19 AM EST
    as campaigning and governing are far different.

    And all that does is make me wonder how effective those campaign tactics would be with, say, Chancellor Merkel of Germany.  Bad enough that Bush rubbed her shoulders.  But far worse would be for Obama to treat her like dirt off his shoulders.

    Far better that he remind me of the nominee I saw at the convention, not the candidate I saw in the caucuses.


    Your last line (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:52:40 AM EST
    would put experience BACK on the table.

    Ahhh, I would not do that (none / 0) (#61)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:50:24 AM EST
    If Obama uses his win in the primaries against Hillary, don't you think that McCain will then talk about how the nomination was hand delivered to Obama and all the irregularities in the caucuses etc??  I would not go there at all.  Obama's winning the nomination is not a "proof" of experience at all.  

    Yes, and Digby illustrates that, too (none / 0) (#172)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:26:15 PM EST
    Barack doesn't have a ton of experience either, but his qualifications are made manifest by his ivy league education, cosmopolitan background, urban connections and endorsements from other powerful people.

    Not only does this play into the "Democrats are elitists" framing, but the same could have been said verbatim for GWB back in 2000.


    Yes, going to Yale and Harvard and having (none / 0) (#186)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:40:34 PM EST
    friends in high places now qualifies anyone to run for President. I'm sure that will go over well with all those Appalachian folks.

    And if the Dems hadn't gone for post-partisanship (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:22:17 AM EST
    we wouldn't be having the little dilemma of not being able to attack Palin based on Republican policies.

    I wonder how many houses Palin has? Anybody checked?


    I am totally disgusted (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Serene1 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:16:29 AM EST
    by the way some left blogs like huffpo and kos are reacting to Palin. Its like they have forgotten all sense of decency and are now resorting to the basest level of attacks against her. Its like CDS all over again now with Palin instead of Hillary.

    Huffpo (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:07:24 AM EST
    which is heavily moderated is by far one of the most sexist sites there is......and with a huge case of CDS.  I shouldn't have been surprised I guess.  After all, Arianna was one of the key players in the 90s that pushed Clinton Derangement Syndrome heavily.  She was close with Newt Gingrich and simply trashed the Clintons every chance she got.  Suddenly she saw the light and was progressive?  And some actually believe it.
    Her writers are overwhelmingly male and the few pro Hillary writers, male or female, were few and far between.  But her girlfriends, other alpha females, with a sick hatred toward all things Hillary are often spotlighted.  It is sad to see how such personal bias and hatred lifts people to making money on it.  Oh wait, the right has been making money on hate for a long time.  

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by massdem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:37:21 AM EST
    This kind of behavior is even less attractive when done by Democrats, because we expect better.

    I agree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by onlyme on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:36:45 AM EST
    On another thread I mentioned how sleazy and sexist many of the comments are over at Daily Kos. Photoshopped pictures of her as a hooker and all kinds of sexist garbage and the smarmy boys who predominate on that site were really having a field day. When a very few posters objected, they were sneered at. Even the female kossacks were joining in the fun. I've left that site in disgust. I despise Palin for her ideology but I cannot stomach the filth being flung her way by some of the progressive blogs. Kossacks are hypocrites.

    I left it in disgust a long time ago. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:42:04 PM EST
    Small minority (none / 0) (#201)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:12:25 PM EST
    The vast majority at the site is different....

    I would also suggest (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:17:27 AM EST
    that bragging on the Ivy Leagueness of Obama's education, as Digby advises, is also wildly tone deaf.  I say that as someone with an "Ivy League education" myself.  My entire life and (very varied) professional career, I've never found even the slightest correlation between intelligence and competence and the name of the school someone went to.  The three or four people who come immediately to mind who've most blown my socks off professionally all went to public universities. (And one of them never even graduated.)

    Actually she does not suggest that (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:20:43 AM EST
    She is saying that is part of Obama's experience argument that creates risks of being viewed as "elitist."

    Her argument and advice is the reverse actually.


    yes (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by pukemoana on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    but Digby's phrasing is off (I wasn't sure what she was saying here when I first read it).  Her "but this" sounds like she's presenting a counter to the preceding phrase: "Barack doesn't have a ton of experience either"

    I was confused by her comment too (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:36:22 AM EST
    At first she says that obama's qualifications are manifest due to his Ivy League degree and 'cosmopolitanism' (cripes). Then she says we better not say these things lest we sound elitist. So I got the impression that she actually holds these elitist views but thinks they should be hidden. But maybe I'm misreading it.

    that's the part that got me too (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:07:44 AM EST
    and the last week in a rural NY town has shown me that there's a real disconnect between the folks who drive in from the city and the people who live here all year long.

    Some of the people who come in from the city are seen as rich, arrogant, and gullible.

    And it doesn't help when a couple of them stepped into the diner, took off their sunglasses, and wrinkled their noses while I was there having...arguably the best chocolate shake I'd had in ages.


    Hidden? Or just not emphasized? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Faust on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:03:11 AM EST
    We can only speculate on how important Digby personally feels about Obama's background relative to his qualification.

    The key point is that attacking Palin along experience lines will not be helpful no matter what one feels about Obamas background. This is her main point, and the one that should be listened to.


    I do not think so (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:32:14 AM EST
    But if you are right, then Digby is wrong.

    I think you are wrong in your interpretation but I admit that ambiguity is there.


    No, it's the Condescenion Pen (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    That pen is largely responsible for Democrats losing national stage elections, and very well may be what sinks them this year.

    I'm sorry BTD, but what Digby says is not ambiguous.  Digby short: An Ivy League education trumps anything the little people may admire, but shhh, we have to keep it a secret that we think so.

    Well, know what, Democrats are not that good of actors to be able to hide their disdain.  Her thought echoes Obama's bittergate comments and the (far worse) liberal reaction to them: he's right, we just can't say it out loud though.

    It's a sentiment that is by no means limited to Obama.  I've seen it my whole life, and am still astonished by the absolute lack of self-knowledge and understanding of others it betrays.  The left political blogs are littered with it.  And in good, trendy, environmental fashion, obsessed with recycling the litter every day.

    On a practical level, it's poison.  No one wants to hear, implicitly or explicitly, that they're stupid, not even stupid people.  What people trust, and can support, is: 'I'm just like you.'  It says to people that I will make decisions as you would make them, with your concerns in mind, because they are my concerns too.  What they inherently don't trust, for good reasons, is 'I know what's best for you.'  

    On an empirical level, it's just plain false.

    On an ethical and humanist level (I hate the word 'humanist' but can't think of a better fit here), it's also poison.  It negates the idea that all people are created equal and subscribes to the idea that yes, some are more equal than others.  Some people, because of a diploma, are intrinsically entitled to more rights than others.

    I know other folks admire Digby, but from what I've read (admittedly not a whole lot), I haven't found much to separate her from the usual Faculty Lounge crowd.


    I always assumed Digby is a UC Berkeley (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:07:41 PM EST

    exactly (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:28:06 AM EST
    Add to that a surprisingly strong debate performance from Palin (who is widely known to be very, very good at debates) against a bad debate performance from Obama (who is widely known to NOT be very good at debates) and the "experience" question for Team Obama goes downhill.

    A strong debate performance from Palin could help people feel she's more experienced and could handle the job.  She is, after all, running for VP and not the top spot.

    But a weak debate performance from Obama could highlight the sense of inexperience people feel from him thus adding to their worries about how well he would do.  And they may find it difficult to vote for him for Pres.


    Endorsements? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:02:52 AM EST
    Looks like Governor Palin has received an endorsement from some other powerful people, if McCain counts as such.

    I suppose it has been pointed out (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by magisterludi on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:20:25 AM EST
    that Frum and K-Lo, along with some others, are not pleased with the Palin pick expressly because it takes the experience cudgel away from McCain.

    We'll see.

    And it does (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:21:33 AM EST
    And that makes it good for Obama in that respect.

    No need to hurt yourself when McCain has doen the work already.


    Yes, let the Republicans like Hagel, Lugar (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    and even Colin Powell weigh in on the nationaly security aspects of this if they want to.

    Let the MSM bring up the Alaska newpapers saying she's not qualified.

    Just becuase there's an elephant in the room doesn't mean that Obama has to point it out.


    Amen. (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:28:23 AM EST
    Exactly (none / 0) (#72)
    by AF on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:05:48 AM EST
    Palin's inexperience should be used on defense, not offense.

    But what a defense it is!  McCain's has directly contradicted the central argument of his campaign -- "Obama is not ready."  I truly believe that this pick clinches the election for Obama -- though I agree it isn't helpful to attack Palin directly.  


    How so? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jb64 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    Palin isn't running for President. Obama can't question her experience because of a lack of his own. I fail to see why McCain can't continue to (and he will, cue the Hillary, Biden sound bites) bring it up.

    Because the VP is next in line to the presidency (none / 0) (#75)
    by AF on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    By picking Palin, McCain necessarily believes that she is experienced enough to be president.  And therefore Obama is too.

    I am looking forward to Cokie Roberts (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:58:00 AM EST
    explaining that Alaska is an exotic place that is not really part of the US

    digby nails it (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by nycvoter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:13:56 AM EST
    I'm afraid the Obama campaign is just that stupid to diminish her to save himself from having to really talk about his lack of experience.  It will alienate the blue collor voters and those who know that many young women in farm areas take pagents very seriously to pay for college.  I had a friend once who was the Pork Queen of Indiana, I kid you not!  But she won money and she traveled around Indiana for a year representing the pork industry.  

    Yes, it's how my students pay for college (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:31:14 AM EST
    in several cases.  Even an athlete like Palin could not, in our generation, get a good athletic scholarship.  And even now, they cannot get anything near the funding and perks of football scholarships.

    I have had several students at my working-class campus whose pageant titles could rival the one you give.  And that's one of the ways they worked their way through school.  (Being "Alice in Dairyland" means a busy schedule -- and a lot of cows to milk.  And I do not make this up.)


    i wonder (none / 0) (#184)
    by boredmpa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:30:25 PM EST
    but did biden every retract the "beauty contest" remarks (wasn't it his campaign)?

    if not, they may bring some, oh, amusement if a talkshow host or interviewer decides to ask about beauty pageants.


    It's already beginning. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:37:49 AM EST
    Michelle Malkin is now calling it "Palin Derangement Syndrome."  Which I was saying would become the new meme -- last night.

    The vociferous Kossian Obama supporters could have put the lid back on this, but they're already opened Pandora's Box and are more than happy to see if there's "Hope" at the bottom, despite all the crap that's going to fly out at them.

    Oyyyyy.  Head.  Hurts.

    PDS (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    CDS ... seems like the same ol' thing to me,  in the end.

    I'm STILL shocked at the stupidity of some Obama Supporters who continue to energetically cartwheel into the oh-so-obvious traps McCain and the GOP plant.

    "Hey!  Let's piss off an already disaffected chunk of our Electorate by being 'subtly' sexist about Sarah Palin!"  "Sure, sounds good.  No one will ever notice.  Besides, where else do they have to go?"  "Exactly"



    R*E*S*P*E*C*T (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Redshoes on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:02:58 AM EST
    Digby serves as a touchstone for those of folks and has rightfully earned respect even when wrong.

    Similarly female (and male) candidates deserve our respect. They've put themselves into the arena and for that I give them credit.  I've always respected HRC but came to admire her by witnessing her high standards throughout the campaign.  Not once did I see or hear anything from her that wasn't respectful.  

    You can disagree without being disagreeable or sexists, racist, ageist, elitist, .... if you argue from principle.

    And the line respect is earned doesn't work for me.   Love, loyalty those you earn but each of us (or at least those of us who value civil discourse) treat others with respect.  

    Palin's Appeal (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by redstockinggrandma on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:11:33 AM EST
    A lifelong Democrat and feminist, I understand part of Palin's appeal  that seems to escape people. Here is the mother of 5, with an infant no less, confident that she can do everything. Even better, her husband plans to stay home and be the primary caregiver.  For that she does have some feminist cred, no matter what she believes about abortion. In interviews, she dismisses anyone who questions her ability to mother and to govern as a neanderthal.

    That Palin does not believe in (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    abortion does not take away from her feminist cred, as long as that belief is personal to her and does not drive her to impose that belief on others.

    When it becomes a crusade to take choices away from other women, that diminishes her feminist cred quite a bit, maybe to zero, since denying women such an elemental choice imposes a burden that can forever limit their ability to fulfill and pursue their own goals.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:07:55 PM EST
    And as the SCOTUS argument is not resonating now, because the Dems let SCOTUS put the battle back in the states -- what I want to know is whether Palin has done anything as a gov that would suggest imposing her personal beliefs on others.

    So far, based on her appointment to her state supreme court, I don't see that.  He looks better, so far as I can see, than the recent appalling additions in my state, where they were electedS. So they could not have won without Dem votes, too, and in a state with a Dem gov, so he is the leader of both the party and the state saddled with such losers on the court now.  

    So I want to see more sophisticated analysis of Palin than what we have seen -- and we got a start on that on this legal blog.  May there be more.


    A good friend (Dem-female-Obama (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:18:07 PM EST
    supporter) just exploded last night over the Palin's invoking Ferraro and Hillary Clinton.  Something along the lines of:  Palin is no feminist.  How dare she.  I was very surprised at my friend's reaction.  

    Ridiculous. Tell her (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:44:33 PM EST
    that Senator Clinton herself talks about -- I heard her do so years ago -- Senator Margaret Chase Smith, the Republican who now remains the only woman ever nominated for president by a major party.

    And when Chase Smith accepted that nomination, she invoked -- yes, I have her speech -- suffragists, no matter their party.  (But most of the suffrage leaders were Republican.)

    I suppose MLK, a Christian minister, was wrong to invoke Gandhi.  Jeesh.


    State court judges (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:03:39 PM EST
    have relatively little to say about abortion or other issues social conservatives are pushing....Those tend to be federal issues, at least for now, so not much can be gleaned from such a pick.

    She says she is Pro-life....That means using the government to enforce her views.  I'd pay attention to that...


    Since when did being "pro-life" (none / 0) (#197)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM EST
    mean using the government to enforce that view?  That's ridiculous.

    If you mean that a lot of people who are pro-life would like the government to legislate that position, sure, there are plenty of people in that corner.

    But there are also a lot of people who, whether they understand this or not, are pro-choice simply because their pro-life position is a personal one, and not something he or she wishes to impose on anyone else.

    I have yet to see evidence that Palin's position is one she believes should be imposed on others, or one that she has attempted to impose on others.


    Since the beginning (none / 0) (#199)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:45:11 AM EST
    Being pro-life has always meant being against Roe.

    Here is what Palin had to say about being Pro-life:

    She went on, "I guess if you take the individual issues, two that I believe would be benchmarks showing whether you're a hard-core Republican conservative or not, would be: I'm a lifetime member of the N.R.A.--but this is Alaska, who isn't?--and I am pro-life, absolutely." She continued, "I guess that puts me in a box of being hard-core Republican."

    That seems very clear.  You are demanding a very high level of proof on this issue.  I have never heard of someone who is a self-described "hard core pro-life conservative" being for Roe, or allowing women to make their own decisions.....You'd be okay with Palin picking judges?

    But she will no doubt echo McCain's view on Scalia, Thomas etc.

    Pawlenty confirmed on MTP today that Palin believes that Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools along with evolution.....

    Palin is also a Pentecostal evangelcial....She believes in the "speaking in tongues."  This is the very most fundamentalist evangelical group that is out there....


    And she has been a long time Buchanan (none / 0) (#200)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:52:45 AM EST

    To take her stated views and come up with a pro-choice view requires a lot of Houdini type mental gymnastics....


    Not just sexism, classism and regionalism (5.00 / 6) (#119)
    by esmense on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:12:42 AM EST
    Digby's all important "but" to explain why, other than gender, Obama's inexperience doesn't matter:

    "his qualifications are made manifest by his ivy league education, cosmopolitan background, urban connections and endorsements from other powerful people"

    How can a woman who used a scholarship from a traditional small town beauty pageant (in one of those podunk states "ivy league educated, cosmopolitan" Democrats have recently been declaring they care about but nonetheless can't avoid a chance to ridicule)to help her attend the University of Idaho (in another podunk state "ivy league educated, cosmopolitan" Democrats have also declared they care about but certainly wouldn't want to miss an opportunity to disdain)expect to be treated with "dignity and respect" in public life? (But, wait, didn't I just hear some prominent "ivy league educated, cosmopolitan" Democrat make a big speech in which he said ALL Americans deserve both? He couldn't have been insincere, could he?)

    Do you have to have an Ivy League degree now to participate in our democracy? Do people from other social and economic levels, with other forms of accomplishment and experience count as citizen's at all? Should we just round up the graduates from the Ivies each year and put their names on our ballots?

    What digby is describing with her list of qualifications is the liberal establishment's (very limited) idea "meritocracy" -- which is just a new form of plutocracy. You don't have to come from the the established plutocracy, but you do have to seek your credentials from and get the backing and approval of that plutocracy to be taken seriously in public life.

    Perhaps the party should just come clean and rename themselves the "Meritocrats." Because after this campaign season its going to be very hard for many of us to keep convincing ourselves they really are "Democrats."

    And Melissa at ShakespearesSister is tracking the (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by jawbone on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:31:02 AM EST
    misogny/sexism against Palin.

    BTW, that is continuing against Hillary...on NPR (or is it PRI?). This morning I caught a bit of Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me during the segment where a caller has to identify the speaker of a quote that Carl (?), the announcer reads.  

    He read a quote from Hillary is slighty higher register, sounding sorta like an imitation of a gay guy. It was awful--but everyone laughed and laughed. All good fun, gigging those women candidates, especially Hillary! Grrrrr.

    BTW, has anyone had problems getting into Shakesville? I've tried three times, and get only one post, from today but with no comments line, etc.  For a couple days everytime I've used a link over there my browser got hung up. Is it my PC--or some problems there?

    Just checked--can get one post plus the abbreviated initial post, now.

    If Palin's a zealot how'd Obama's pal Casey Jr (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by Ellie on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:37:58 AM EST
    ... Fertilized Egg fetishist and no-choice First Class Person score featured speaking time at DemCon '08?

    Those two committed dads have been stumping together for weeks extolling the virtues -- well THEIRS -- of imposing the RIGHT choice upon women ... once the men in those female lives and strangers like Obama and Casey have made their own choices unmolested and peacefully outside of extra-judicial, extra constitutional persecution.

    I don't think that many Hillary followers will vote for an anti-choice zealot, but there is no point in unnecessarily suppressing the female Obama vote by thoughtlessly pushing buttons that don't need to be pushed.

    So now the Dems are donning their tarnished Pro-Choice buttons and pointing the lying eyes that saw what they saw go down in Congress towards the "zealot" Republican Palin ...

    Palin, the Downs-baby mom by choice, who's actually embodying the spirit of what choice is about.

    Honestly, I don't think Dems want to go there either. Dangling the Damocles sword over female voters misses the point as badly as a self avowed sharpshot missing a target drawn on a barn -- and missing the whole barn.

    Palin could easily be most of the women in my (anti-abortion, largely pro-choice) family. Jeez, shrink her kids and turn them into boys and she's practically the spitting image of my sweetie-pie sister.

    The difference I'm seeing is that the same Dems (or fauxgressives) marshalling rhetorical force to revere and extol the piety and "integrity" of men like Casey Jr in the name of "choice" are now pointing the finger of accusation and blame at the Republican Palin as an enemy of women's freedom.

    Digby's right in one respect: Hillary supporters (and I'd extend this to all champions of global human rights) won't be fooled by the circus of hooey surrounding the Pallin nomination.

    And in case Dems still aren't getting it, feet to fire and all, shredding the Fourth Amendment is also supposed to relate to security in one's body and dominion over that.

    Once, it wasn't radical to believe that government and its agents better have a damn good reason -- and warrants in place -- before sticking it's big meddling head for an uninvited boo at someone's personal and private nooks and crannies to see what's going on in 'Nadsville.

    Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Deana-Brazile -- can you hear me now?

    Yes, even the Fertility Pods among us who have been designated to ride in the Second Class of the Constitution.

    Lack of experience is all for the good (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Lori J on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:39:50 AM EST
    Digby's getting closer, but still missing it.   Her lack of experience is exactly what McCain is banking on--her lack of DC experience, that is.   McCain's gambit is about trying to corral the unfocused dissatisfaction and calls for change with a true outsider: the "original maverick" chooses a populist who personifies real people taking on the entrenched elites.  

    This is why she is so dangerous.  Just one day after a convention that took great pains to portray Obama and Biden as just like us, McCain counters with by choosing a woman--woman!--who needs no such reinforcing.    Even better, she is completely unattached to the insider politics of Washington, the Chicago Machine or the party establishment.   The story they're peddling is that she has repeatedly faced down her own party's machine and each time has come away the victor.  That's why she's making elites on both sides of the aisle and their media handmaidens so crazy...she is not one of them in any way shape or form.  

    In fact, she is the anti-them and that's exactly her appeal, especially to disaffected Repubs and independents.    

    That she also solidifies McCain's cred with the far-right is of course crucial.  And if the inability of some fervent Obama supporters to control their outbursts pushes angry Dems McCain's way that's all for the better too.  

    BTD has been right from the beginning: stay away from the experience thing.

    on the nose, Lori J (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:14:17 PM EST
    Palin not only reinforces McCain's "Maverick" brand, it solidifies it.

    We have one ticket with a Nominee chosen by the Party Elite against the will of the majority of Primary voters (Primary, not caucus) whose friend and major fundraiser has only just been convicted for corruption running with a long-term Senator who's immediate family is on the payroll of one of the companies which most benefits from this Senator's legislation.

    The other ticket is a long-time Senator who's considered a Maverick and often famously went against his Party and he's running with a Governor who came to prominence and political power by blowing the whistle against corruption in her own Party.

    In the voters' minds, one of these tickets may end up looking like it can Change how things are done in DC and one doesn't.

    It'll be an interesting race, that's for sure.


    digby lost her feminist cred with a long time ago. (4.20 / 5) (#2)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:21:00 AM EST

    Not experience, but her informed policy positions (none / 0) (#1)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:20:13 AM EST
    (From ontheissues.org)

    Palin has no publicly recorded policy positions on:

    Families and Children
    Foreign Policy
    Free Trade
    War & Peace
    Welfare & Poverty

    And not much on the other issues.

    And there's only 2 months to find out.

    She doesn't need positions. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:30:27 AM EST
    The GOP convention will provide her with the approved policy positions.  She's the VP, so she doesn't need to have positions of her own.

    The one thing that the GOP does well is message control.  She'll probably be drilled on the acceptable party lines by the time she debates Biden.


    One of the articles I read about her (none / 0) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:52:36 AM EST
    had a quote from a friend and colleague who was thrilled about her nomination, but wondered how well she would do playing second fiddle.  Which begs the question while the GOP is good at message control is she good at following orders?  There is also her husband who seems to be playing a big yet unofficial role in her administration in Alaska - where does he fit in or does he ultimately not fit in and create issues for the McCain campaign?

    Subscribes to McCain's Agenda (none / 0) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:46:35 AM EST
    All you need to know

    Obviously, she's a fine mother and a up-and-coming public servant," Obama said. "So, it's too early for me to gauge what kind of running mate she'll be.

    "My sense is that she subscribes to John McCain's agenda. And ultimately, this [election] is going to be about where I want to take the country and where Joe Biden wants to take the country, and where John McCain and his running mate want to take the country.


    "Obviously she's a fine mother..."?? (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:54:43 AM EST

    The question should be (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:58:54 AM EST
    How good is she at serving tea and cookies?

    Seriously... (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:02:06 AM EST
    They're going to have to work a little harder on their talking points that are meant to mimimize and trivialize her as 'just a woman', so they can be just a little more cleverly hidden.

    Why don't you rad the quote in full (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:03:15 AM EST
    or does that get in the way of expressing your feeling towards Obama?

    I did read the quote in full, thank you (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:08:50 AM EST
    And if you want to pretend that 'she's a fine mother' is not a dogwhistle, go right ahead.

    You do know that McCain highlighted the (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:16:13 AM EST
    fact she was a fine mother of 5 children in his announcement, don't you?

    Before  I was a lawyer I was an engineer. Every woman working as an engineer had to have an actual engineering degree; there men who were called engineers by virtue of some college and OJT. That description fits more than a few of the men I had to work with, including 3 of my bosses at different companies.  

    My first week at my first position I discovered an email being sent around saying "lets not give the new girl anything, you remember the last one." Every new male engineer had a mentor on the job. I had me.

    I don't need any lessons from you on sexism. I've had them all.


    Good for you (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:19:46 AM EST
    Your story is very touching.

    And it has nothing to do with my reaction to Obama's comments about Palin, which are revolting to me. You are the one who jumped on me for having an opinion. I'll have my opinion and you have yours, how's that?


    That would be debatable (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:42:09 AM EST
    Crying sexism at everything devalues the currency. So yes I said something.

    You accuse me of not knowing a dog-whistle. You could not have been more wrong.



    but see, that's different (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by mary kate on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:29:54 AM EST
    The reason why, in the long run, Dems have only to lose from the new masculism that has infected the party is that the Dems are the ones who aren't supposed to be sexist.  I don't get that upset over Republicans making sexist comments because I don't expect any better of them, don't identify with them, don't feel a sense of betrayal when they fail to uphold a principle that I don't think they even pretend to hold dear.  When Dems do it, I start to wonder if maybe women have been getting played by this party for years now.

    I'm on board with the Obama-Biden ticket, but only reluctantly and half-heartedly.  The more sexism I hear from Obama and his surrogates, the less enthusiasm I feel.


    BINGO!!! (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:25:06 AM EST
    When I hear the "yea buts" from the anti Hillary left, "look at the right wing"....I shake my head.
    There is a reason why, for decades, women overwhelmingly joined the democratic party.  And many, like Hillary, had been raised in middle American republican families, and on their own in college, became democratic.  It was the beginning of not just pushing for civil rights for minority voters, but for the same thing for women.

    Many left the party of their parents because they were NOT the party seeing women as equal partners.
    And sadly they have opposed more and more legislation that would help the lives of women over the years.  WE ALL GET THAT REPUBLICANS ARE OFTEN VERY SEXIST...EVEN THE WOMEN in leadership roles preach against things that would insure their daughters' rights.

    So when the left uses sexism to hurt one of its own, for me, it is a much more grievous, and much more offensive.  For the party that has had women as the backbone of the hard work for decades, the betrayal of women has hurt deeply.  I look back, back to the sixties when I came of age, and remember the sexism of that time even in the liberal hippie community.  My metaphor for years has been women were the worker bees of the party as we did the hard, tedious work....while the men were the queen bees of the party who got all the visible leadership roles, got to sit around and strategize, and give the speeches.  But that was in 1968, and this is 2008.  SOME things should have changed.....including the democratic party being silent about media sexism.

    Hillary's candidacy hit a lot of hot buttons for us.  The woman is a hard worker, and has, like many women, put her own needs aside for years to support the men in her life and in her party.  NOW, when she takes the central role, her party not only does not support her as she deserved they betrayed her and her supporters on so many levels, allowing the sexism to go unchallenged. I think for many of us that was the biggest hurt of all...the betrayal of our own party.


    What do you mean dogwhistle? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    EVERYONE has made a big deal about her 5 kids, most notably the right wing! How is being a mother or father somehow now a bad thing? Everyone on the left and right says Obama is a loving father! Is that subliminal? I honestly don't get it. Sarah Palin seems like a good person to me and I like the fact she is a good parent. Btw, even Alaskans, while proud, are not exactly high on this choice to say it mildly.

    The talking points that have started (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:22:57 AM EST
    against her include ones that either explicitly or implicitly argue that she can't fulfill the job because she is a mother of 5 kids. Have you missed all those? FYI, many of the 'progressive' commenters here on this site have made the same point. This is not an argument that is made against fathers who seek higher office. It is sexist and wrong.

    The only criticism along those lines (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:15:42 AM EST
    I've seen was in a piece that I read about the conservative mommyblog readership some of whom apparently feel that she should stay at home rather than be working.

    But I haven't seen any one else challenging her right to work because she is a woman with children.


    Um... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:21:52 AM EST
    This very blog linked to material questioning her ability to serve as VP while being a mother of 5 kids, and some of the commenters here agreed. That was yesterday. And the liberal blogs are peddling the same sick talking point. That is what I've been reacting to here. It is quite clear that this is one of the things that THE LEFT will use to help bring her down. And, despite the fact that I think her policies are wrong, that sexism makes me puke. So, if that makes me absurd, irrational, an Obama hater, or whatever, I don't care.

    I missed that. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    I have thought about a friend who was adamantly opposed to John Edwards because of Elizabeth's cancer - I completely disagreed with her - but she felt very strongly about having no family distractions.  I gave her a long list of politicians who had performed while family crises were happening in the bacground, but she was immovable on this point.  People are funny that way.  Americans really feel they have a right to judge other people's families and politicians' families in particular.  Some of the criticisms are sexist, but a lot of it is really just good old fashioned ignorant American busy body "stuff".

    I am far less concerned with personal biography - in fact I find a lot of that fanfare boring and irrelevant to my political views - I mostly worry about what these politicians say and do - and Palin's short record makes me nervous - not so much on the experience side - but because she is a complete unknown - which means they can make her whoever they think she needs to be for the purposes of the campaign - but also means that we have no way of figuring out who she really is.  And she's the one focusing on her family as part of promoting herself in this campaign - so people talking about it unfortunately is fair - she is the one who brought it up.


    Well, as a progressive, (none / 0) (#99)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:49:42 AM EST
    if you think it's fair to explicitly or implicitly suggest that she can't fulfill the job of VP because she is a mother, with all that that talking point does to undermine working mothers everywhere, that's certainly your perogative. I am way past being surprised at this point at the left using rightwing talking points as long as it serves their purposes.

    No. (none / 0) (#120)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:12:58 AM EST
    I think I made that pretty clear in my post above.

    I don't care and I think it is largely irrelevant.  But I don't care about affairs either - unless you're picking men up in bathrooms after a lifelong career trying to codify discrimination against gay people.  I am pretty consistent on this front.

    My Mom worked my whole life and it was good for both of us.  She set a great example for me and she was greatly fulfilled by her career.  She told me that when I was about three months old she was going nuts - bored to tears and she went back to work - in an era when most of her friends did no such thing.  Her professional pursuits made her very happy and I wouldn't have it any other way.  The rightwing Christians reacting to Palin's choice to pursue a career talk about how "having it all is a lie" - well whatever - I disagree - or maybe I'd say that having "something different" can be equally fulfilling depending on the individuals involved.  These are personal choices - matters of family are not for me to judge.

    I will, however, judge Palin on numerous policy positions she takes which I believe to be anti-woman - against my best interests and even hers given how some of her fundamentalist buddies view the world.  And I won't tolerate kids in science class wasting their precious time in school debating anti-science creationism.  


    You people should really really (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:03:24 AM EST
    read some rightwing stuff occasionally.

    The reason it's "different" is because the rightwing, especially conservative women, feel that motherhood has been devalued by the liberals.

    Hence, when THEY say it, it's upholding a value.

    They feel when the liberals say it, it's a diss -- because they are the people who have devalued it.

    It's not all that hard.  What's really shocking to me is how little each side understands (not agrees with, but understands) the other. The Associated Press had a story this morning about how Palin has completely electrified a huge portion of the Republican party that was previously uninvolved.

    McCain knows this. That's why he did it. And it's almost completely invisible to the (largely left) blogosphere and punditry (some of them rightwing pundits), which is still discussing whether this is a diss to Hillary.


    Palin's envronmental record (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    is not good.  

    She distorts the ANWR argument by saying only a very small size of land will be involved....That may be the size of land where the drilling rigs are, but there are hundreds of new roads and a lot of large gravel pits, and all manner of industrial buildings, etc., assoicated with the drilling....Any such drilling would spoil thousands of acres.


    Not many on the left (none / 0) (#181)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:08:43 PM EST
    are making that argument....Sure, you can find someone who is saying that--there is always someone....but not anyone from the Obama campaign.

    The context of the Obama statement was to steer away from the experience argument to focus on her consevative ideology.


    I think Biden has kids. (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:31:23 AM EST
    But I don't remember everyone mentioning when they talked about him.  "You know Joe Biden is a fine father." did not show up in the first few sentences out of everyone's mouth.

    Sure the Right will play it up because it fits in with their Family Values.  What are the odds that a Sarah Palin would get the nod if she was single or divorced?  Widowed would be acceptable.  Lesbian would be right out.

    Even the whole pro-life, proud parent of a Downs child is another reassurance to the Right that she isn't some kind of closet liberal.


    Actually there were (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:46:16 AM EST
    the part of his story about not living in Washington and taking the train home every night to be a father to his children after his first wife died? Then there is the story about his wanting to resign before taking his seat and being talked out of it by Mike Mansfield and Ted Kennedy. Both stories garnered praise about being a good father.

    There has been quite a bit of praise about Joe Biden being a good father.

    Can we stipulate that being a good parent is political boiler plate about every candidate, male or female  as well as being an actual good thing?


    this is the exact opposite (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by SarahinCA on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:32:52 AM EST
    Biden is lauded for making the choice to work in Washington, everyone couching now as a noble decision for his family and country.  

    This is not what anyone is saying about Palin's good mothering.  If people can't see the difference how women and men are treated in the parenting vs. work argument, then not much said here can help you.

    It's.  Not.  The.  Same.  Thing.


    I don't know any Democrats (none / 0) (#134)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:30:04 AM EST
    attacking Palin for being a working mom. I do know some right wing extremists who have. Perhaps you are confused?

    Again, it is standard boilerplate to applaud a politician for being a good parent.

    Also you have mischaracterized the praise Biden got. It was for being a father first, not for putting work first.

    Have you being paying attention at all?


    I opined when Palin's name was first (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    mentioned here:  how the heck could she do all the traveling required of a VP with all those kids?  I got shot down really quickly.  I'm really old school though--stayed home and went quietly nuts!

    Well I guess I was wrong (none / 0) (#168)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    Every one has to make the choice which is right for them. Lot of people (like my mother) would have said I made the wrong choice especially when my daughter was a teenager.

    More moms stayed home than worked (none / 0) (#173)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    "outside the home" when my kids were little.  The reverse now of course.  Times change.  I've seen some really competent jugglers in my friends and colleagues, and much more contented moms.  No cabin fever there.

    Hmm... that must be why Giuliani didn't make it. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Pegasus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:59:47 AM EST
    You must have watched a different (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:59:01 AM EST
    Springfield IL speech and Democratic convention speech than I did becuase both led with the fact that Joe Biden is considered a model father and grandfather.  The story of his first wife's and baby girl's tragic death in a car accident; and his subswquent decision to take the train to and from Washington everyday so that he could be with his two young sons after the accident is central to his personal biography.  One of his sons introduced him at the convention and that was how they led in introducing Biden to the larger American audience - saying that he is a model father.

    Like Biden and the Dems - Palin led with her family in her speech introducing herself and it was a big part of McCain's introduction as well.

    So given the fact that her family story as a mother of five - a "hockey mom" as she described herself - and a member of the PTA which she not only referenced - but John McCain noted again today on Fox News Sunday - given the fact that that was about 50% of what she told us about herself - I think Obama's comments were topical given the information SHE put forward - not sexist at all.


    I don't give a flying fig (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:44:58 AM EST
    about anyone's Biographical Narrative.

    Not Obama, Palin, Biden, McCain, Clinton.

    The public trust is what it is all about.  If you cheat on three spouses, I don't care - as long as you don't use taxpayer money and do pay your child support.

    You could be single, divorced, polyamorous, celibate.  I don't care.

    Childless.  Had a child out of wedlock.  Gave a child up for adoption.  I don't care.

    I am not representative of the general public who scrutinize these bits of personal data as if they hold some great relevance.  GWB - married once, had two children, never divorced.  Total POS as POTUS.  Faithful husband.   Worthless as CiC.

    We like to be comfortable with the people we vote for.  We like to think we understand them.  They sell some small portion of themselves to us and we take it as the whole sum.

    There was a Ponzi scheme uncovered in Ohio.  The scammers were African Americans.  Their victims were other AAs that they went to church with.  People like them...

    It's all part of the tribalism that we can not escape.  We see People Like Us as better than others.  We can be led astray this way.


    You and I are actually of one (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    mind on this front.  I don;t care about this personal biography stuff either and I'll go one step further - I'm starting to sort of like the adulterers better than the pious and devoted :) lol

    I was just pointing out that the personal biography has been heavily played on both sides.  It is essentially boiler-plate politicking these days.  And in Palin's introduction to the greater public her role as a self-described "hockey mom" was given great emphasis in her speech.  I don't believe that Obama's comment was sexist - I believe it was as I said - topical because she made a big point of raising it.


    Much of Biden's convention (none / 0) (#183)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 02:14:59 PM EST
    speech was about his being a good dad....being sworn in at his boys' hospital bedsides.....

    Palin is very very conservative....and socially conservative.....It will be interesting to see if her bio will overcome her policy positions....


    Calm down (5.00 / 6) (#146)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    The problem is when asked to react, the first thing Obama went to is the fact that she's a mother, not her professional identity.  It's not the fact that he mentioned it at all, it's the fact that his first step is to define her in terms of reproductive accomplishments.  She's the Governor of Alaska, for cryin' out loud.

    Is it the hugest thing in the world?  No.  But add it up with all the other little jabs -- like mocking her for being a mayor of a small town as if that's the highest office she held -- and the attitude comes through loud and clear.


    For me it's more of a (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:28:59 AM EST
    hypocrisy dogwhistle.  The conservative wing of the republican party loves to push it's "family values" agenda....one being that the woman should be secondary to her husband, put motherhood before all else.  
    So if they are going to play that game, how do they get around a mother leaving a baby for a 24/7 job?

    For me they want to play both sides......go against legislation that enables women with children to work full time, but then want a full time Mom to work in government.  See what I mean?


    You are absurd (4.25 / 4) (#51)
    by bluegal on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:35:25 AM EST
    It is clear that your hate for Obama is clouding your ability to think rationally.  McCain said the exact same thing about her.

    People have been referring to Obama as a loving father. Why haven't you been pissed off about that?


    yup - absurd, irrational (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:40:28 AM EST
    and also strident, angry and humorless.

    this is a false parallel (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by pukemoana on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:43:36 AM EST
    People have been referring to Obama as a loving father. Why haven't you been pissed off about that?

    because fatherhood has different cultural resonances to motherhood.  Men aren't expected to prioritize fatherhood (still, slowly changing), whereas women are.

    It's as false as those arguments that African-Americans all voting for Obama is racist, as though you can parallel the voting patterns of a minority (that have rarely been able to vote for one of their own0 with white voters


    You are missing the point.. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    it's the hypocrisy game.

    According to the right wing, the family values right wing, a mother's place is with her children.  A loving father is still admired while working full time.  A working mother is abandoning her children.

    So when left wingers see the "loving mother" stuff it's a dog whistle because the right wing often considers a full time working mother as NOT BEING A GOOD AND LOVING mother.

    The hypocrisy across the board in this campaign, primary and GE has astounded me.


    First dude is a stay-at-home dad (none / 0) (#112)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    And proud of it.

    Let's hope this concept liberalizes the rightwing little.


    Really??? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:10:21 AM EST
    Do you have a link cause from what I read he works.
    But it could be inaccurate or old news....

    After the intro-speech either Sarah or (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:56:07 AM EST
    Todd said if they won he'd be the stay at home dad.  Or maybe she even mentioned it during the speech.

    One thing that was interesting about the Ohio crowd at her debut speech -- I'm assuming the audience was mostly midwestern Republicans -- she made a crack about breaking up the 'old boys club'.  The audience missed a beat for about 1/2 a second, and then burst out laughing, partly in approval and partly at themselves for not immediately getting the joke.

    That was (imo) a small but significant mind-changing moment.  And that is not a bad thing, not at all.

    Will Palin still be surrounded by sexist tropes by both the right and left?  You betcha, we're already seen the cream of the Left rise to the top and turn sour, all in under about an hour.  Faster than you can get a new pair of glasses at Lenscrafters.

    But on the Right, they'll be forced to confront, if nothing else, the way they commonly talk about her as a woman and women generally, if for no other reason than they want to win.  (Democrats: take some notes).  Will it be, for many of them, entirely fake?  Yes.  But the way that stereotypes are broken down is a vastly complex process, and changing the language is a vital prerequisite to changing the mindset.

    And that is a fundamentally good thing, no matter which side it emanates from.  I only wish the Democrats could learn the same lesson, and it breaks my heart that they haven't.


    I did a double take when Palin (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:56:31 PM EST
    referenced the old boys club.  Isn't that the GOP?  But she continues to use that phrase.

    The Old Boys Club isn't really restricted to (none / 0) (#189)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:20:14 PM EST
    one party or the other, but the Democratic Party in the past has made greater efforts to change it than the Republicans.

    One reason I think Palin is such a threat is the reasoning that underlies the conventional wisdom that the first of any disadvantaged group will be a conservative member of the group: a conservative AA (for example) is a bridge to change, while a liberal AA requires a jump to change.

    The most effective way to get people to change their thinking is a bit at a time.  Palin reassures not only creepy conservatives -- she's just like them except for one or two things -- but moderates as well.


    right wing hypocrisy - SOP (none / 0) (#152)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:54:19 AM EST
    It can be fun to point it out, but it's never a revelation.  It's their MO.

    Since a good chunk of the right's base is authoritarian, it's rarely effective to point it out to a right winger.  They'll just tell you that the left is worse.

    I have to admit the sexists and misogynists have been generally consistent this year.  Outside of the untouchable one, Michelle Obama, all other women have been fair game for the crudest and nastiest attacks.

    Obama could win a couple percentage points just by giving an honest, sincere and effective Speech On Sexism - if he is capable of it.  Maybe Hillary could write it for him.


    Okay, I'll say the same for Obama (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:39:00 AM EST
    He's a fine father and an up-and-coming public servant. So it's too early for me to gauge what kind of president he would be.

    Better yet, let's say McCain says it.  

    You still wouldn't see that as a shot at Obama's experience?  This is where Dems really ought not go, as BTD has been saying to no avail.  Do you see why now?

    Perhaps you still wouldn't see, though, that there is another layer of meaning when a statement about a woman starts out about her uterus, nurturing abilities, and mommyness.  

    But you're a fine speller and up-and-coming commenter!


    Subscribes to James Dobson's agenda (none / 0) (#15)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:48:35 AM EST
    Even worse!

    Obama disavows first statement on Palin, he and (none / 0) (#111)
    by jawbone on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:06:47 AM EST
    Joe issue new one, then during explanation that the staff made a mistake bcz they're on a "hair trigger" and reacted too quickly, Obama said some of the things they'd said and he'd just disvowed.

    Politico, so consider the source.

    What's actually interesting about this article, Obama vs. His Staff by Kenneth Vogel, whom I don't know, is that the writer noted this WORM, but also several previous WORM's where Obama said it was the staff's doing or fault, not his, so he shouldn't be held accountable for something said.

    I'm still trying figure out on which side the MCM is going to come down this general election. If the MCM decides to be be actual reporters of knowable and observable facts, with opinion clearly identfied, that would be really good. I don't see the MCM doing that however.

    This Politico piece actually does note past factual observable similar situations.


    here you go! (none / 0) (#88)
    by AlSmith on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:29:55 AM EST

    Corporations:  tough but fair
    Families and Children: Hope!
    Foreign Policy: will work with our allies, toughly
    Free Trade: beacon to the world
    Immigration: we have to do better
    Jobs: our best days are ahead of us
    Techology: will harness, safety
    War & Peace: favors peace- but tough!
    Welfare & Poverty: favors both hope and change

    This message not intended to endorse or denigrate any Presidential ticket.


    As usual, Digby nails it. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:21:32 AM EST

    Check out my comment from yesterday afternoon (none / 0) (#6)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:23:08 AM EST
    to see how some women are reacting to the Palin nomination.

    where is it? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:24:59 AM EST
    Click on my name "Angel" then select (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:31:43 AM EST
    "comments" then select number 3 on the list.  It's on the A Dangerous Game thread.

    It may be number 4.  


    Thanks. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:02:20 AM EST
    Palin=Guns, babies, Jesus (none / 0) (#33)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:16:33 AM EST
    That's what Rush says.

    Sums it up for me too.

    McCain-Palin Places a Woman in the White House (none / 0) (#57)
    by kidneystones on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:42:39 AM EST
    It's hard to imagine seventy-five thousand voices disappearing in just 12 hours. But that's exactly what's happened. Change of that order.

    BTD is right. The frenzied Dem response painting Governor Palin as too inexperienced after referencing her form and family speaks powerfully to the real threat McCain-Palin poses.

    On a not unrelated matter the Jerusalem Post has two good articles Dems need to read.

    In the first, a Labor MP informs Obama and McCain that plans to launch independent strike on Iran.

    The second reports that 83% of Americans will support an Israeli strike on Iran if diplomatic efforts to end Iran's enrichment program fail.

    McCain and Palin are much more likely to deter Iran. For all Biden's tough talk, McCain will be rightly seen as the candidate much more willing to wipe out Iran.  

    Only the threat of annihilation will deter Iran. And if Iran doesn't stop, Israel will attack with the support of a large percentage of the American public.

    The anti-war wing of the Dem party will cripple America's ability to deter Iran, rendering an Israeli attack almost inevitable.

    Hence, my belief that the only way to avert a strike on Iran is to get McCain and Palin into the White House.

    I'm not here to do anything other than state my opinion and will certainly go elsewhere if my opinions aren't welcome.

    I did not say that (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:51:42 AM EST
    Please refrain from saying "BTD is right" and then tack on your opinion.

    It so happens I utterly disagree with what you said that followed.

    Plain is not threat to Obama's election IF he ignores her. The threat is Obama and his supporters, not Palin.


    BTD is right to take (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by kidneystones on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:09:35 AM EST
    the Palin threat seriously and to suggest that any hint of sexism is likely to backfire. Huffpo seems to be agreeing with somebody, because the portrayal of Palin as a ditsy is buried deep in the main page rather than up top.

    As for your opinion regarding McCain, you are a proud partisan Dem who will vote Dem irrespective of the consequences or the quality of the candidates.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    In the end (none / 0) (#81)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:16:37 AM EST
    it will depend on how Palin performs on the campaign trail and in the debate.  

    Through the course of the last 18 months or so, Obama has been able to assure enough folks that he has what it takes to lead the nation to win the nomination.  

    Whether Palin can do so remains to be seen.  The burden is on her.

    she performed well enough (none / 0) (#123)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:16:08 AM EST
    on the campaign trail to beat Incumbent Frank Murkowski by 30 points in the Primary.  She then went on to bury her Dem Opponent in the General with a shockingly strong set of debates.

    From what I've read, she apparently has an ability to connect with voters, a "common touch" when talking with them, comes off as both incredibly intelligent on policy, but still approachable, and people in her State really fell in love with her.

    Attacking her on experience or not attacking her on experience will only go so far.  Her real strength is on the campaign trail where she will constantly and consistently help to put the lie to the spin from Team Obama that McCain is "Bush II" and a "dangerous Republican".

    With both McCain's and Palin's histories of successfully fighting corruption in their Party, that line of attack becomes troublesome.

    Add to that Obama getting his political start by fundraising with and then buying his house with a man who was convicted for corruption and Biden's son, to this day!, benefiting from a company that benefits from legislation Joe authors and passes, it becomes even MORE of a headache.

    One team will look like it'll bring change to Washington while the other will look like more of the same.  And the answer as to which is which may surprise you.


    Well said (none / 0) (#132)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:26:51 AM EST
    with the exception of McCain being Bush II.  He may be brighter and more inquisitive (it would be hard not to be) but on many many issues he on the same page.  And on issues where he departs to some degree from Bush -- like climate change -- I would much rather take my chances with Obama, than with McCain who will have to fight tooth and nail with his own party and advisors to get anything done.  Ask Schwarzenegger.

    no problem (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    The thing about McCain being Bush II is that the PERCEPTION many voters may form of him -- based not only on his still strong brand of being a Maverick and that whole Straight Talk thing -- is the exact opposite.

    Bush II encouraged corruption;  McCain (and now Palin) have fought it.  Bush II blindly followed his Party;  McCain (and Palin) has famously fought it.

    Many voters won't get into policy.  They'll broad-brush it and, in the end, Team Obama is going to have to be MUCH more effective in tying the two together.

    With Palin on the ticket, it becomes even MORE difficult.

    60-something days and counting, guys.


    I have confidence that the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#82)
    by dcreba on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    will handle this well.  Some bloggers on some of the sites I have visited have shown some of the usual insensitivity, but I think with Obama/Biden that they will not fall into the trap of taking Mrs. Palin lightly or with condescension because she is a woman.  Joe Biden will know how to debate her in the one debate...the experience with the primary campaign alone will give them some clues about their strategy. I guess I have more optimism than a lot of people about their political savvy. I do think Digby is right to bring this up and Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake...but I think we will be fine.

    The problem isn't, or shouldn't be... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:35:22 AM EST
    ...that we need to worry about going after Palin's inexperience (why wast the time?), it speaks for itself and should be left on its own -- or for Biden to expose in the VP debate.  The problem is will Obama have any ready and consise and effective answer when McCain constantly talks about Obama's inexperience.  Perhaps he doesn't need one, perhaps he can just call McCain an extension of Bush, but then you get into a circular redundancy that doesn't help anyone.  Obama and McCain have held exactly the same number of elected positions -- two.  McCain has been a US Rep and US Senator, Obama has been a state Senator and a US Senator.  If length of service alone is going to make someone vote for McCain, there is nothing you can say or do to change that, except acutely separate youself on issues, which he better be doing all the time anyway.  

    The idea of letting others (none / 0) (#101)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:58:35 AM EST
    deal with Palin's experience is the right call.

    Both Fox and now Cindy McCain have said that Palin has foreign affairs experience because Alaska is close to Russia.

    And neither Obama nor Biden mentioned her during their touring yesterday.

    Not mentioning her (none / 0) (#110)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    during their tour seems like a good idea.  

    But Palin's power is on the campaign trail where she'll appear smart, feisty, fun, experienced and ready to answer questions, and will feel just like "one of us" and a "good neighbor".

    In States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, a candidate like that could be very effective and, because she's running for VP and not President, help allay fears about whether or not she's up to the job.

    Her job is to target certain voters in certain districts in Swing States and I trust she'll do it surprisingly well.  

    The effectiveness of that won't be offset by whether or not she's mentioned by Team Obama on the stump.


    It's the "likeability" crap that (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:23:10 AM EST
    gave us George W.....and it's scary.

    she's likeable......ooooweeeeeee....let's vote for her.  It's the American Idol mentality.

    Sadly, and this is not meant to refight the primary wars, just stating some things from my perspective...
    the right wing worked diligently to make Hillary UNlikeable and they had the help of the media, especially the so called 'liberal (what a joke) MSNBC".   And too many of the left wing bloggers bought, especially the younger ones who came of age in the Clinton years when the right wing media made it the "the Clintons are evil" media.

    And the Obama is so handsome and nice and likeable....

    Sadly we have not learned as an electorate apparently.  The trashing of Al Gore's "sighs" and intellect, the calling him a "bore" worked.  Saying George W was a fun, regular guy you could have a beer with worked.
    Saying Kerry was a boring, dull elitist who really was not a hero worked.....while dressing W up in a military costume worked....

    Saying Hillary was "shrill, like an old school marm, like you ex wife at the court house" worked.
    Saying Obama was cool, and hip and everyman worked....
    Saying McCain is a hero, a maverick, lots of fun in that macho guy mentality worked....
    Saying Romney was too stiff, too Mormon worked....

    NONE of these things have anything to do with governing.

    I remember at age 14 women swooning over JFK and not understanding why being handsome made someone a good candidate......I was in Catholic school so I knew catholics LOVED them a chance for a catholic but I distinctly remembering aunts and my mom and her friends talking about how it was so great that the first catholic president was so handsome.

    Sigh...it's 2008 and sometimes I wonder if we have gone forward at all.


    Yup, the burden is on her (none / 0) (#114)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:08:15 AM EST
    We'll see if she is up to the challenge on a daily basis on the national stage. It will be fascinating to watch.  It will also be interesting to see if the vetting process was all that it should have been.

    she apparently (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:18:35 AM EST
    thrives on competition and shines when put on-the-spot.

    On her State Champion b-ball team, they called her Sarah Barracuda and, in Alaskan political circles, people tend to still walk over the bodies (metaphorically, of course) of those who took on Sarah Palin and lost.  And there are a lot of bodies, I guess.

    It will be fascinating to watch.


    Digby Is Right (none / 0) (#102)
    by john horse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:59:10 AM EST
    I don't think that many Hillary followers will vote for an anti-choice zealot (Palin)

    I agree with Digby. Palin is an anti-choice zealot.  As I've pointed out before, Palin opposes abortion even for rape or incest.  

    If McCain cannot win without getting a good portion of the vote from Hillary Cinton's supporters then I think he is in political trouble.  The more you learn about McCain and Palin the more you realize that their policies are the exact opposite of what Hillary Clinton believed in and fought for.  

    She's right (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:28:09 AM EST
    my friends and I, all Hillary supporters, would never vote for the republican ticket, with or without Palin.  How can anyone support the republicans when the legislations they support or deny hurt women and their children, hurt women who are usually the caretakers of their elderly parents; hurt women who have young children but need or want to work.

    However, supporting the Obama/Biden ticket, does NOT mean the we have forgiven the DNC and the democratic party.  My friends and I have two goals.  One is to get the dem candidate elected and the other is to take the DNC, Dean, Brazille et al to task for what we consider to have been bias on their part; to have been cheating on their part.   THAT CANNOT STAND.


    once they have your vote (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    they're not going to give a sh*t what you and your friends think.

    All they care about is getting your vote.  If you do that -- even angrily while holding your nose --, that's all that matters.

    Dean stays.  Brazile stays.  Daschle becomes more involved.  All those elements which so angered us only become strengthened.

    That's why I'm still battling not voting the Top of the Ticket.  I so hate to reward abominable, sexist, cruel, arrogant behavior ... especially in my own Party!


    You could be right (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:46:37 AM EST
    but right now the thought of getting another four years of a right wing administrations scares me more.  We all have our priorities and we all have the right to them.

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:03:42 PM EST
    and usually I would vote straight (D) without thinking.  But this year has been an eye-opener and I, like millions (evidently if one looks at the polls), am truly torn.

    I totally understand (none / 0) (#165)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:56:06 PM EST
    I wasn't hoping to be able to get where I am....last week at this time, I was not sure I could get here.  But I was finally able to let go of most of my anger and frustration and hurt.......not all of it but enough to get me going to where I think I need to be.

    I applaud your energy (none / 0) (#148)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:46:15 AM EST
    but how are you actually going to do that?  Especially after you give them the official approval of your vote.

    The same thing I have done for (none / 0) (#151)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    four decades....write letters, campaign for change with other women; inform local leadership, state leadership and national leadership.

    I understand that democracy is hard work and takes patience.  Hey, I have been working for change since 1967.

    I just don't believe that aiding or abetting someone I find to be frightening in his belief system to get power is acceptable.  It won't work for me. But I respect the right of others to do what they think needs to be done.


    Thank you for acknowledging that (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:11:34 PM EST
    different people can have different approaches.

    But I find that this comment is a bit at odds with your comment above that worries that nothing has changed.

    I've been writing letters (yes, real letters) and emails, marched and vigiled, volunteered and shouted and talked...and little has changed, in some ways it's gotten worse.

    Such is the determination of the Dean-Pelosi-Brazile crowd that they were willing, in public (more or less), to violate principles of due process and voting rights, to win the prominence of their own faction and crush the traditional Dem base out of the party.  So I'm wondering why or maybe how this next 4 years would be different in your view?


    And how has that worked out? (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:07:32 PM EST
    Not meaning to be snarky, just asking why you think it would be any different this time than it has been for the last 50 years or so.

    I appreciate very much the respect.  We each individually have to do what we have to do.  I still don't know what I'm going to do when I go to vote and probably won't until the last second.  But my increasing belief is that shock therapy for the Dem. Party may be the only recourse left.  Not that that's worked real well in the past, either, but there are reaasons to think this time might be different, especially if the voters delivering the blow include a hefty chunk of Dem. women.


    Wondering (none / 0) (#109)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:04:10 AM EST
    whether McCain and Palin will wear flak jackets and have helicopter air cover when they travel to hurricane territory.

    "What Digby said..." (none / 0) (#129)
    by joanneleon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:23:59 AM EST
    As usual, I strongly agree with Digby's take on this.  It's weird how often she voices what I would have said, but she does it better.

    hello. (none / 0) (#198)
    by canadian gal on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:43:27 AM EST
    long time lurker - first time commenter...

    i wholeheartedly agree BTD.  and its sad, sad days in my brain right now.  especially so when a slight few progressive bloggers are advising liberals how NOT to be sexist.  big props.