Late Night: American Storm

This is an open thread, all topics welcome, with the caveat I stated below. Please read it before commenting.

(This site will not host personal attacks against Sarah Palin, rumors of a personal nature or a discussion of her personal life or that of her children. All such comments will be deleted and repeat offenders banned.)

< Pool: What Day Will Sarah Palin Drop Out? | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A Dem dummy on CNN... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by prose on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:33:09 PM EST
    just did exactly what we can't do.  Dems need to be REALLY careful about who we send out to the cable shows to talk about Palin.  So far every man on Larry King has been called a sexist.  

    With Carville (who was called sexist earlier tonight) it was unfair.  With the guy tonight it was VERY legitimate.  I hope he doesn't come back on.  We'll see...

    Yes, it seems as though ... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:37:11 PM EST
    my fellow Democrats are engaged in their favorite sport:

    The circular firing squad.

    And Obama, who has essentially played it smart since Friday, just joined the game tonight.


    Sometimes I hate being a Democrat.


    How did Obama join? (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by prose on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:45:37 PM EST
    His answer was honest and smart.  It wasn't the most timely, but it was true.

    They struck me as ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:53:31 PM EST
    as "bittergate" redux.

    Not wise, imho.


    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by prose on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:56:47 PM EST
    I guess I can see the potential for it to seem as a slight to small towners, but as one, I can say that I think we're smarter than that.  I like my mayor, respect his work, and am astonished at times by the scope of his work load, but I would NOT want him to be the Vice President of the United States (even if he had spent a year and a half as the governor of my state of Indiana).  

    I think most people (if they even see the clip) will get what Obama is saying and understand that his leadership has indeed been proven legitimate by his campaign experience.


    I'm aware... (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:30:52 AM EST
    but she is governor of a state the size of Indiana's capitol city and it has less economic issues as it recieves a lot of money from oil revenue.  As I said in the comment you replied to, I wouldn't want my mayor running the country even if he spent a year and a half as governor of Indiana (a state much bigger and more complex in its problems than Alaska).

    Seems we had a small state Governor.... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ineedalife on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:14:03 AM EST
    from Arkansas that did pretty darn good in the White House.

    But in the primaries we heard Obots try to claim that The One is more experienced now than Clinton in 1992 because Arkansas is a little state and they don't count somehow.

    The truth is that the number of dollars and people may be different but the issues and skill sets are the same, be it a small state or big one. Americans historically elect Governors for President for a reason.

    True, your mayor may not be vice-presidential material but there are 50,000 of them. Some of them have to be good. All politicians get their start somewhere. Most state senators, and US Senators for that matter, would make horrible presidents. But that is where Obama comes from.

    Obama wears sexism on his sleeve. Disrespecting Palin by ignoring her Governorship and ridiculing her mayoral experience is a slight he wouldn't do to another man.  


    Managing money from oil revenue (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:58:11 AM EST
    is just as demanding as managing a state with no such revenue. Every state has its own issues.  I don't think comparing one to another helps our ticket.

    Well, To State the Obvious (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:01:46 AM EST

    is much bigger in land area:  571,951.26 sq miles.

    than Indiana 35,866.90 sq. miles.

    But Indiana beats Alaska in population size: 6,313,520 vs. 670,053.

    So it does depend on how you want to measure size.

    I love your framing the size of Alaska over the continental U.S. image.

    And Alaska IS less 'white' than perhaps many of us realize: 71% of total population vs. 88% in Indiana. It's interesting that MY home state of New York comes close to Alaska in ratio of 'whites'/'non whites': About 74% 'white'.

    One fringe benefit of Palin's nomination will be all of us in the lower 48 learning a lot more about Alaska.       


    sauce for the goose (none / 0) (#195)
    by wumhenry on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    Not sure how leadership can be proven legitimate by campaign experience, but if (big if) it happened for Obama, maybe it can happen for Palin, too.

    Re Carville, he did something unfair too (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:49:07 PM EST
    He held up a photo of the admin building for the mayor of Wasilla and laughed at how small it is.  Others have said it looks like a diner.  He used that to show what her "experience" was like.

     Since she is running while having been Governor of Alaska for the last 2 years, this was a cheap shot.

     Stephanie Miller's main schtick is to laugh at people.

     But I was surprised at Carville.


    Why? (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by prose on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:51:47 PM EST
    To put the realistic scope of her Mayoral experience in such a plain framing doesn't seem underhanded to me, and certainly not sexist.

    But really, while I'm typing, can we please get these radio hosts off of CNN.  The GOP'ers just stopped talking because our people were shooting themselves in the foot.


    I think (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:23:28 AM EST
    can we please get these radio hosts off of CNN

    perhaps you are under the impression these radio hosts care who wins the election. They go on TV because it ups their own stock. It's about improving their own ratings not about who wins an election.


    Remember how Carville (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:05:18 AM EST
    caused a terrible stir during the Paula Jones business?  

    "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find."

    The entire world came down on him for this.  He's a real slow learner.


    Carville's got the TONE DEAFNESS too! (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:07:25 AM EST
    No surprise there I suppose. But, WTF is with this particular brand of self-defeating ridicule.

    Carville is a good old boy and an old pro; he should know that kind of trash talk doesn't sit well with the demographic that Palin is appealing to. Does he not want Obama to win?


    Im sorry, I cant seem to find (none / 0) (#109)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:13:12 AM EST
    the comments you're referring to. I know his statement where he mentioned his mother. Was it something else?

    The commenter.. (none / 0) (#110)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:15:30 AM EST
    I think is referring to Obama's comment about the scope of his campaign operation comared to the complexity of being mayor of a small town.

    I just found it a minute ago (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:43:00 AM EST
    thanks. I wouldnt put it up there with the bitter comments. There are ways to state the truth and there are ways you shouldnt state the truth. He could've used a bit more tact on the matter. It was a point better made by someone else.

    It's the sand in the eyes thing (none / 0) (#129)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:00:54 AM EST
    Remember the old ads about the weakling on the beach?

    It can make people pull for the underdog.


    What did Obama say? (none / 0) (#139)
    by otherlisa on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:04:40 AM EST
    Jeez, I just finished praising him. Please tell me he's not gonna make me mad all over again.

    basically (none / 0) (#142)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:02:36 AM EST
    Anderson Cooper asked him about Palin's experience compared to his own, and Obama answered by saying she only managed 50 people in alaska, while his CAMPAIGN manages 2500 and his CAMPAIGN manages 12 times alaskas budget per month, or something like that. So he avoided the question and did it rather smugly. I didnt see the video so maybe it plays better on tape.

    His point was comparing his campaign vs. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:17:33 AM EST
    her experience as Mayor (not Governor of Alaska).  I also believe his point is valid as his "executive experience" running a campaign with a huge budget and large staff is widely viewed to be very successful,  I have seen descriptions of Palin's time as mayor that seem to imply that she made some disastrously bad decisions which left the town with a huge budget deficit.

    It's certainly not another bittergate imho, purely a response to a question from Anderson Cooper asking him about Republican claims about her having Executive experience (as Mayor and Governor) whereas he had none.  


    Obama's (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:40:33 AM EST
    money management is nothing to shout out. After outspending McCain 2 to 1 he did nothing but fall in the polls in July. Comparing a running a campaign to the day to day operations of town is just silly. It's the old "I'm better than you because I have more money" way of thinking.

    Or CEO of a multi billion dollar corporation (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:36:55 AM EST
    vs. the owner of a small convenience store.  The scale of the operation makes a difference, as does the success.

    Palin was almost recalled as Mayor of Wasilla,  Obama has run a smooth "no drama" campaign organisation in 50 states that has beaten an extremely impressive and well funded Hillary Clinton and is doing so "badly" against McCain that McCain felt the need to throw the Hail Mary Pass that is nominating Sarah Palin as his choice for VP.


    Um (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:48:00 AM EST
    OBAMA hasn't run anything - David Axelrod has run the campaign.  Obama himself has had a staff of about 40 in the Senate.

    And, as governor, she has actually had to take RESPONSIBILITY for things.


    The buck stops at the top. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:53:29 AM EST
    By that token it doesn't matter who is CEO of a company, or who is President of the US.  Hell, don't blame Bush for any of the problems in the last 8 years, blame his Chief of Staff and his Cabinet . . . its their fault.

    Horse manure,  the buck stops at the top,  if the campaign/organisation/presidency was successful then the person at the top gets much of the credit,  equally in a failure they should shoulder their fair share of the blame.


    That's funny! (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by JAB on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:08:58 AM EST
    Since Obama hasn't been comfortable to this date taking responsibility for those same things. It's why the acronym "WORM" came to be - "What Obama Really Meant".

    If you argue that as the candidate, he's responsible for the management of the campaign and all the people working for it, and all the money (so that's his "experience"), then he has to be responsible for all the bad stuff too.

    Running for office for half your career does not count as "experience" for anything more than just running for office.


    Running For Office Not Experience for Anything (none / 0) (#204)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:18:37 AM EST
    until you're elected president.

    then it means your campaign demonstrated something that earned you the highest elected office in the land. (Unless, like W, it's first handed to you by the SC.)


    Continue (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:51:58 AM EST
    to help the GOP with the elitist meme. That's exactly what you are doing. Whatever.

    Actually, we should elect Axelrod for (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:11:37 AM EST
    his management of the campaign - Pouflee could be VP.

    Also, the 'drama' of Wright (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:30:52 AM EST
    caused that campaign organization to fail in the 2nd half though saved by the first half of the primary season.  

    Spending 3 times the money did not help that tremendous descent (600,000 votes below Clinton in the 2nd half), so the meme that the campaign in general was THAT effective applies only to the first half - which did affect the final result due to manipulated rules.

      McCain was in a tie with him, a real one, just at the start of the Dem convention, and there were 11-15 Undecided and Obama doesn't do well with Undecideds.

      So, no, there is concern by BOTH camps, for good reason.  I wouldn't bet money on either side at this point, even with Palin's problems.  The truth is that from March to June Obama did not 'beat' the opponent as you put it.  There are chinks in that campaign but he was doing a lot better when people knew less about him.  Some like to think it is 'only because of race' (Jacob Weisberg in Slate mag) but it's clearly not.  It's his choices that will be a problem for him.  But Axelrod does very well for Obama, yes.  And I like Obama's calmness, though not the smugness I saw today re the campaign vs Mayor nonsense yesterday.


    I can see why he'd compare his to a mayor's (none / 0) (#203)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:17:32 AM EST
    It would be tougher to compare his to the Governor of Alaska.  Carville played the same trick.  They try to stick people with the image that she is jumping to VP slot from being a mayor in a 'hick' town (vs managing Alaska).

    No.  Obama needs DTD as a key advisor.  

      Management of a campaign focused on one goal and toward one goal only (his nomination) is not similar to the tremendous complexities of managing the multi-focused and all self-concerned giant-units that comprise the government.


    Obama really wants to go there?? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:47:06 AM EST
    Obama has managed a team of Democrats to win the Democrats nomination while having the support of the Dem leadership throughout the primary, RBC, etc.

    Palin defeated a Repub governor, rooted out Repub corruption, took down a Repub good old boy system...
    Again I ask - when has Obama ever stood up to the Democratic leadership?

    Repubs say Obama's "experience" is basically running for president since he entered the Senate.
    And now, Obama agrees with them.


    How many McCain talking points (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:46:52 AM EST
    can you get in one comment?

    Rooted out Repub Corruption

    So much so that she was a Director of Ted Stevens 527 organisation called (if you can believe it) "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc."

    She also had the endorsement of Ted Stevens and Don Young in her run for Governor.  

    She also endorsed the Bridge to Nowhere until it became a national laughing stock,  she was very much for it during her Gubernatorial campaign.  Now that she is on the national stage her position has conveniently changed . . . mavericky!

    Now that's what I call rooting out Republican Corruption!  She really showed them.


    Palin defeated a Repub governor

    She beat the incredibly unpopular Murkowski in the Republican Primary by running at him from the right.

    I'm not sure what your point is?



    the corruption involved the oil companies (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:06:55 AM EST
    Palin slashed their percentage profit and now the people are getting more of their fair share of royalties.

    I know she increased the tax rate (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:35:04 AM EST
    taken by the Alaskan government from Oil Companies (which the oil companies were clearly not happy with).

    I'm not sure that this specifically counts as rooting out corruption though?  It's also directly contrary to the GOP Campaign Policy of opposing tax rises or removing tax loopholes from Oil Companies.


    yes, Palin is refreshing - not the typical GOP (none / 0) (#183)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:46:45 AM EST
    In what strange world... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:08:19 AM EST
    is a pro-oil drilling, pro-war, social conservative refreshing?

    are you talking about Obama? (2.00 / 0) (#192)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:11:32 AM EST
    who supports drilling in ANWR.
    who voted for 2 years to fund a war he "opposed."
    who invited gay-basher McClurkin to perform at a rally.

    He supports drilling in ANWAR (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:06:18 AM EST
    I've not seen that.  I'm willing to be surprised though.  

    Obama worked on legislation to scale down troop levels.  Hillary also voted for that funding.  You can quibble with it as you would like, but that is what all the Dems did after the war got started.  But Obama was clearly on the right side of the issue.

    And I'm not familiar with the McClurkin incident, but I know that Obama supports civil unions.  

    If you are offended by the centrist nature of some of Obama's politics, you certainly should not be "refreshed" by the hard right Palin.


    really?? (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:15:13 AM EST
    >>>>But Obama was clearly on the right side of the issue.

    While Obama was running for the Senate in 2003, he railed against Congress funding the war. But a few months after he won the election, he was on the floor of the Senate - voting to fund the war.
    Then he flip flopped again - and began "opposing" the war when he became a presidential candidate.
    Bill Clinton was correct - Obama is a fairy tale on the war.

    In June 2006, Obama voted against Kerry's bill to begin redeploying troops in Iraq a year later.

    Obama lost gays after the McClurkin incident, but they may have returned to his camp now.

    Most of us KNEW Obama was a Centrist. It's his followers who are surprised - having continually derided Hillary for being a Centrist.


    oops! it's the NPR-A, not ANWR (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:22:42 AM EST
    First Read, Aug. 29 --
    Palin praised Obama's energy plan on Aug. 8 --

    "I am pleased to see Senator Obama acknowledge the huge potential Alaska's natural gas reserves represent in terms of clean energy and sound jobs," Governor Palin said. "The steps taken by the Alaska State Legislature this past week demonstrate that we are ready, willing and able to supply the energy our nation needs."

    In a speech given in Lansing, Michigan, Senator Obama called for the completion of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, stating, "Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska natural gas pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process."

    Governor Palin also acknowledged the Senator's proposal to offer $1,000 rebates to those struggling with the high cost of energy.


    Drilling in ANWR? (5.00 / 0) (#208)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:33:30 AM EST
    I don't think so. Maybe you're thinking of his reconsidering offshore drilling? Otherwise, have you got a link for ANWR, because I haven't been able to find anything that suggests he's changed his mind on that.

    In fact, the buzz is that McCain, who has also opposed ANWR drilling may be about to get on board with his VP nominee Palin's position.

    Here's a pro ANWR site assessment of the presidential contenders earlier this year:



    She's flexible and cuts her losses (none / 0) (#205)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:19:20 AM EST
    Quite similar to Obama there! though he actually promises and then explains why it's better for us the other way.

    Once again, HE is not running (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:11:31 AM EST
    against Sarah Palin. HE keeps making the same mistake. This is about Obama v McCain and Obama and his minions keep making it about Obama v Palin. I so agree with BTD on this one. Every time Obama is compared or he compares himself to Palin, it gives his minions more fodder to say the things they are saying on air and on blogs. It takes McCain out of the picture. Doesn't anyone else see this?

    It's the GOP who are making the comparisons (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:48:26 AM EST
    to try to defend their fundamentally unserious pick for VP.  

    That has been one of BTD's (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:00:05 AM EST
    points. The dems fell into McCain's trap and they are still in there! During the primaries, weren't we all saying that Obama isn't stopping his minions from vicious attacks to Hillary? Well, Obama still isn't trying to stop these attacks. Why, because he thinks it's a winner. It's not. It only shows how he cannot resist making comparisons (he should be above that), and how he cannot control the spin in the blogs. His people are on these sites all time, along with McCain's.
    Obama is running against McCain, not Palin. His comments yesterday, altho' correct, still hasn't stopped the mania that is going on here and other places.

    I think you (and BTD) are largely correct (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:09:45 AM EST
    that Obama should steer clear of Palin completely,  and certainly not make any experience arguments against her.  Having said that,  he can't stop the media questioning the McCain campaign on their hypocrisy re: experience i.e. they pivot from calling Obama/Biden Notready08.com and "Dangerously unprepared",  to days later selecting Palin as VP. Nothing Obama or his campaign does will stop the media querying this contradiction and asking the questions of them,  and then you get the hit at Obama about him and Biden having "less executive experience".

    Granted . . . when confronted with the GOP attack by media Obama could have still made the similar point solely focussing on his management of his campaign and left the reference to Palin, and the size of her town's government out.  That might have been more sensible,  and I'm sure people would have been able to draw their own conclusions.

    It seems clear to me that there is a high probability of the Palin pick for VP continuing to implode under it's own momentum as the media keep digging so BTD is probably right that Obama should focus on his own game and on hitting McCain,  and leave Palin to it.


    All along, the GOP/McCain has been (none / 0) (#175)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:18:35 AM EST
    driving the direction of the conversation. Look at what this pick did on Friday to wipe-out any momentum of Obama's big speech. McCain's been doing this for 2 months and the dems follow-suit each time. If you are running for POTUS you want to be on the offensive. Have you heard McCain much defending his pick? I haven't. All I hear is the media and the blogs railing against his pick. He has set the agenda yet again, and the dems fall in line behind him. That is not good for Obama.

    I hear you, but I'm not sure (none / 0) (#177)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:23:30 AM EST
    that the media railing against his pick is quite what McCain was going for with it.  He was trying to seize some mavericky high ground

    Of course there is the possibility of the media crossing the line (a la vs. Hillary in the run up to New Hampshire),  but if the media coverage is seen as largely fair and based on the merits,  then it is definitely a negative for McCain.


    Joe, McCain absolutely knew (none / 0) (#184)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:58:27 AM EST
    this his pick would be controversial. He knew just how the dems would react. He knew what the right would think of this pick. Just like Obama knows what's going on in the blogs and media. Both campaigns, I suppose, is polling. Obama knew he'd take some flak on Biden and Obama had ads prepared in case McCain picked Romney or Pawlenty. They were totally unprepared at the announcement and didn't handle it very well. John McCain knew that as well. BTD's wisdom, tho' I don't always agree with him, is sound on this. Pay attention to him when he gets back.

    His "minions" (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:20:13 AM EST
    Yes because Obama clearly controls every poster on Dailykos and MyDD.  The complaints a few weeks ago from some Dem. Bloggers was that Obama didn't have the same Blogger outreach (with spammed talking points) that was on the other side of the aisle.  It's totally hypocritical of the McCain camp to try to tar Obama with what some Liberal Bloggers have chosen to report,  when there is no way they would accept the same parallels being made to McCain being responsible to every nutty statement on Redstate, Hotair, or Little Green Footballs.

    Obama made a clear and eloquent denunciation of anyone bringing Palin's children into the arena and I think he was spot on there.  He is right that this is unacceptable.  I don't think he can similarly say that comparisons on experience and readiness to take office are similarly out of bounds,  as they clearly aren't.

    What would potentially be smart (imho),  is for him to weave into his stump speech a very short section on Palin (or maybe Biden should do it), welcoming her onto the campaign trail, say a couple of nice things,  and mention that he has heard some "commentators" on tv questioning whether she could "handle being VP" with her family situation (I won't go into detail due to Jeralyn's policy),  he should then say something along the lines of that he is outraged by the question,  it wouldnt be asked of a man in the same situation and that it's an insult to hard working women everywhere.  i.e. that many American families have the man as the primary caregiver . . . and that Palin and McCain should be judged on their merits. Leave it at that.  

    I think that would be the smart thing to do.


    Obama would never say anything (none / 0) (#179)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:25:40 AM EST
    like that because then it becomes why didn't he "defend" any of the outs on Hillary. What's going on here and other places is sexist, the very thing that we all yelled about. If Sarah were a man, his very being wouldn't be questioned.  Obama could say that this election is not about Sarah Palin. This election is about the american people and their american dreams. He won't ever say that as well.

    just got a call about that one tonight (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:46:10 PM EST
    from my mother. She donates from 20K to 100K a year to dems. No kidding. She said she'll never donate or vote for another democrat for the rest of her life based on what she heard tonight. I'm feeling about the same.

    She changed her mind... (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by prose on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:48:51 PM EST
    based on the comment of one shock jock blowhard?

    It's probably more a last-straw thing (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:50:30 PM EST
    since the treatment of Clinton, which was vile, but that's understating it.

    Well, if that story is true (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by prose on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:53:12 PM EST
    it's her money, but that's a big monetary decision to make based on the attention-grabbing comment of a shock jock radio Dem.  Meanwhile, the party that really makes progress for women in our country will suffer.  It's just unfortunate.

    she'll continue to help (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:56:39 PM EST
    with women's rights however she can. Just not when it's tied to the party in any way. It's a shame that someone who went to both Clinton inaugural events and numerous fund raising events, has been so turned off. Maybe she'll cool off. But knowing her, I don't think so.

    I love your mom! (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:11:25 AM EST
    I love my mom too.  She's not as wealthy and connected, but she works more on a "grass roots" level.  She's put up with a whole lotta cr@p in her life and she's one of those people who won't get caught up in gossip and rumors.  She'll just wait until someone has something substantial to say before she pays attention to it.

    At this rate, she can tune out until October.


    Heh. (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:19:48 AM EST
    My mom is hopping mad livid over the RBC thing, still. She's been a Party stalwart for thirty-five years.  Planning to work on downticket races this year, but I doubt she'll vote for anyone at the top of the ticket.

    You're not listening (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:38:42 AM EST
    It was, apparently, the last straw in a long line of straws.  Or as Groucho used to say, "the straw the camel stepped on and broke."  Heh.

    nope, it's been building for a while (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:52:28 PM EST
    starting with the treatment of Hillary. Now that vile behavior has continued, showing it's about women, not just Hillary. For some reason, she doesn't want to help a party that swims in the sewer.

    I would (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:42:38 AM EST
    bet that it's not that particular guy just the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.

    Prior thread: Popular Vote Totals (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:46:44 PM EST
    LINK; Real Clear Politics:

        Popular Vote Total:          
        *Hillary Clinton: 17,869,542 =  48.2%  
        *Barack Obama: 17,535,458 =  48.1%    

    Insofar as possible, I want to honor Hillary and her supporters with every single vote cast for her. (To be clear, one can remain loyal to Hillary without supporting McCain or Palin.)


    Sheesh! Popular vote? Again? Really? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:20:46 AM EST
    This is the death-rattle of an argument that is long-since settled, and was totally beside the point, even way back when we were all absorbed in it.

    Still, if we must: Recheck the RCP table, please. The two vote totals you cited, 17,869,542 and 17,535,458, are both Obama totals (under different scenarios of which states' votes should count).


    Don, you're right: Correction of Pop Vote Count (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:51:48 AM EST
    The numbers got scrambled when I cut and pasted them. I wondered why you didn't correct them for me. When the error is corrected to reflect a more inclusive outcome, Hillary gets even more votes.

    She actually exceeded 18 million votes. I didn't realize that, although Hillary has never been able to get away with exaggeration. Real Clear Politics:

    Popular Vote Totals
    Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA                

    *Hillary Clinton: 18,046,007 = 47.9%   
    *Barack Obama: 17,869,542 = 47.4%



    These numbers include Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:13:57 AM EST
    which is as it should be, since Michigan and Florida were given "full voting privileges" - penalties revoked - last week.  And so the state-certified votes are countable.

      As for Obama not being on the ballot, that was by his choice for strategic reasons, described by the Iowa Independent.  As people then knew and we have seen, any penalties were always revokable down the road via appeals to RBC, to Credentials Committee and one more at Convention time.

      It was no different from ClintonsTeam's stupidly (thanks, Mark Penn) not engaging more fully in the caucus states.  They/Hillary had to take the downside of not participating fully; they lost the nomination.

      No excuses either way.  And it doesn't matter that the caucus distribution processes were so ludicrous or that the caucus-3% of the total votes translated to 14% of the delegates.  That's how it's structured.  But the actual popular vote, along with RCP best-estimates of 4 caucus states not providing vote totals, is meaningful because it represents so well the divided party and even why it remains too divided today.


    meaningless (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:23:37 AM EST
    since Michigan and Florida were given "full voting privileges" - penalties revoked - last week.  And so the state-certified votes are countable.

    The votes and delegates weren't counted when it actually mattered.


    True (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:57:09 AM EST
    But that was always the intent...

    No, no, no... (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:29:36 AM EST
    The popular vote results from Michigan were expressly NOT used when the RBC decided on its controversial "compromise" allocation of the Michigan delegation, the one Lanny Davis and so many people here got so exercised about.

    Even though the Michigan delegation was ultimately seated with its full voting strength, its delegate allocation was still based on the jerry-rigged RBC compromise. The point is, the DNC (correctly imo) never accepted the results of the flawed Michigan primary as binding.

    Of course, there are all sorts of reasons why the whole exercise of counting total popular vote is like adding up apples and oatmeal -- meaningless. Here are just a couple: Some states have "open" primaries; while others are limited to registered party members. Caucuses, compared to primaries require a much greater time commitment on the part of voters, so voter turnout in caucus states is always going to be relatively low.

    The only reason anyone bothered to tabulate the total popular vote was to provide an argument to persuade the superdelegates which way to come down. Well, the superdelegates have long since decided, so the issue is purely academic at this point.


    No, the DNC does not determine state votes (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:04:23 AM EST
    or, more accurately, State-certified votes.  The DNC can go by their jury-rigged delegate count, sure - that's their job by their idiotically-calculated distributions for those, but that does not change the votes that were made by individual humans during this primary season.  I mentioned that the caucuses which would not report individual votes had estimates done by RCP.

      If it were so meaningless, you wouldn't be so intense about how meaningless it is.  Yes, most of us who are sentient beings know how unrepresentative the caucuses are as shown in the HUGE variance between the much-larger primaries not counted in states like Washington, where the results were compared and even when comparing Texas primaries vs caucus there.  Believe it or not, we all knew the votes were not counted during the time of the penalties.

      Obama supporters 'bothered' to count the popular vote because it was an important talking-point that SDs could not "go against the will of the people" and that vote count was mentioned after each primary as insurmountable - Obama had that.

      Its importance now is that it represents the deep division that will stay deep as long as it is minimized (and as long as the processes which decided the distributions and which states would get penalties for the same offense are remembered), especially what is felt on voting day '08.

      Any time we are reminded how much it didn't matter, we are moved to vote at the ballot box to bring in a DNC that gets rid of the non-representational idiocy of the caucuses and the way they are run.  The current one is happy with it.

      So this is the one of the four I am allowed daily for such thoughts, which I would not have had if you'd not written this note thinking I didn't know of the things you mentioned.  I will still vote the lower Dem ticket but I may find a divided government better until we get the party back and rid it of the corruption I saw with the RBC and all that went with it.  I'm not at all alone in this.


    Last night on CNN (none / 0) (#163)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:43:11 AM EST
    David Gergen said, about Sarah Palin:  "Well, she's perky."

    We should all heed (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:33:57 PM EST
    Bob Herbert's warning:

    The Democrats need to be careful about the intensity of their criticism of Sarah Palin.

    She may look like an easy target, an appalling lightweight who will send serious voters scurrying to the more substantive Obama-Biden ticket.

    [. . .]

    But the Democrats should not push this stuff too far. Ms. Palin is a lot more appealing personally than the often testy guy at the top of her ticket. And the inescapable reality is that there are millions of voters who identify with her, and may be quick to resent attacks that they perceive as bullying or overkill.

    To their credit, Senators Obama and Biden seem unwilling to jump aboard the bash-Ms.-Palin bandwagon. Both have been exceedingly mild in their comments about the Alaska governor.

    Last week's Democratic convention dramatically illustrated the most effective approach available to the party. The convention built in intensity night by night with featured speakers who focused powerfully on substantive matters.

    Bill Clinton may be wildly unpredictable, but last Wednesday he was magnificent, laying out the challenges that will face the next administration.

    Other the unnecessary ... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:41:23 PM EST
    "wildly unpredictable" line about Bill Clinton.

    I bascially agree with Herbert.

    But I don't think people are attacking her so viciously because she is an easy target.  They're attacking her because they know how formidable she could become.


    You think most Democrats are that smart? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:43:25 PM EST
    I don't.

    I think it's ... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:51:32 PM EST
    an intuitive thing.

    Really. Bob Herbert is a total hypocrite (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:51:11 PM EST
    He's afraid people will go after Palin, but he has no problem going after Bill Clinton. Again.

    I couldn't be more sick and tired of the blathering fools in the MSM -- especially those who claim the title, "New York Times Columnist!"


    He has an important and correct point (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:53:44 PM EST
    that we should heed.

    If you want to get caught up in a red herring, be my guest.


    News flash! (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:00:51 AM EST
    Not only do I get the broader point, most of us here at TL have been making that exact same point for the last four days.

    Bob Herbert is still a hypocrite with CDS and I don't take my cues from media blowhards like him.


    Krugman says: "John Don't Go" (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:21:44 AM EST
    As always, Krugman rules the day in this column about Gustav, the GOP and the decline of govenrment agencies:

    FEMA's degradation, from one of the government's most admired agencies to a laughingstock...was the result of the G.O.P.'s underlying philosophy. Simply put, when the government is run by a political party committed to the belief that government is always the problem, never the solution, that belief tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Key priorities are neglected; key functions are privatized; and key people, the competent public servants who make government work, either leave or are driven out...

    What we really need is a government that works, because it's run by people who understand that sometimes government is the solution.

    IMO, those two paragraphs are a succinct summary of what has always distinguished the GOP from the Dems. I want to hear a LOT more of this kind of talk from Obama on the campaign trail.


    As a dem and one who lives in (none / 0) (#158)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:19:09 AM EST
    Tx and was almost directly affected by Gustav, does Mr. Krugman, who I sometimes agree with, think that FEMA should wait to act on any current emergency until Dems are elected to office? A better note might have been with all that was done with Gustav and now Florida is being threatened yet again by Hannah by Friday (?) and possibly Ike, will FEMA be able to handle these emergencies so close together. Saying dems can do these things better is ridiculous. All he has to do is see Dems elected 2006, and what they've accomplished in 2 years. Not much!

    Well! (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:42:27 AM EST
    Let's welcome Mr. Herbert back aboard the reality-based community, even if, as is likely, it's only for a day.

    Still, good for him.


    Gotta say (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by otherlisa on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:03:11 AM EST
    For all my criticisms of Obama, and a dislike that at times feels personal to me, I really like what he said today about attacks on Palin's family. It was succinct, strong and had the ring of sincerity.

    If he talked like this more often, I might even start liking him.


    per Politico article, Obama also said... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:20:31 AM EST
    On charges that his campaign has stoked the story via liberal blogs:

    "I am offended by that statement. There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us," he said. "Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And if I thought there was somebody in my campaign who was involved in something like that, they would be fired."


    Humph! (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by ineedalife on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:25:00 AM EST
    He also said the same faux-outrage, blanket denials about NAFTA-gate. Until the evidence surfaced.

    And then... (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:07:24 AM EST
    said evidence was debunked.  

    Ed Shultz has been a terrible thing (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:44:19 PM EST
    to this party for a long time.   He's a sexist buffoon.

    He's a lot worse than that (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:53:48 PM EST
    After the things he said about Hillary during the primaries he's already made his bed of sh!t.

    Remember facing adveristy, attacks and scandal ... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:50:28 PM EST
    can be the making of a national political figure.

    The "Checker's Speech" (a reaction to a "scandal") foisted Nixon onto the national scene for more than two decades.

    The series of "scandals" Bill Clinton faced in the 1992 primaries showed him facing adversity and coming out the other end.  I'm not sure he would have gotten the nomination without them.

    We need to be careful not to give Palin such a moment.

    I would just caution the Dem Bloviators (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:52:13 PM EST
    to remember the lesson of New Hampshire.

    Maybe that should be a rallying ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:57:01 PM EST
    cry to the bloviators.

    A la "remember the Maine."


    The brilliance of McCain's choice (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by themomcat on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:51:15 PM EST
    is that if Palin were a man with the same resume she would never have even been on the list. Truthfully, I think that the McCain campaign is going to use whatever they can to win. They are going to take every negative talking point used by anyone about Palin and Hilary Clinton and use it to their advantage with women voters, especially, those women voters who believe in religion and guns that were disenfranchised by Obama. They are going to take the misogyny of the DNC and use it against Obama.
    I guarantee you Republicans will take this Troopergate issue and turn it around to family values and protecting children from abuse.

    False (2.00 / 1) (#182)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:46:35 AM EST
    Obama's resume is thinner than Palin's and he's at the top of the Dem ticket.  So a man with Palin's resume would have less problem being considered as VP candidate.  The glass ceiling is always higher.

    Obama's resume... (3.00 / 4) (#187)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:09:31 AM EST
    is absolutely NOT thinner than Palin's.  Since when is GOP trolling OK here?

    Read my old comments (none / 0) (#190)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:01:06 AM EST
    Lifelong Dem.  Not a Rethug.  Not a troll.  But nice of you to refute the argument with a baseless smear.

    That line... (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:08:55 AM EST
    about Palin's resume vs. Obama's is a GOP talking point pure and simple.  It is comletely removed from the truth.  You may not be a troll, but that was a trolling comment.  

    We are a spineless party.... (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Key on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:11:38 AM EST

    Rather than delete this entire post, please edit any content you find violates your rules.  I don't think anything does, but just in case, could you please try to be a little less harsh and authoritarian? Okay, here goes:

    You know, I am tired of Dems being weak in the knees on just about EVERYTHING.

    Let's face it, there are a number of big issues surrounding Palin now.  And because one issue happens to touch on personal matters (not mentioning specifics), all of a sudden Dems need to treat her with kid gloves.  And it's not just kid gloves on that one issue - believe me.

    If we criticize her on the Troopergate issue - whoops.  That has a personal tie to it, so it's off limits (or soon will be).

    If we criticize her on the bridge to nowhere - believe me - the right (and the media) will play the "personal attack" card and distort it to make it look like it is a personal attack.

    Her support of the AIP?  Darn.  That's what she did years ago, before she was governor.  Must be personal.  Off limits.

    Let's face reality folks - John McCain's excuse for everything is POW, POW, POW.

    And Palin's excuse will be - that's a personal attack, personal attack, personal attack....

    But all politics is personal ultimately, isn't it?

    I mean - how Palin lives her life, the things she believes and stands for - the things she wants taught to all of our children in public schools, like creationism and abstinence only education (Jeralyn, this IS her position as a public official, can I at least mention it in this context?)... these are all aspects of this public person running for a very public office.

    They must be scrutinized.  Palin made the decision to pursue a life that, by it's very nature, is very very public.


    But as a person running for V.P. there are valid questions which must be asked.  At times they will touch upon personal matters.

    Should the death of Biden's wife and daughter not be discussed?  Should Palin's son who is headed to Iraq not be discussed?  These are personal matters which the candidates themselves have brought forward to the public's attention.

    At what point should the line be drawn?  Are we to allow candidates to bring in aspects of their personal life which make them look good, but at the same time allow them to cover up or hide issues which may make them look bad?

    On another note, a standard question asked of candidates during debates has to do with what they would do in the case of rape or incest regarding abortions.

    Is this topic now verboten?  I can hear the cry from the right...  Personal attack, personal attack, personal attack....

    Can McCain never be asked about the end of his first marriage?  Even his 7 houses is a personal matter.  How dare ask about these things.  After all, he was a POW, POW, POW....

    I don't have the ability to edit comments (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:23:48 AM EST
    Scoop doesn't allow it. I can only delete. So keep a copy of your comments on your computer when you post in case they get deleted. It's not my intent to make people spend time writing a comment and then lose it. But I have no other option when I see a comment that violates policy.

    I've bee very clear (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:25:16 AM EST
    Her family and children personal attacks are off limits. Her record, lack thereof, position on issues and actions while in government service are fine to address.

    Who was it ... ? (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by eustiscg on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:18:10 AM EST
    ... who wondered aloud if Mark Penn would come out for Obama the way Wolfson did?

    Well, take a look on the NYTimes' "Campaign Stops" blog.  The piece is mixed in tone, but firm on message.  Here's the finale:

    "And so the buses have left Denver with Mr. Obama and the Clintons on the same page, with the party enthusiastically supporting its nominees, and all united behind a largely centrist agenda that goes to the everyday concerns of most Americans angry with the Bush administration. For McCain, this was one tough convention to follow."

    From Mark Penn?  I'll take it.

    Why do all these things (none / 0) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:56:52 AM EST
    read like they were written by experienced advertising copywriters?

    Because they were? ;-) (none / 0) (#101)
    by themomcat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:59:58 AM EST
    Yeah. (none / 0) (#106)
    by eustiscg on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:07:36 AM EST
    Although I've never gotten the sense Penn was a particularly gifted writer.  This may just be his unfiltered stab at accentuating the positive.

    The danger of the experience argument (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:48:45 AM EST
    By emphasizing Palin's experience deficit (as if voters weren't going to notice) we run the risk of undermining future challenges to enternched incumbents.  Wasn't experience an argument against Ned Lamont?  Isn't it an argument against Darcy Burner?  How about Al Franken?  Experience matters except when it doesn't.  That isn't a principled position.  Issues, issues, issues.

    Good point (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by themomcat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:54:32 AM EST
    and should be well taken. Her positions on issues are what should matter. And not just abortion but Social Security, UHC, foreign policy and upholding the Constitution which has been under assault for the last 7 1/2 years.

    My advice to pols (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Manuel on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:23:25 AM EST
    If you can't argue issues, argue experience.  If you can't argue experience, argue character.  For once, the issues are lined up for progressive change.  We need focus!  Why would one want to be diverted from a winning argument?

    Apparently it only matters if (none / 0) (#159)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:24:27 AM EST
    it's a republican candidate. All dem candidates, mostly liberal, can apparently be and have accomplishments willy nilly and we will accept them. I understand Sally Quinn has a piece coming out today railing against Sarah Palin as tokenism and not a Hillary. Again, I guess only a liberal dem can break the glass ceiling and no one else from any other point of view is allowed! We better think about what we're doing and save ourselves before this "sexist bashing" gets any worse! Woman are being treated like "chattel" once again! Is that what you all want because that's what I see.

    There are... (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:11:06 AM EST
    a few people making sexist remarks in the MSM, but I just heard Anderson absolutely go to bat for Palin on the sexist front last night.

    You see what you want to see.


    Jeralyn: the other 18 million (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by andrys on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:56:13 AM EST
    The Palin-poll thread is closed and I wasn't able to reply to Jeralyn there, but this is Open so I will here.

    Upstar Crow had said:

    "Rev. Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Odinga, voting 'present ... we gave Obama a free pass on all of these.

    The stuff on Palin -- again, a VP candidate -- is not nearly as damaging as Obama's stuff.

    Don't you think the right is going to give SP a free pass -- just like we gave Obama a free pass?

    Jeralyn replied:

    18 million voters considered that info and selected him anyway.

    Actually, that problem with past associations became known to voters only after the long string of caucus win, and the effects from Wright, Rezko, etc actually seemed to have caused him to lose the last 9 of 15 contests by 600,000 votes (since March anyway).  He lost the last 4 of 6 contests, by 400,000 votes - and that included some extraordinarilyy huge margins after he'd been dubbed the nominee by TIME and by Russert.  

      His campaign was outspending Clinton by 3-1 after March 1 and he was losing in most of those places, and people in the earlier states were saying they'd not have voted that way now.

      So, no, in the first half of the campaign they didn't get to consider that info before voting.

      It's a reason he still doesn't get over 50%, and the Ayers thing has become a problem with stern ObamaTeam notes to FoxNews to not air the Ayers ad and with the University of Illinois, Chicago first agreeing to release Annenberg Challenge papers for browsing and then suddenly deciding to close access to them before a hue and cry.  UIC later relented, so a group of reporters have been browsing the papers.  

      They're of interest because Ayers was supposedly only 'a guy who lived in the same neighborhood' and served on a board with him, in a remote kind of way, but the Ayers family ran the $50M Annenberg Challenge fund that Obama became the Chairman of the Board for, so there is interest in those papers and it's become a subject of press write-ups as in Wall Street Journal this week.  We'll see more of this in the GE of course.  There is nothing remotely illegal in any of it but it's Obama's denials in the ABC debate about knowing Ayers to the point of conversations  that drew interest to these.  

      For the mainstream crowd, what won't go over well is a Yr2001 picture of Ayers stomping on the flag.  Our elections have (and this isn't new) become more focused on symbols than actual issues, and this won't be different.  We had been talking about vetting in another thread.

      As for Obama's debates indicating whatever that might, he refused to do any more debates after the ABC one, which had some silly questions but also the question about Ayers, who did hold his very first fundraiser at his home.  He also said re Town Hall debates with McCain, "Anytime anywhere!" and then refused any before the convention.  Since McCain is such a weak talker, this was strange and didn't inspire confidence.  But we'll have some townhall mtgs to look forward to now, though they seem to be set up more as a question one/question another format rather than a discussion.  The interest in Biden/Palin (if she's still running by then) will be the one of most interest though, likely.


    Good Point (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Saul on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:51:18 AM EST
    I have said the same.  If we knew in December of 07 of the negatives of Obama  which is all those you stated the Dem nomination would have been over in Hilary's favor after super Tuesday.

    Obama hoodwinked and bamboozled a lot of voters who if they had to do it over again would not have voted for him in the primary.


    You seem to be intent on refighting the Primary (4.00 / 3) (#145)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:26:07 AM EST
    I'm not sure if you noticed, but it's over?

    Re. Palin drop out.... (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Oje on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:43:42 AM EST
    Not seeing the impending end of Palin at this point...

    Troopergate does not violate today's conservatives' ideas about "good" government.... [unmentionables].... our kids rarely reflect the values we have until after they make mistakes, then they seem to start to hear what we were saying all along... media == motivation of conservative base... the Palins seems to think and act as if private and public life are two completely separate forms of existence that do not have any impact on each other, 5 children and a governorship does not create any kind of feedback interference, so it is hard to see a sudden "need to spend more time with my family" creeping into their world (it is an interesting solution to the post-1970s feminist critique of conservative family patriarchy, which is to say, do not underestimate the modernism of this Alaskan outback family)...

    I think back to the good digby (pre-February), when she noted that the Republicans might just nominate McCain in order to rebuke the moderates in their party after a failed election (utterly stacked against them until the Democrats nominated Obama). If Palin steps aside, the intolerance of the left and the media will remain a casus belli for the conservatives regardless of who the replacement is. Win-win for McCain, and Palin is just a second black eye to the face of female politicians in the 2008 election (thinking of that disturbing image of Hillary Clinton on a recent magazine cover).

    Or, what Anglachel said...

    The single most disturbing comment (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:08:53 AM EST
    I have read about her so far is that because her newborn has Down's syndrome, it is fair to ask whether his special needs will interfere with her responsibilities as VP.  WTF?  The ignorance and normative value judgments behind such a statement are completely galling.  And this type of thing has been widely encouraged among our partisan typists.  
    I just received an email from Salon.com referring to Palin's family.  Great.  
    It isn't such a stretch for the public to connect Dem talking heads with Dem leaders.  Do you think people won't?  How easy is it now to see us as inviting personal counterattacks?  Who will be seen as having opened the door to the politics of personal destruction (not St. McCain...)?  We're creating space for Republicans to make personal and racial attacks on Obama as far as I can tell, with the excuse that it's all personal now.  It is really disgusting.  

    Brooks (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:24:47 AM EST
    writes a column this morning that is basically a fluff piece on Palin.  It contains a lot of unfounded assertions, but it is much more coherent than a lot of the rabid criticism I have read of Palin from the Left.  So who will win the day on the Palin issue?

    In other non-Palin news... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:42:28 AM EST
    Obama gave a speech yesterday in Milwaukee.  It of course was barely covered, but some of it is here:


    IMHO, it was pretty good, and best of all, non-Palin related!

    Non-Palin related...YEAH! (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:53:41 AM EST
    ..I have Palin fatique. Talking about her seems to bring out some bad things in our Dem community. Let's move on. Plenty to talk about without obsessing over this VP candidate.

    Accordingly to Jay Newton Small it was (none / 0) (#180)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:27:20 AM EST
    also short.  Apparently there is some kind of correlation between the length of Obama's speeches and how good they are.  i.e when tired he can ramble on for ages and become a bit meandering.

    Maybe his campaign can work on tightening up the stump speech and keeping them shorter!


    Fortunately... (none / 0) (#8)
    by prose on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:41:41 PM EST
    I don't think Ed is an official spokesperson.  Ultimately, I don't think that the GOP will play their hand well, but I hope that Dems will take it easy.  

    McCain seems to be proving that if we give him enough space, he'll trip himself.  That seems like a good strategy (and the one Obama is taking).  

    Staying aggressive with Palin is good but we have to do it really carefully.

    Ed Schultz. Oy. (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:19:24 AM EST
    No Al Franken show.
    The lefty talk shows down the toilet.
    The O-blogs swimming in the sewers.

    I don't think the media has a liberal bias.  I think the media has a tabloid bias - both the New Media and the Old Media.


    Of course it matters.... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Key on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:59:21 AM EST
    "it does not matter if Ed Schultz is an official spokesperson"

    Why does it not matter?  Do you think McCain cares what any of the conservative talk show hosts say about dems?  The lies, the smears?

    So why should it matter what Ed says?  He has no connection with the Obama campaign.

    Are we really so spineless?  We don't need to worry that Ed's comments will hurt Obama.  They won't.

    You know, too many people have told me in the past that their biggest problem voting for a Dem is that we look weak.  If we can't stand up for ourselves, or show some teeth once in a while, how can we possibly stand up for America.  Yes, this is a BS perspective, but it's out there....


    I also was sick of the weak Dems but.... (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:47:56 AM EST
    ...I was assuming they could show strength with integrity.

    I would stop way short... (none / 0) (#9)
    by prose on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:42:57 PM EST
    of saying anything about the party.  Carville handled himself tonight.  Both of the dems on right now are shock-jock types it seems.  On the other hand, the GOP'ers are politician types.  

    Live by stupid punditry, die by stupid punditry. (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:44:05 PM EST
    Will BTD Stop Posting Here? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:43:00 PM EST
    There was a post by BTD in the last thread in which he said he would no longer talk about the election here anymore, but the post was soon deleted.

    I would hope BTD had changed his mind (none / 0) (#28)
    by andrys on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:52:35 PM EST
    and I'd be glad for it.

    I found this (none / 0) (#46)
    by ding7777 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:08:59 AM EST
    comment where he said he'll be taking a few days off from the site because of the Palin/anti-Palin fixation

    He clarified that later ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:12:34 AM EST
    saying he meant he wouldn't be doing any diaries for a few days.

    But the later comment quoted above may mean he's actually going to leave for awhile.


    not true and stop posting it (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:15:40 AM EST
    He'll be back soon, within a few days.

    Jeralyn, this what I was ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:24:17 AM EST
    referring to.

    He didn't say he was going to leave TL, but not do posts (diaries).


    for a few days ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:24:57 AM EST
    was implied.

    no he won't (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:14:07 AM EST
    and that's not what he said. He said he didn't know if he'd write about the election. He's taking a few days off but hopefully will be back soon.

    make that sooner (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:14:29 AM EST
    (than a few days.)

    One argument I keep hearing (none / 0) (#37)
    by frankly0 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:57:32 PM EST
    is that Obama has "demonstrated" his experience in virtue of his debate performances.

    Have people forgotten who, according to many, "won" the 2000 Presidential debates, and the debates during the primaries?

    Why, none other than George W Bush.

    So I ask again, what does "doing well" in debates really mean when it comes to experience and knowledge?

    And remember: (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:00:44 AM EST
    one important difference is that I don't believe anyone would seriously argue that Obama won any debate.

    His best performances were those in which he was the least longwinded, the least irrelevant, and which he fumbled the least.

    If Obama does so great at debates, and "demonstrates" his experience, why do you think he seems to avoid them like the plague?


    I guess I must be in the tank for BHO (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:26:12 AM EST
    I thought he won most every debate.



    Gah (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:47:16 AM EST
    Yeah, you are in the tank.  Good for you for recognizing it.

    I just didn't wat to leave unchallenged ... (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    frankly0's bald assertion that no one "would seriously argue that Obama won any debate." How much credibility does this assertion have?

    Frankly, zero.


    who won the saddleback forum (none / 0) (#135)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:28:42 AM EST
    according to you?

    It speaks to... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:03:19 AM EST
    policy consistancy and knowledge of issues.  It may not mean one is able to lead well, but speaking over the course of 23 debates in consistant and compelling ways demonstrates the ability to lead on message and to understand complex issues.

    More importantly, however, the primary process showed us Obama's ability to organize and lead in a complex administrative roll.  His ground game was incredible and came about quickly enough to be competitive against much more politically established candidates.  

    Also, the debates, his speeches, his votes, his interviews, and his books give us a much broader picture of who he is and what he stands for.

    If you top that off with the 1+ year of vetting he has undergone, and the millions and millions of votes he has already received, and it changes things.

    Those things combine, in my opinion, to put him way ahead of another candidate with mayoral and some gubernatorial experience.  

    Only if we are particularly jaded about Obama can we miss the significance of his time in the primaries.


    I repeat (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:10:12 AM EST
    George W Bush, according to many people, "won" his debates against Gore -- Al Gore!

    How much "experience" and comprehension of the issues -- esp foreign policy issues -- do you think he really demonstrated in doing so.

    Point is, if you really cared, instead of merely wanting to push your Obama talking points, it's not so hard to prepare for debates so that you may seem as if you understand the issues pretty well, even when, plainly, you don't.

    If you can, try to construct a relevant argument instead of an irrelevant one?


    I just did... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:19:04 AM EST
    I can't help it if you are so jaded.

    laid out a consistent case in 23 debates.
    managed an historically competitive primary and won.
    clearly laid out a winning platform in the primary and at the convention.
    raised and managed more money than any other candidate in history.
    avoided major, derailing scandals.
    utilized grassroots and technology in unprecedented ways.
    was in the national spotlight for over a year, being vetted over and over again (taking way more media focus than any candidate on either side of the aisle...most of which has been negative in the last three months)
    has met with world leaders.
    has meaningful experience with complex national issues.
    has been involved, hands-on, in crisis relief, ethics issues, military issues, etc.
    was on the right side of the defining foreign policy question of our day.
    has made multiple international trips with meaningful time spent with world leaders.
    has worked in real neighborhoods with complex social and environmental problems.

    And the list goes on.

    Obama is far more experienced than Palin.  Arguments to the contrary remain too vague to be meaningful.


    Your argument = Obama talking points (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:22:48 AM EST
    and nothing else.

    Yeah, we know you think he's just incredible.

    And we know you can't even begin to answer an argument in a relevant way.

    Your task, if you wanted to counter my argument, would be to show how different his performance so far has been from that of George W Bush in the 2000 election.

    You have clearly decided you don't know how to go there and come out with your argument intact.


    I reject your premise... (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:27:12 AM EST
    All politicians will look the same on the issue of experience when you widen the lens out wide enough.  Your central argument is silly.

    Clearly his campaigning shows him to be experienced.  

    Bush failed because his policy was lousy and his day-to-day skills were poor.  He did, however, have sufficient experience to think he would be competent for the job.

    Take President Clinton, for instance.  Coming in to the election, you could say all the same things about him as you are about Obama.  His experiences were similar to that of Clinton in that he was a governor.  But what made him great were personal characteristics of a leader and right postions (mostly) on policy.

    So your premise is foolish.  You can insult me for not playing into it the way you hoped, but I won't lose any sleep over it.


    I have to say (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:36:13 AM EST
    categorizing Obama's experience in such a way that the majority of the experience was actually acquired during the course of his presidential campaign is the kind of argument that looks sillier and sillier the more you spell it out.  You'd do better to leave the details to the imagination.

    It is, of course, impossible to declare Sarah Palin insufficiently experienced if this sort of argument is to be our standard, because you never know, she might demonstrate the requisite experience by running a good campaign, by appearing competent in debates, by getting a requisite number of votes such that it can be said the voters have deemed her experienced.  Personally, I don't see anything productive to be achieved by going down this road.


    That's probably true... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:39:03 AM EST
    but to pretend that Obama's performance in the primary does NOT demonstrate leadership skills is similarly foolish.  When that is challenged, I want to push back.  

    His performance in debates ... (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:55:38 AM EST
    demonstrates that he performed in debates.

    Leadership relates to your ability to control or manage a group.

    I'm voting for Obama, and I have many reasons for this.

    But I think discussing experience and Obama will always be a negative for Obama.


    Experience is not the problem... (4.00 / 1) (#151)
    by laila on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 05:36:37 AM EST
    He sat on the foreign relations comittee for 3 years...10 years in Illinois state senate...plus the US senate...plus being elected in the harvard law review, has a degree in constitutional law, and has been right in his judgement on a lot of complex issues.
    I can't say that about Palin cause I don't frankly know her or her positions so I just think it was a strange choice by McCain, because of the trust factor.  The foreign policy "experts" have always supposedly been republicans but this new "look" is frankly not appealing to a lot of people because now it seems like a riskier choice as compared to Obama/Biden. All of a sudden McCain's age and his health are BIG ISSUES, now all I am thinking is he has had chemo 4 times he is a HUGE risk for a SYSTEMIC CANCER, plus chemo does terrible damage to your cardiovascular and everything else in the body. His age was what he didn't need people paying attention to.  NOW IF HE WINS I WILL BE SCARED. It may not be that way, she may be competent but I have heard a lot of old folks talking about McCain's decision and most are not happy about it.  I don't care really, because I don't think the GOP is going to pull it off.

    Please (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:50:25 AM EST
    Every winning candidate has demonstrated his prowess in management with a winning campaign operation, including Jimmy Carter and both George Bushes.

    It's a silly argument.


    No, it's not. (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:55:46 AM EST
    You continually conflate readiness with effectiveness.  One can be sufficiently qualified for presidency and go on to do it poorly.  

    You are arguing on a faulty premise.


    What? (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:59:43 AM EST
    You're the one arguing that Obama's masterful campaign (in which, btw, he barely won and actually lost the votes, by many accounts) proves what a great manager and leader he is.  I'm just saying it does no such thing.

    No... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:05:01 AM EST
    The original argument was that 23 debates != experience.

    I argued that that wasn't true.  Then I extended the argument to incorporate the rest of what people say.

    The commenter said (s)he had heard people say that 23 debates were experience.  People have also said (Obama included) that managing the campaign and budget are experience.  And that is also true.  So is his experience in the media spotlight as a thoroughly vetted candidate.

    But this does not mean he will be a good president.  That relates to leadership skills and policy positions.

    Plenty of thoroughly experienced people are bad at what they do (Rumsfeld for instance).  So experience != success as a leader.  But 23 debates, managing a huge campaign and budget, and surviving media scrutiny do indeed mean experience (experience that Palin importantly lacks).


    So you're arguing that ... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:16:54 AM EST
    experience (as you define it) is not a guarantee of success, but a lack of said experience is a guarantee of failure?

    That's it. (none / 0) (#112)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:21:37 AM EST
    Experience is a base-line, a common-sense pre-req, but there is no reason to suppose that it leads to actual success.

    But there's some level below that ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:24:29 AM EST
    which will actually GUARANTEE failure?

    Really .... really?


    I'd say yes. (none / 0) (#118)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:30:28 AM EST
    It's ultimately up to the voter to decide in advance, and history to judge in retrospect (in other words, I don't think there is a clear check list for experience) what is meaningful experience.

    But I think that a lack of political or legal experience, lack of local, state, and national experience, lack of executive leadership experience, lack of international experience, and lack of national limelight are big issues.  

    Obama runs in to trouble on executive experience, but his argument about managing the campaign is good pushback.

    Palin lacks national, international and limelight experience.  THat is troubling.  While I can't say absolutely that this would mean Palin would fail as a president, I CAN say that I feel strongly that her inexperience leaves her unable to lead.

    I would predict, based on her experience and lack in some areas, that she would not do well as a leader.  This is compounded by her being wrong on important issues of our day.


    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:28:34 AM EST
    It seems quite impossible for anyone to ever win an election without acquiring the sort of "experience" you're talking about along the way, so I'm not sure you've offered a very useful proposition here.

    His campaign experience is not his only experience (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:31:45 AM EST
    but it is worth noting.  That is all.  He has experience in many other areas and with many other issues, but his work in an incredibly intense primary needs to be given its due.

    Yeesh. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:13:49 AM EST
    I'm not going to judge Obama on his primary performance, because it's not a great record.  

    If Obama replays his primary campaign, he will have....troubles.  He did not adapt well in the primary, especially compared to Hillary.  Hillary discarded the things that didn't work and found new strategies that did work.  She had the luxury of six months to do that.  

    We've got a hair over two months now.  Let's see Obama's executive experience in action.


    I think tihs is a bizarre argument (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:55:31 AM EST
    And the idea that the candidate him/herself personally "manages" the campaign and the huge budget is frankly naive.  They do no such thing.

    Although that would be an interesting test, if it did work that way.


    There are only two ... (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:01:07 AM EST
    qualifications for president.

    You must be at least 35 years of age.  And a citizen from birth of the United States.


    GOod point.. (none / 0) (#105)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:05:54 AM EST
    "qualified" was a poor word choice.  "Experienced" or "prepared" are more appropriate for what I meant.

    Respectfully disagree. (none / 0) (#127)
    by magnetics on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:55:33 AM EST
    Clinton had more diverse electoral experience, and had extensive administrative experience outside the campaign venue, which, in any case, doesn't really count as real world leadership.  There is no comparison between running an effective campaign and building an effective FEMA -- just look at GWB.

    If you want someone with experience, try G. H. W. Bush -- he'd been VP for 8 years, been elected to Congress, had run the CIA, had made money in the oil business -- oh, and was a certified war hero.  Not that I voted for him (or any other Rethuglican clone), but you his qualifications were indeed impressive.

    Unfortunately, as Pres. he had to follow RR, who transformed the Rethuglican party into its current knuckle dragging state -- if Bush had won the nomination in 1980, and the general, I believe he would have governed in much more enlightened fashion than he did following Reagan.


    Since when does it take a President (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:45:07 AM EST
    to build FEMA?  The problem with Dubya is that he used the revolving door strategy of leadership.  He dismantled government agencies and programs by installing not just ineffective leaders, but people who've build careers fighting the agencies and programs they now direct.  

    What we need to do is make our voices heard when it's time for Obama to create his administration.  Because those placements are what will make or break the "Change We Believe In."


    Could you please expand on (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:29:44 AM EST
    these points?

    *has meaningful experience with complex national issues.

    *has been involved, hands-on, in crisis relief, ethics issues, military issues, etc.

    *has made multiple international trips with meaningful time spent with world leaders.


    I think... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:40:55 AM EST
    you can find examples of these things.

    Obama has engaged with complex national issues in the senate, and now in his campaign through debates and most recently, the convention.  Obama has worked on ethics reform in Washington and many other bills.  He has visited New Orleans 5 times and has been involved in discussions related to that issue.  He was a part of the bi-partisan work on immigration.  He has spoken on a variety of issues in the national senate, etc.  His US Senate record makes the first point clear.  Obama has engaged national issues on a national stage and has clear votes and on-the-record statements that are able to be evaluated.

    For the second issue, see above.  As a US Senator Obama has engaged with military, ethical, crisis, budget, foreign policy, etc. issues.

    Obama has made two trips on political issues.  I'll google it and get you a list (although you could do this yourself if you are really interested)...
    This summer he traveled to the middle east.
    He spent time in Iraq in 2006.
    He traveled to Russia.
    He has spent 2 weeks on personal and political issues in Africa.

    You have access to this information.

    Let me ask all of you that keep throwing out objections a question...

    Do you believe that Obama is NOT qualified to be president, and if not, why are not also pushing again Palin?


    Well, heck... (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by otherlisa on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 03:16:02 AM EST
    I've traveled to China about 11 times, lived there for half a year, and I lived in Switzerland for three months. I've made repeated trips to Mexico, and I've been to Europe more than once. By this accounting, I'm more "experienced" than Obama!

    Really, it's a bad argument.


    Nope... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:24:19 AM EST
    only if you are determined to not be fair about it.

    can you plese not insult (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:21:39 AM EST
    other commenters?

    And limit your attacks on Obama to 4 a day ?


    My "attacks" on Obama (5.00 / 7) (#84)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:39:09 AM EST
    have not been in any way personal. I have simply been reflecting that his experience is not what it has been chalked up to be, and that his debate performance was pretty unremarkable (I didn't even think that that was something most people disputed -- even Josh Marshall, for God's sakes, has expressed his distress over Obama's performance in debates).

    Really, Jeralyn, it's staring to seem your goal here is simply to shut down criticism of any kind.

    If we can't criticize his level of experience, or reflect on his debate performance, what's left?

    Why is it OK for the person I'm debating to come out with nothing more than his own ungrounded positive take on Obama's performance and experience, and a problem if I keep disputing that point?

    Really, your 4 comment rule is now sounding more and more like a mechanism to ensure lots of positive talking points for Obama, and making sure that Obama supporters always have the last word, and can dominate every discussion they choose.

    And I'm sorry if I lose my patience with "arguments" like those of my opposing poster, which simply fail to come to grips in any way with the points I make, and simply, instead, repeat, irrelevantly, what can only be called talking points.

    That isn't argument; it isn't debate. It's just annoying, and, I believe, quite intentionally distracting from real debate.


    And just to add as further (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:19:10 AM EST

    Just about every last one of your counterarguments applies as well to George W Bush, who won millions of votes in the primaries, indeed won the Presidential election, was "vetted" by the American people over one or two years, etc., etc.

    And would you consider him to have demonstrated real knowledge and competence in running the government, and in foreign policy?

    How does that argument work for you now?


    What you are saying is asinine. (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:22:58 AM EST
    Every politician shares general things in common with other politicians.  The question of experience is one small part of the question of competence.  One can be experienced sufficiently for a job but be so wrong about theory, or so incapable in practice that leadership is unsuccesful.  But that says nothing about experience.

    Sarah Palin is not sufficiently experienced to be President.  She is also wrong on the issues.  She may be a capable administrator, but she doesn't have enough hands-on knowledge of national issues to step into such a large and complex roll.  


    Not just lacking consistency (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by themomcat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:23:51 AM EST
    I watched all those debates and never once heard any understanding of complex issues or even a consistent message. What I heard was a lot of hums, ers and uhs. Debater he is not. But up against, McCain he may do well.

    You just compared the (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:36:30 AM EST
    VP(R) and the P(D) picks.

    It's an interesting exercise, but most people compare P(D) and P(R).

    If Palin makes it to the top of the GOP ticket, let me know.


    I didn't initiate that comparison... (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:43:47 AM EST
    I'm simply speaking in defensive of the baseless notion that Palin is as experienced as Obama in regard to all things presidential.

    Here is a concise understanding of things as I see them:
    Obama is qualified to be president based on local experience, state experience, national experience, executive/leadership experience as a candidate and thorough vetting.

    His Republican detractors have largely attacked him on experience.  Mystifyingly, the same detractors now praise the Republican VP pick of a politician who lacks national experience and thorough vetting.  This is hypocritical.  

    Republican pushback that Palin, as an executive, is more qualified than Obama is patently foolish.  I have laid out why.

    I am not initiating an argument comparing a presidential and vice-presidential candidate.  I am responding to poorly formed arguments about the readiness of the GOP VP candidate and the inherent hypocrisy of the McCain campaign.


    Republicans like Palin (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:54:46 AM EST
    Because she's a hard Right VP who messes with the media strategy.

    Most people apparently decide whether they like a candidate first (or not) and then go about building their case for their support (or lack of it).

    Lord knows I've seen it enough times this season.  The AUMF is a deal breaker for Clinton but suddenly much less significant for Biden. I could list various examples of supporters of this or that candidate declaring a certain criteria is of monumental significance!  Then when the argument is used against them, they discard it in favor of a new argument.

    I wish those people would just say "I like him/her because they make me feel good.".  It would be more honest.  


    Please... (none / 0) (#62)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:19:44 AM EST

    A few of those... (none / 0) (#81)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:37:43 AM EST
    were legitimate, a few are not.

    Changes in position are different than changes in philosophy.  The only truly troubling change you listed there was FISA.  The rest are nuanced shifts, changes of language, or simply not true allegations.


    Hey, thanks! (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:53:09 AM EST
    You actually made me laugh out loud with this comment.

    nuance (none / 0) (#93)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:53:48 AM EST
    Offshore was nuanced (limited in tandem with other moves).  He still strongly opposes viewing drilling as a solution.

    WIth regard to public financing, he moved from one position to another without violating the ethical principle informing the original decision - Obama still avoids financing from lobbyists, etc.

    I'm not sure just what you meant with regard to the health care issue, but that would be a perfect example of nuance.  There he talked about the issue slightly differently while his position stayed predominately consistent and within liberal orthodoxy.


    A leader... (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:10:02 AM EST
    that never shifts positions or deals in nuance is what we have in our current president.  "Nuance" was a word that the GOP mocked when Kerry used it.  Nuance is a real part of the political landscape and should be.  The world is complicated.  Leading it ought to be.

    Indeed ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:08:43 AM EST
    I also find it odd people trumpeting Obama's 18 million votes as a sign of his experience.

    Had he won New Hampshire, he probably wouldn't have needed 18 million votes.  Had he won California, same deal.

    So now is inability to create a winning coalition early in the primaries is a sign of experience?

    Can't get my head around that one.


    He didn't finish it... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by prose on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:12:17 AM EST
    because Hillary was strong.  But he ground it out and he won.  He convinced people, built incredible ground games, moved popular opinion and surprised the talking heads.  YOu can spin it if you want, but Obama accomplished something impressive in the primary and he didn't do it by leading poorly.

    The term "18 million votes" ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:16:03 AM EST
    was used by many on TV and the blogs.  And that was what I was talking about.

    I think I made that clear in my comment.


    Bush didn't "win" the debates (none / 0) (#144)
    by JoeA on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 04:23:50 AM EST
    His campaign just managed to so lower expectations by talking up Gore wonderful debating abilities, and downplaying Bushes,  that any result other than Dubya picking his nose, scratching his armpits and making Chimpanzee noises meant that he would "beat" the BS expectations.

    You set up a drop out pool? (none / 0) (#108)
    by kredwyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:10:12 AM EST
    For why?

    Because it looks to me (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:36:05 AM EST
    like the media storm will cause her nomination to implode. I didn't say she should drop out, it's a prediction, and I asked for dates.

    Media Storm... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 01:54:52 AM EST
    Glad to hear it called that.  Not sure where people are getting the idea this is a Dem thing, it seems to be mostly getting pushed by the media.  I think a lot of people here spend too much time reading blogs...  most of America isn't seeing stupid sexist rumors and stuff from some anonymous blogger commenting here or wherever else, they're seeing Palin's experience and positions attacked by the media.  

    All this handwringing (you know who...) about how we (bloggers/dems/liberals/progressives) are going to trigger some sort of backlash or stir up talk of Obama's supposed inexperience just seems really off base here.  This doesn't seem to be how it's actually playing out in the minds of normal folks out there.


    Where are people getting the idea (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 02:54:09 AM EST
    it's a Dem thing? Well . . . maybe because it's coming from Dems? And some are pushing it to the media and the the media has on talking babblers from both parties and the Dem babblers continue. And the media that's in the tank for Obama can also be classified as Dem since they aren't acting neutral.

    You made folly of it by (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:33:06 AM EST
    offering a prize as if it were a football/baseball pool. It sounds very swarmy. If a republican pool had put out like this dems would be in an uproar.  

    She just got nominated... (none / 0) (#191)
    by kredwyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:01:35 AM EST
    of course there's gonna be a storm.

    I seriously doubt she's gonna implode.

    But the idea of setting up a betting pool around her possible implosion is weird...