Sarah Palin : Polarizer in Chief

Gov. Sarah Palin is dividing the country. The airwaves are filled with those who can see past McCain's cheap ploy to get his campaign moving.

McCain put his desire to be President above the best interests of our country. He deserves to lose.

Aside from all the reasons Palin is a danger to the country because of her lack of qualifications remotely relevant to any high national office, from foreign policy to education to the economy to social security to health care, there's her record, her lack of a record, her ties to the radical right, her position on issues, her distortion of her record and the pending investigation into abuse of her office.

She has become so polarizing a figure that she's now a threat. The radical right is so excited that it might get a chance to direct the pick of our next Supreme Court justices, it cannot contain its glee. The rest of the country is terrified (except for a small number of women who think the race should still be about Hillary and sexism.)


The media is going to dig and dig. I hope they find something. I hope she withdraws from the ticket sooner than later.

Her novelty has worn off. She's becoming a joke, soon to be a cliche. My e-mail box is overflowing. People are waking up. Gov. Palin has done nothing to be awarded the honor of serving as the second highest official in the country.

McCain is vulnerable due to age and health issues. It's a fact, not ageism. Not every 72 year old is too old to serve, but the likelihood that this particular 72 year old might not finish out his term, whether from illness or death, is a plausible scenario.

People will begin to picture Palin as President -- trying to deal with the Pentagon, leaders of foreign countries, our economy. They will be furious with McCain that he would risk the welfare of the country by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin.

It's not going to happen....unless people stop speaking up and the radical right pours a lot more money into McCain's campaign to make more swift-boat ads.

Forget the Bush III line. Nobody cares. There's two camps now, and Sarah Palin is the dividing line. The fault lies with John McCain and his advisers who convinced him to try and pull a fast one.

(Big Tent Democrat disassociates himself from this post.)

< We Are Not Winning in Afghanistan | Big Ten Country Will (Mostly) Go Blue >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • The liklihood that anyone. . . (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:05:50 PM EST
    elected as President will not complete his or her term is plausible enough to warrant concern about who the Vice President is.  I remind you of the famous statement "I'm 43 years old, I'll be the youngest man every elected President, I'm not going to die in office -- what does it matter who my Vice President is?"

    McCain has owned up, in his own writing, to poor decisions made in haste.  This is one more.

    If McCain dies in office (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:11:49 PM EST
    can't Palin just select Biden as her VP and make everything OK?

    She could, but. . . (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:13:31 PM EST
    James Dobson is more likely.

    If McCain dies in office (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:39:00 PM EST
    will Palin put Air Force One on eBay? (ba-da-dum)

    Okay, seriously: it is correct that any VP nominee should be qualified to become President on Day 1. But the requirement is even more critical than usual given the actuarial probabilities here. Palin really could be President on Day 2.

    The real issue to me is McCain's willingness to placate the extreme right, even at the cost of picking a candidate who is both extremist and unqualified to be a 72 year old heartbeat from the Presidency. The man has no integrity. None. He is not fit to be President.


    Palin (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by Coral on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:22:45 PM EST
    I agree that Palin's experience is minimal. But for me the experience problem isn't the BIG problem.

    It's the extremism that scares me, plus the Bush-like belligerent rhetoric. She's very similar to Bush in many ways, and appeals to the same crowd that pushed him.

    I do object to sexualizing the attack on her, as there is plenty of ammunition without adding to the plethora of sexism we've been subjected to during the primaries. Without that, the lipstick pig controversy would have been a non-starter.


    I have read an actuarial estimate (3.00 / 0) (#85)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:04:35 PM EST
    that McCain stands a 60% chance of not completing his 4 years if elected. That was based on the usual actuarial variables and also what has historically happened with presidents.

    wrong (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by AlSmith on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:27:25 PM EST
    "McCain is vulnerable due to age and health issues. It's a fact, not ageism. Not every 72 year old is too old to serve, but the likelihood that this particular 72 year old might not finish out his term, whether from illness or death, is a plausible scenario."

    Almost everything in Jeralyn post is wrong but can we possibly get the guesstimates right?

    McCain had skin cancer. People dont drop dead of skin cancer.

    Jimmy Carter is 83, George HW Bush is 84, Ford died at 93, Reagan died at 93, Nixon who should have been stressed out died at 81.

    Presidents with access to modern health care and continuous monitoring dont drop dead.

    As you can see from this table the  chance of a man his age dropping dead is 2.5% and the avg expected lifespan is 13.4 years.

    But adjust those up because he is rich and has been for years. And he will be president. McCain mother is 95 and his grandfather only died early because he was literally worked to death on WWII so he has family longevity.

    Obama probably has just as much a chance (slight) of dying in office since he is a black life long smoker and both of his parents died young.

    There is no reason to vote for or against someone because they might die in office.


    Still waiting for cheney, who has had (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:50:24 PM EST
    5 or 6 heart attacks to kick the bucket.

    Exactly. McCain will outlive all of us (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:03:18 PM EST
    Cheney too, probably.

    McCain will live a long life (2.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Prabhata on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:40:25 PM EST
    But there is a reason to vote against someone (2.00 / 0) (#183)
    by Maggie on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:10:17 PM EST
    if their first presidential decision was to put someone within a heartbeat of the presidency who is not even rumored to have spent serious time thinking about national issues or foreign policy.

    While it is more likely than not that McCain will survive his first term, it's not anything like a 100% probability.  There's a meaningful chance that he could die.  My mother was healthy when she turned 72.  That same year, though, she was diagnosed with lung cancer, and has little chance of living to age 74.  My grandfather developed heart problems at 73 and was dead within a few months.  I could go on.  It's just not at all unusual for septuagenarians to die.  McCain likes to point to his long-lived mother.  But you don't see his father anywhere around.  He doesn't have longevity in all of his genes.

    To vote for McCain is to vote for a very real chance that we will have President Palin.  

    But the real scandal to me is that McCain is presenting us this choice with exactly two months to make a decision about it AND then turning around and sequestering her.  What chance are we going to have to find out how she thinks, what her real views are and so on when she has no record of speaking on the issues of the day and she's not being allowed to speak to the media (or even to her own audiences).  The very fact that the McCain camp is shielding her from actual encounter with anyone at a minimum suggests a lack of confidence that she could persuade people that she's ready to be president on day 1 should the need arise.

    I hate to sound Sullivan-like -- but in my mind all of this should be 100% disqualifying of John McCain.  It may have been political gold.  But he put the country at risk in making this pick.  Maybe he and we will be lucky and either (a) he'll survive or (b) he'll die and she'll be fine.  But there's a non-trivial chance that we'll get (c) he dies and she's not fine.  He has said he's a gambler and he's willing to live with the consequences of the gambles that don't work out.  But I, for one, do not want to live with the consequences if HIS gamble doesn't work out.

    Country last.  That's the truth about John McCain.  


    People DO die of melanoma (none / 0) (#166)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:03:17 PM EST
    which is the type of skin cancer that McCain has had. Three times.

    survival rate (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by AlSmith on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:19:39 PM EST
    The 5 year localized skin cancer survival rate is 99%.

    He obviously knows he has the issue and is monitored.



    What happens if Biden dies on Day 1 (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:21:39 PM EST
    he's had serious health problems also.

    Yes they do (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by tnjen on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:28:37 PM EST
    ...and it's one of the most horrible things you can die from. If it isn't caught early it is one of the few cancers that is both untreatable and incurable and patient's are sent pretty much into palliative care/hospice. However, since McCain has had Melanoma he is under constant check and the flip side is that early stage melanoma is one of the easiest cancers to treat.

    That's all very true (none / 0) (#66)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:55:30 PM EST
    but it's not quite the pitch to the middle that needs to be made.

    Is there proof for this claim? (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:56:53 PM EST
    Re. the McCain/Palin ticket, you wrote:

    The rest of the country is terrified (except for a small number of women who think the race should still be about Hillary and sexism.)

    This slur has been in the air every since Hillary suspended her campaign. The implication has been that it would be the fault of Hillary's "hold-outs" if Obama didn't get a big enough bounce before the convention; and it will be their fault again if he manages to lose the GE.

    The blame meme, itself, is not being primarily driven by the right, since the GOP still wants the votes of these women. It seems to be driven largely by Democrats who also are hoping to get their votes.

    So, why can't the left be NICE about it? Is there some assumption that women respond better to being treated in a less than fully respectful manner.

    By comparison, when WHITE MEN were the perceived hold-outs in previous campaigns, I seem to recall that they were treated like the HOLY GRAIL. Hell, Kerry was faux duck hunting, decked out with camo togs and a shotgun. And what do the gals get in '08? More and more of the same old blame and shame.

    If the Dems do, in fact, lose the GE, I expect that anti-Hillary sentiments will metastasize on BOTH the left and the right: the common intent being to neutralize the threat she would otherwise pose in 2012.


    Obama (none / 0) (#100)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:16:03 PM EST
    Is currently spending truckloads of money in Ohio, running multiple Ads in Ohio that center on McCain and Palin's designs on Abortion Rights.  There was a time when some might have said, this counts as an effort to persuade women voters--speaking to a woman's rights issue.  As opposed, say, to being seen duck hunting.  

    So I ask you.  Do Obama's appeals regarding abortion rights not count as a respectful, truthful effort to get your vote?  If not, why not.  And, what more would you like to see.  That you are not seeing from him, I mean.  Besides shooting ducks.  

    And please, don't bring up pighs and lipstick as an example of what you don' want to see.  To use an equally old cliche, that's beating a dead horse at this point.  


    I only wish he had (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:19:55 PM EST
    started throwing money at Ohio, PA and Florida months ago. He's had the nomination since May. He needed to be working his hardest on those states in my view. One of those big states could make the difference in November.

    And as (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:28:04 PM EST
    far as FL goes, he could have treated them decently during the primary. I don't know if there's still 25% of the dem voters that are going to stay home but it was in a poll months ago.

    If he had treated FL and MI right (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Prabhata on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:37:43 PM EST
    He would have had more problems being the nominee.

    He might not have been the nominee. (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:47:45 PM EST
    But.... (5.00 / 6) (#148)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:49:10 PM EST
    Wouldn't his choice not to focus on large swing-states indicate that it is Obama's poor planning that is to blame if he doesn't win?  He made the choice to invest heavily in Alaska and North Carolina - if that doesn't pay off and if it hurts him for not spending more time in the rust belt, then he should be accountable.  

    It's odd to spend so much effort blaming voters for something that hasn't even happened yet.


    My father lives in Cleveland (none / 0) (#135)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:38:31 PM EST
    And he was telling me tonight that the television sets are beiung bombarded at this point by both sides.  And the radio.  

    One weird thing. I've these suggestions on the Internet that Obama is making a big play for North Carolina, and that McCain is being forced to spend money there.  But I've got a LOT of family there, and none of them say that they're seeing the Ads.  

    I don't know.  Maybe in the NC's and the Indianas he's relying on "Ground Game" only.  By the same token, maybe it makes sense that Obama waited a bit to pull the economic trigger on the big, meaty states.  They're expensive, so wait until the homestretch to really pour it on.
    Re the Big States, too, we're gonna find out just how much the vaunted "Ground Game" really matters in the end, aren't we?


    I'm in North Carolina and don't see (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by ap in avl on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:04:40 PM EST
    the effort applied to convincing our voters to vote for Obama.

    In  fact, I'm panicked over the impact this campaign will have with regards to unseating Liddy Dole. And electing another Democratic governor.  

    I really want Democrats in ALL levels of government here.  

    But this presidential campaign is not helping imho.


    Dole is such an incompetent (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Southsider on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:11:37 PM EST
    And yet I think she'll win.  Which is such a pisser because she's so weak, even in a red state.  I normally don't like indulging in regrets, but I honestly believe that a Hillary ticket could have knocked her out.

    Obama is running lots of (none / 0) (#193)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:16:38 PM EST
    commercials here in NC. But both McCain and Dole have gotten the Palin "bump" McCain now leads here by 20 points. And Although Dole was behind in her race before the repug convention, she has now regained the lead. It looks to me like Palin isn't just helping McCain, she is helping down ticket as well.

    NC (none / 0) (#190)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:15:02 PM EST
    Is where I'm from and I'd be so proud if it went for Obama and bounced Dole at the same time.

    But other than a couple of pockets like Asheville, Obama's going to get crushed in the whole western part of the state.  I just don't see it going down any other way.  Or let me put it this way: Obama would have to spend some serious money to make a significant dent in WNC.

    How much of that he can make up in the Triangle, Mecklenburg, and the Coast.  We'll see.  


    Trust me, Obama is making a big play for VA. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Southsider on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:59:48 PM EST
    I grew up right over the border in MD and I've been talking to my parents (both solid McCain votes sadly, but MD residents thankfully!).  They tell me that they're getting s**tstormed with Obama and McCain ads on the local TV stations.

    And with good reason: I still think the structural reality of VA favors McCain, but if Obama can steal it he's going to do it by bringing people out en masse from the northern counties.  Fairfax & Prince William, are DC suburbs and thus quite blue, and if he can get turnout from there while keeping the margin close in Loudon (which is purple exurb), he's got a shot to outweigh the GOP ballast of the southern counties.  McCain takes Hampton Roads and Newport News this year for sure though (lots of military families, and these are the "Webb/Warner Republicans"), which makes the state a structural reach.


    Glanton, I haven't seen (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:46:59 PM EST
    The ads in Ohio that center on McCain and Palin's designs on Abortion Rights.

    What does Obama say will happen under McCain/Palin; and did he state, definitively, what Obama/Biden will do differently?

    *For the record, don't assume that every self-identified Democrat is pro-choice. To be clear, I support FREE ABORTION ON DEMAND; but that's another story and I certainly don't expect to hear it from either party in my lifetime.


    I'll be honest (none / 0) (#212)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:28:00 PM EST
    I haven't seen the Ads.  But as I stated upthread, I have been told they're making a big deal about abortion rights, saying that McCain and Palin want to end Roe once andfor all and see this as their chance to do it.  And really, you cannot call something that is manifestly true fear-mongering, now can you.  The geriatric wing of the Supremes aint lasting too much longer.

    And I know well that self-identified Dems are not monolithically pro-choice, although I would assert that the VAST majority of them, women and men alike, wouldn't go anywhere near the draconianism of McCain and Palin.  And I am so think that Abortion Rights is a Womens' Rights issue, so I think its relevant to point out that he supports them, even though there are plenty of women like Palin, who do not.  

    So okay.  The comment that you made, which I responded to, asserts that Obama needs to do more to persuade women, rather than brow beat them.  But I don't feel he's brow beating them.  I feel he is doing everything he can to persuade.

    A promise to end the reckless foreign policy, the war mongering of the last eight years and which McCain promises to perpetuate.  Shouldn't this appeal to women voters no less than male voters, being as how it is our children at stake?  What about Health Care, Education, ending the tax breaks for outsourcing corporations.  Tax cuts for middle and working class families.  These seem like efforts to persuade women no less than men, is my point.

    What more can the man do??? He is Right on these fundamentally important issues.  He represents the Dem Party quite accurately.  I wish he was further to the left, as I wish the entire Party was--I may love both Clintons but I love Feingold, Kucinich, and Paul Wellstone's ghost more. But whatever.  Obama is as good as it gets right now.  He would indeed be a vast improvement over what we have had these long, long, long eight years.

    And finally, if almost everyone out there who supported Hill in the Primary doesn't agree with him on these issues, then I'm from Alpha Centauri.

    That's the essence of the pitch, as far as I see it.  


    Did Kennedy say that? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:00:02 PM EST
    If so, it's a "famous statement" I haven't heard till now.

    points out modern presidents life span (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by AlSmith on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:23:22 PM EST

    The last president to die 'early' from natural causes was LBJ. And that was 40 years ago.

    Bill Clinton, who has risk factors on both sides of the family, was stabilized and as far as well know lives an unrestricted life today.


    Gimmee a break (5.00 / 15) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:09:16 PM EST
    If the Dems are running both the House and the Senate they will be just as much to blame for a Supreme Court justice as the next President.  Scare tactics in an attempt to allow the Democratic party to not have to heal itself seems to me.

    Reforming the Democratic Party (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:32:04 PM EST
    will be moot if we have to live through four or eight years more of Republican extremism.

    If you think that a Democratic Senate is going to stop McCain's terrible judicial nominations, you are expecting too much. Maybe they'll stop one. But they are not going to successfully oppose every one, even assuming that they don't just immediately capitulate. Remember that everybody's favorite liberal, Russ Feingold, voted to approve Roberts. You put up a smart judge with impeccable educational and professional credentials, there are some Senators, even liberal ones, who will vote yes, unless the nominee has said or written something explicitly racist or has a hidden criminal record. That, unfortunately, is the legacy of the Bork hearings. (Not that I wanted Bork to be confirmed.)

    I don't want to rely on the Senate to stop horrendous nominations. I want the horrendous nominations to never be made.


    and with a Democratic president (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:38:25 PM EST
    we get a shot at a good Justice or two or three...it's the President who nominates the justices...

    Be realistic (4.50 / 2) (#17)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:22:12 PM EST
    Um, but we already know congress will knuckle under,
    Scalia- Dem Congress
    Thomas- Dem Congress
    Roberts- Dem Congress
    Alito- Dem Congress
    Seriously, other than Bork, and Meyers (who even conservatives objected too) congress has and will rubber stamp whoever is appointed, so get ready for ASCJ  Rodgers Brown.  

    If they do then it would seem (5.00 / 12) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:36:59 PM EST
    that we women have been rewarding their bad behavior for far far too long now and look at what we have created doing that.  They have no real respect for us, they just pander to us for our vote and then sell us out inches at a time.  The Democratic Party has a new coming of age that it must meet fully, we all have to get a good clean grasp of what it means to be about equality for ALL.  We have taken many baby steps to get here and now it is time to reach adulthood or the Republicans will beat us again by playing silly games.  If the women of the Democratic party felt respected and represented McCain wouldn't have a friggin snowball's chance.  He shouldn't even have one now but the sexism stuff opened this whole thing up.  Our party should have dealt with Sexism bull within our ranks moons ago but it seems we missed a few lessons somewhere along the way.

    Told You So (4.90 / 10) (#110)
    by Athena on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:24:32 PM EST
    Obama didn't think he needed the other half of the country represented on his ticket: women.  So goodbye Hillary.  McCain grabbed the historic opportunity that Obama threw away.

    Obama is increasingly out of his league out there - but many of us said that a long time ago.  And it's way late to be running a candidate who has no record of accomplishment to point to.  His words matter even more as a result.


    When I watched Palin's first speech (5.00 / 7) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:29:58 PM EST
    and she brought up Hillary and the glass ceiling it was all so obvious that this was going to get real real ugly.  I'm sure it will get uglier still if attacking Palin doesn't stop.  Palin hasn't had to really say a word since her initial acceptance speech, she just stands there looking fabulous (because she does) and everybody looking on makes all the wrong moves right now.

    And I do remember that Dan Quail (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:32:16 PM EST
    looked rather fabulous too, I'm not saying Palin resemble's Dan intellectually but I think we should all just let the Palin speak and then we can appropriately respond.

    Quayle (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:41:52 PM EST
    made GHW Bush look statesmanlike.  He was a convenient foil. "Potatoes" and "I knew Kennedy, You are no Kennedy" didn't exactly help us on the left much.

    Palin basically takes all the flak, is riduculed and the clever wags of the left can pat themselves on the back for making fun of her in clever new ways. Result: McCain laughs all the way to the Whitehouse.


    It is hard to not find clever little (none / 0) (#201)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:22:46 PM EST
    cuts, I'm fond of using them at times myself but with Palin you are very right at the moment.

    Palin (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:53:53 PM EST
    hasn't been anywhere near as bad as Quayle so far and his team WON anyway.

    She really hasn't had to say much of anything (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:32:55 PM EST
    yet and all this hoopla already.  I think the democratic candidate's response to the issues will energize and heal the Democratic base, not hoopla.  That's just me though, but after putting many many hard hours and long days in lately in my own life the thing that will cause me to be energized and hit the voting booth hard is going to be the issues.  And I'm tired of voting out of fear too.  I've had eight years of fear tactics that got me not much of anything out of the Democrats in charge when it was time for them to fight.  I have enough dry powder, it is time to stand for the principles of the party. Fear tactics also drain the energy of the base.

    As I have been saying... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by HypeJersey on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:49:55 PM EST
    McCain moved right in and ate Obama's lunch.  

    I'll take a good pander that (none / 0) (#204)
    by coigue on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:24:01 PM EST
    actually helps me with my rights over actual respect any day from a pol.

    Please get your facts correct before commenting (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:44:27 PM EST
    You make your argument much stronger when you do.

    Scalia was seated on the DC Circuit in 1982 and the Supreme Court in 1985.  His appointment to the Supreme Court came when Chief Justice Berger retired and Rehnquist was nominated to be Chief Justice.  Republicans controlled the Senate in those years.

    Thomas was seated on the Supreme Court in 1991. Democrats controlled the Senate in that year.

    Alito and Roberts were nominated and confirmed in 2005.  Roberts was initially nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor upon her being persuaded to retire by Bush.  She, FWIW, had been nominated and seated in 1981.  When Chief Justice Rehnquist died, Roberts' nomination was revised to be to become Chief Justice.  That reopened O'Connor's seat and Alito was nominated and confirmed to that seat.  Republicans controlled the Senate in those years (1981 and 2005).

    Congress, FWIW, has nothing to do with confirming presidential nominees.  That's solely the Senate's "Advise and consent" power.


    Being realistic (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:52:03 PM EST
    The democrats are deserving of that low approval rating they have.

    We should be spending at least some valuable time trying to figure out how to inject some strength and courage into the other democrats controlling our country and back away a bit from putting all our eggs in the presidential basket.


    are you sure (none / 0) (#43)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:42:13 PM EST
    that the dems controlled the Senate (who confirm supreme court nominations) for the Roberts and Alito nominations?

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:11:20 PM EST
    that she is a deeply polarizing candidate.

    Certainly when it comes. . . (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:14:00 PM EST
    to Jeralyn and BTD. . .

    My distastge for Palin (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:19:00 PM EST
    matches anyone's.

    That is not what divides Jeralyn and I.

    We are divided on, apparently, our political analysis of Palin's effect on this race (I see her as the reason why McCain has a chance, Jeralyn see her as a political disaster for McCain) and how to address the politics of this election vis a vis Palin. I believe we want Palin to be out of the news. Jeralyn, along with, apparently, the entire Left blogosphere, wants Palin to be front and center in this race.

    Nothing I write on the politics of the issue should be misconstrued as supporting Palin in any way.

    Ronald Reagan held views that were abhorrent to me, but he was one of the most effective politicians, both in terms of vote getting and policy achieving, of the the last century. He was transformative.

    But Reagan was a cancer on this country.

    The two views are not mutually exclusive.


    It's possible that both of you are right... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by sweetthings on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:28:09 PM EST
    About Palin.

    She's certainly the only reason McCain even has a chance right now. She has breathed new life into a ticket doomed to failure. But she could also prove a devastatingly double-edged sword, when and if "the big one" surfaces. Only time will tell.

    But there's no way she withdraws. The Republicans, for better or worse, have lashed themselves to her mast. Either she carries them to port or they all go down together.

    Obviously, I hope for the latter.


    Not suggesting you LIKE Palin. . . (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:28:43 PM EST
    only that the issue of her presence in the race is something that is quite clearly causing polarization of opinion between you and J.  Which is fine -- it's nice to have a diversity of opinion.

    I don't think the left-o-sphere thinks Palin will sink McCain, they actually fear her andonly hope that she can be made to damage McCain, which is why they seem to be attacking her with a force and lack of precision that sometimes borders on hysteria.  If they really thought she was a disaster (and I still hold out some hope she'll wind up hurting McCain) then they'd be more willing to sit back instead of ginning up a fair amount of arguably false and certainly petty opposition to her.

    And I do think her selection reflects poorly on John McCain in ways suggested by Jeralyn's post, and that there is a large body of independents and some Republicans (I listened to one cursing out her selection on Monday) who are open to the incompetent hiring and slavish devotion to the religious right over competence issues.  Those, of course, are slams on McCain, not Palin, but they involve her selection.


    Nothing in the polling suggests (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:04:19 PM EST
    that your view or Jeralyn's view is at all true.

    IT is wishful thinking.


    Question: (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by blcc on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:30:24 PM EST

    Jeralyn sees her (Palin) as political disaster for McCain and Jeralyn does in fact want McCain-Palin to lose, then why-oh-WHY should she want Palin to withdraw?  

    (I'm not picking a fight - I'm pointing out a logical inconsistency.)


    BTD, Do you believe in that political maxim (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:32:44 PM EST
    that you attack the opponent's strength not his weakness, becuase if you eliminate his strength he's got nothing left.

    I know it's a Rovian thing, and I didn't used to believe it, but attacking Obama for his ability to draw crowds seemed to prove its worth.

    So, if it works, and if Palin now is the only strength McCain has going for him, it seems that if Palin can be made into a weakness, he'll have nothing left.

    As to who should be doing it (not Obama)and how it should be done, I'm not sure.

    But I would certainly think that if some national security Republicans (Hagel, Lugar, Powell) were to come out and say how totally unready Palin is to become president that would have more of an effect on this race than anything else.

    You may want Palin out of the news, but the media won't cooperate, so it's imperative to at least have the news blurbs on your side.


    I do not think that is the Rovian maxim (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:03:26 PM EST
    at all.

    I think that is a Dem myth.


    not quite (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:42:27 PM EST
    I think she has a chance because the radical right is now mobilized and energized. It's concern that if everyone else doesn't wake up, and the media doesn't do its job of vetting her (since McCain failed to do that adequately too) he could win.

    We disagree on strategy. Obama and the Dems are hamstrung in being able to go after her. I don't care what Obama's political strategy is, I like mine better.


    And attacking her (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:02:43 PM EST
    is a smart strategy why?

    If Biden had done for Obama what (4.88 / 9) (#69)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:56:29 PM EST
    Palin has done for McCain, would the word to describe the effect be "Polarizing"?

    I'm not an undecided, I will not vote for McCain. But, not because of Palin. I think she's quite interesting, and representative of all that is suppose to be possible in America. I simply won't help her into the WH. I don't, however, feel polarized, or have any fear of her.


    She's the Quayle to his GHW Bush (3.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:47:59 PM EST
    Bush becomes their new Ronnie who reshaped the middle east.  It's so obvious, yet even this blog misses the shift in narrative.

    All Palin needs to do is compare herself to Clinton in a debate and Biden can say she's no Hillary and McCain wins because the headlines are all about Palin.

    The only upside is that the left will have serious intellectual champion with Hillary in 2012.


    I also think ... (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:31:32 PM EST
    attacking Palin too hard sends the implicit message that McCain isn't as bad as Bush.

    That he might really be a moderate.

    And McCain is the one running for president.


    I agree with BTD (4.92 / 13) (#37)
    by ap in avl on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:35:25 PM EST
    Completely.  Totally.

    Palin is an asset to the McCain ticket and she will not step down.  Calling for it will not only not make it so, but it betrays a fear that we all have that she is extremely effective in her role on the ticket.

    She has a scary appeal that cuts across party lines.  Party lines that were damaged during the Democratic primaries I might add.  

    McCain's choice of her was brilliant.  

    And terrifying from the perspective of a diehard Democrat like me.

    She is much more likeable than Bush.  She appeals to an even broader base of the electorate than either party could realize on its on.  She is the perfect storm.

    And she is aimed right at us.  


    Hee hee (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:31:26 PM EST
    I wish I could say that was the subtle hidden point of my comment, but you beat me to the good line this time.

    Just like Hillary? Guess that puts her in very (none / 0) (#157)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:55:00 PM EST
    good company....now we are steeped in IAPF.

    Hee hee (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:07:27 PM EST
    Well, I never thought Hillary was all that polarizing.  She was mostly hated because of a hate machine.

    I see Palin as polarizing even on my wife's "mommy blogs" and among people who aren't really that into politics.  It's kinda weird, actually.  If you're suggesting it has something to do with gender... you could very well be right.


    You know (5.00 / 25) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:13:01 PM EST
    You can adopt any political strategy you think is appropriate but you really need to stop writing this:

    I hope she withdraws from the ticket sooner than later. Her novelty has worn off. She's becoming a joke, soon to be a cliche.

    You know this is not true. Palin has changed this race. McCain will never drop her as she is the only reason he even has a chance.

    You may not like that. You may think it is ludicrous.

    But it is. And at this point, it is silly to act as if up is down and black is white.

    I agree. (5.00 / 14) (#18)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:22:56 PM EST
    You can only create momentum for a withdrawl if the candidate's base in unhappy with the candidate. They are not. They love her.

    "She should withdraw because otherwise McCain might win" is really not a winning argument.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:24:09 PM EST
    It's been a "heh" sort of week. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#198)
    by chrisvee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:21:42 PM EST
    I find the reaction to Palin to be a tad odd, to say the least. Every minute spent discussing her is a minute more McCain stays alive in this race. Do Dems actually want to lose this election? It seems to me that Hillary's approach is best -- ignore Palin and attack McCain.

    I suspect that ... (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:40:00 PM EST
    ...the Democratic party machine has completely screwed up the response to Palin's VP candidacy and the damage has been fatal to Obama.

    The howls about her have only provoked a rallied defense of Conservative principles among Republicans and possibly a bit of Chivalry among various right wingers who consider themselves independents.


    I don't think Obama has done (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:48:57 PM EST
    any sort of fatal damage to himself.  I just don't know if he can win this election without the excitement and energy of the chicks in his base now that he blew off earlier.  He's a smart guy.  I'm sure if he wants to he can figure this out.  He was the rockstar for awhile and now it seems Palin is the new rockstar on the block.  And John McCain chose Palin because Obama upset the women in his base because John McCain isn't stupid either.

    he may not be in control of the machinery (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:52:19 PM EST
    and the message people that are attempting to savage Palin.

    The attacks so far have bounced back like Flubber and make McCain LOOK more and more mature politically.


    You never allow the enemy to set the pace (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:07:13 PM EST
    in a war, didn't you watch Generation Kill?  Nobody who supports Obama should be attacking Palin because Obama already has a "problem with women" image.  It is fine to address her policy issues but she doesn't really have many, sort of like Obama.

    Anecdotedly, my sister, after hearing (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ding7777 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:05:48 PM EST
    about the pig/lipstick, has moved from the "leaving it blank" to a "vote for McCain".

    Well, I feel that it is your (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:09:32 PM EST
    duty as a beloved sibling to explain to her that it is a trumped up bullsong and if that doesn't work......I really wish that Obama wouldn't have earned himself the sexist image that he did earlier on.

    she'd rather vote on that (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:16:44 PM EST
    than the huge number of huge policy differences between the candidates?

    Oh, and you might also ask her why it apparently doesn't bother her that McCain used the same language to describe Hillary's health care plan.


    I fear you are right. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by badguppy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:40:46 PM EST
    And not only is she loved, but she is talented enough to have a real future. She might implode but I'm not counting on it.

    I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:54:07 PM EST
    I think that there are two camps of sarah palin and one camp very strongly believes that; 1) she is an embarassment to the office of the presidency 2) seqestration of a candidate and denying the free press the right to interview is not indicative of a candidate that is ready to lead the most powerful country in our world 3) sarah palin was picked primarily for her political potential without regard to the welfare of the republic etc etc.

    It is ridiculous to suggest you are right or wrong in the matter when you do not address her sequestration and the true reasons for it.  Until you can provide a logical reason that explains sequestration with any other plausible explanation, her candidacy is a joke and a threat to the republic.  

    Sarah Palin may be completely qualified for the presidency, but until she conducts a dozen news conferences, not the puff pieces where the journalists kiss the arse of the interviewee, edit at their discretion and ask a list of mostly prequalled questions.  

    You are really good at telling people what they should and should not say so I will give it right back to you.  You should be questioning why Sarah Palin is not answering questions and what role it plays on her ability to run this country.  Why is it acceptable for a VP selection to be sequestered from the media?  


    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:02:01 PM EST
    Say what you want. I won;t censor you.

    But if people want to ignore reality, I will say they are ignoring reality.

    The politics of the Palin pick are incredibly clear now.

    It is foolish to ignore it.


    Isn't Palin being interviewed on ABC (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:01:24 PM EST

    i wouldn't expect you to censor me (2.00 / 0) (#128)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:34:43 PM EST
    and am completely confused as to why you would even mention that.  I simply disagreed and for a change was on topic.  

    is it meant to intimidate me in some fashion by saying that you can but you won't?  

    Or is it you are such a tolerant lot you will allow for some disagreement?

    If i ever meet anyone that i agree with completely i will be sure to check into a mental hospital as i would obviously be having a conversation with an alter ego.

    I don't say you work hard to kiss your arse and get a free pass to take swipes, i say it because you are passionate and work very hard in my estimation.  But you are not right or wrong on this topic, nor is jeralyn and nor am I.  But collectively speaking we are all right.  I am just right more.


    jlivingston you are not going to be (none / 0) (#186)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:14:04 PM EST
    banned. You've been here forever. As long as you state your case without personal attacks, you are just fine. Your comment was fine (although it took me a while to figure out what you meant by sequestration.)

    If you read though this thread, you will see every point of view. The comments that are deleted are those with insults, name-calling, ridicule, false facts, and those that are repetitive chatter by the same person, usually off topic, made with the intent of dominating or hijacking the disucssion.

    I never censor for point of view or disagreement alone.


    so don't answer the question (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:14:52 PM EST
    ...I disagree and laid out why and you disagree and take the i know i am right attitude.  The only reason repubs have a bounce is palin, whether you choose to address it or not is irrelevant, I sure hope the press takes their jobs more serious than you take your blogging.

    Too funny (5.00 / 12) (#158)
    by Matt in Chicago on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:56:40 PM EST
    1. Sarah Palin isn't qualified, somehow Obama is.

    2. She was only picked because she is a woman, Obama's nomination had nothing to do with his race (honestly would he be here if he was a blonde haired, blue eyed guy?  Hell, if he "looked" less black!)

    3. Obama picked Joe Biden simply because he was the very best man for the job, not in an attempt to bolstered Obama's weak foreign policy image.

    4. Palin had been sequestered for all of a week... Obama is so tightly controlled his campaign has been compared to the Bush White House.

    This inability to turn a hypercritical (and often hypocritical) eye inward is a failing that just permeates all of these arguments.

    Calling everyone else out for perceives failings while ignoring similar and/or the same failings in someone you support is just baffling.


    palin was picked (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:15:26 PM EST
    to energize the evangelical right wing of the party, as well as because she was a woman.

    Twice in one election season, and both (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:00:06 PM EST
    times a woman of substance.

    I hope she withdraws from the ticket sooner than later. Her novelty has worn off. She's becoming a joke, soon to be a cliche.

    The joke in this is that the people who are saying such things about Palin were condemning them when they were being said about Hillary Clinton.

    The cry really sounds so much worse the second time around.


    Absolutely agreed (5.00 / 5) (#217)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:36:57 PM EST
    I don't agree with Palin's position on anything (and don't think she's remotely qualified) but I can't understand the idea that she's a joke or "soon to be cliche".  Choosing her has changed the race profoundly by energizing the conservative base and appealing to some independents that both Obama and McCain need.  She merely needs to avoid any major gaffes or scandal revelations for the next 7-8 weeks and (sadly) it looks like this will be a nail-biter.  And the McCain camp is smart enough to limit press access to her.

    Combine that with the potential for blowback/sympathy from all the over-the-top garbage being thrown at Palin, I'm more than a little worried.


    Wrong (4.50 / 2) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:46:06 PM EST
    and you may not tell me what to write. You have your own posts to voice your view on.

    I never said McCain will drop her. He won't, she's his only chance, that's why he picked her to begin with.

    But she can drop out and that's what she should do and that's what she may do if the media does it's job.

    You are entitled to your opinion  and to disagree with mine, but it is no more valid than mine.

    I see you scratching your head on election night, wondering why people didn't understand that McCain is Bush III. Nobody cares.

    She has not only changed this race, she has become the race. It is about her. And she should lose.


    I expressed my opinion (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:57:10 PM EST
    that you should not write things that clearly are counterfactual - to wit, wishing Palin is gone from the ticket sooner rather than later.

    You must realize that is never going to happen.

    What is the point of pretending the sun revolves around the earth?


    The principals on this blog (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:39:26 PM EST
    are teetering into Joe Scarborough/David Schuster territory.

    There are those elements who revel in seeing the both of you kinda go at each other.

    Don't give the redstaters and the michellemalkiners reason to be gleeful.

     just my .02


    she won't drop out - why should she? (5.00 / 6) (#174)
    by HypeJersey on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:06:07 PM EST
    Never could understand the cries for women to drop out of the race.  First HRC, now Palin.  I haven't heard the same thing of men.  

    I really think some Obama surrogates (3.00 / 1) (#72)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:57:58 PM EST
    should start referring to it as the "Palin/McCain ticket."

    1.  If she's the star, might as well give her top billing and make her perform and make the media do some real vetting.

    2.  That would really piss off McCain if said enough times.  I could just imagine him exploding.  It would  be the equivalent of Schwarzenegger's "girly-men".

    It isn't as if RedState wouldn't (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:11:03 PM EST
    love that too.

    McCain is the triumph of American imperialism (none / 0) (#56)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:50:42 PM EST
    and the GOP will claim that Bush had the foresight to politically reshape the middle east toward American interests.

    Bush retires to become the St Ronnie and Palin is ridiculed like Quayle making McCain look more and more statemanlike.

    sheesh.  It's obviously what the media actually planning today.  


    I actually had (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by shoulin4 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:15:17 PM EST
    the very thought today. What if McCain wins and then something happens and then Palin is president? It was at that moment that I had a thought that I would have never, ever, imagine thinking: I think, at the point that Palin effectively becomes president, I'd be wishing for some divine intervention to allow Dubya to run again and boot her out. It was the most horrible thought I had ever had, but it was at that point that I realized that a McCain, and quite possibly Palin, presidency would be far worse doom for America than even an actual third term of Bush. I'd actually rather have another term of Bush then have even the thought of a McCain/Palin presidency.

    It was at that time that I nearly stopped in my tracks and cried, but then consoled myself with the thought of how happy I'd be if this were the year 3000 and Richard Nixon's head was president of Earth . . . ahhh, bring on the endorphins to mask my trauma . . .

    well said (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:48:40 PM EST
    Dangerous as vice president, (none / 0) (#161)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:59:58 PM EST
    we do not need to go any further, in my view.  Her influence will be great, owing to her saving McCain's bacon.  McCain may have thought he would be able to place her on a vice presidential shelf after helping him in the campaign.  That is unlikely to be the case, she will be the go to person for all things Dobsonesque.

    A couple of questions (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by Manuel on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:15:57 PM EST
    If McCain had made a more conventional pick (Lieberman, Hutchinson, Snowe) would you be saying he deserved to win?  Doesn't McCain deserve to lose no matter who he picks or doesn't pick for VP?

    Can't we say that Obama put his personal pride above winning, the interest of his party and the interest of the country when he failed to pick Hillary for VP?  Isn't that as much of a character flaw?  Yet, I would not say he deserves to lose because of it.

    no i would not say (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:52:16 PM EST
    he deserved to lose for his lack of judgment. I would say he has every right to run and let the chips fall where they may. You get the Government you elect.

    I would have opposed his candidacy on policy grounds. That's no longer the issue. He's introduced a threat to the welfare of the country with his VP pick and he's now a danger.

    Your Obama analogy is faulty. Obama picked someone with appropriate credentials. I don't like Biden, but he's nowhere near the threat that Palin is. Both Hillary and Biden were qualified. He's entitled to pick his own running mate. If he was wrong about how voters would react, then he might lose. But he doesn't deserve to lose because he didn't pick my preferred candidate.


    But there is something to say on Obama judgment (5.00 / 19) (#107)
    by Saul on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:21:30 PM EST
    He knew very well that not picky Hilary was a risk whether he would win the election or not.  A risk that was not necessary.  Picking Hilary was a slam dunk deal in winning the election and he knew that. Here the kicker though, after all the hullabaloo that the reason he was so against the Clintons was because they represented the old school then why did he turn around and throw all that philosophy down the toilet and then pick Biden who was the epitome of everything he was against in the Clinton's.  Does that make any sense?

    How dare Obama risk my chance and your chances of winning this election just because of his  pride.  How dare he throws the dice and gambles with this election. He did not take the people in consideration  If he knows so well what is at stake then why did he do such a dumb thing. Right know with this Palin thing he wishes he would have picked Hilary.  Where is your outrage on this.


    Ok I see where we differ (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Manuel on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:10:01 PM EST
    Palin is no worse than Bush, Cheney, Huckabee, Jindal, McCain or any other Republican politician young or old.  Their ideas are not what the coutry needs and I see little to choose among them.

    As a fan of "Being There", I think just about anyone can become president under the right circumstances.  In fact, Bush proved the point.


    threat to the welfare of the country (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by AlSmith on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:35:47 PM EST

    So that would have disqualified Kerry/Edwards, right?

    I was a Biden person in the primaries and was disappointed that everyone else did see my way. I am happy that my criterion gets belatedly endorsed by the party.  

    I dont see any quantitative difference between Obama, Edwards and Palin. Except one hasent tried to run for president.


    Good move BTD. (5.00 / 14) (#12)
    by Matt in Chicago on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:16:08 PM EST
    Someone has some pent up anger.  The vitriol directed to Sarah Palin is quite amazing.  

    I may not agree with her politics but this barely concealed hatred of her, McCain and half of the population that votes Republican may not be so healthy... and it may, just may, be part of the reason why independents are so easily turned off.

    No, THAT can't be it... it is probably just because they are "racists", "stupid", or "Rethuglicans".

    By the way, if your best argument to swing undecided voters goes something like, "I may not be the greatest, but the other guy might die"... you may want to rethink that campaign strategy.

    She is polarizing but (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Coldblue on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:18:11 PM EST
    has also energized a formerly lethargic base.

    No way she gets dumped from the ticket.

    23,000 today is what is being (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:27:15 PM EST
    reported for the McCain/Palin rally in VA.

    Falwell Country (3.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:11:38 PM EST
    Of course they did, Virginia has a huge evangelical population. Via Salon:

    Twice as many white born-again and evangelical Christian voters participated in this year's Virginia GOP primary compared with eight years ago in the last contested GOP presidential primary. On Tuesday, four in 10 GOP voters claimed that label, compared with just two in 10 in 2000, who called themselves members of the religious right.

    Of those voters Tuesday, six in 10 were Huckabee voters while only a quarter were behind McCain, according to surveys conducted for The Associated Press and television networks.

    Why do you think they lined up today? It's because McCain picked one of them.


    Not just one of them (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:32:51 PM EST
    she seems to be the "right" one of them.

    I didn't know it was an evangelical area, thanks for the info. I honestly thought I had misheard the number, so I went to the google and saw all the headlines . . . .

    I do think her current appeal goes beyond at the moment. A lot of women seem to identify with her. I think the middle/moderate numbers will shift around over the next few weeks, but I can't even hazard a guess as to what's going to happen next.  


    Fairfax is not Falwell Country (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:41:42 PM EST
    Lynchburg, yes.

    Fairfax is Northern Virginia, high incomes, lots of professionals, home to George Mason University, DC bedroom community.


    That said (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:44:07 PM EST
    regarding "Falwell country", do you feel that today's huge crowd is indicative that Obama really has a chance in red Virginia? A state that even Bill Clinton couldn't take BOTH times?

    Northern VA does not the state make.  Even with macaca, Webb barely won.

    Those evangelicals know how to GOTV.  They have "citizenship Sundays" and "Justice Sunday" forums.

    OH, MI and PA needs to be the focus.  Virginia is Sarahland.


    Jeralyn, I really, really wish this were true. (5.00 / 6) (#181)
    by Southsider on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:09:11 PM EST
    But McCain didn't hold this rally in southwestern Virginia, or outside of Richmond, or even on the coast in Newport News.  He held it in FAIRFAX, the bluest part of Virginia, split between outright liberal Democrats (who work in DC, natch) and moderate professional types.  Now I suppose it's possible that the turnout came from people who traveled from downstate to see him at 9:00 in the morning on a weekday but...let's be honest.  Most of these folks are local, the purplish sorts that the VA GOP has hilariously alienated over the past few cycles by running losers like Jim Gilmore, Jerry Kilgore, and George Allen.  There isn't a very strong evangelical presence at all in these places.  Fauquier County and maybe Loudon, but certainly not Fairfax or PW.

    If McCain/Palin is pulling in massive crowds from these key northern counties, it could be a real problem.  It's likely that many of them are just curious about the Palin phenomenon, so I'm not panicking yet, but never forget that the road to Democratic victory in VA is STAKED upon keeping GOP enthusiasm in these northern counties down and maintaining strong Dem turnout.


    Fairfax County (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:27:55 PM EST
    is one of the large blue areas of the state.  I know -- I live in Fairfax County.  (See CNN map, Fairfax is the big blue one up top)

    People weren't drawn from Falwell country to get here today.


    Don't the presidential and VP candidates (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:45:06 PM EST
    usually campaign separately so that they can cover twice as much ground?

    Yet, I am hearing that McCain may keep Palin with him for most of the campaign (when she's not studying for the debates up in Wasilla, charging it to the state of Alaska) because there wouldn't be much excitement at rallies which featured him alone.

    However many outrageous lies McCain is telling these days, no matter how aggressive he is being, he is scared. And Obama has to use that fear. But him back on the defensive where he belongs.


    agreed (none / 0) (#27)
    by Turkana on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:29:51 PM EST
    he gets huge turnout when she's with him, and her approval rating is higher than that of any of the other three. the media have done what they always do, and too many people can't tell the difference between reality and a romantic comedy about a spunky small town girl thrust into the spotlight to save the world. it was a hail mary, and it's working- so far. hopefully, it will soon implode, but for the moment, she's his only hope.

    not dumped (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:53:50 PM EST
    again, I didn't say McCain would dump her, I said she could withdraw.

    Step away from the keyboard (5.00 / 17) (#15)
    by standingup on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:19:43 PM EST
    I don't know what it is about Palin.  I wouldn't call it polarizing but she is bringing out the worst in some people.

    could partially be (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Lil on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:23:41 PM EST
    that she reminds us too much of Bush.

    obama with his expanding faith based (5.00 / 5) (#173)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:05:47 PM EST
    department and Joshua or Matthew 24, whichever, reminds me more of bush...

    If you mean her existence is making people (4.55 / 9) (#35)
    by Matt in Chicago on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:34:08 PM EST
    irrationally angry, then I agree she is very much like Bush.

    This post is hysterical... is basically serves to show the wisdom of McCain's choice.  How hard is it to defeat an unhinged opponent?

    At the end of all of this, we are all Americans.  Different Party affiliations don't make us enemies.  But posts like this don't make me want to be on "your side" regardless of what your side may be.


    And Republicans love their country... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by badguppy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    they just hate half the people living in it. (A joke I heard somewhere.)

    I doubt you were on my side (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:55:59 PM EST
    to begin with. And I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to mobilize Democrats -- conservatives and Republicans are already lost. Turnout is important. This will be the most important election in decades. Every Democrat should gear up to get themselves and everyone they know to the polls.  This is no election to sit out, particularly because one's first choice of a nominee didn't get the nod.

    may I remind you that (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:22:12 PM EST
    Obama's PR said he was the guy who could get crossovers and rightleaning indies.

    The primary stuff can't easily be forgotten...I may forgive it all, but I won't forget. The only question is if the Donkey will ever ever learn anthing from the potential defeat in November.


    Don't forget Brazile (5.00 / 5) (#176)
    by Prabhata on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:06:56 PM EST
    She made it clear that Obama would redraw the political map.  Hispanics and blue collar workers were not part of the new coalition. I'm now an observer.  It's become a very interesting election.

    I laud your efforts Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:49:25 PM EST
    but unfortunately when you have Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaking negatively of an Obama/Clinton ticket, and CNN spokesperson/DNC representative/SuperDelegate Donna Brazile about a "new coalition", your efforts might be for naught.

    Maybe you can get some people to get active. You are in a battleground state.  Enough people around Denver may know who you are and you can move undecideds with your passion.

    And as a salesperson, I respond to certain kinds of words because of their emotional assignations.  Palin isn't polarizing, she ignites passions.  To some she's the devil, to some a hero.

    For better or for worse, I admire her for that. She is getting people talking about their passions.


    You're correct. I am not on your side. (5.00 / 8) (#168)
    by Matt in Chicago on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:04:06 PM EST
    This whole post is too vitriolic for me.  And I have a feeling that if I don;t express my hatred/fear/disgust etc. for McCain and/or Palin I would never pass your loyalty test.

    This whole inclusion thing is so overrated... hmm, you're either for us or against us... you're starting to sound like someone you really (and irrationally) hate.

    I think I will vote my conscious... and if Obama earns my vote he will have it.


    she's bringing out the worst in the left... (4.88 / 9) (#137)
    by HypeJersey on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:39:33 PM EST
    because she represents a real threat to the left and to the established World Order.

    After all the misogyny that the lefties put on during the primaries, McCain just ate Obama's lunch.  I'm sure McCain didn't realize how brilliant Palin was as a pick, but he hit a nerve when he picked her.  One would have to be tone deaf to not know the level of discontent among a fair share of democratic, independent and centrist women.  Apparently, Obama is tone deaf.  And he will pay for it.


    Actually, I think the Left has been showing (5.00 / 11) (#184)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:10:19 PM EST
    it's ugly side for at least 8 months now. The Hillary Clinton hatred was every bit as intense, but since it was D against D, they tried to keep it as civil as possible. Now that it's D against R, they are so scared they can't manipulate their mistakes into victory, they have gone completely off their rails.

    What's comical is that I'm one of those who needs to be convinced to cast my vote for Obama. This malicious, unfounded manipulation of the truths about Palin isn't working.


    Established world order? (none / 0) (#154)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:50:48 PM EST
    That's a bit overboard.  She's a politician, not a phenomenon that is going to throw off the balance of nature.

    If something did happen to McCain (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ding7777 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:19:49 PM EST
    Palin would make her decisions based on the Bush 3 team that McCain had put in place... so to me the Bush 3 line is the relevant line

    While I find Palin light on qualifications (5.00 / 17) (#19)
    by davnee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:23:03 PM EST
    myself.  It's just crazy to make such a big deal about her inexperience when the alternative is Obama.  He's just not that much more experienced.  He's almost as much of a joke as Palin, and he comes out of the gates as president.  Dems look like fools beating this drum given their own choices this season.  It's like asking voters to do as we say and not as we do.

    Now I agree that Palin's policy positions and affiliation with the religious right are alarming, and worth fighting against, so fight away.  But this post is hysterical in tone.  Most of the country is terrified about Palin?  Let's get serious.  This rhetoric just strikes me as counterproductive and disingenuous.  JMO.

    i'm more and more certain ... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:42:50 PM EST
    ...that many of the leftie blogs are a Republican plant.  It's certainly not the cool headed intellectual product of men of the left like Bill Clinton, Gerhardt Shroeder or Gordon Brown.

    If the point of your post is to suggest... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Southsider on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:33:28 PM EST
    ...that Jeralyn is a Republican "mole" or "plant" then I suggest you take your comments somewhere else.  As in, off this blog.  Treat her with more respect than that, she's earned and then some.

    For the record, I stand with BTD on this matter: I completely agree with his analysis that Palin has shaken the structure of this race down to its very core, and that we as Democrats and/or liberals are better served with constructively approaching this problem rather than wishcasting Sarah Palin off the GOP ticket. (I've said it before, I'll say it again: Obama NEEDS NEEDS DESPERATELY NEEDS to return to pushing a positive message -- positive in the objective sense of standing for something, not merely running as not-McCain/Bush/Palin.)

    Palin ain't goin' nowhere.  It strikes me as slightly, well, facetious to call for her to resign from the ticket -- for what? for the crime of being the GOP's terrifying new young superstar? -- but Jeralyn damn well has a right to write whatever she pleases on this blog.

    Unless she starts a thread entitled "SOUTHSIDER IS A PRAT."  That's crossing a line, dude.


    Also, if I misinterpreted your point, I'm sorry. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Southsider on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:35:12 PM EST
    It just occurred to me that I might have gotten you wrong.  Sorry...when I see what I think are "concern troll" accusations it's like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

    The thing is... (2.00 / 0) (#65)
    by badguppy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:54:43 PM EST
    even if all Obama did was play golf or basketball all four years, at least he wouldn't veto a Democratic congress and would nominate liberal judges. That's enough for me.

    Fair enough (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by davnee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:09:33 PM EST
    My point is that the reasons to oppose Palin are not incompetence but policy and ideology.  She's dangerous because she is an extremist.  Now I happen to think she's dangerous also because we have no good proxy for her competence like lengthy experience.  But Obama readily fails my test on that too, so I'm not eager to run that out as a reason to oppose Palin, particularly since Obama would be starting out as president.  Strikes me as strategically unwise.

    Part of what rubs me wrong about Jeralyn's post is that it is not grounded in the reality that Palin has proven popular and has proven to have good political skills.  She's not withdrawing.  That's just crazy talk.  That doesn't mean we should vote her into oval office, because she is still an extremist (and questionable as to competence but we are hamstrung on mentioning that by our own choices), but inventing an alternate reality doesn't seem to be the best way to go for preventing her election.


    I'm hoping, as I said, (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:14:25 PM EST
    the media will do the vetting job McCain failed to do and something will come up that will cause her to withdraw.

    Obviously, we can't count on that, so it's important to mobilize Democrats, particularly those who weren't too enthused about Obama.


    Respectfully, I think that's counterproductive (5.00 / 8) (#119)
    by davnee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:30:22 PM EST
    as a strategy.  You are hoping for some kind of bombshell or smoking gun against her.  Maybe you'll get it, but my guess is that the chances you'll instead get a public offended by witch hunting are higher.  Do you want to see those dice rolled?

    Look, she's underqualified.  You'll get no argument on that from me.  But you don't need further investigative journalism to demonstrate that, and that is a dicey argument because of the Obama contrast.  I think it's also dicey because I think she is a much more talented politician than you give her credit for.  It's risky to keep lowering the bar for her in my opinion.

    The one thing to hammer is her relationship to evangelicals and extreme policy positions, though I'd counsel an artful deployment of those arguments so as not to repel independents who are not as put off by social conservatism or to run out claims that are inaccurate or incomplete and might discredit your (oh so valid) position.  That and focusing too much on VP might be a case of seeing the trees rather than the forest.

    Your approach to Palin has struck me as red meat for the liberal base, rallying to the cause and all that, but I don't think it is useful for winning swing voters (or voters still cheesed off about sexism), in fact I think it might be detrimental.  And isn't it the swing voters that we should be concentrating on now? Besides wasn't Obama already supposed to get the Democratic butts to the polls?  Sorry, couldn't resist the last line.


    I recently read that Clinton met (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by Matt in Chicago on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:26:06 PM EST
    Gore exactly once before he selected him to be his VP.  How is this extensive vetting?  Why didn't anyone mention that?

    Palin the Governor of a State (sneer if you want, none of us are even elected officials) who is undoubtedly scrutinized by the people and media of Alaska since he run for Lt. Governor.  Do you seriously believe that there is still a scandal lurking?

    Attacker on the issues, every time we stretch the truth or make-up a fake controversy we hurt our own image and bolster hers.  Hey, and you might also try to address why people in your own party (me for example) are not too enthused about Obama... or we can just go back to sneering at people and calling them names... that hasn't worked in the past, but this time I am sure it will be effective.


    He's going to nominate judges that won't (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:18:43 PM EST
    get filibustered by the Republicans in the Senate.  I don't expect them to be much to the left of Roberts.

    Just a reality check.


    Smartest political adage (5.00 / 10) (#26)
    by eleanora on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:29:24 PM EST
    that I ever heard is that too many Democrats would rather win an argument than an election.

    Brava.... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:49:30 PM EST
    they just can't let this go and get to work on beating McCain. They insist on arguing about Palin until they think the other side agrees with them.

    I am beating on McCain (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:57:58 PM EST
    I'm saying his lack of judgment and his putting his desire to put a bounce in his campaign over the welfare of the country makes him unfit to be President.

    I agree (2.00 / 1) (#111)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:25:19 PM EST
    McCain's choice of Palin shows a serious lack of judgment.  I get sick of hearing Obama is just as inexperienced.  How can anyone say that with a straight face?  

    Palin took 6 years, and 5 schools, to get an undergraduate degree.  Obama, Columbia, community organizer, Chicago; Harvard Law School, President of HLR.  Obama state legislature, IL; US Senate. Palin, "city council in Wasilla;" mayor elected on fewer than 1K votes; governor of AL for less than 2 years.      


    Their political experience is not that different (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by davnee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:41:05 PM EST
    Now he's better educated than she, no doubt.  But good luck in running that elitist meme out there against her.  Personally, I like a little elitism in my leaders, but I don't pretend that that is an easy sell.  And there is nothing inherently wrong with Palin's background for producing a great leader.  I believe a president can come from humble beginnings and training.  It's just she is still so early in her career it is hard to predict whether she has the necessary skill and judgment.  But to be quite honest, Obama is likewise light on the proven quantity front.  I'd give him the edge in experience and preparation, but in all honesty I don't consider it near big enough of an edge to run around trumpeting.  For me the difference between Palin and Obama is that if they both prove to be incompetents (which I think is almost equally probable), that Obama will screw up while trying to forward the right issues and Palin the wrong issues.  That to me is the difference between them in a nutshell.  But isn't it a little crazy to be obsessing over the difference between candidates running for different spots on the ticket?

    And? (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:00:49 PM EST
    i worked with a guy who had a PHD!!! from Harvard shelving videos at Blockbuster when I was in school.

    If one has to be a summa cum laude from Dartmouth to make it in America then that knocks out a WHOLE lotta people.  Heck the guy who started Wendy's didn't even finish high school.

    And do we wanna talk about Bush43's Yale education?  HE only went to One school, he's still a colossal moron.


    You folks miss my point (none / 0) (#203)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:23:23 PM EST
    At least we know that Obama has the grey matter for the job; is there anything out there to convince you that Palin does??? She can be witty but can she understand the constitutional dynamics of the job?  Alaska first doesn't cut it.      

    I'm willing to let someone convince me (5.00 / 8) (#172)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:05:37 PM EST
    about Obama's receord. But, to date I haven't seen a list from his campaign or the media of what he accomplished at any of these things. What did he publish at HLR? I heard rumore that it was nada. What did he publish as a law professor? Again, I heard it was nothing. What goals did he set for his community organizing and did he meet those goals? Again, the only thing I have heard is that in one of his own books he admits he didn't accomplish much for the community. What did he accomplish as State Senator? Here I have only heard the "Emil Jones" as his promoter stories. Give me something to work with.

    If Obama is running against her... (4.66 / 3) (#120)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:30:48 PM EST
    ...that's all well and good. Yet, she's the stateschool candidate by your own definition.  That appeals to quite a lot of middle achievers who became late bloomers and struggled in schools.

    I'm not impressed by many of the Harvard types I have met. Especially the law school grads. There's an element of  McFranchise to that school that is unaddressed by academia. Too many grads pretending they are something special.


    and here I'll big up the real powerhouses (none / 0) (#130)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:35:16 PM EST
    of the Anglo-American education system: Oxford and Yale. With a hat tip to Edinburgh's law college.

    Amen and amen. (none / 0) (#68)
    by badguppy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:56:17 PM EST
    The calls to "reason" I find the most annoying.

    This race is still about Obama (5.00 / 17) (#28)
    by Mitch Guthman on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:30:06 PM EST

    You may be right but I still think this election is about Obama.  If people believe he's qualified to be president and have a fairly good idea about what he's going to do as president, then he will be elected.  If, at the end of the day, there's any doubt about Obama he will lose.  John McCain is basically most voter's default  choice.

    All of the outrage in the world, whether real or feigned, can't elect Barrack Obama president in November.   I think he needs to tone it down and finally begin to really introduce himself to the American people.  He made a good start on the job in Denver and then got sidetracked.  The problem is that people think that they know John McCain or at least they are sure that he is a known quantity, someone who's been around for long time and with whom they feel comfortable.  

    This does not in any way describe Obama, except perhaps to his followers.  But this time, his followers alone won't be enough to bring him victory.  He needs to reach out to the people and explain who he is and what he stands for.  In short, he needs to define himself.  He can only do this by addressing himself to the people and telling them in more specific ways, who he is and what he stands for.

    The first thing that he needs to do is to find opportunities to talk about what is important to him in very concrete, issue orientated terms.  He needs to lay out his vision of an American foreign policy, perhaps in response to the recently leaked memo in which the intelligence community outlines challenges/foreign policy environment facing the next president.  Also, he needs to say exactly what he thinks should be done now about the economy and what he will do as soon as he is president.  Very specific things, and he needs to show how these policies are manifestations of his beliefs and core principles.

    He should talk about what he wants to accomplish during his first hundred days in office.   He should say what will be his first legislative proposal submitted to Congress and why its going to be first.  He should talk about bringing together the leaders of both parties during the transition period so that he can share his legislative priorities, especially his domestic agenda, with them and then once again talk about his political beliefs (not just "change" and "hope") and the things he wants to do as president.

    The second thing he needs to do also concerns his core principles.  Why does he want to be president?  What moves him?  What will he fight for,  what will he sacrifice his ambitions for? (N.B., "change" and "hope" are not really issues, as such).  

    He needs to get angry and pick a fight about an issue.  One of the more disturbing things I have noticed about Obama is that the only times we've seen him moved emotionally have been when he has been personally attacked.  He became angry when Rev. Wright called him a "an ordinary politico" but apparently none of the people he has encountered or their stories has made him angry enough to really speak out about a specific injustice and pledge to right a specific wrong.  The MCA didn't really move him.  Likewise, torture, black sites, domestic spying, none of that seemed to arouse anger in him.  When he has addressed these issues, he has done so only reluctantly (in response to pressure from the base) and then only halfheartedly. This is a problem.  Again, "hope" and "change" isn't enough.

    I think this perceived lack of emotion about his beliefs, his unwillingness to stands against very grave injustices unless or until its safe to do so or the choice is forced upon him, is clearly resonating with people at a subconscious level.   It makes people uncomfortable with him.  It makes me very uncomfortable with him.

    He needs to focus on why he is running for president.  Is he really running for president because McCain has eight houses?  Because of the outrage de jour?  

    In the end, either Obama or McCain is going to be president----and probably about 80% of the people whom the left-blogs now sneeringly call "low information voters" understand the very basic fact that seems to have escaped Obama's campaign.  And, in choosing between these two men, most people will naturally gravitate towards the man they feel more comfortable with and think they know best.   All the anger, the outrage, and the claims that only a racist could possibly reject Obama isn't moving him any closer to the White House.  Obama, his campaign and the left-blogs need to stop fighting the '04 campaign and begin to contest this election by introducing Obama to the American people and explaining why he wants to be president and what he will do as president.

    Amen... (5.00 / 12) (#49)
    by otherlisa on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:45:54 PM EST
    I don't have any sense of what Obama really cares about, beyond his own image and ambition.

    He needs to start acting like a President. Ditch the sarcasm and the snark.


    I used to feel that I knew John McCain. (2.00 / 0) (#76)
    by badguppy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:59:42 PM EST
    But not anymore.

    Amen again!! (none / 0) (#121)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:31:09 PM EST
    Bravo!!  I will vote for Obama on policy and positions. I do understand that many don't vote that way and need convincing.  Obama needs to be less cautious and just go for the gold; stand up and fight; let the people see you angry!  Let them hear some passion!!  

    Sure she's polarizing (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:53:53 PM EST
    But she's also keeping women central to both campaigns in a way they might not otherwise have been. So it's a real opportunity too, to use the situation to put the focus on issues important to women instead of just trying to exploit women by ginning up our outrage over nonsense and fake controversies. That would be a win no matter what, but first people have to tear themselves away from the tabloid distraction stuff to do that. It's like the proverbial train wreck, can't look away, but really, we should all be embarrassed to be falling for it.

    I think IMO Palin's appeal is that (5.00 / 10) (#75)
    by athyrio on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:58:45 PM EST
    she is "every woman" out there in America...She is so typical of the average American woman it is amazing to me...Plus I think Americans have been longing for a "hero" to come along and wave a magic wand and make things better...She is probably appealing to that feeling...It was an amazing feat on McCain's part to chose her and wouldnt have worked nearly as well, if Hillary had been chosen as VP...But she wasn't...I am not sure there is a way to defeat her at this point but I am sure that one way isn't the insults...You have to stick to the issues....it is the only thing that works at least for me...personal attacks won't work as so much crap has been spread about her, that noone will believe stuff anymore...Stick to the issues is my best advice...

    Maybe some women are just holding (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:14:26 PM EST
    Sarah in Hillary's stead after the rotten treatment Hillary got from obama, the DNC, etc...imo

    Yeah but.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by badguppy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:07:12 PM EST
    The McCain campaign will specifically try to make the news cycles be dominated by anything BUT the issues. They know they will lose on the issues. They want an issue free campaign.

    There's supposed to be polarization (5.00 / 20) (#83)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:03:59 PM EST
    between Republicans and Democrats.  

    Obama was Mr. Post-Partisan, blurring the lines between the two ideologies, and turning formerly hard-line Democratic positions into something a whole lot mushier, in an attempt to appeal to voters across the spectrum.  Republicans were feeling depressed and lethargic and ho-hum about the whole election, looking at losing seats in the Congress and seeming to be unable to gain the attenion of the media.

    Even so, McCain was hanging in there, with the race pretty much dead-even.

    Then he names Palin and suddenly, there is new life in the Republican Party, and they are energized.  Energized voters actually come out to vote.  Her pick united the party in a way that it did not appear would be possible, and all of a sudden, things feel a lot different.

    A funny thing has happened to Democrats along the way: they've remembered what they are supposed to stand for and believe in, why they aren't Republicans, and a lot of them are now looking at Obama, and wondering why they ever thought that high-flown rhetoric would translate into actually fighting for those positions and those ideals and those beliefs.  

    He's still not fighting; pointing out the outrage is not fighting.  Allowing your VP to languish out of the spotlight is not fighting.

    It's Obama fatigue that is partially responsible for Palin being the novelty - novelty that most certainly has not worn off.  If she handles herself well in the interview with Gibson and goes on to handle the debates, she will be seen as a competent novelty and there goes your plan for her to fizzle out - it's not going to happen.

    McCain wasn't supposed to pick a VP that was going to unite the parties, or meet with your approval - he did what the opposition party is supposed to do in an effort to win, and your continuing anger that he did is just more negative emotion that will do you no good in the end.

    If you want to be angry, be angry at Obama for losing control of the narrative, for not sending Biden out in attack-dog mode, for not picking Hillary as his VP, for failing to show any passion about the things he says he believes in, for not realizing that he can't talk in generalities anymore, for not understanding that he needs to sharpen the line between us and them instead of blurring it.

    That anger, I could understand.

    I predict that this question: (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:43:54 PM EST
    If she handles herself well in the interview with Gibson

    is a foregone conclusion.

    Gibson will give her the greatest softball interview of all time.


    And if Obama had picked Hillary instead (2.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:11:56 PM EST
    and McCain picked Palin, McCain would still be running the same kind of campaign, but we'd probably be hearing quite a bit about Vince Foster and cattle futures and presidential libraries by now along with the pigs-n-lipstick.

    If Obama had picked Hillary, McCain would (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:16:51 PM EST
    never have picked Palin - never.

    There isn't a potential nominee who doesn't have baggage, and the Clintons baggage has been pawed over and looked at and X-rayed and inspected to the point where whatever's in there is no longer an issue.


    It will always be an issue (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:25:34 PM EST
    for those it's an issue for.

    Do you think they'd have let him pick Lieberman if it had been Hillary? Romney? Another sure loser. A competent and qualified GOP woman? Wouldn't have done them any good against Hillary. This would have been his Hail Mary pass no matter what. Except then it would have been played up as a catfight or in whatever other distracting way they could seize on. It's all about mobilizing the Evangelicals and distracting away from issues. If it had been Hillary those goals would have been just the same even if the specifics of how they play it would be different.


    Palin is a tough problem for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by SomewhatChunky on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:14:03 PM EST
    The choice of Palin was as much a shock to the Republicans as the Democrats.

    It's absurd to credit McCain with the "vision" to see how this pick would work out.  I believe the combination of events revolving around Palin over the last few weeks was unknowable by anyone.  So far, It's worked well for McCain.   Without her, this thing isn't close.

    Jeralyn has made her viewpoint clear and her approach clear.  She's also made it clear she's sticking with it.  You get to do that when you own a blog :)  But she's not running a campaign who's goal is to win.  There, you often have to make compromises.

    I assume both campaigns are doing there secret little daily polls.  I think nobody knew how to handle Palin at first.  The Republicans are pretty happy how it's working out.  I think they'll keep running the same play until someone stops it.

    Obama has a different problem.  The campaign undoubtedly has views on what might work.  So they try it, poll it and evaluate it.  If it doesn't work, find another play.  Running a play that doesn't work over and over doesn't work in football.  Or politics.  I don't think they've found the right play yet.  But she's only been around a few weeks.  Sooner or later something will work.  One hopes.

    There aren't many, if any, precedents in American politics for the Palin phenomena.  It's hard to know what to do.

    no matter what you say (5.00 / 7) (#101)
    by athyrio on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:16:12 PM EST
    there is zero evidence that Palin would bring her belief system into the governing...She even vetoed a bill and allowed gay state employees to get benefits..she said she was advised it was unconstitutional...

    yes she was called on the carpet for it (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:22:32 PM EST
    by Dobson and had to explain she did it on advice of her attorney general it was unconstitutional. She invited the legislature to draft it correctly next time as she would approve it.

    and to that end (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:38:24 PM EST
    as VP and as Cheney has demonstrated, you can rewrite laws to fit your actions, so yes Palin may have "followed the law", do you think Cheney has done so and do you think Ms Palin would not follow his precedent?

    might depend on who (none / 0) (#196)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:19:51 PM EST
    Mccain picks as Attorney General. How will she know if she's getting good advice or bad advice? She doesn't have a law degree or any legislative experience.

    exactly my point (none / 0) (#207)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:25:47 PM EST
    in Cheneys case he picks people and muscles his policy through legalese, she can do the same or can be done to her.  Either way until she conducts press conferences and not softball puff interviews, I can ONLY assume she is unqualified

    WRONG (none / 0) (#179)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:08:58 PM EST
    she was against it because to fight it was cost prohibitive.  Her belief system plays RIGHT into the anti-gay agenda.

    I for one will fight that with every fiber of my being.  Reagan and both Bushes are trying to shove us back into the closet.

    I won't fu**ing do it.  And Obama's pandering to McClurkin won't push me there, either.

    Palin is rabidly anti-gay.  Make no mistake.


    Let's see (none / 0) (#189)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:14:42 PM EST
    Gosh, one of her very first acts as Mayor was to try and get gay-friendly books removed from the town library at the behest of her evangelical church.  Zero evidence indeed.

    Polarizing (5.00 / 7) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:25:55 PM EST
    is a bad word to use imo. It reminds me of what all the Obama supporters said over and over about Hillary during the primaries.

    Palin is bad on the issues, there's no doubt there but Obama can't seem to focus on the issues for some reason. He just keeps throwing out vague statements. Frankly, I'm with BTD, it is probably best to ignore her at this point and focus on McCain.

    Women are always the "polarizers" (5.00 / 12) (#124)
    by HypeJersey on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:32:17 PM EST
    Wow - first Hillary Clinton was the "polarizing figure" and now Sarah Palin.  Wow - the whole country would be getting along right now were it not for these 2 women.  

    C'mon man.

    Give. Me. A. Break.

    They are both polarizing (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:06:33 PM EST
    They both separate people from their own common sense.

    If Palin (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:09:04 PM EST
    can be described as divisive, then so could Obama as he split the vote 50/50 among dems and is currently splitting the vote 50/50 with McCain.

    now polarizing is sexist? (none / 0) (#199)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:22:00 PM EST
    Not buying it. And I'm not going to walk on those eggshells.

    Friedman Has it Right (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by PinotSwillingLiberal on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:33:27 PM EST
    First post here after lurking during primaries and reading this blog like a salve.  Lately though it's been intensifying the headache instead of curing it.

    I recommend reading Friedman's column today.  He gets it right about Palin - most of the country is not terrified of her, and it's quite the opposite, they see themselves in her.  He compares her to "Roseanne" and reminds everyone it was the #1 show for 5 years.  

    Democrats need to gather themselves quickly and realize we now have a formidable opponent and treat them as such.

    Friedman might want to have checked with Roseanne (none / 0) (#209)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:26:27 PM EST
    who opposes both the comparison and Palin. From her blog:

    There is so much that Sarah Palin represents that goes against my grain as a woman and as an American. Now that I'm seeing her being hailed as someone very much like the character I created, Roseanne Connor, I really have to speak up.

    I'm very aware that lots of Americans are almost in love with this woman they'd never heard of just a couple of weeks ago. So, speaking of going against the grain, what I'm compelled by my conscience to say may not be what a lot of Americans want to hear. But as our brave and esteemed Vice President said awhile back when told that our disastrous policy in Iraq was strongly opposed by three out of four Americans: "So?" Sometimes you have to stand against the crowd and say what you know in your heart is right and true.

    That's just a short snippet, go read the whole thing.


    I think we're going to have to count on (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by blogtopus on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:49:11 PM EST
    Media Fatigue.

    How long before people get sick sick sick of Palin? Maybe it's time for an Obama ad featuring Palin PALIN *PALIN*. Push her into people's faces and get them sick of her, speed up her half-life so she bottoms out right around election time.

    Willie Brown analyzes Palin (5.00 / 5) (#205)
    by Prabhata on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:24:02 PM EST
    Willie Brown, Democrat, was CA Speaker of the House for many years (very powerful), ex-mayor of San Francisco is a savvy politician.
    I quote:

    Palin floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee
    The Democrats are in trouble. Sarah Palin has totally changed the dynamics of this campaign.

    Palin's speech to the GOP National Convention on Wednesday has set it up so that the Republicans are now on offense and Democrats are on defense. And we don't do well on defense.

    Suddenly, Palin and John McCain are the mavericks and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the status quo, in a year when you don't want to be seen as defending the status quo.

    From taxes to oil drilling, Democrats are now going to have to start explaining their positions.

    Whenever you start having to explain things, you're on defense.

    I actually went back and watched Palin's speech a second time. I didn't go to sleep until 1:30 a.m. I had to make sure I got the lines right.

    Her timing was exquisite. She didn't linger with applause, but instead launched into line after line of attack, slipping the knives in with every smile and joke.


    Ignore Palin (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:24:28 PM EST
    Dems have plenty of issues to run on.

    Economy in recession, almost 7 percent unemployment, that's close to the REAL number, 10 trillion debt, and 4 dollar gallon gasoline.

    He needs a theme to keep repeating. Clinton did school uniforms in '96, only this election is much more serious than playing dress up.


    Its still a referendum on Obama (5.00 / 9) (#165)
    by Mitch Guthman on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:02:27 PM EST
    I would like to return to a point that I tried to make earlier.  What I think Jeralyn may be missing is that this election is basically a national referendum on Barrack Obama and his qualifications for the presidency.  Palin, Biden and, to some degree, even McCain are probably irrelevant to the outcome of this race.

    Given the unpopularity of the Republican Party in general, George Bush's collapsing economy and his unspeakably terrible foreign policy, this should be an overwhelmingly great year for the Democratic candidate.  Unless there is something seriously wrong with our candidate, our guy should a shoo-in.  Yet, Obama still polls behind a "placeholder" Democrat and probably far behind any other specific Democrat. He is in a very tight race.  Clearly, there are doubts about Obama.

    If you assume that is indeed the case, then the single critical factor in an Obama victory must Obama's ability to assuage those doubts and make the case for himself as president.  If he can't do that, nothing else matters.  Again, it's a binary choice.   If, at the end of the day, the average voter says "Okay, McCain's not my ideal choice, and I'm not happy that Palin is a heartbeat away from the presidency-----but I don't think Obama's qualified or he has too little experience or I don't know what he stands for", the fact that we can all agree that Biden is both more experienced and better qualified than Palin or McCain is not going to matter.  Obama loses because McCain is probably the lesser evil.  Don't forget:  Unlike with Palin, voters aren't evaluating Obama's qualifications to be a heartbeat away---they're considering whether he himself is experienced enough and qualified enough to be the actual president. On the other hand, if Obama is able to make his case that he is sufficiently experienced and qualified, then he is should win as any other Democrats would win.

    So, let's keep our focus on what's worth stressing.    Let's avoid the outrage du jour (and especially the Sarah Palin outrage du jour) unless it is we something can use to complete sentences like these:  "Obama is running for president because..." or "Obama should be president because..."

    Consider a couple of applications of this formula:

    "Obama is running for president because John McCain has eight houses"

    "Obama should be president because McCain's `lipstick on a pig' charge is phony".

    "Obama should be president because McCain wasn't really tortured under the Bush administration's ludicrous definition of torture".

    "Obama is running for president because Sarah Palin was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it"

    Inserting the outrage du jour doesn't really complete these sentences in a way that makes a positive case for an Obama presidency or which explains what such a presidency would look like on, say, foreign policy or the economy.  It's just silly.  And it makes Obama look silly.

    I think Obama needs to finish introducing himself to the American people.  He made a good start in Denver, but all this outrage does nothing to make people more comfortable with Obama.   It's a total distraction.   From now until November, the focus needs to be on Obama (who is he, what does he stand for, his specific plan for the economy, his plans on foreign policy) and on why McCain's plans for the future are wrong for our country.  

    Just as an aside, it might be helpful if somebody reminded certain people that the choice facing people in the voting booths in November will be between John McCain and Barrack Obama.   If they aren't comfortable with Obama, Joe Biden's experience and thoughtfulness won't matter and neither will Palin's lack of experience or her whatever.  

    Obama needs to make the positive case for himself because I suspect that right now, for most people, McCain is the default choice. Palin is no threat unless Obama allows himself to be sidetracked and fails to make the case why he should be president.

    McCain is the one running for President (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by dobbie on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:05:48 AM EST
    Democrats should focus on McCain, as he is the one running for President. Palin is dangerously strong due to her biography alone - Democrats should attempt to marginalize her role as much as possible. Of course, the usual digging for scandal should go on, but it shouldn't be done in public.

    Dragging in the experience argument into the debate is not useful, as Obama hardly has more experience handling foreign policy issues or executive government than Palin. And he is on the top of the Democratic ticket.

    Instead, it must be issues that wins this election for Democrats. Most importantly, Democrats must demonstrate that McCain is dangerously aggressive and bellicose in his foreign policy. There is no need to say that McCain=Bush. That is likely to backfire, as to many people, he obviously isn't Bush. But that doesn't change the fact that McCain, for various reasons, is just as bellicose and aggressive as Bush. This is the point Democrats need to drive home. And while they are at it, they should keep hitting McCain on issues like health care and taxes (McCains flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts is a gift to Democrats).

    People don't vote for VP (4.66 / 6) (#31)
    by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:31:45 PM EST
    People will begin to picture Palin as President -- trying to deal with the Pentagon, leaders of foreign countries, our economy. They will be furious with McCain that he would risk the welfare of the country by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin.

    I disagree.  Nobody bothered to picture Dan Quayle as President.  It's McCain we have to attack as dangerous.  After Vietnam he wrote some pretty stong stuff about how we needed to stay and finish the war.  This is how he really feels - that we cannot leave Iraq until some undefined "victory" has been achieved.

    Which raises the real problem with McCain - he is a hawk who treats Iraq like a war against an enemy who can be defeated.  It is not.  It is an unprovoked war fought unwillingly by American troops on behalf of corporate interests who control our government.  This is not WWII and there can be no V-J day. This is our Army playing the role of Pinkertons breaking up a miners' strike.

    McCain must be defeated "by any means necessary".  527s and surrogates must start the slime now.  These are low-info voters we are after, not law school students.

    Now your in Howard Dean territory (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:05:08 PM EST
    as a paid operative for Howard Dean, attracting what you snobbishly call "low info voters" was their biggest downfall.  Going door to door, engaging in retail politics is the way you reach the working class and the ones who are in socio-economically challenged segments of society.

    Explain to them how Dem policies work better for them.  Not everyone can go to their local coliseums to see their candidate.  One has to have shoe leather to the ground.

    Obama hasn't done that.  All they hear is, "Can I please eat my waffle in peace?"


    There's a part of me that wishes Biden would (4.50 / 6) (#5)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:11:36 PM EST
    commit a "gaffe" and start refering to it as the "Palin/McCain" ticket.  After all, she's getting all the attention.

    I'm sure that after gaffing that a few times, McCain would explode.

    Independents I don't get... (4.00 / 2) (#34)
    by badguppy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:33:17 PM EST
    I used to be one too, but Bush cured me of that.
    So I want to defend Jeralyn's passion (or maybe outright fear).
    The problem with you Independents is that in your feigned reasonableness you will allow the most terrible things to occur. A tragedy may be over the horizon, but you are too busy poo-pooing the Cassandras of the world. But Cassandra was right and Troy was destroyed.

    I know, I know, I'm being over-emotional.

    thanks but that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:35:16 PM EST
    for containing personal insults to me. The commenter was banned.

    Surely you jest (4.00 / 4) (#191)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:15:14 PM EST

    Aside from all the reasons Palin is a danger to the country because of her lack of qualifications remotely relevant to any high national office,

    She has more executive experience than McCain. Biden, and Obama put together.  She certainly seems at least if not more more qualified than Obama.

    Instead of Mcain=Bush... (3.50 / 2) (#20)
    by badguppy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:23:24 PM EST

    It's an idea I've seen elsewhere. Picking her McCain is trying to emphasize Washington outsider and Maverick. But perhaps she's a doubling-down on Bushism?
    But she's more articulate than Bush, more charismatic. Scary.

    Palin is nothing like Bush. (5.00 / 9) (#117)
    by Inky on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:28:36 PM EST
    As you note, she's much more articulate than Bush and more charismatic Also, completely unlike Bush (and certain others) she can deliver a great speech without a teleprompter. Another gaping difference from Bush, she's a genuine product of the working class, the most genuine candidate for those inclined to vote on such allegiances since Bill Clinton himself. And unlike Bush (and certain others) she has managed to elevate to a high office without insider help along the way, and in fact did so by cannily and ruthlessly going after her own party establishment.

    As far as Palin's extremist positions go, the fact of the matter is that her governing style in Alaska appears to me more libertarian than theocratic. In fact, her first veto was to override legislation that would have denied benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. She won't win over many environmentalists, but her positions in that regard are aimed at promoting jobs and increasing the game supply for hunters, which are perfectly in keeping with her working class background. She is primarily a polarizing figure to those who have little sympathy for the culture of rural and working-class America. I'm not planning to vote for her, but I've seen little sign so far that she is a corporatist, and for that I do have some respect for her.


    That's exactly how (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:37:06 PM EST
    she can avoid the evangelical stain.  See, she didn't shove the bible down the throat of Alaskans...

    heh so far that is.


    As A Woman (2.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:20:25 PM EST
    I was personally insulted and offended by the Palin pick. So were my daughters. We had all gotten very tired of the bickering during the primary season and had basically tuned out. Sarah Palin changed that.

    And I was also angry at Palin, angry at her for allowing herself to be manipulated and used by McCain, who's ruthlesss ambition to be elected Commander and Chief has warped and overridden his common sense, decency and honor.

    I'm in total agreement with Jeralyn. With each new revelation, Palin embarrasses herself and makes a joke and mockery of the election.

    this is becoming counterfactual. (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:26:13 PM EST
    All the polling suggests she's transformed his prospects and he (McCain) may not have really understood her raw political appeal either.

    I'm all for anecdotes, but I assume you're family is a biut left leaning and McCain was never an option, right?


    The McCain of 2000 (none / 0) (#210)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:27:48 PM EST
    That was the man I admired and respected even though I loved and voted for Al Gore.

    It is sad to see what blind ambition has forced McCain to do. I never would have thought that McCain would embrace Bush, not after the awful way he smeared him in the campaign.

    That McCain, yes, I could have voted for him. The McCain of 2008, never.


    A Palin Presidency is what one must be (none / 0) (#97)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:14:35 PM EST

    Given her temperament, her values, her intellect, her judgment, and given our sad sad experience over the past 8 years, would a Palin presidency be tolerable?

    Or not?

    I'm sure as hell... (none / 0) (#106)
    by sweetthings on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:21:06 PM EST
    not willing to take the chance.

    No way, no how, no Palin.


    Palin is indeed divisive (none / 0) (#145)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:47:21 PM EST
    She has divided my brain! My head agrees with BTD buy my heart agrees with Jeralyn. CURSE YOU John McCsame!

    Polarizing and mean spirited mistakes (none / 0) (#164)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:01:48 PM EST
    At least our side isn't alone in making big mistakes.  This sneaky move by Repubs will definitely backfire:

    Michigan Republicans plan to foreclose African American voters

    The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP's effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.

    Given that many foreclosures are negotiated or extended over time, owners can still legally use their home address to vote.  Will they be purged illegally?

    The best part of this story is that it gives our side a chance to reveal this:  

    GOP ties to state's largest foreclosure law firm

    The Macomb GOP's plans are another indication of how John McCain's campaign stands to benefit from the burgeoning number of foreclosures in the state. McCain's regional headquarters are housed in the office building of foreclosure specialists Trott & Trott. The firm's founder, David A. Trott, has raised between $100,000 and $250,000 for the Republican nominee.

    They're well beyond polarizing at this point.  

    Jeralyn was not one of "those people" (none / 0) (#178)
    by Mitch Guthman on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:07:47 PM EST
    As an aside, I was not referring to Jeralyn when I said that "some people" need to be remind who is running for president  on the Republican ticket.

    Horrible thought (none / 0) (#187)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:14:19 PM EST
    Say Obama wins.  Then say Ted Stevens goes to jail.  Can Palin appoint herself to the Senate?

    The Palin Bubble (none / 0) (#214)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:32:03 PM EST
    At some point, the Palin Bubble has to burst. And when it does, people will see her for the phoney she is and they will see how badly McCain played them. We just have to hope it's before the election.

    Looked-at-another-way scenario (none / 0) (#219)
    by shmerritt on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:25:26 AM EST
    If for some reason (sudden health crisis, change of mind...fill in the blank),

    McCain dropped out of the race before Election Day, and

    Sarah Palin moved to the "top of the ticket", but was now a man--"John Palin"--a virtual unknown "Hockey Dad" who was once a mayor of a small town, had not been engaged in the debate about the 2003 invasion of Iraq and current war policies or the War on Terror, served as a governor of a state for fewer than 2 years, favored undoing Roe v. Wade, cow-towed to the oil lobby, was a lifetime member of the NRA, didn't believe Darwin's theory of evolution but did advocate the teaching of Creationism in public schools as well as abstinence rather than human sexuality in biology courses, thought that the surest way to get what one wants politically is to pray, and was brought up as an evangelical member of a church whose congregation "speaks in tongues" ....

    Would you consider "him" a qualified candidate for the President of the United States?

    Would you vote for "him" for U.S. President and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces?

    And who might be "he" choose as "his" V.P. running mate on the Republican ticket? Would he choose a clone of the real Sarah Palin as "his" running mate, just in case something happened to him?

    Jeralyn's right (none / 0) (#220)
    by Bulging Bracket on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:55:18 PM EST
    The Left needs to do everything they can to force Palin from the race. If the pressure is just cranked up enough, she'll crack.

    Salon is leading the way and showing exemplary skill. Follow them to victory!

    Oh, please (none / 0) (#221)
    by libertarian soldier on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    "This will be the most important election in decades."
    Well, I think it is less important than the last one, or 2000, just to name two.
    If polarizing means "causes people to lose perspective", than Jerlyn is right.  Otherwise, not so much.