Carville's Rule: It's The Economy, Stupid

So what issue are voters focused on now? In my opinion, it is the economy. It is NOT Sarah Palin's favorability rating, Troopergate, or any other aspect of Palinpalooza.

Here is an ironic passage from DemfromCt:

Lifetime has a poll getting some play, showing McCain-Palin is making strides with women, at least in terms of understanding them. That number (McCain 44-Obama 42, a big jump for McCain) is very different than who women will vote for.

(Emphasis supplied.) No kidding. Of course that poll result is pretty meaningless in terms of votes. It is about as meaningless as Palin's favorability rating. Time to realize that Palin is an asterisk in this election now. No potential swing voter cares. We're playing by Carville's Rule again - "It's the economy, stupid." Not Sarah Palin.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Palin Post-Peak: Favorability Slides | Bill Clinton On The View: Defends Economic Record >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I wonder how many economic questions (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Angel on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:25:12 AM EST
    will be asked during the first debate.  That will tell us a lot about how the media will make the economy central to the rest of the campaign.  I know this economic mess is on my mind and the minds of almost everyone else I speak with.  

    Bill Clinton's opinion (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:28:00 AM EST
    is that there is going to be at least one economy question in the first debate, even though it's supposed to be devoted to foreign policy. That seems right to me; I don't see how the moderator could avoid it.

    first debate on foreign policy (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by noholib on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:12:59 AM EST
    The subject of the first debate is foreign policy.  Of course, one could well argue that foreign policy and the U.S. economy are linked, but that may be too difficult and complex for the media to handle.

    Angel- so you are saying that (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by kenosharick on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:22:12 AM EST
    the moderators should take it upon themselves to single-handedly change the rules of the debate in order to help Obama? Actually it would not surprise me at all.

    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Faust on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:31:34 AM EST
    The economy and foreign policy have nothing to do with each other. Wars are free!

    Change the debate rules (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:11:43 AM EST
    Not to help Obama, but to help the American people who clearly care about this issue.

    The people deserve to know their policies on the economy and since it is a bigger deal right now for the average voter than foreign policy, I think they have to bring it up in at least one question.

    This isn't about helping a politician, this is about answering the questions that matter most to voters.


    you all seem to have forgotten (none / 0) (#59)
    by kenosharick on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    that there will be two more debates closer to the election that WILL discuss the economy.

    The key: how each is perceived to handle a crisis (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by barryluda on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:29:00 AM EST
    Anyone still undecided must not be making their decision based on policy positions.  How could we have a more stark contrast than Obama vs. McCain.  So, one of the only questions undecideds must be thinking about is which would handle a crisis better.

    A few weeks ago I asked my undecided friend in Colorado which he would prefer to be "speaking to the nation and the world" if Israel attacked Iran.  He thought about it, and then said it was close, but probably Obama.  I just talked to him, and he said that watching them both talk about the current crisis has him leaning heavily toward Obama.

    George Will agrees with your friend (none / 0) (#29)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:27:35 AM EST
    This quote struck me as noteworthy:
    It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

    So "perhaps at great cost" either way (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:47:30 AM EST
    somehow does not bring me the comfort you find in that.

    To flesh out the point (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:34:32 AM EST
    that Palin is clearly not decisive, let's look at Colorado:

    McCain's selection of Gov. Palin as a running mate is a good choice, voters say 55 - 38 percent, and Obama's selection of Sen. Biden is a good choice, voters say 52 - 32 percent.

    But by a 49 - 42 percent margin, voters would rather see Biden as President. Women pick Biden 52 - 37 percent while men go 46 percent to Palin and 45 percent Biden.

    The economy is the most important issue in the election, 51 percent of Colorado voters say. Obama better understands the economy, voters say 47 - 41 percent, while McCain better understands foreign policy, voters say 63 - 29 percent.

    "It's the economy, stupid" concurs Quinnipiac.

    In Ohio, it's ALWAYS been the economy. (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:33:53 AM EST
    Nothing like decades of economic depression to get people to focus on their economic future and to ignore the tabloid and American Idol aspects of campaigns.  Sure it's fun to gossip and speculate about the political versions of Britney and Paris, but that's entertainment, a diversion from the hard realities.

    It was amusing in way to see people who were accustomed to Obama (seemingly) effortlessly grabbing a lion's share of the media go green with envy when Palin became the new kid on the block.  How dare the media go chasing after the next hot story!


    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:38:21 AM EST
    Haven't I read somewhere that women are more likely to see the economy as the most important issue?  I mean, I'd hate to contradict the stereotype of the soccer mom who cares only about electing a strong, manly leader to keep her kids safe at night, but I'm just sayin'.

    Women and minorities (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:45:26 AM EST
    tend to be lower on the economic ladder, so any economic downturn hits them harder.  That pay inequity really hits home about now.

    So it's no surprise that women tend to be concerned about the economy more than men.


    Economy always has polled first (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:50:40 AM EST
    with women, per surveys I've seen over several years.  And understandably, as Fabian notes above.

    All the guys who make 77 cents -- or less, much less, as that's the average -- for every dollar women make, speak up if living on the edge doesn't make the economy matter most to you.  


    Yep but Obama stuggling to get Clinton voters (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Saul on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:39:41 AM EST
    according to this poll.

    OK it's the economy (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:48:41 AM EST
    But what is being proposed?
    Tax cuts.
    That's not the way that Clinton fixed the economy. He began by increasing taxes. We have an incredible deficit. How else can it be lowered?

    And, of course, the unspeakable elephant - thanks to both parties - the war in Iraq. The continual drain on all of our resources.
    It is a testimonial to the insensitivity to human life, and the complete surrender to the corporate domination of our lives, that the war - and how we got there - is not the issue.

    Obama is proposing (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:51:23 AM EST
    a repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.

    FYI, in 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned on giving a middle class tax cut and raising taxes on the wealthy.

    Just like Obama is now.


    IIRC (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:09:15 AM EST
    he waffled on that and is now "reconsidering" after McCain said that "Obama would make things worse".

    He wiggled (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:11:42 AM EST
    but did not waffle.

    I am serious. He said of course there could be a situation that makes repeal of the Bush tax cuts should be delayed but he does not see that situation at this time.


    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:14:38 AM EST
    it technically may be "wiggling" but using so many words and qualifiers makes it sound like waffling. It's eternally his problem--way too many words.

    I know what Clinton campaigned on... (none / 0) (#58)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 05:25:20 PM EST
    I also remember what he did.
    He raised taxes - some even retroactively.

    It's the economy stupid--and empathy (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by kempis on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:51:44 AM EST
    Clinton won in 92 by zeroing in on the economy and by, famously, feeling our pain. Both things mattered. In a three-way race with the disengaged Bush I and the kinda crazy Perot, Clinton seemed like the smartest AND the most compassionate. He related to average Americans. That intangible mattered tremendously.

    I bring this up because my fear is that while Obama can talk about the economy, his affect is more Kerryesque than Clintonian. Ironically, McCain, with the umpteen cars and houses, projects more empathy for the average American--even if he has absolutely nothing substantial to offer in terms of policies that can improve our lot.

    Bush "out-connected-with-the-people" Gore in 00 and Kerry in 04 even though both presented economic plans that benefited the middle and working class and Bush did not.

    I'm troubled in part because I caught a glimpse of Obama and McCain on 60 Minutes. I was working, and the tv was background, but I noticed that McCain's affect was much warmer than Obama's. When presented with an opportunity to truly connect with the audience via an elderly black woman who wanted to get his attention ("just a minute, young lady. I'll see what you want when I finish this interview") because her husband had recently died and he had hoped to live long enough to see Obama elected. "Oh, I'm sorry to hear that." And he gave her a hug that was more formal than warm. He seemed personally unmoved by this woman. How that could be, I don't know....

    But he is going to have to project compassion. Maybe the Dems worry so much about looking weak that they opt for an authoritative delivery--which does not help them at all. Clinton knew this. I hope Obama's advisers do.

    The (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:13:03 AM EST
    problem I continually see with Obama is that he lectures. He is totally putting himself on a pedestal while looking down at the "unwashed masses". He can't seem to undo his college professor persona long enough to connect with the voters.

    college professors (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by noholib on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:21:53 AM EST
    ah come on, please give college professors a break some time ... teachers do far more good and far less harm than many other people ...

    There's (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:23:57 AM EST
    nothing wrong with being a college professor in general. It's political suicide though to act like one.

    unfortunately (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by noholib on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:27:06 AM EST
    I know that, and unfortunately you're probably right. Too bad that intelligence, deliberation, analysis, articulateness, and understanding are not more attractive ...

    It' snot the intelligence et al (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by votermom on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:33:10 AM EST
    that is not valued, it's the inherent inequality that one has vis a vis a Professor when one is a student. The professor has the knowledge which he imparts to you at his discretion, he has power over you, his job is to judge you.
    But a politician running for election is asking to be judged by the voter.

    Seeing that would be a problem, I'm sure... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:23:17 AM EST
    Maybe glasses would help? ;-)

    Meltdown: Voters blaming GOP for financial crisis

    WASHINGTON (AFP) - The financial turmoil that has rocked global markets appears to be benefiting US presidential hopeful Barack Obama, according to a new poll released Monday that finds the Democratic candidate pulling ahead of his Republican opponent John McCain with a 51 percent to 46 percent lead.

    The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll also finds that by a two-to-one margin Americans blame Republicans for the current financial crisis.

    Forty-seven percent of registered voters say Republicans are more responsible for the state of the economy, compared to 24 percent of registered voters who say Democrats are more responsible.

    That (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:25:38 AM EST
    poll is saying that Obama is benefitting because he's a D not because he's such a great candidate.

    well (none / 0) (#40)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:58:08 AM EST
    Obama is the best campaigner the democrats have had since Clinton. Certainly better than Gore or Kerry.  And his poll numbers are better than either.

    I find Obama's delivery to my liking. It might not be everyone's cup of tea but neither is McCains style.


    Not sure what metric you are using (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by dk on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:04:10 AM EST
    to make that statement.  Gore and Kerry easily unified their own party after the primary season, whereas Obama has failed to unify his.  And Gore and Kerry were essentially running the same neck and neck race against the republican candidate as Obama is now.

    well (none / 0) (#51)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM EST
    McCain and Obama have the same percentage of support from their parties (89%) according to this AP poll from 9/17,

    Kerry was down about 5-6 going into the debates (gallup) and only managed to bounce to even, so if he unified the dems more than Obama, there werent so many of them.


    NO (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:02:05 AM EST
    considering the fact that the poll says that voters blame the GOP by a margin of 2 to 1 and yet Obama is still within the margin of error in the poll, I think that speaks to the fact of exactly how very weak a candidate he is.

    His poll numbers are not better than Gore or Kerry, they are in fact pretty similar. Just because you like Obama doesn't mean that he's a good candidate. You may like aloof and distant. Voting history has shown that it's an electoral loser. Bill Clinton could "feel your pain" Obama just wants to analyze your pain.


    eh (none / 0) (#49)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:42:32 AM EST
    Just because you dont like him, doesnt mean hes a bad candidate.  I voted Hillary but Obama is fine.

    Both Gore and Kerry were roundly ripped for their dull personas and never noted for their oratorical skills. Obama clearly has them beat in that department and he certainly had a great convention.

    As for the polls, Kerry and Gore would have loved to have a general lead over Bush through-out the season.  Look at how badly Bush was beating both in the summer months.  Gallup swung wildly in 2000 but Gore was often down 10 or more points, then barely up again, then KO'd again. Sept 21, 2000 had Gore down 10. The convention bump was the first time McCain led Obama since Obama won the primary in June (gallup).

    It may well be that it simply isnt possible in today's polarized society for candidates to run the tables.  People blame the GOP for everything and yet the congressional races are tightening. No accountability has become the norm.

    Bush had the WMD issue nailed to his butt in 2004 and still won.  A guy led his country to war under either false pretenses or bad intel and was still re-elected.  Because he wasnt being judged on performance, he was judged on ideology.


    Fair point (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:55:12 AM EST
    I think Obama has gotten better at it while remaining in his own skin. He can not be Bill Clinton but he certainly has worked hard, and successfully, at connecting on the issue of the economy.

    The real issue is why (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:54:31 AM EST
    won't the left give up on their attacks on Palin, even when it couldn't be more obvious that there has been no net payoff in a decline in McCain's numbers -- the only numbers they should be caring about?

    Because, I think, they have been afflicted with an overpowering case of "bad conscience". Palin has hit them precisely where they hurt. They can't stop trashing her because of what she reminds them of: the shame they feel, and have been made to feel, over their treatment of Hillary.

    Even before Palin entered the race, Obama supporters had been embarrassed terribly when people brought up the sort of misogyny they and their fellow had either engaged in or tolerated when Hillary was attacked. On some level, they knew that their behavior was reprehensible, and that in any previous situation like it they themselves would have been outraged over such vile conduct. They readily excused Obama for not choosing, or even considering, Hillary as VP, despite its obvious disrespect toward her. But when McCain -- a Republican, of all things -- chose himself a woman as a running mate, it was a moral slap in the face. The unspeakable, unregenerate Party, the forces of the Night, had chosen to do what they and the Democratic Party had refused to do: show women and Hillary supporters the basic respect of selecting a woman for such an elevated position. This was intolerable to them. They had been shown up by the people they hated most in the world, and whom they practically regarded as subhuman in their morality. This was more than a prick to their conscience -- it was a dagger through its core.

    Who was it who was always most "insulted" by the choice of Palin, and the notion that women might find something in her selection appealing? Why the very people who had also excoriated Hillary -- rarely was it a fervent Hillary supporter. (The rare exceptions when former Hillary supporters commenced in vicious attacks on Palin were cases in which they essentially embraced Obama as fervently and uncritically as any other Obama supporter, quite effectively and hypocritically denying all the many criticisms they had heaped on Obama before. These people, I think, have bad consciences all their own.)

    What these people feel the need to do now to assuage their own bad consciences is to lash out and destroy the symbol of their own immoral behavior. This is always the way of people afflicted with bad consciences.

    That's why they will continue to attack Palin when it could not be more obvious that it has no real payoff. It's not about taking down McCain -- it's about making themselves feel better about the vicious, immoral things they have done.

    Hah! Nice analysis! (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:07:01 AM EST
    When are you booked into the Improv? :-)

    ha (none / 0) (#13)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:01:39 AM EST
    Immoral to criticize a politician's record?  How strange.  Palin's numbers have tanked. People are taking a harder look at her, which is what they should do.  

    You have no explanation of (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:26:12 AM EST
    the bizarre and ultimately fruitless (in the only relevant sense of bringing down McCain's own numbers) obsession over Palin. Even its utter fecklessness is a major embarrassment to those obsessed.

    But fruitless obsessions have to be explained. Bad conscience works perfectly.


    Read. It's not about her record (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:54:23 AM EST
    when the criticism is vicious and immoral, now, is it?

    well (none / 0) (#43)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:08:15 AM EST
    You can say things but that doesnt make them true. Just FYI.  The bulk of Palin criticism has focused on her spotty record, habit of lying, fundamentalist beliefs, etc.

    But Palin has endured nothing compared to the vitriol and lies sprayed at the Clintons for two decades.  That would be by talk radio obsessed conservatives.

    Look at the immoral attacks some on the right wing threw at McCain in 2000. A "manchurian candidate who was tortured out of his mind".  "A maniac who would get us all killed", etc, etc.  Now I dont agree with McCain's policies but I wouldnt stoop to right wing rhetoric to smear him.

    You can't control every voice on the internet and there will always be uneducated people who thrive on talk radio style smears and half-truths.  But in Palin's case, most of what Ive seen outside of the tabloids is perfectly fair.


    real issue (none / 0) (#20)
    by noholib on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:19:58 AM EST
    franklyO wrote:
    "Who was it who was always most "insulted" by the choice of Palin, and the notion that women might find something in her selection appealing? Why the very people who had also excoriated Hillary -- rarely was it a fervent Hillary supporter."

    You may have a point about bad conscience, but I don't think most are there yet at all.

    I know you're wrong about fervent Hillary supporters. I and several others remain fervent Hillary supporters, have become firm supporters of the Democratic ticket, are genuinely insulted by the tokenism of the Palin choice, and are genuinely fearful about the prospect of a third Republican regime in these perilous times.


    I won't deny that there are some (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by frankly0 on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:31:38 AM EST
    Hillary supporters who feel genuinely insulted by the tokenism.

    What I'm pointing to though is that the people who are most vocal and outraged in their feelings of being "insulted" are those who themselves were part of the Obama camp from the beginning. Most Hillary supporters at least feel some minor appreciation for the crumbs of respect shown them by a selection of a woman for VP, even if they feel simultaneously used.


    no crumbs at all (none / 0) (#37)
    by noholib on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:51:24 AM EST
    Yes, I agree: there are more than a few hypocrites now suddenly trying to make nice to women after their earlier support of sexism and misogyny.

    But, despite all the qualifiers in your final sentence, I still cannot agree with it.
    I feel "no minor appreciation for the crumbs of respect" ...
    I don't see "respect" here at all for women, not even crumbs.
    I see tokenism in the service of political opportunism.
    I see someone who appeals to certain kinds of voters--e.g. right-wing, fundamentalists, etc;
    and to certain kinds of women--who see women's rights and equality differently than I do;
    and to certain kinds of men -- all of the above plus sometimes some weird sexual dynamics.  Rush Limbaugh is salivating over seeing Gov. Palin age in office though he couldn't stand the thought of Sen. Clinton doing so!! Check out the interesting piece by former US Army Brigadier General Janis L. Karpinski, "Palin Can Launch Us Back in Time," on www.truthout.org, Friday 19 September 2008.

    So, in my view, no minor appreciation, no crumbs of respect at all.


    I like my explanation better. (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Fabian on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:43:01 AM EST
    It was because Palin did exactly what she was supposed to do - she stole the media spotlight from Obama.  Sure, it was a cheap, transparent ploy - but it was an effective one.  Plus it stole a lot of thunder from Obama, which it also was meant to do.  

    It's mostly jealously, with a hint of misogyny.  Remember Father what's-his-name's spiel?  Sounds familiar about now.

    (BTW - I am not referring to this blog or the commenters here, but to the average Left Blog.)


    Yep, it's that race is supposed to trump (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Cream City on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:58:02 AM EST
    the gender card in the poker game of politics.  Those who thought that Republicans didn't have a gender card in their deck really haven't been paying attention at all.  Since the 19th Amendment in 1920, Republicans structured women into their party, while Dems put them in the proverbial "auxiliary."  So GOP women have made more gains in many ways since then -- and even before then, as in 1916, the first woman in Congress was . . . a Republican.

    And the first woman (4.00 / 5) (#48)
    by tootired on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:36:23 AM EST
    to have her name placed in nomination for the presidency by a major party was a Republican. And the first woman was appointed to the Supreme Court by a Republican. It does us no good to put our heads in the sand. The Republicans may not have a platform that liberal women can support, but their track record on supporting women in governing positions is in many ways better. We can and should do better, too.

    McCain elevates ONE woman (none / 0) (#50)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:32:50 AM EST
    with his pick, but his policies hurt all women.

    And my point is that (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by tootired on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 10:52:25 AM EST
    the party that has the good policies for women needs to elect more women to office, but apparently that's not a good idea? I said we should do better than the Republicans. Why are we letting the Republican Party go down in the history books as the party of "firsts" when it comes to women? Women are the majority in the Democratic Party, and we're worried that a substantial number of long time Democratic women are going to cross over and vote for a Republican woman who is diametrically opposed from them on most issues because they have no faith that the Democrats are going to give them an opportunity to see a woman as VP in their lifetime. Why do they believe that? Maybe if there were more women being elected to the House and the Senate, they would see that a new generation of women are making their way up the political ladder toward the White House? What is the down side to electing more women?  

    Really? (none / 0) (#45)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:29:28 AM EST
    I felt all that and didn't even know it. Thank you.


    I didn't like Palin from the moment I laid eyes on her. PHONEY with a capital P.


    The hate Palin over-kill is tribalism (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by esmense on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    and identity politicking at its worst. Not rationale, and certainly not respectful, political appeals. It's "hate and destroy them because they are the wrong kind of people" rather than "vote for us because we have the best ideas and experience and will be better at representing your interests and the common interest."

    I won't vote for McCain/Palin because I don't agree with their ideology. But the more those on the left, in the media and the blogosphere, indulge in this kind of personal over-kill, the harder I find it to "identify" with the Democrats. I can't help but ask: Can a party supported by people with the attitudes and bias revealed during this campaign actually represent the working people it claims to represent? And, can it effectively support the policies it claims to support?

    Frankly, Keith Olbermann, Sandra Bernhard, Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan, Arianna Huffington, Marty Peretz, Joe Klein, Michelle Cottle, Frank Rich, etc., etc., etc., and their various fans and website posters, don't at all share my economic and political interests. I am not actually part of their "tribe." And, increasingly, I am uncomfortable being associated with them through my politics. The more they appeal to me to hate Palin and the tribe they believe she represents, the more I doubt the party they think they are promoting could really respect and represent me.

    The questions I'm asking here are ones that the Democratic party really needs to start asking itself.

    Yes (none / 0) (#7)
    by Lahdee on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 07:46:31 AM EST
    Keep it simple. Americans love simple.

    Palin is basically neutralized, but (none / 0) (#25)
    by pluege on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:24:57 AM EST
    that is because the attention on her revealed her to be the crazy extremist wingnut that she is, i.e., I agree with Jeralyn and [cough] kos that attention was needed to expose her. Without that, the republican meme of 'pretty, plucky, smart, Hockey Mom just like so many middle class women' prevails and it fools a LOT of voters not willing to look behind the curtain, and not particularly strong on Obama or the horrors of Big Liar John. Taking down porkbarrel palin a notch or two was absolutely essential. Ignoring her and letting the republican fantasy image machine spin its fantastic lies about her would have been a disaster.

    That's exactly backwards (none / 0) (#53)
    by ks on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    Though "neutralization" it a common excuse/justification for the mostly outrageous nonsense directed at Palin.

    What a lot of the Left blogs are trying not to acknowlege is their dubious and critical role in creating Palinpalozza in the first place. They were central in "creating the monster", as it were, and now they want to pat themselves on the back for slaying it.  Please.


    oh really... (none / 0) (#54)
    by pluege on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    mccain picks the first woman as a republican running mate, who happens to be mouthbreather, a anti-environmental pro-oil corporate shill, a corrupt-as-can-be pol, with a whacked family story and you think that no one would have noticed except for a bunch of blogs that only a small number of progressives read. wow!

    That's just ridiculous nonsense and weak spin.... (none / 0) (#55)
    by ks on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    You can try and pretend that the initial, and seemingly unending, hysterical screeching about Palin from the main Left blogs didn't play a key part role in creating Palinpalozza in the first place but that would be, frankly, silly.

    I suppose next you'll tell me facts are silly (none / 0) (#56)
    by pluege on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:25:58 PM EST
    H/T Atrios.

    Fact: a tiny tiny percentage of American voters read progressive blogs, and virtually 100% of that tiny tiny percentage of Americans were voting for Obama no matter what mccain did. So by cognitive reasoning, the progressive blog hissy fits over porkbarrel palin had little to no effect whatsoever.

    The MSM pursuing her wingnut ways is an entirely different matter and as I mentioned, to good effect.  


    Like I said... (none / 0) (#57)
    by ks on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    If you want to pretend go right ahead....but it really is a shallow attempt at revisionist history (as per the lefty blogs and their assorted dubious MSM companions) and spin (the continued gross exaggerations about her in general).

    The really funny thing is that you all don't realize that you're recreating the same pattern that led to Palinpalozza in the first place. Given the current round of crazed anti-Palin distortions, half truths, outright lies and rumor mongering, all Palin has to do is show up for the VP debate and not be the "monster" some of you all are making her out to be and she'll win it going away.