Palin Post-Peak: Favorability Slides

We wrote days ago that Gov. Sarah Palin had peaked when polls began to show a noticeable decline in her favorability ratings.

PPP will have a new Colorado poll out this morning. They offer one stat as a teaser. Palin's favorability rating in the has dropped 3 points and her unfavorable rating has increased 9 points.

I'm 100% with Markos of Daily Kos on this:

Again, for those who counseled leaving Palin alone because she was too popular and because it took attention off McCain, had we done so, she'd be entrenched as a woman of the people, propping up the Republican ticket. Instead, she's been relegated to the far less glamorous (and helpful) task of keeping the GOP base intact, nothing more. She may be popular with the base, but people outside wingnut circles aren't impressed.

With Palin neutralized (and there's a reason they're hiding her from view), it's much easier to knock down McCain on the economy, his desire to deregulate healthcare just like Wall Street, his lies, and so on.


I would just add it also makes McCain's poor judgment more evident. If he could be so careless and opportunistic in picking a Vice-Presidential candidate, why would we trust him with any important decision?

His Hail Mary pass will become more obvious in the coming weeks. Regardless of whether he ends up winning Colorado and its relatively few electoral votes, we have to make sure the message reaches Democrats and independents in Ohio, Florida and Michigan.

We don't need to convince Republicans, we just need to make sure everyone else knows not to sit this election out and take a chance on putting such an unqualified, unprepared politician with radical right views on issues in the second most important leadership position in the country. Nor is it acceptable to reward the man who thought he could pull such a fast one on us by choosing her.

< Late Night: Bill Clinton on Letterman | Carville's Rule: It's The Economy, Stupid >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If only the country wasn't going (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:25:23 AM EST
    to hell in the proverbial handbasket with or w/o Palin.

    You sound (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:42:15 AM EST
    like a cranky retired person!

    Now THERE'S a ringing defense of Palin! n/t (none / 0) (#15)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:44:13 AM EST
    Typical hubris from KOS, believing that he ... (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by cymro on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:06:24 AM EST
    ... and his readers have really made a significant difference. But if all you do is talk to each other, how would you ever know what the majority of voters are thinking?

    So, is Jeralyn's '100% agreement' also hubris? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:29:02 AM EST
    It depends whether Jeralyn is aligning herself ... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cymro on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:44:10 AM EST
    ... and, more specifically Talkleft, with the argument that:

    ... had we done so, she'd be entrenched as a woman of the people, propping up the Republican ticket. Instead, she's been relegated ...

    If so, yes, I would describe that attitude as hubris. On the other hand, if Jeralyn is simply agreeing 100% that Kos has had the degree of influence he claims, I would describe that as a completely unfounded assertion.


    'We' doesn't refer only to Kos. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:59:34 AM EST
    It refers to any and all people who are not so cowed by Palin's shooting-stardom as to be unwilling to confront her on the issues.

    "We" includes Jeralyn. And me.


    Just a reminder - back on August 29 (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:57:53 AM EST
    (at 1:58 PM ET) I set the over-under for her getting off the ticket at September 30.  That line hasn't moved.  I'm still betting the over, based solely on McCain and Palin being dig-in-the-heels types.

    Moreover, I had noted her tendency to abuse power twice, both after and in a comment earlier that day, posted prior to McCain's pick of her being announced, opining she wouldn't be the pick and stating in that earlier comment:

    ...and her trying to fire the ex-brother-in-law is perfectly in line with the habitual conduct of this Administration.  Plays right into the another four years of the last eight that the Dems are pitching.  No.

    So, what we've seen is that Palin was a bright shiny object whose shine is now gone (to paraphrase TL's note on the point), non-Republican-base people are getting a good look at her and what she represents (and not liking it), the Republican base is loving her because she's even nuttier than they are (yesterday, some stuff came out reporting on her involvement not only with the Alaska secessionists but also the militia movement and I'm not even talking about the religion b/c it apparently chaps the readership) and she has the Rethug stonewall and retribution as central components in her politician's armanmentarium.

    But, the point remains that as weak as she is as a candidate and as lousy as a president McCain and vice-president she would make (as to her, she might have trouble even with the proverbial bucket of warm spit), the race is still close, particularly on a state-by-state basis.

    Negative campaigning (of which ridiculing your opponent, especially telling when the ridicule is true) does work, but one cannot go solely negative and expect to win.  Obama's success or failure will turn on two things:  turnout of the Democratic base and leaners, and making sure the election has integrity.  Because all the Republicans are playing for is making it close enough to steal;  they've done it the last two times and there won't be any America left if they succeed this time.

    So, let's keep our eyes on the objective and our work pointed in achievement of the objective.  

    over/under? (none / 0) (#37)
    by wystler on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:18:41 AM EST
    Palin's not going anywhere. To reload would be a gross admission of failure, no path to electoral success. (Not suggesting that keeping Palin is a strong move, only that dumping her is electoral suicide.)

    Laying out Palin's links to dominionists (none / 0) (#55)
    by Iris on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:26:16 PM EST
    chaps the readership?  Then we need to wake up and remember what we're talking about!  Palin was the favorite of the extreme religious right, the secretive Council for National Policy.  She is the Christian right's golden girl because she chose not to have an abortion when it became apparent that the baby had Downs syndrome...and they will point to her as the model that all women should follow.  Feminists for Life, the group that Palin belongs to, is a trojan horse anti-choice group that, coopting the symbols of feminism, seeks to take away the rights of ALL women.  They only support "non-abortofacient" contraception; which is religious right code for basically anything other than the rhythm method.  Thus Palin can get away with saying she is "pro-contraception"  

    The people to whom McCain sold out with this pick--a tiny but politically powerful minority--want to enshrine all their nutty religious beliefs (which they are entitled to) into LAW.  Dominionists--and yes, the pastor who 'anointed' Sarah Palin and asked God to 'make a way for her' is a famous dominionist--want to take control of government at all levels to remake us into a biblical society,  in preparation for the end times, which they seek to hasten

    Need I remind ANYONE what has been happening at the Air Force Academy and other high-level parts of the military for the past few years?  Or how the Bush administration has been trying to eliminate access to contraception through an administrative rule that defines it as a form of abortion?  Or that people of this mindset used Terry Schiavo as a half-living stage prop not so long ago?  That they believe homosexuality can be 'cured' through prayer?  Or that Palin's church ministry sponsors actual witch hunts (they call it "Spiritual Warfare") in African towns?  Or that Palin called the Iraq war a "task from god"?  In my state (KY), same-sex couples are second-class citizens, thanks to a vaguely worded constitutional amendment that was put on the ballot to increase turnout in the 2004 election.

    It would be one thing if these were just the eccentric, private, religious views and religious associations of a candidate.  It is another thing entirely when you take into consideration all the things I just mentioned. It NEEDS to be talked about.

    I'm just a little tired of my fellow Democrats allowing themselves to be silenced over the Palin pick.  Sure it was a smart pick for McCain, but it has enormously troubling implications that harken back to Bush in the year 2000.  Maybe Obama can't scream from the rooftops that we have a dominionist stalking horse on the other side, but we can sure get the word out on here and elsewhere.

    None of us want to be sexist, but the sexism police are now, ironically, out in full force, in an unholy alliance with the McCain campaign, trying to make criticism of Palin off-limits.  If any of them were ever really supporters of Hillary Clinton, they should be ashamed of themselves for cheering McCain's baseless attacks and exacting their petty revenge on Obama.  It takes a certain level of pettiness and immaturity to sit back and enjoy or even praise the bad guys trashing a member of your team, just because your (and my) preferred candidate did not win.

    Will we allow the specter of being unfairly accused of sexism to potentially give Palin a free pass into a position of such power?  If McCain is elected, he is going to owe his religous right backers bigtime.   And lest we forget, she could easily segue into the Presidency from there.  Palin's selection should be energizing and mobilizing our party for battle.  Will we really sit by and play softball while they accuse Obama of being a covert Muslim and being in league with 'terrorists'?  If they are going to play the guilt by association game, I think we should hit back hard--except this is a valid association, because dominionists have a proven record of not being able to differentiate their public roles from their private religious beliefs.  (Palin's pastor said that for her, her spiritual mission  came before her role as mayor)

    This isn't to say this should be the subject on the evening news each night, but the Democratic base needs to be made aware of these facts.  Wasilla Assembly of God is already trying to have the videos pulled from youtube.

    It's still the economy, stupid, but this merits serious discussion.


    And yet... (4.00 / 4) (#18)
    by callmecassandra on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:34:33 AM EST
    she's able to draw a crowd of 60,000. Her numbers rival Obama's. Iow, the polls are conflicting with reality.

    And I'm so sick of hearing about people's "terror" at the thought of Palin entering the WH. And the reasons given are - for the most part - irrational, hypocritical and idiotic.

    So let us speak of the real fear.

    Palin is a threat to the Obama campaign, to Democrats chances for the WH. You see, we now have two historic tickets this November to chose from and neither - African Americans and women - is more important than the other.

    Today, women have a once in a lifetime opportunity to put a woman in the WH. And Obama supporters fear that too many women will take that opportunity, just as African Americans will take the opportunity to elect an African American to the WH.

    A once in a lifetime opportunity is one many will not pass on...this is your fear.

    heh...a person wouldn't believe that you were ever a HRC supporter based on the way you've been posting since forcing yourself into supporting Obama. And speaking of HRC, she's about the only one who has shown some class. She captures and projects the true, transcending meaning of the feminist movement - condemning Palin's politics while never belittling her accomplishments.

    Feminism, after all, doesn't belong to liberals and progressives.

    One more thing: my post isn't Palin - The Politician - advocacy.


    Terror? Fear? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by alsace on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:37:41 AM EST
    I have degrees of "terror" and "fear" about all four candidates, but Palin is the only one where saying, "At least she's not Bush," brings no relief whatsoever.

    Stop Repeating The Meme (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:14:39 AM EST
    Palin DID NOT draw a crowd of 60K. The venue itself could only hold 10K. CNN put it at 12K, some have estimated as high as 20-25K. 60K is laughable.

    Since I'm sure (4.00 / 3) (#39)
    by callmecassandra on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:23:33 AM EST
    J. will swoop down citing my posting limitations, I'll do this in one post.

    Don: She's a woman VP contender. HRC may not run again and the Republicans may not pick a woman next time around if the ticket loses. As for Ferraro, you realize that was 24 years ago, right? A lot women died between then and now, a lot women weren't eligible in 1984, a lot women born after 1984 and a lot of women are near death today.

    shoephone: Obama has about as much experience as Palin. (Campaigning doesn't count and there's no record as to how he will lead. Kind of "terrifying" when you think on it.) And both are qualified by the constitution.

    And any female Democrat who belittles Palin's accomplishments (condemning her politics is fair game) has no interest in the feminist movement and was always a hypocrite. These kinds of female Democrats I would never want speaking or fighting for me - one shouldn't depend on the weak and weak-minded.

    As for your particular vote. Who cares? I wasn't speaking for the Obamacrats. Furthermore, I wasn't speaking for all women. And must you reduce Palin to "vagina"?  I'm Black. Is it okay if I reduced Obama to "melanin" as the only reason for my tepid support?

    This is what I mean by weak female Democrats. Ugh.

    alsace: What should scare you is a candidate who has no record and no brand. But that's just my opinion.

    MTSINAIMAMA: Palin DID draw a crowd of 60K. See...I can use caps to sound authoritative too.  (I don't put faith in CNN so forgive me - or not - for discarding their estimates.) However, even if the nubmer was 25K, it doesn't explain the polling cited in yonder post. Now, if she was drawing crowds like Biden...


    Foolish, uninformed response (none / 0) (#76)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    You just started posting comments here for the very first time. Maybe you should do a little research on the past comments of others before you make knee-jerk assumptions.

    I've been as critical of Obama as anyone. I have never said that he was qualified based on his experience. In fact, I've continually countered arguments that his experience makes him qualified. And your ignorant labeling of me as an "Obamabot" is totally laughable, to say the very least. I started out as an Edwards supporter, then caucused for Hillary, then vowed to vote for Obama anyway, and then became completely disgusted with him after his flip-flop
    on the FISA bill. Disgusted enough to say I wouldn't give him my vote. But then a funny thing happened on the way to the November election. I heard Obama's acceptance speech at the convention and heard pretty much everything I needed to for him to gain my support. And then I saw the cynical, laughable promotion of Palin as the GOP running mate and realized that this election will turn on competence and judgement. McCain and Palin do not fit that bill. Obama and Biden (not my first choices) fit the bill much better.

    There is no comparison, in my view.

    I did not say Palin was without "experience". Perhaps you need to reread my original comment. I said she is "unprepared" to be VP. And she is. Woefully so.

    I don't give a hoot about the color of Obama's skin. I don't care that Palin is female. I've been voting since 1978 and have personally known some of the politicians who have represented me. I am not deluded about the way in which they operate or what they are realistically able to accomplish. I'll be turning 50 years old next year and my level of savvy is well intact, so I don't take the bait of elections being "once-in-a-lifetime-opportunities".

    Since you started posting comments here for the very first time TODAY, maybe I should give you a break. Unfortunately, your attitude makes that impossible.


    I'm probably over my limit, (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by callmecassandra on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:51:26 PM EST
    but what the hay. It'll be my last for the evening.

    1. What's the difference between "unprepared" and  "inexperienced"? I can't wait to read that answer.

    2. Why would I research your history when your posts suffice?

    3. I said "Obamacrat". Not "Obamabot". Obamabots are cultists and Obamacrats forget (or chose to forget) that they're Democrats who once supported liberal ideals.

    4. If you were disgusted with the FISA flip-flop, then I don't see how in the hell a convention speech changed your mind unless FISA never mattered all that much to you (and most) from the jump.

    As for the balance...

    And then I saw the cynical, laughable promotion of Palin as the GOP running mate and realized that this election will turn on competence and judgement.

    Of course the pick was cynical. It's politics ain't it? As for judgment and competence - Obama showed a lack of judgment in his callous treatment of women voters, in his not picking HRC for his running mate, and in sending his flunkies and groupies out to attack Gov. Palin as a woman and not as a politician. And that he needs up to 300 advisers to make a decision ain't making me feel all too secure with his future administration. If he doesn't know what he's doing, he can be easily led. I don't like McCain. Won't vote for McCain. But that old man ain't easily controlled and one need not guess about his future administration. Not so strange that a lot of people (and I don't include you, of course) feel secure with McCain.

    I'll be turning 50 years old next year and my level of savvy is well intact, so I don't take the bait of elections being "once-in-a-lifetime-opportunities".

    Age means wisdom? Please. Once again, I wasn't speaking of you viewing Gov. Palin or Sen. Obama as once in a lifetime opportunities. I never figured you, and voters like you, into the equation anyway. Therefore, why are you inserting yourself? The point is about understanding these women who are drawn to Gov. Palin and convincing them to support your guy. But if you continue to attack her the way you have, all you do is alienate them and make yourself into a hypocrite in the process.

    Gov. Palin is an accomplished woman. Acknowledge it. Then explain why Obama/Biden is the better choice without tearing down Gov. Palin's as a woman and an accomplished woman at that. Or is that too big of a task for you? HRC is able to do it. Why can't you? Take Black women who may be drawn to Gov. Palin. Why don't you remind them how little Gov. Palin thinks of Miranda rights? Considering how our Black men are targets for police (and judicial) brutality, this argument might be effective. It's the main reason why I could never support her. But I don't have to tear her down as an accomplished woman to turn my back on her nomination. Easy, right?

    Since you started posting comments here for the very first time TODAY, maybe I should give you a break. Unfortunately, your attitude makes that impossible.

    You? Give me a break? I'm all giggles...You'll come to appreciate my attitude. Everyone does eventually...



    I'm sorry (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:48:20 AM EST
    But I believe informed citizens vote for candidates based on what they will do in office, not for who they are.  I think it's ridiculous to vote for Palin just because she's a woman.  She's a woman who's against Roe V Wade, against equal pay for women, and was mayor of a town that charged rape victims for medical attention and investigation.  Her extreme right wing views are poison for this country, male and female.  Her gender doesn't matter: her views and policies are dreadful!

    Feminism, to me, is about putting the right woman in the WH at the right time.  To me, voting for someone just because they're a woman is just as sexist as voting against someone just because they're a woman.  Speaking for me only.


    I don't agree with your definition (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by tootired on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:21:52 AM EST
    of feminism. Feminism is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. It has nothing to do with "the right woman" or the "right time". Women voting for other women as a means to empower all women is not "sexist" -just as AAs voting for a black candidate is not racist. Women will look at all of their options, evaluate them, and vote their conscience. Just like men do. This time there are just more options for women than they usually have. There's a good post about what feminism is and isn't at the Reclusive Leftist, and Bil Clinton did a good job of explaining how people decide who to vote for on the View yesterday. We need to trust women to make good decisions. They will.

    Equality (none / 0) (#65)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    is the name of the game from my perspective.  I wasn't referring to established definitions of feminism, which I tried to illustrate by prefacing my assessment with "to me."  

    And, to me, people should be judged as people based on their skills and actions -- their policy.  If someone is judged on physical criteria (either in the positive or negative), there's discrimination going on.

    "Women voting for other women as a means to empower all women" is a very noble sentiment, as long as that woman will represent them proudly instead of working against them.  Again, it boils down to policy and who you think will do the best things for the country.  I, as a white male, am extremely embarrassed of Dick Cheney.

    Again, IMO.


    When you limit equality (none / 0) (#69)
    by tootired on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:16:48 PM EST
    to only those women whose views you agree with, you are not a feminist. Whether women are working for or against other women is in the eye of the beholder. When Sarah Palin was elected as the first female governor of Alaska, she empowered all of the women and girls of Alaska - even those who disagree with her. The next woman who decides she wants to be governor there will now be able to walk in through the door instead of crashing through a ceiling. Women will be deciding whether electing two men who are running on a platform that includes more progressive policies regarding women's issues would be more empowering than voting for a ticket that will put the first woman in the office of VP but whose platform is less enlightened. We cannot decide for other people what empowers them. It's a highly personal decision, and not every woman will make the same choice. For some it does not "boil down to policy". For some it boils down to breaking through the glass ceiling any way they can. I wish that there was more indication that the Democrats could be trusted to support a female candidate in the not too distant future so that more women could be convinced to wait for a better choice. But it's been 24 years since Ferraro, and for some of us it is truly now or maybe not in our lifetime. Not an easy decision.

    justify that however you want (none / 0) (#71)
    by Iris on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:27:39 PM EST
    but what it really amounts to is selling out on the most important issues of this election in favor of a cheap identity vote.  Try explaining to your children or ours how you sold her rights, the rights of all Americans, up a river because you wanted a woman to beat the black man.  So, should informed white voters only vote for white candidates?

    This is exactly what the GOP wants, for us to be divided along racial/gender/class lines.  Divide and conquer.


    But the identity vote isn't "cheap" (none / 0) (#73)
    by tootired on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:55:49 PM EST
    It has a high price tag, and that's the issue.  And the "sold up the river" phrase is racist. Since Obama's race has nothing to do with why some women might be tempted to vote for McCain/Palin, I don't appreciate racism being injected into this exchange. The conversation is why some Democratic women might be voting for Palin. If you don't look at why, how can you hope to change their minds?

    so wait a second (none / 0) (#72)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:41:17 PM EST
    if Dick Cheney was a woman, would it still be a difficult decision?  Or in the real world, Leona Helmsley?

    Your point about the importance of breaking through barriers is well taken.  But what if the [insert minority here] candidate you're supporting fails so miserably that it actually makes those barriers more robust in the future?


    This puts me over my limit (none / 0) (#74)
    by tootired on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 04:26:26 PM EST
    for the day so this will be my last word on this. Yes, of course, there is a risk that the "first" to do something could screw it up so badly that the "second" would be a long time coming. With both Sarah Palin and Obama there is a risk of tainting the pool. From reading the left blogs, however, it appears that most everyone is not afraid that Sarah Palin will be unsuccessful, but rather that she will be "too successful" at getting her personal agenda through. She is supposed to be able to single-handedly strike down Roe v. Wade, invade and bomb Iran because God told her to, take science out of school, empty the library shelves, and kill every wolf in the country. I don't think she'll be that successful. Provided John McCain survives his presidency, I think Sarah would attend a lot of state funerals and chair a committee that studies energy independence - two things I think she's very qualified to do. For the record, I haven't decided to vote for Sarah Palin, but I am listening to other women who are considering it. One of the issues that keeps coming up is that they don't see the current Democratic Party culture as being hospitable to actually nominating a woman in the near future. Is Sarah Palin their first choice? No, but they are convinced that it is going to be a Republican woman who sits in the oval office first. These are not uninformed voters. They were "tepidly supporting Obama" or not voting for the top of the ticket until McCain chose Palin. It was not his selecting her that convinced them to vote for him and Palin. It was the PDS. It convinced them that the Democrats can't handle a woman on the ticket. So why wait? The Republicans are not going to nominate a Democrat so any candidate that is on the ticket is going to unacceptable on policy. I don't think you get votes by getting in someone's face. I think you get votes by listening more than talking. I'm in the process of listening. Unfortunately, I don't have much of a comeback.

    yeah (none / 0) (#77)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 06:41:26 PM EST
    I guess the bottom line is that I can't relate to anyone who would make a decision based on anything other than actions in the WH, especially at this cusp in history, after 8 years of misery.  If Obama was white or an intersexual I'd vote for him, because of what he will do and, maybe more importantly, what he won't do.  If HRC was in his place, I'd still feel the same way.

    Admittedly, I cannot relate to the minority perspective.  Having conversations such as these help me more fully realize other's perspectives as well, so I appreciate it.


    You are looking at Palin (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by callmecassandra on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:00:24 AM EST
    through partisan lens and find her wanting. But not every woman sees her as you do. Many believe her to be qualified and believe she is the right woman.

    If McCain pulled me off the streets for his runing mate, he'd be rightly ridiculed. But Palin's a governor with a 13 year political career and something to show for it. She did not screw her way to the top. She did not buy her way to top (like Pelosi so I hear). She earned it. The old-fashioned American way. And as a woman, you know she had to do twice as much as men to get where she is today. She beat out an incumbent and a former governor. Her history and accomplishments are remarkable for a mere Wal-mart mom. And you doubt that many women will find themselves in Palin?

    Most, if not all, of what you've posted about Palin's past has either been debunked or is irrelevant. Also, a "pro-life" position doesn't disqualify one from the feminist movement. Again, feminism doesn't belong to liberals and progressives.

    Much as you wish, Palin is not extreme. She's not a turn-off to many. She has a compelling history, she's an appealing woman, and she is capable of making history like Obama.

    And you fear too many women will go for her. For the same reason Blacks are going for Obama. Obama, btw, is not in our (Blacks') best interests. HRC was and is. But Obama's Black. So many don't care. If Obama was at the top of the Republican ticket, Democrat would likely lose the Black vote. Why?

    It's a once in a lifetime opportunity.

    Hell, yeah you're afraid of Palin. She represents the same thing as Obama. Another once in a lifetime opportunity.

    **This is not a pro-Palin - the politician -advocacy post.


    Not entirely convinced about (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:18:52 AM EST
    This: "If Obama was at the top of the Republican ticket, Democrat would likely lose the Black vote"

    Yes, Obama won the black vote in the Dem primary by huge margins against Hillary.  But the fact is, he is a democrat.  Democrats have won the black vote by astounding margins year after year.  They win this group by more than any other demographic.  Colin Powell, or someone like him, wouldn't change that.  Black republicans are considered people who have abandoned their roots and sold out to the man.  There is a slur that I won't repeat here, but you hear it applied to black republicans by their own kind on a regular basis.  A black republican may dent the margin that Dems win the black vote, but I strongly disagree with the notion that it would eclipse it.

    As for Palin - I mostly agree with you.  Although while I do think she has earned her way to the gov. position, I don't think she would be on the presidential ticket if it weren't for Hillary and the fact that Obama made a terrible choice passing her over as VP.  I think McCain did this for political reasons only and he could personally give a rat$ a$$ about the advancement of women - so this does nothing for me personally, since ultimately I vote for P not VP.  And yes, I am afraid of Palin for all the reasons you mention...


    Not entirely convinced (none / 0) (#48)
    by oldpro on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:47:12 AM EST
    is probably the right way to think about 'what blacks would do/hw they would vote if Obama were the R candidate.'

    Hypotheticals are funny that way...outcomes are not available to test the validity of the statement.  Best any of us can do is take everything we know (or think we know!) into account and make a guess...

    What always gives me pause when I think about the motivations of others, AAs for instance, is the shock in the non-AA population at the stark differences in reaction to the OJ verdict.

    Since that televised moment, I have been loath to EVER think I know what others are thinking about anything unless I have evidence...

    Which made me a pretty fair juror on the four juries I've sat on.  You'd want me on yours.


    "likely lose the Black vote." (none / 0) (#57)
    by callmecassandra on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    Iow, we're in agreement. I'm not certain either.

    To be honest (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    Not entirely convinced was probably an understatement.  But we are dealing with hypotheticals here so it's kinda moot.

    She is extreme (none / 0) (#56)
    by Iris on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:32:54 PM EST
    not knowing it doesn't change that fact.

    And precisely how is Palin going to make any progress for women when her positions (at least what we know from her rhetoric since being selected) are so well in line with the Bush Republican party?  How did the last 8 years work out for women?  The GOP has a history of putting minorities or women in positions, but only ones that strictly toe the ideological line.  They will take women's votes gladly and give them a steaming pile of crap in return.  One McCain Supreme Court Justice alone would set women back by decades!!!

    Think of Sarah Palin as the Clarence Thomas of 2008.  But with even more power.


    She's extreme to you. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by callmecassandra on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    You're a democrat.

    But she isn't extreme to others, especially independents. I'm from the South. I've seen and lived through far worse that Sarah Palin. I'm actually suprised evanglicals are clinging to her since she doesn't act to impose/force her views onto others.

    Of course Palin has helped in the progression of women. She fought and won the governorship of her state becoming the first female governor of Alaska. Again, she didn't get there with sex or money but by her own merits, strength and will.

    You don't have to like her politics. I don't like her politics. But I'm not about to follow so-called liberals and progressives down the hypocritical road of belittling her accomplishments while claiming to support the feminist movement, gender equality and women's issues.

    One more time: Feminism, which is about choice, is not restricted to liberals and progressives. Who told you that lie?

    Sarah Palin as Clarence Thomas? Ridiculous, irrational comparison.

    I don't like or support Palin's politics. I have no intention of voting for her. But as a woman, yeah, she has my full support. And without apologies, for me, supporting women comes before supporting party. Especially a party quick to betray its ideals when convenient.

    I think I'm done for the day, having reached my posting limits.


    There are other women governors (none / 0) (#66)
    by Iris on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:09:23 PM EST
    and Palin is not offering you a choice on anything, except between genitalia.  She is a conservative Republican, through and through.  If gender is all that matters to you, be my guest.  But let's at least be clear that this is what you are saying: you want Bush in heels.

    Yeah, the "first woman Gov." argument (none / 0) (#75)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 04:36:39 PM EST
    falls on deaf ears for me. My governor and both of my senators are women. Any one of them would be more prepared than Palin to serve as VP. And not becuase they are women -- because they've shown real leadership and gravitas, because they all understand foreign policy and economics and enegry issues 100 times better than Palin.

    But, um, let's not let facts get in the way of our emotions.


    Bush appealed to independents too! (none / 0) (#67)
    by Iris on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:10:08 PM EST
    He was a "reformer with results," remember?

    Ahh, the good old days!


    in re Thomas (none / 0) (#70)
    by Iris on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:20:10 PM EST
    Sarah Palin as Clarence Thomas? Ridiculous, irrational comparison.
    Not really, someone else can correct me but it seems virtually identical to me.  Thomas' being African-American gained him sympathy among liberals and AA's, he was able to play the race card brazenly ("high-tech lynching") as a defense against criticism, and those who thought it would help to have a "black voice" to replace Marshall got screwed, because Thomas has proved ever since to be an arch-conservative.  Likewise, those who think that just having a woman in the white house will advance women in general, are in for a rude awakening.  Prepare yourself to see gender cynically and relentlessly manipulated to defend everything she does.

    I stand by my assessment: (none / 0) (#63)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:32:21 PM EST
    it doesn't matter to informed voters who the candidate is -- it matters what s/he will do in office.  I don't debate the fact that there are uninformed voters who will vote for someone based on irrelevant qualities.  I don't debate the fact that it's past time for America to be a more inclusive society.

    I'm not afraid of Palin one iota. Newness is giving way to real issues and her support is waning.

    Same thing happened with Obama.  There's a mindless giddiness to many of his supporters that's been well documented on this site.  But I believe that this has/is fading and mainstream voters are seeing Obama in a more rational light that's based on what he will do rather than who he is and what he represents.  Fortunately, the man is more substance than style and thus his support isn't dwindling.  IMO, you can't say the same of Palin.

    What I am afraid of is the rise of the uniformed voter.  I've been more and more alarmed about the criteria we use to choose our Pres.  How religious is s/he?  Who would be more fun to have a beer with?  Really?  Maybe we've learned our lesson.

    A "minority" candidate chosen in such a manner is a danger to members of her/his own ethnicity/gender/whathaveyou.

    For example, let's say a minority, a Vulcan, was elected Pres or VP.  All the Vulcans rejoice because it's a "historic election."  But after the election and real decisions are flubbed, it's a disaster since the Vulcan is woefully inept and millions of spaceships and spacejobs are lost.  Who would ever vote for another Vulcan?  It'd set back Vulcan rights for eons!  


    some good points worth considering (none / 0) (#68)
    by Iris on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:11:45 PM EST
    kudos for getting a Vulcan reference in there! ;)

    Is it ridiculous for Blacks to vote for Obama (none / 0) (#85)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:39:44 AM EST
    because he's Black?  Many people think it's not.

    OK. You're a Cassandra. (4.20 / 5) (#23)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:08:37 AM EST
    What makes you think Sarah Palin represents a once in a lifetime opportunity?

    Weren't you alive in 1984? Have you forgotten Geraldine Ferraro?


    I was alive (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by sj on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:26:07 AM EST
    But citizens born after that are of voting age now.  So yes.  Absolutely the "once in a lifetime" view is just as appropriate for women as it is for AAs.

    And because I was alive in 1984 I remember that the Mondale/Ferraro ticket lost and lost big.  McCain/Palin may lose, but it will be a nailbiter rather than a landslide.  That makes "once in a lifetime opportunity" viable rather than symbolic.

    The choice of Palin for VP was cynical as all get-out.  And brilliant.  The bright/shiny/new the media requires these days seems to be wearing off before the election.  But I think personally it's too soon to tell.


    is the very first Presidential election she can vote in. And she has a woman on a major-party ticket to vote for, if she so chooses, her first time out. That will certainly shape her perspective -- having a woman on the ballot won't seem so unexpected to voters of her generation. That's the good news.

    The bad news is, if 24 years is really a lifetime, she has only 4 years to live, and my 19-year-old son has only 5. How can I break this terrible news to them?

    To the extent that Palin is seen as adding value to the Republican ticket because she is a woman, that argues strongly against the idea that it will be another lifetime -- or even another 24 years -- before another woman is on a major-party ticket. (I should hasten to add, I don't think that is sufficient reason to vote for McCain; but I suppose if I were truly indifferent between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin on the issues, it might be enough to swing my vote to McCain.)


    You're not usually obtuse (none / 0) (#81)
    by sj on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:19:04 AM EST
    Though you are often sarcastic.  In general terms "once in a lifetime" is analogous to "once in a generation".  And 24 years is a common enough jumping off point to the next generation.  "Once in a lifetime" is still valid.

    As to your second paragraph.  That's an entirely different matter.  I've never thought she had much of a change of bringing 'round a lot of Clinton voters -- she brings in the previously disaffected RW.  

    However, if she receives the "Hillary treatment" or any echoes of it, that could undo all both Clintons have done to possibly bring in people like me.  You may not realize it, but keeping Palin back and out of the line of fire may actually be safer for Obama than giving him the opportunity to be his sexist self.


    to 'Once in a lifetime' as 24 is to 80, more or less. Even if we remove pre-voting-age years from the equation, there are about 60 years in a typical adult's voting lifetime, and at the risk of belaboring the obvious, 60 > 24.

    Cassandra's point was that Palin represents a "once in a lifetime" chance to put a woman in the White House, equivalent to the "once in a lifetime" opportunity to elect a black President.

    Now, I would not argue, because I honestly do not believe, that 2008 will be our only chance to elect a black President. (I fully expect to have the opportunity to re-elect Obama in 2012.) But it is undeniable that Obama represents a historical 'first', in a way that Palin simply does not.

    Looking forward over the next 24 years, what can we expect in future Presidential elections -- more women or more African-American candidates on a major-party ticket? Times are changing, of course, and it's hard to make accurate predictions, especially about the future.

    But ask yourself, are there more women in the Senate, or more African Americans? Off the top of my head, I can name twelve women: Cantwell, Murray, Boxer, Feinstein, Mikulski, Snowe, Dole, Klobuchar, Lincoln, Hutchinson, Landrieu, and Hillary Clinton of course. (Checking, I see I overlooked Democrats McCaskill and Stabenow, and Republicans Collins and Murkowski.) By contrast, in the 50 years of my lifetime so far, there have been a grand total of 3 black U.S. Senators: Brooke, Moseley Braun and Obama.

    I believe there are two sitting Governors who are black: Paterson in New York and Patrick in Massachusetts. There are currently five Democratic women Governors (Gregoire in WA, Napolitano in AZ, Sebelius in KS, Granholm in MI, and Minner in DE), plus Palin of course.

    We have a long way to go. That women now hold 16% of the Senate and 12% of the Governors' seats is not remotely commensurate with their numbers in the electorate, I know that. But the fact remains that there are far more women than blacks who are plausible major-ticket short-list possibilities in the near-term future.


    Once in a lifetime opportunity? (4.00 / 4) (#19)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:02:51 AM EST
    to elect the most uniquely unprepared vice-president in history. No thanks. The whole argument in favor of Palin is offensive. I don't vote with my vag*na. I vote with my brains. Any female Democrat who thinks Palin has something to offer her is seriously deluded and not much of a Democrat at all.

    But hey, I remember lots of people telling me during the 2000 election how happy I should be as a Jew that Lieberman was nominated for VP.

    Didn't work on me then, ain't gonna work on me now.


    Congrats! (3.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:18:12 AM EST
    Those dominatrix photoshops have certainly paid off!

    I haven't seen any of those (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:29:48 AM EST
    and they certainly have not appeared on this site.

    kos is dead wrong, as usual (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kenosharick on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:29:42 AM EST
    Out here in the real world, all I hear (mostly from women) is what a "breath of fresh air" she is, and they are pissed about the attacks on palin by the far-left and the media.

    Beg Your Pardon (none / 0) (#33)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:18:22 AM EST
    In my neck of the woods, women are horrified of Palin and the more she talks (or doesn't talk) the more we dislike her.

    since when (none / 0) (#35)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:56:46 AM EST
    is anecdotal evidence really evidence of anything other than who your friends are?  The real world?  The real world is who's being polled in a statistically-significant sample, not who happens to be at the water cooler this morning.

    howard zinn? (none / 0) (#82)
    by kenosharick on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:38:34 AM EST
    I was replying to what kos said- not any polling data.

    That's a strawman argument (none / 0) (#1)
    by Exeter on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:38:04 PM EST
    Few said to "Palin alone."  The top issue have been attacking Palin on experience, which has clearly proven to be a misstep. Attacking her on other issues that cloud the "maverick" image, have been great and I have supported those attacks.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by rilkefan on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:23:19 AM EST
    "too popular" is straw, isn't it?  And "she'd be entrenched as a woman of the people" is question-begging.  And the argument ignores opportunity costs.  And as far as I can tell it's based on a messianic view of the importance of blogs - it's my impression that Kos has the data and the logic wrong - that Obama has let Palin alone, and Palin's weaknesses and the press have done the rest.  

    And DK didn't help matters (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kempis on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:39:25 AM EST
    out-of-the-gate with that post questioning Palin's baby's maternity. This set in motion a backlash that helped Palin rather than hurt her.

    Has anyone ever said don't raise questions about Palin's positions on issues? I can't recall. Maybe so....But I stand by earlier comments that to attack her relentlessly and personally made Obama-supporters look hysterical and desperate and, for a brief while, put Palin in a bubble.

    There are smart attacks and stupid attacks. Not all attacks are the same.


    You don't know which argument worked (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:46:50 PM EST
    You have your favorite, I think you are wrong. I think her favorability slide is the cumulative effect of her inexperience, a lack of trust in her preparedness to lead, her extremist position on issues, her distortion of her record and her claiming to be an ethics reformer when she'd under a cloud of suspicion in her home state.

    The poll is about her, not McCain, and it's McCain more than her that's being attacked for being a phony-baloney change agent.

    She was the brand new shiny object in the rear view mirror. It didn't take long for the shine to wear off.

    amen jeralyn! (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:05:33 AM EST
    i might add, she was nominated as veep solely to insure the support of the right-wing religious base of the republican party. anything else would have been gravy.

    any negatives that have been revealed about her, since the convention, will have little to no effect on how that evangelical base votes. oh sure, there might be a few women who vote for mccain/palin, just because palin's a women, but i submit they were always going to be few and far between. most women, contrary to mr. kos' implied assertion, are smarter than that.

    so, the poll merely puts her where she should be, no more, no less. i doubt seriously it will change much, between now and nov.


    Yes, I get the distinct sense (none / 0) (#58)
    by Iris on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:46:22 PM EST
    that there are astroturfers here doing McCain-Palin outreach / blog pushback.  Telling us what "real Americans" think about Palin, etc and trying to keep stoking the primary divisions.  And then of course, there are the increasingly angry and hateful PUMA's whose sole mission is nothing more than to see Obama lose, presumably so they can say "I told you so."  Oh, by the way, Obama's ahead in Virginia and Ohio is a dead heat...

    At a certain point, the snarky comments making veiled accusations of sexism got worse than the accusations of racism from Obama supporters ever were...now even the most fervent Hillary supporters are not allowed to criticize Palin on substance because if you do you are just a sexist or you have "drunk the kool-aid"....after all, what possible other reason could you have for opposing McCain-Palin?


    Ends & means (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by marian evans on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 03:54:06 AM EST
    So, the Blogwar against Sarah Palin was an act of "virtue". God help us.

    You know, the truly shocking aspect of blogging on Sarah Palin has been the absolute hypocrisy of the left - the pathetically thin veneer over sexist and "classist" attitudes has been torn away and those of us who had illusions about our "comrades in arms" on the left have been forced to confront some grim realities.

    That's what the Sarah Palin brouhaha has taught us.

    The slavering over the salacious details worthy of the Enquirer, the Salem witch trials hysteria of it all - depressing.

    And BTW I find Sarah Palin's weltanschaung abhorrent - but as Melissa Mc says on Shakesville, feminism means refusing to use sexist language and means even against those we disagree with.


    ha (none / 0) (#27)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 06:17:56 AM EST
    Sarah Palin was criticized from the right as well.

    And I don't vote for YEC creationists who have expressed an interest in teaching that stuff as science.   I would vote against a democrat who held those views without a problem.


    And that is supposed to make it all better... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by marian evans on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:43:29 AM EST
    how exactly?

    When did the American left make the Republicans their moral compass?


    huh? (none / 0) (#47)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:40:21 AM EST
    Saying she doesnt seem qualified isnt a moral issue. Its an opinion. I have it and so do some on the right.

    How was David Brooks disrespectful? Or George Will?  They laid out their personal opinions, as have others, about her ability to manage effectively.  I agree with their concerns.


    a false equivalency...n/t (none / 0) (#60)
    by Iris on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:48:37 PM EST
    response to what? n/t (none / 0) (#7)
    by rilkefan on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:15:38 AM EST
    Good example of post-hoc reasoning n/t (none / 0) (#4)
    by rilkefan on Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 11:59:37 PM EST

    Palin peaks. Obama abandons (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:10:19 AM EST
    both Dakotas.  

    Obama has also abandoned Georgia and Alaska. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:37:47 AM EST
    And if he needed any of those four states, in any conceivable election-night scenario, I'd be worried.

    If it looked like there was a reasonable chance Obama might win 60% of the vote, I'd say sure, what the heck, keep those long-shot states in play. But that's not going to happen. Obama is going to win convincingly, but not resoundingly, with maybe 52%, 53% -- 55% tops.

    Given that, it only makes sense to redeploy Obama's Dakota assets, which were undoubtedly minimal in the first place, to somewhere else (like rural Minnesota) where they can do more good. The same goes for Georgia -- much better to move those efforts into Florida or North Carolina.


    he also did a lot to help the (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:42:08 AM EST
    down ticket races in those states while he was there. I wrote about this earlier today.

    If Palin is fading, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Green26 on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 06:15:48 AM EST
    how is the new Lifetime poll by two pollsters, including Celinda Lake, to be explained? Here's one example.

    -- In a Dramatic Reversal Since Late July, McCain/Palin Now Virtually Tied With Obama/Biden on Who Best Understands Women -

    "Understanding Women and What is Most Important to Them: In Lifetime's late July Every Woman Counts poll, Barack Obama handily beat John McCain 52% to 18% with 11% volunteering "neither" to this question. Just six weeks later, and with the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, McCain/Palin has dramatically reversed those fortunes, now in a virtual tie with Obama/Biden, 44%-42%."


    But Obama struggling to win over Clinton voters (none / 0) (#29)
    by Saul on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:45:56 AM EST
    according to this poll.

    must wonder about the validity ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by wystler on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    The AP-Yahoo! News poll has surveyed the same nationally representative group of about 2,000 adults seven times since November

    ... of drawing samples from the same select 2000-ish people.

    The dark of the polling methods (some of it) is illuminated at the end of the article. Given what Ron Founier has put out this cycle, I've no doubt the kind of bias emanating from AP's shop.


    Independents are listening to it all. (none / 0) (#30)
    by kimsaw on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:10:48 AM EST
    Some independents like me are sick and tired of a double standard fear factor being pushed against Palin.  Why should I be anymore afraid of Palin than I am of Obama who will be the President, not the "President in waiting"? Obama has a limited resume and I question its equivalency to Palin's. He's a product of politics and marketing more than any other candidate. I don't trust that Obama can speak to the truth anymore than McCain can.  A pol is a pol is a lousy excuse for flip flops on either side.

    I'm a middle aged centrist who see the tide swaying back and forth between two lessers. I can't stand the faux outrage or hypocrisy from either side of the blogosphere or the opposing Parties.  The idea that Palin's favorability means the bloom is off the rose competes little with the fact that Obama has never blossomed for many like me.  

    I don't trust either candidate's judgment. Quite frankly it has nothing to do with McCain's pick of Palin or Obama's pick of Biden.  I'm a frustrated voter, I'm not alone. So what do I do? Stay home, cast a useless third party ballot. How can I deal with my conscience when both of these candidates are unacceptable? Just drop out, I'm sure many here will applaud that idea.

    McCain is not Bush, but he's a Republican, and I know what that means. Obama is not a Kennedy, and he's no Clinton either. In fact as I recall he admired Reagan and basically dismissed Clinton as irrelevant to history. Is Obama even a Democrat?  

    Spare me your critique of my views, I own my vote and my voice. I'm going to be listening closely to the debates and then cement my position.  As an independent I may strategically decide my vote. I just may vote McCain and then down ticket Dems, because I don't want to give either party an advantage.  There's no evidence that giving the Dems all the power will be in the nation's best interest given the current leadership of Congress and their unfavorable ratings.

    really now (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by wystler on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:34:05 AM EST
    Spare me your critique of my views ...

    Posting in a forum, and insisting that none should respond? How democratic of you!

    I just may vote McCain and then down ticket Dems, because I don't want to give either party an advantage.  There's no evidence that giving the Dems all the power will be in the nation's best interest given the current leadership of Congress and their unfavorable ratings.

    You really know how to get others' heads a-spinnin'. If your second sentence is to be believed, then it'd make far more sense to vote Republican down-ticket and vote for Obama, since you have so little respect for the current Dem congresscritters.

    Why don't you sit back, and think about working on your rationale?


    you obviously responded so I knew (none / 0) (#54)
    by kimsaw on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    what I was in for. I was predicted the criticism I would get and I obviously got it.

    Nice try on the voting down ticket for Republicans though since the Dems hold the current majority and that's not likely to change. Good attempt at strategy on behalf or your party.

    My rationale is fine for an independent and your condescension is apparent.  

    The Dems have been in the majority for two years little has changed in fact much is worse.  The strength of the Congress is reflected in their leadership or lack thereof.  Quite frankly, neither Party is up to the task of governing, the last 8 years are testament to that.


    So very few Democratic bills have made it out (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Iris on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:57:48 PM EST
    of the Senate because the Republicans have made unprecedented use of the filibuster.  The only bills that have made it through have been the ones that the Republicans dared not oppose for fear of a political fallout.  The ones that they could not afford to make a scene blocking, that they wanted to fail, Bush vetoed.  The expansion of children's health care (SCHIP) is a perfect example of the latter.

    And still with that, they managed to get through an increase in the minimum wage and the economic stimulus plan.  But basically, the Congress has been under de facto GOP control throughout all this time because they could determine what bills would get to the President's desk.

    The Republicans make unprecedented use of the filibuster


    so it's a matter of the filibuster, (none / 0) (#64)
    by kimsaw on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 02:34:28 PM EST
    and not reaching across the aisle? Blame Republicans because they use the established  rules of the Senate. How is the era of post-partisanship supposed to happen if the leadership of both parties can't meet in the middle. Isn't Obama the post partisan leader and McCain the maverick in the middle?  Given Pelosi's support of Obama it's surprising that as Speaker she couldn't follow his rhetoric and put action behind the words. The same goes for Reid and the minority whips.  Reality bites and division works in an election year now doesn't it. It is a failure of  leadership on both sides and instead of working on behalf of a candidate for two years and securing opposition strategy perhaps they should doing a little work every now and then in the middle of the aisle.

    Palin and the "Lies to Nowhere" (none / 0) (#36)
    by bobalaska on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:02:35 AM EST
    It's clear that once people got over the enthusiasm (real and contrived) for Palin, they  began to see her for what she really is:  an extremist whose views on women's rights are gay rights are far outside of mainstream American thought.  Furthermore, whether Republican or Democrat or independent, most American share certain values- including honesty.

    So when Palin and her handlers tell one lie after another, people will tend to view her as just another "business as usual" politician.

    Let's look at some of the "lies to nowhere":

    1.  Bridge to nowhere:  She never told Congress "thanks but no thanks" because the state had already received all the money by the time she became governor.  As we are finding out, she just completed the "road to nowhere"- with a federal earmark!
    2. Earmarks.  She loved them as mayor.  She loves them as governor- and has asked Ted Stevens for nearly $200 million in earmarks this year alone.
    3. Library book banning: She claims her THREE inquiries were "hypothetical." Why was she asking so many times, and why did she try to fire the librarian.
    4. Charging for rape kits:  As mayor, her job was to propose a budget.  When it turns out that her budget eliminated funds that paid for forensic exams for victims of sexual assault, she denied knowing anything about it!
    5. Troopergate:  After pledging to cooperate with a bipartisan investigation, she has clammed up and turned her defense over to the McCain campaign.  What smoking gun(s)are they trying to hide?
    6.  Secret government:  After pledging an "open and transparent, the news is full of stories about her Karl Rove-inspired dual e-mail system- so she could conduct public business without anyone knowing what she is doing.

    Does that sound like the type of "reform" the American people want?

    This quote from Kos (none / 0) (#49)
    by oldpro on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    raises another question:

    "With Palin neutralized (and there's a reason they're hiding her from view)..."

    Speaking of 'hiding people from view,' where's Michelle?  Not a word in weeks...unless I missed it.

    Michelle Obama is not on the ticket. Palin is. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:16:16 PM EST
    Michelle Obama has had about as many press conferences in recent weeks as Cindy McCain, and no one is accusing anybody of "hiding" Cindy McCain.

    Palin, on the other hand, clearly IS being protected from answering press questions, in a way that I think is unprecedented.


    Ummm, Don? (none / 0) (#51)
    by oldpro on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:42:20 PM EST
    Press conferences are not at issue.  Visibility is the question I'm wondering about.

    Michelle was everywhere during the primary...and for a while after.  Now?  Invisible.

    It's only an observation, Don.  Cindy McCain is on television, visibly...every day...with John McCain.

    Michelle?  Nope.  One wonders why.

    Campaign junkies like me are interested in such questions, Don.  It doesn't make us anybody's enemy.


    stay on topic please (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:00:46 PM EST
    it's not Michelle, it's Sarah Palin.

    Press conferences, or rather the lack of them, (none / 0) (#53)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:06:58 PM EST
    are very much the issue.

    If the question were really one of "visibility," there have been plenty of pictures of Palin, and ample news coverage of her rallies. That can hardly be what Kos means when he says "they're hiding her from view."