Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Be nice.

< Palin Family Ban is Lifted | Pilot is Victim of Secret Terrorist Watch List >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    one thing is certain (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:53:33 AM EST
    with all this brouhaha I expect her audience tonight to be huge.
    I am looking forward to it.

    This is the worst thing possible (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CST on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:59:09 AM EST
    That could happen to this election.  It has to be about the issues.  If it is about issues then Obama wins hands down.  That's what the democratic convention taught us.
    All this Palin nonsese is just noise to distract.  And it's WORKING.

    Which is most likely exactly the republican plan (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:01:52 AM EST
    with choosing Palin (in addition to all the other obvious reasons). Note the shift in discussion to teen pregnancy, abortion, etc.

    And I laugh every time someone from the left suggest or says that picking Palin means McCain will loose for sure.



    Um aren't those issues? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:06:53 AM EST
    Teen pregnancy, abortion, etc?

    Sounds like their plan is backfiring then?


    the plan is not backfiring (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    They are NOT strong democratic issues (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    As the original poster implied (I think) economy, change, McCain=Bush works and dems win. Social battles, experience, and attacking women and repubs win.

    How much discussion have you seen of the latter issues this past few days?


    Women's right to choose (3.00 / 0) (#31)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:14:09 AM EST
    Is a CORE democratic value.

    We all know McCain = Bush, and that message won't stop getting pushed by the Obama camp.

    But if McCain is going to continue to pander to women and displaced Hillary supporters, he better stay away from one of the MOST important values to women who share Hillary's.

    Honestly, I welcome the discussion.


    It's an issue (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:23:28 AM EST
    that I think Obama had hoped he was done talking about for this election.  I don't think he wants to be preaching to the choir.  He had hoped to be going after the indies and moderate repugs who made hold a more centrist to right position on abortion.  That's why he did the "above my pay grade" answer.  He tried to not offend either side of the debate.

    and could any of us (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by ccpup on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM EST
    have predicted a couple weeks ago that Obama would be struggling to make the news?  Nowadays, when Obama's name pops up, it's more often than not in response to something Palin oriented.  How many voters know Obama-Biden are on the Bestest Bus Tour Ev-ah!  Not many.  

    I don't think ANYONE thought Palin would change the conversation as swiftly and decisively as she has.

    As for her daughter, it would be interesting to see the statistics for women (and parents, in general) who find themselves grandparents before they're 50 due to an earlier-than-expected pregnancy with one of their children.  I would suspect the numbers could be surprising.

    In the end, it may be more of a non-issue than a deciding factor (and certainly not the Death Knell the Dems are hoping and praying it is) as many voters -- although they may disagree with McCain-Palin on other issues -- find themselves commiserating with the Palins in light of their own histories.


    it's worse than that (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    the only tme for the past few days that you here Obama mentioned in the news is when the dems are trying to prove he is more qualified to be president than Palin is to be VP.

    I'm sure he'll have to address it tomorrow (none / 0) (#60)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:26:30 AM EST
    On O'Reilly.

    Obama Airing Pro Choice Ads (none / 0) (#115)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:48:08 AM EST
    according to the NY Times Political Blog
    in at least seven swing states.

    Maybe the trends outlined in the latest Gallup polling in indie and Dem women in the last month are telling his campaign this is an issue to hit McCain on harder.


    But don't you see? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:05:02 PM EST
    The comeback for Palin is, "this is the choice I made when I found out I was having a Downs' baby, and this is the choice our daughter made when she found out she was pregnant; these were and are the right choices for us."  

    Because, like it or not, whether one is having a Downs' baby or is pregnant at 17, having the baby is still a choice that all women can - and do - make.

    If this is pushing Obama to the left of where he has been on choice, great - but I'm not all that sure that a pro-choice ad accomplishes what he thinks it will, with the demographic that he's trying to reach.


    I Have No Idea Why (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    they're going with these ads.

    It seems to be counterintuitive to me.


    I agree with you, Anne (none / 0) (#156)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:10:14 PM EST
    Good post!

    Finally. But maybe too late (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:21:25 PM EST
    for Obama to step up and be counted as pro-choice.

    What core Democratice values? (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by abfabdem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:29:49 AM EST
    I'm seeing the left beat up any woman who dares to run for office in the most horrible terms possible, but oh yes, with the Dems you can have an abortion so that makes it OK to trash women. Great values with this party, yes indeed!  For eight years we thought the Republicans were the scumbags and now we see the Democrats doing an excellent imitation of scum, thank you very much.  Yep, makes ya proud to be a Democrat!

    Yep, to paraphrase Michelle Obama.... (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by alexei on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:56:17 AM EST
    "For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed to be a Democrat!"

    I have been thinking exactly the same thing (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:58:46 AM EST
    I am fighting the gut feeling that I really want these disgusting slime merchants to lose.

    Really? (2.25 / 4) (#168)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    Fighting the gut feeling? Really?

    Based on your posts for the last month I took for granted you were a paid McCain advocate shilling on a lefty blog.


    Have you heard Rush Limbaugh (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:09:58 PM EST
    go after Sally Quinn and others on their screed a woman with five children, one of whom has Down Syndrome, plus a pregnant 17 year old daughter, must stay home and tend her family personally.  But, as Rush says, the female talking heads also have children and do not devote themselves fulltime to family matters.  He sd. although we aren't at China's one-child/per family rule yet, maybe that's next.  He was hopping mad.  I think the GOP base is highly-energized.

    Rush is supporting Palin??? (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    Oh dear, that's not good.
    I was hoping his dislike of McCain would stay until November.

    Have you not been paying attention? (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by nalo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:37:15 PM EST
    McCain actually chose Palin to appease Rush.  The thing he likes most about her is that unlike Hillary he would "like to see her age in office".  He's been going on about it for months, at least since Feb.  The right wing zealots are happy.

    Nobody seriously thinks that a right-wing zealot like Palin will appeal to Hillary supporters other than PUMA trolls.  

    Look at the polls.


    oh yeah, big time (none / 0) (#204)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:45:01 PM EST
    this is why, contrary to what you hear, she was picked.
    the wingnuts love her.
    I wonder how much of this $hitstorm they McCain expected when he picked her.  I think a lot of it was expected but I also think it has exceeded their expectations by far.
    as days go by I am more convinced it was a brilliant choice by McCain.
    (btw for the slow readers - this does not mean I support the republican ticket.  only that I recognize and respect the ability and the will to win)

    It's a core democratic value ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:27:20 PM EST
    but the abortion issue almost single-handedly created the Religious Right as a power broker in American politics.

    In a close election, wedge issues will kill us.


    Not really. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:18:03 AM EST
    It takes abortion out of the theoretical and puts it into real life.

    Of course, the odds are good that women who get abortions do not have families ready to support them no matter what.  Lack of support, financial and otherwise, is a major reason women terminate their pregnancies.


    Abortion was never just (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    theoretical for a very large percentage of the population.

    They're "wedge issues" (none / 0) (#52)
    by rdandrea on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:23:15 AM EST

    Lose not loose (none / 0) (#14)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:03:58 AM EST
    Although it would be funny is McCain was loose!

    yeah (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:08:06 AM EST
    thought that was, um never mind.

    Side issues... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:49:41 AM EST
    it is always side issues that bolster the Republcan votes.

    Dems should drop the Palin discussion and refocus on McCain and the issues.

    I hope that the Republican diversionary tactics don't win the Presidential election once again.

    (FOX is busy blaming Obama for attacking Palin.  Obama's supporters need to back off. The attacks are hurting our side.  I appaud Jerilyn for baning talk about personal matters.  I would love to see other sites do that.)


    But, she just removed the ban. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by alexei on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:58:21 AM EST
    You're (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:19:19 AM EST
    absolutely 100% correct on this one. And everybody laughed when the GOP operative said that the election isn't going to be about issues? It seems that a trap was baited and the bait taken.

    amen brother (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:02:20 AM EST
    if its about issues we win.  but every day it is not we lose.
    I think ultimately that it will not be about issues.
    I think McCain knows this and this is why he picked her.

    Yup (none / 0) (#191)
    by CST on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:37:20 PM EST
    Except I think Obama has learned that too.  His newer ads seem to show he is learning.  And his convention speech did too.  So I guess we will have to wait and see who wins out.  This week it's clearly Mccain but in 2 weeks people will be tired of talking Palin, and then, MAYBE the issues will come forward.  I have moved from horribly pessimistic to cautiously optimistic that there are still a few months to go and this story will eventually die down.

    The question just remains whether the damage is already done.  I hope not but I just don't know.  It is pretty disheartening to see so many people take the bait.


    This makes me mad (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:02:08 AM EST

    She doesn't leave these girls too many "choices", does she??

    No sex education, no contraception, no pregnancy terminations, and no place to live.

    I guess it's all good because her family has enough money to support her pregnant teenage daughter... but these are the kind of issues that tick me off about her.

    And THAT'S how Republicans (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:25:24 AM EST
    want us to be pro-life.  As long as the woman/girl doesn't get an abortion, what happens to her and her child once it is born is of absolutely no interest to them.  If they don't have supportive families -- and victims of incest are certainly unlikely to have them -- then it's just too bad, you're on your own.  God forbid they should get an abortion, and God forbid we should spend any money to help them actually care for their babies.

    God also forbids, apparently, telling them how they can avoid pregnancy and STDs other than telling them to keep their legs crossed. As we can see, that's not 100% effective.

    It makes me sick.


    Seems she added money to their budget? (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:56:26 AM EST
    Reading through the comments of the article, it's mentioned that the previous year they got under 2mil. When the buget was done, they were slated to an increase of 5. She knocked it down to under 4mil. So it seems the funding almost doubled?

    (sigh) (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by ccpup on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:04:03 PM EST
    you know, when you offer facts like that, it's really, REALLY a buzzkill for all this righteous indignation and thinly-veiled hatred.

    But, in the end, at least facts can be ignored in order to push the spin, right?



    Another disengenous article from the MSM? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by alexei on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:08:29 PM EST
    Sure, let's look at the whole budgetary picture instead of cherry picking.  Doesn't mean that I agree with the cuts, but, before I pass judgment, I what all of the facts and not what the Washington Post decides to report on because, frankly, I don't believe the MSM.  But, at least this is an issue although I believed coached to frame Palin as an uncaring bi**h (I know, they can say she is a hypocrite).  So, where is this type of reporting on Obama?  I suspect any candidate that the MSM promotes and look harder at those they vilify.  The MSM promoted GW Bush, the Iraq War, and vilified the Clintons and Gore. Hum.

    I want my Party back and I want the Democrats to stop the hate on women (paraphrasing Donna Brazile) .


    Ownership society (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:36:22 PM EST
    As Obama said, it's the ownership society--I've got mine, you're on your own.

    Honestly, the fundamental philosophical difference between the parties is so stark right now that I can't understand how anyone can seriously say that they're the same.


    Except that the Post got it wrong (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    See NYCStray's comment above.

    I tracked this down to a couple of right-wing blogs who do seem to have the goods on this, links to budget items, etc.

    Funding for this program increased under Palin.  What she cut was 20 percent of the huge increase voted by the legislature.


    Told the nice DNC volunteer off (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:03:26 AM EST
    I finally got up the nerve and on the third fund raising call I finally said "No thanks." and listed Reid, Pelosi, FISA and the treatment of Hillary as why.

    I have a perfectly good local candidate to donate to here - Mary Jo Kilroy.  She can have my money.  The DNC is SOL this year.  

    My response of course would be (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:11:24 AM EST
    Healthcare, Iraq War, Alternative Energy.

    But of course if you want to continue to gripe about Nancy Pelosi, that's within your right.

    Meanwhile, over 4,000 soldiers are dead in Iraq, and McSame wants to stay there.



    We are leaving Iraq. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:21:08 AM EST
    Mostly because it is just too expensive to stay.

    My question is HOW are we leaving Iraq?  There are good ways and bad ways to do it.  Neither candidate has said.  It would give me much insight into their foreign policy fitness.

    (BTW - beating up Iran for its nuclear program is dumb, dumb, dumb AND hypocritical.)


    I think it will be the October surprise (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:29:38 AM EST
    They are negotiating this right now as Iraq said they want us out by 2011. I am thinking that they will announce the withdrawal agreement before the election. Then it takes it off the table. IMO.

    Obama HAS said (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:30:16 AM EST
    I take it you haven't checked it out?

    His timetable? That was ridiculed by Bush/McCain, and supported by the Iraqi leader?

    And now they are trying to find a way to put his timetable into place?



    NOT timetable. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:40:03 AM EST
    Just how does one plan on pulling a major military force out without further destabilizing the region?

    A simple unilateral pull out is just asking for the worst possible scenario.  Bye guys!  We really hope that all the major powers in the region don't carve your country up like a Christmas goose because your government is weak and your army is worse!

    Talking to those regional powers might be a good idea, no?  Before, not after?


    Simple unilateral pullout (2.00 / 1) (#203)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    Demonstrates to me that you have NOT read Obama's plan for withdrawal...

    Or Clinton's for that matter actually.


    WaPo: U.S. troops have entered Pakistan (none / 0) (#138)
    by Josey on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:59:33 AM EST
    And the Dems got us out? (none / 0) (#158)
    by alexei on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:10:58 PM EST
    Obama has had several "views" on Iraq - which one can we believe in?

    I just neatly attached (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by flashman on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:13:53 AM EST
    My Obama/Biden bumper-sticker.

    Now that I'm visibly a supporter, can I say what I really think?


    Go for it... (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:36:00 AM EST
    ...the worst thing that could happen is you get banned.

    What would happen (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:41:40 AM EST
    if I got me a Obama/Palin sticker?  Is anger a renewable energy and can I run my car on it?

    Palin's Speech, for Me (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:04:11 AM EST
    Will be like the scene after a really nasty car accident.  You know you shouldn't look, you know it's only going to upset and sadden you to look, but dang it all, you look anyway.  The sad truth of the matter is I'll be watching this dangeous ideologue's speech tonight because it will be a spectacle.  

    My sentiments exactly. (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:34:53 AM EST
    I know this because I couldn't resist watching the trainwreck that was Joe Lieberman last night. But at least tonight Project Runway might tempt me away.

    what about Joe (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:38:26 AM EST
    that was a pretty amazing spectacle.
    I cant remember anything exactly like that happening before.  sure there have been crossovers (Mr Sweater at the dem convention) but that last part where he explicitly appealed to various democrats including "Clinton Deemocrats", dont remember anything quite like that before.
    if he doesnt lose his committee assignments now,
    I dont know how to finish that sentence.

    Didn't Zell Miller (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    attend the repug convention last time around?

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM EST
    but in all honesty, Lieberman's speech was much better. Miller ran around screaming and later threatened Chris Matthews to a duel. Miller came off as some nut. Granted doing better than Zell isn't saying much.

    Indeed, it was something to behold. (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:41:51 AM EST
    Anyone who thinks that Joe Leiberman is not a vindictive SOB, well what more evidence do you need?  My feeling is that he just continues to call himself a Democrat in order to be able to spit on the party from within.

    much like the above mentioned (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:45:38 AM EST
    Zell.  but Zell was not nearly as effective as Joe.

    But, Zell (none / 0) (#132)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    was more entertaining.  And, I actually SAW Zell because that was back in the days that I still was wiling to watch MSNBC and saw the Zell / Matthews comedy act.

    I didn't watch Joe at the convention.  I can't stand his voice.  It always sounds like whining to me.  And, I was planning to only watch Palin and McCain's speeches.


    Lieberman is Callow (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:46:49 AM EST
    And even worse, a true War Dog.  It is good riddance, that he is no longer a Democrat.  And I might even raise that and say it would be good for the country if he did switch his formal allegiance to Republicans.  Almost all GOP pols are War Dogs after all, but with only a few exceptions like Olympia Snowe, very, very few of them, are moderate on social and economic issues.  

    It would be in America's interest for the GOP to pick up a few more Liebermans and Snowes, and lose a few Santorums and Palins.

    Meanwhile, his "appeal" to Democrats last night was as empty of substance and as pathetic as it gets.  A terrible, terrible speaker, as bad as Bush.


    So (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:10:28 AM EST
    Palin is going to give a "best speech evar"  tonight, and the media will decide that all is forgiven.

    Good job Obama blogs!

    I have never seen (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:11:53 AM EST
    people so angry.  I have no idea how this will turn out but they have given her such a boost it is hard to believe.

    Oh no, the last three days (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:13:13 AM EST
    have been terrible for Palin and the Republicans.

    But now everyone will be watching tonight with lowered expectations, and will be blown away. It's so predictable, and it could have been avoided.

    Obama's "best friends" are responsible, of course.


    I completely diagree (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    I dont think they have been terrible for Republicans at all.  I think it may have been terrible for the 17 years old girl. but republicans?  this is exactly what they wanted.
    I interact with a lot of people, at least by email, that I would not "hang out" with.  I have talked about this before.
    those people are angry.  they hate what the media has done.  they are spitting mad.  I honestly believe that Obama has lost the election since last friday.  I am getting mail from lots of democrats that reinforce this.

    8 More Shocking Revelations About Sarah Palin (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    It's not the pregnancy, but it's the hypocrisy, stupid.

    Like the funding cut for young, unwed mothers.


    Well, everyone has their own anecdotes (4.00 / 3) (#37)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:19:05 AM EST
    But it seems to me that the problem for Palin politically isn't her daughter, it's the charge of inexperience. That one is going to blow up for Democrats tonight, and for no good reason.

    no no no (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:26:24 AM EST
    the inexperience thing is not a problem the Palin (the VP) it is a problem for Obama (the P).
    like some blogger said.  this was a dare.  he dared them to go after her inexperience because he knew it would  highlight Obamas.  and it has and will.
    and another thing.  all this slime, it has opened the slime floodgates folks.  you should put on your slickers and hats because everything is on the table now.
    look around you.  we are in the gutter.  and we put ourselves there.  hows the view?

    the VP inexperience argument makes (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:34:35 AM EST
    no sense at all.

    Obama fixed his "inexperience" problem by naming Biden as VP.

    If Palin were to become president, she also gets to have a VP and can fix her "inexperience" problem the same way Obama did.

    Why don't people see this?  If I were telling Palin what to say during the 1st debate, I would have her make a pledge to select Biden as VP should McCain die while in office.  There, experience problem solved.


    You're (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:22:05 AM EST
    right about setting the bar low. If she doesn't morph into Pat Robertson circa 1992 then she's going to look good.

    Isn't that how Bush "won" the election? (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:26:57 AM EST
    Al Gore had to be pitch perfect. All Bush had to do was not drool.

    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    And if Palin doesn't look perfect tonight, just wait for Joe Biden to sigh during the debate.

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:29:34 AM EST
    it's the same game all over again. And the attacks on Palin have just made it easier for the GOP.

    Wow. You guys need (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by TomStewart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    to buck up. You act like this election doesn't still have two months to go. 'Obama already lost this..' Well, nonsense! We have a long slog still ahead of us, and Obama is going up in the polls, and more people are getting comfortable with him. That's all good.

    People will see Palin give her speech, all about her and her family (her best subject and the one she's most comfortable), but then they'll see McCain give his and we'll see how that plays out, my guess is not well. I figure that McCain will not get the bounce that Obama gets, because fewer people will be watching, and really, there is less interest. I bet Obama will come out next week with a slight lead.


    what people? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:21:12 AM EST
    I'm not so sure (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:19:23 AM EST
    Until the media are even allowed to TALK to Palin, I'm not sure how welcoming they will be to her.

    The McCain camp failed to define her, and let the media do it on their own. Now they have a preconception about her, and she has to dig her way out of a hole.

    One speech read off a teleprompter is not going to do that.

    She needs to sit down and get asked tough questions like Campbell Brown did with Tucker Bounds. And of course do this without the McCain camp screaming "unfair".

    This is the Vice Presidency we are talking about after all.


    it's called lowering expectations (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:20:47 AM EST
    Watch how everyone loves her after tonight. I'd bet on it.

    She'll handle it (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    I agree. I would be floored if she doesn't come off as a strong determined woman, a compassionate mother and ready for the big league. Her detractors are some of the same people that thought McCain would come off as a bumbling fool. Neither should be under estimated.

    We need to quit with the Palin attacks and pound the Republican platform and performance.


    Well we disagree for once. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    I will bet you one hot cup of jack squat that you are wrong. Lets check back in post convention and see what's happened to the narrative.

    Oh, I hope I'm wrong (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:23:38 AM EST
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#41)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:20:23 AM EST
    It really depends how the speech goes. Speeches are not guaranteed slam dunks.

    Also, I have no sense that Palin is a media darling by any measure. The media seems to like its current crop of narratives very much.

    I think they will cut her slack for the speech, but to say all will be forgiven? I'll bet no.


    If she doesn't call for immediate (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:29:47 AM EST
    Alaska secession and burning teenage mothers other than her daughter at the stake, the media will say that she's passed her first hurdle.

    Here my question: how much do you want to bet that Sarah "Don't Talk About My Kids" Palin will not only wheel out her daughter's situation, but her own with Trig, to show how truly pro-life she is.  Because I'm pretty sure she will.


    of course she will (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    I hope she talks about it.  I want to see her take this filth headon.
    I suspect many people do.

    Just watch (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    Based on viewing her speech in (none / 0) (#177)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    Dayton, I'd say she is a very good public speaker.  Also, like andgarden, I anticipate viewership of her speech tonight will be quite high--Republicans, Democrats, Indies, undecideds.  Since I expect the media will air the speech w/o interruption, viewers will be able to decide for themselves how effective they think the speech was.  

    FYI (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    the inimitable Anglachel has a typically brilliant post up on this stuff.
    read it.

    Mmmm (none / 0) (#175)
    by JAB on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:22:47 PM EST
    The links to Anglachel and Riverdaughter (The Confluence) were removed from this site.

    Mmmm ideed (none / 0) (#195)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:40:06 PM EST
    I had not noticed that.  but I never used them.
    I have a feeling they have gained more links than they have lost recently.

    Good advice (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:13:56 AM EST
    Here is the scenario to fear (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:40:07 AM EST
    if anyone thinks through the statistics on first pregnancies:  Miscarriage.

    And it would be blamed on the hounding of this young woman by liberal blogs.  Like this one.


    It's a bit late for that. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:44:04 AM EST
    However, there are plenty of things that can go wrong at any point in a pregnancy.  You can even die from them.  

    Yes, the librul blog frenzy already (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:55:00 AM EST
    has made a mess of the Obama campaign.  But better late than never that the frenzy stop, and that blogs be more responsible -- lest they find themselves held responsible for even worse.

    Yes you're right (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by nalo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:16:12 PM EST
    Thank god there have been no outlandish smears of Obama on the "librul blogs"

    Nice snark. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:22:29 PM EST
    There certainly have been.  But you're missing that a lot of the public only pays attention after Labor Day.  Those who missed the earlier nonsense about Obama see only this anti-Palin nonsense now.

    From what I see, Obama is trying to move the discussion back to his agenda.  He's not getting the help he needs from a lot of those who claim to be for his campaign.


    More likely, yes (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:52:57 AM EST
    but the likelihood remains higher throughout in the first pregnancy.

    What I don't Understand... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by santarita on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    is why the obsession with Palin?  Is there much argument among Democrats and Independent progressives that McCain's choice is a spectacularly bad one for a variety of good reasons?  Are there Republicans out there who read the blogs who will be convinced by the continued dissection (or maybe vivisection is a better word) of this candidate and her family?  The obsession is taking on the character of voyeurism.  

    Do we really want to make this election more about family values than issues like the economy and the environment and the military adventurism that seems to be acceptable policy?

    Maybe the so-called progressive blogs could post a banner on the home page that says:  Palin is a scum of the earth mother who pimps out her daughter.  That might allow for more intelligent discussion of issues that should matter to the electorate.  

    In all honesty (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:21:18 AM EST
    The blogs aren't the ones digging up all this information and running wild.

    The media are.

    The blogs are linking to stories by Washington Post, WSJ, AP, etc.


    this is crazy (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:22:35 AM EST
    those media outlets you mention got the slime from Kos and other blogs for the most part.
    thats what is so unbelievable about it.

    WaPo, LA Times?? (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by nalo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    The Washington Post and LA Times are not liberal blogs.  These newspapers and many others have sent reporters to Alaska and that is where the stories are coming from.  This is the traditional mainstream media that used to support McCain is freaking out because McCain is no longer giving them Straight Talk access and Sarah Palin will only interview with People magazine.  

    Blaming it on "liberal bloggers" is right wing spin.

    Didn't you try to claim yesterday that the AP was pro-Obama yesterday and were given many examples that show that AP is actually pro-McCain?  


    Show me a mainstream media platform (none / 0) (#74)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:30:59 AM EST
    That cites it's evidence as KOS or another liberal blog.

    Andrew Sullivan's... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    ...posts on theatlantic.com, for starters.

    See, this would be an interesting topic to cover: to what extent are old media and new media entwined when it comes to political revelations--and what questions does the anonymity of new media raise about campaigns' working with blogs when it comes to stuff like releasing birth certificates.


    Remember how the Bush administration (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:31:35 AM EST
    "leaked" stories to the media and later would refer to those very same stories as proof that the stories were real and substantial?  The WH could have "leaked" a totally bogus story and one media cycle later have the media "validate" it for them.

    That was genius.  Using the media to legitimize a rumor or gossip.  Brilliant, but evil.

    Same thing now.  Just because some paper of record prints something doesn't mean that it isn't gossip.  The media are gullible fools sometimes.  There's ample proof.


    And, the media is doing this to (none / 0) (#129)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:55:29 AM EST
    hurt Dems.   I don't believe the media to be stupid, I believe that the owners of the media dictate the slant.

    "Who do we (big business) want to win?   How do we make that happen?   We create a backlash against Obama supporters for beating up on a woman."



    The GOP loves family values. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:25:41 AM EST
    So whoever attacks the Palin family is just playing right into their hands.

    I just have no idea why the loudmouths who will just not. shut. up. don't see that.

    I'm angry.  I don't like the GOP.  But I'm smart enough to see that shooting at everything that moves is not smart.  I would credit my gender, but it's not just the men shooting off their mouths.


    Gallup: McCain and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:21:32 AM EST
    Usual disclaimer: I'm a polling consumer--no claim to interpretive expertise. Just report what I read.

    But this Gallup Poll
    out today is certainly good news for Obama.

    I do think it's still early to judge support coming from the Palin nomination.


    "An update on gender differences in white voters' presidential vote shows that Barack Obama's gains vis-à-vis John McCain in the days since the Democratic National Convention have come among independents and Democrats of both genders, but that McCain has actually gained slightly among Republican women. The preferences of Republican men have not changed.

    "The net effect of these patterns: Obama has registered significant overall gains among white men, but there has been no net change in his support among white women."

    But that last statement is due to McCain's gain among Republican women--up 5% from 8/1 to 9/1.

    Because the number I am really excited about is that Obama is also up among women--Dems up 8% (74-82!) and Indies: 41% to 46%.

    I think you really have to follow the link and look at the comparison charts to get a good feel for this.

    Out of control (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by thentro on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:26:12 AM EST
    The McCain campaign is so out of control of the Palin story that I seriously doubt if they can ever get it back fully. And if you don't control your own story, you loose.

    this is so wrong (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    they have played this story like a stradivarius.

    Turn on the teebee (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by waldenpond on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:07:36 PM EST
    Pick a channel, any channel.

    The McCain and Palin campaign are at the airport.  The greeting:  I am watching McCain repeatedly hug Bristol, shake the hand and hold the hand of Levi and kiss baby Trig that is being held by another sister.  McCain's older children are there also.

    Now they are all lined up and getting photographed.  More of McCain hugging Palin.


    I have admired (none / 0) (#206)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:48:11 PM EST
    you sparse post recently

    WNYC this morning covered the vetting of Palin (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by jawbone on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:28:43 AM EST
    quite heavily. Had McCain vetted her enough?  Did he really vet her? Does this indicate a lack of "judgement" on McCain's part? Something about a 69 page report (is there significance to that number?)...  Why wasn't the local dry cleaner interviewed? The town clerk? Why weren't more people in AK interviewed about her? What more will the press find out? Will she be force to drop out of the race? Tonight's speech will be the "speech of her life" and determine her career henceforth. Maybe McCain's campaign!

    And this is public radio!

    Some issues were covered, such as did Palin raise taxes (yes, she did: 1/2 cent sales tax increse to pay for purportedly popular sports arena--think she also cut taxes, but not sure) and did she work to get Washington money (yes, she did, for a medical center and some other things), so was she hypocritical? Exactly when and why did she decide against the "Bridge to Nowhere). Not pluralized, however.

    And does she have too many children to be VP.... Would a male in her place be taked about differently? (D'oh.)

    Oh, and she was given a ticket for drift net fishing without a permit sometime way back.Some other trivial matter I now can't recall.  

    I found myself wondering when the MCM will decide it needs to "vet" Obama--like what did he do during those years he never mentions. The work he did in Chicago other than community organizing. I kinda think that since they've made their Village choice, they won't try to find out much.

    Until after he's in office....

    Of course, Sully thinks Palin should produce her OBGYN records for the edification (and titillation?) of the voting public. Was Track conceived prior to marriage? (We know Obama Jr. was--we just don't know when exactly his mother married Obama Sr; nor can I find when she married Soetero--not crucial, but surely knowable?). Just what happened between TX and AK prior to birth of her last child? And, of course, did she really give birth to that child....


    Republicans moving away from Bush (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:29:30 AM EST
    and this is going to be BIG problem against Obama.

    As long as Obama can connect McCain to Bush, he has a chance. But last night at the Convention, it was obvious that Bush is being marginalized and pushed to the background.  They didn't even want him there.  

    If the new message of "reform" (there is a religious implication there too) holds to the Republicans, Obama has a problem.  Right now, there hasn't been a big jump for Obama, just a couple percent of people moving to him, but after this Convention, I believe you are going to see a bounce from McCain and a fall from Obama, bringing back to an even race.

    And Palin is getting ready to take control of this message.  I don't think she was a mistake because the Republicans have yet to pull out the big guns against Obama.

    Remember, there's always the October surprise.

    It's Independents Obama Needs To Win (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:54:21 AM EST
    and greater shares of Dems.

    And, according to today's Gallup Numbers
    he's doing that.


    may I also just say (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    I am completely mystified by the remarks about the girls boyfriend being invited to the convention.
    like any other family member.
    why the heck wouldnt he be?  

    He doesn't want kids (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:32:20 AM EST
    And calls himself a Redneck.

    While I think he would fit in PERFECTLY with the Republican convention, I doubt they want the media anywhere close to that type of gaffe machine.


    redneck (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:35:39 AM EST
    is not a dirty word to everyone.
    personally I consider myself a gay redneck.

    Yeah. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    I thought it was the girl who went to visit distant relatives not the boy.

    Bottom line? If you want McCain elected... (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Exeter on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM EST
    ...keep attacking Palin.  The Left is taking the bait and (again) ginning up support among the largest Clinton contingent:  white, lower class, uneducated voters.  In this group, a 17 year old getting pregnant and getting married is unfortunately pretty commonplace.

    At this point, the best strategy for beating McCain is keeping the focus on McCain and how he is just like Bush.

    I'm afraid you're right. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Radix on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:42:11 AM EST
    Nice diversionary tactics by McCain though.

    Although I seriously doubt teen (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:38:19 PM EST
    pregnancy is limited to the "lower class."  

    Obama blogs (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM EST
    Is hardly the only culprit here.  Lots of Democratic women, upset with the way the primary played out, have shown themselves open to taking the bait on Palin's historicity.  If anything, it is the "Hillary supporters" (as opposed to Hillary supporters) who have most successfully set up Palin as a sympathetic figure.

    I very much respect your work here andgarden, but I feel it is intellectually dishonest to put the Palin fiasco squarely on those who went tabloid on her.  "Hillary supporters" will have their share of culpability, when the "Palin was great!" narrative unleashes.

    Understand the difference (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM EST
    Most of the "Hillary Supporters"/PUMA types who remain are not actually interested in seeing Obama elected President.

    The Obama blogs claim to be.


    I do understand the difference (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    All I'm saying is, the explanation for the Palin love that is coming, cannot be boiled down simply to the Obama blogs.  Perhaps "Hillary supporters"  are doing it on purpose, or perhaps many of them do buy the bilge about Palin contiuing Hill's battle against the glass ceiling.

    So, the Obama people accidentally shot themselves in the foot and the "Hillary supporters" actively boosted Palin.  A real team effort, about the first one we've seen from these contingents, yet.

    A pox on identity politics.


    Well, I make outcome based judgements (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    and the Obama blogs come out looking pretty dumb on this.

    Looking pretty dumb (2.00 / 1) (#142)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:04:49 PM EST
    Well, I'll grant you that.

    But dumb as opposed to what?  As opposed to intentionally betraying the issues you care about to satisfy .... hmmmmm... whatever it is that is being satisfied?

    Excuse me, but it doesn't get any friggin' dumber than "Hillary supporters" circling the wagons for McCain and Palin.

    There is another way of looking at it where it does get dumber.  Maybe the real dumbarses are the men in the Democratic Party who continue to defend its platform against the GOP draconianism in the area of women's rights.  If it is all about identity politics, aren't we Democratic men really stoopid for essentially giving up on demographics we could easily have, to defend the rights of people who have made it clear that they loathe us by default?

    If Dem male politicians and voters followed the example of the PUMAS, they'd throw in the towel on Roe.  


    I don't waste my time arguing with people (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:06:12 PM EST
    who start from a false premise. That applies to the PUMAs, and it applies now to you.

    andgarden.... (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by alexei on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    taking tips on tone from BTD?  I do miss his voice.

    Well, that's a great rebuttal (none / 0) (#166)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:16:45 PM EST
    Since it is beneath you to divulge it, whatever the "false premise" is, will be for the Gods to sort out.  

    Meanwhile, while you may not be arguing with PUMAs, it does seem you're eager to let their behavior over the last several days off the hook.  Which surprised me, given some of your past writings......


    Preaching to the Choir. (none / 0) (#172)
    by santarita on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:21:22 PM EST
    There are precious few commenters on this blog (and elsewhere) who supported Hillary and are now going to vote for McCain.  So you might consider sparing the bandwidth because for the most part you are preaching to the choir.  Unless, that is, you just want to keep sticking a red hot poker into a sore spot that is beginning to heal.

    And some people might have been more upset with the process by which Hillary was eliminate than avid Hillary supporters.  But agin, with those people there are precious few that will vote for McCain regardless of who he puts on the ticket.  So again, you are largely preaching to the choir.


    A pox on those that don't get the real reasons... (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by alexei on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    Democrats don't support a selected nominee from elites and continue to denigrate women with the sexist attacks.  I am enraged at this treatment and no I am not voting for McCain (as stated above, really a bad sign to have to amend my opinions with this statement).

    A pox on both their houses!  IMOP, Obama will destroy my Party and Republican rule will continue for 20-30 years ala when Carter was President.  I want my Party to stand on its core issues and that means no sexism and respect for women.  I don't want my Party's nominee to state that late term abortions are only ok if it endangers a woman's physical health (this also implies that mental health should not be covered).  I want my Party's nominee to stand for Universal Health Care, to get rid of FISA, to get us out of Iraq and not change your message for your audience, to be against oil drilling and provide a coherent argument against it and for alternative energy.  I want my Party's nominee to embrace blue collar workers and not characterize them as low information, racist Bubbas and Archie Bunkers.  I want my Party to promote free and fair elections and not disenfranchise voters.

    If Obama loses, it is his and my Party's fault, and not Hillary or Bill, the despicable bloggers who spew hate, nor the PUMAs.

    No, I don't support Palin or McCain on any of the issues or her breaking the glass ceiling.  In fact, it will break my heart if the Republicans are the ones to get the first woman President, when my Party had the best candidate of all and my Party completely trashed her and relegated her to the traditional support role.  

    I hope to see Hillary as Majority Leader, because, I believe that she would bring about real progressive change even if McCain is President wheras I am not confident that the Democrats would go against an AA President no matter how wrong on the issues or appointments.  I have no confidence that Obama will fight for the issues important to me and everyday Americans.  Of course, I don't have confidence that McCain will either.  So no to both and I will work for a Democratic Congress with real leadership.


    Hillary supporters fault (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    got it.



    No, "Hillary Supporters" (1.66 / 3) (#121)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    Share blame for the Palin love, with the tabloid chasers.  

    Got it now?


    does Obama (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM EST
    carry ANY of this "blame" for not picking Hillary and stopping all of this before it started?

    Actually, no (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:14:20 PM EST
    It is true that McCain wouldn't have selected Palin at all, had Obama picked Hill.  But so freakin' what?  This doesn't change the fact that it is absurd to say that PUMA/Palin love is anything other than dumb.  It is dumb to support politicians eager to quash you and your agenda.

    I thought what we were discussiing here is, who is in the business of actively creating the Palin love that is coming.  The Obama overreachers and the PUMAs are two of the biggest culprits.  One difference being, long after Kos and Sullivan have let the tabloidization go, the PUMAs will still be waxing outraged over any perceived slight against Palin.


    Palin love (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:18:47 PM EST
    I have not seen many people complaining about Palin "love".  since I am not a puma or a woman I would just suggest that a possibility is that they are horrified at her treatment.  it was like pouring salt in the Hillary wounds.

    There is Palin love (2.00 / 1) (#180)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    And a lot more coming.  Bank on it.  Great smokescreen for McCain's vacuousness, as all of us in this discussion seem to agree.

    McCain intends to start more wars after being sworn in.  And intends to do nothing about health care.  And with Palin's help, intends to roll back civil liberties by several decades.  
    If Palin's treatment was "horrifying," then what adjective rightly describes the real stakes posed by her and McCain.

    Sorry, but as real and as bad as it is, sexism among Democrats in America 2008 is NOT the country's biggest problem right now.  Not even close.  To think otherwise is simply not to think.


    more Palin love coming (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:38:05 PM EST
    finally we agree on something

    i think what you are describing (none / 0) (#186)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    as Palin "love" is just those who are defending Palin against the "sexist" attacks which were the first to hit the ground running.

    Attack her for her positions on issues all you want.  But, the defense of her is coming from those who see the same type of attacks comaing against her that were used against Clinton.


    Little Palin love... (none / 0) (#205)
    by alexei on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:47:44 PM EST
    mainly defense against unwarranted sexist attacks. There are some on PUMA blogs that show Palin love, most are Republicans but some are disenchanted Dems and Indies.  

    I supported Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by TomStewart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:08:02 PM EST
    and I know several people who did also. I don't know of any of them who think Palin is anything but a slap in the face. None of them are voting for McCain either. I think that the defecting Hillary voters  are being overplayed, some I've seen one these blogs are pretty obvious repub plants.

    most likely (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:16:44 PM EST
    the Hillary supporters you know are liberal dems.  Hillary had supporters from other backgrounds as well.

    She had supporters who are conservative dems who are conservative on social issues.  The "Reagan" dems, they have been called.  These Clinton supporters will have no problem at all with Palin's position on social issues.

    I'm sure there were also some percentage of Clinton supporters who supported her solely because she is a woman.  McCain will have a chance to win them over as well as the conservative dems.

    By picking Palin McCain is also trying to get any repug women who were planning to support Obama back to the McCain side.  And, he is trying to appeal to female indys.

    All of those who supported Clinton, didn't do so for her position on social issues.  And McCain is not trying to go after the Clinton supporters who are socially liberal with the selection of Palin.


    It looks like Palin (none / 0) (#202)
    by TomStewart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:44:07 PM EST
    was a big sop to the base, rather than just a try at the Hillary voters. That was just a bonus. Seeing how the people identifying themselves with the republicans is going down, I wonder how much base there is left.

    The battle is for the independents this election, and I don't see Palin helping all that much there.


    Please do not (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:16:45 PM EST
    refer to them as "Hillary Supporters." In quotes or otherwise. Just call them PUMAs. Hillary made her position clear.

    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by glanton on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:19:18 PM EST
    And will stop doing it.

    there are (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:43:59 PM EST
    Hillary supporters out there who are NOT PUMAs and who never supported Hillary based on social issues.

    Just how many of Hillary's voters in small town, rural, working class, gun-toting, bitter bible clinging PA, OH, WV, KY etc do you think were voting for Clinton because they are pro-choice?  You know those voters that the media called out for lack of education, being poor, being racist and every other name in the book they could think of.


    Remember (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    back to the beginning of all this when McCain was selected as candidate.  Then all the dems were saying how pitiful he was.  No money, too old, running a horrible campaign.  Remember all the comparisons of Obama's campaign to McCain riding in a golf cart with Bush I?  Then his first ads came out bashing Obama as celebrity.  The dems and pundits all said how unprofessional and silly the ads were.  But, the result was that McCain, with those ads, closed the gap on Obama in a race where Obama should have been up by over 10 points compared to generic dem leads this year.  The electoral college polls have tightened to an almost even race when earlier this year Obama had over 300 electoral votes being forecast.

    Everyone underestimated McCain and his campaign.  They called them incompetant.  And, I think most are underestimating him again over the selection of Palin.

    The media claims to have been caught off guard and surprised by the pick.  So much so that they had nothing at the ready to go with when she was announced.  YOu know they all kinds of stuff ready to go if he picked Romney or Ridge.  They shouldn't have been surprised at all.  Palin's name has been floated out there as a possibility for months now.

    Dems underestimate McCain at their own risk.

    The one-two-three punch... (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:15:19 PM EST
    ...spend a month attacking his celebrity status, then when Obama hits back, start attacking his lack of experience. Have Obama rebut that through the week's worth of DNC speeches, then turn around on a dime and present your ticket as the true "change agent" that puts "country over party."

    By the time Axelrod and Plouffe find an effective counter-meme, McCain will have moved on to the next sucker punch. Obama might be good at playing hoops, but McCain's proving to be the better boxer.


    and (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:05:46 PM EST
    even if he was not planning to marry  her I am pretty sure boyfriends (and girlfriends) have been on the nominating stage before.
    I dont get it either.

    actually (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM EST
    He and Bristol are "engaged" to be married.  He is her fiance.  I think most families include a finace in family events, don't they?  He is also 18 years old.  He is an adult, not a child.

    At 18, (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by ding7777 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:43:08 PM EST
    Levi is old enough to vote, join the military and get married so why would he be too young/immature to appear on stage at Palin's acceptance speech?

    And even if you think 18 is too young, shouldn't it be Levi's mother, not Sarah Palin, to bear the brunt of the critcism?


    Oh, great... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    ...The MSNBC crawl says that McCain has released a new ad that contends Palin has more experience than Obama.

    BTD is proving to be quite the oracle.

    BTD has certainly proved (5.00 / 6) (#210)
    by frankly0 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:58:07 PM EST
    prescient on this.

    In general, I think that a lot of us, who are, indeed, only less aligned with Obama than even BTD, are in a position to see things more clearly because we have so much less investment in the Democratic Party than we did before.

    I see in Sarah Palin a newcomer to the scene, someone utterly unknown to me, and my reaction is: well, apart from her rather hideous ideology, what kind of person and political leader might she be?

    Jeralyn and the other liberal bloggers, however, who know nothing more about her than we do (i.e., nothing), seem 100% convinced that she must be the Devil's Spawn, and it's just a matter of lining up some "facts" to confirm what is already known. If those "facts" have to be stretched to the breaking point, or, in the case of the worst of the bloggers, simply made up out of thin air, that is no moral impediment.

    But there certainly will be a backlash over this. Whether it will include more people than the number of people who fall for these smear attacks, I won't pretend to know, so I can't say who will be helped or hurt on balance. I think a lot will depend on how well McCain and Palin (still basically an unknown quantity to me) can handle it.

    I will certainly say that I'm not sure I've seen a worst case of purest bloodlust in liberals, in the media, and, most especially, the blogosphere (might we rename it now the bile-osphere?)

    And the more I read the posts and comments on this blog, the more I wonder if there is anywhere on the Internet a place I might call home.


    In other news ... (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:51:48 PM EST
    John McCain is running for President.


    A Perfect Storm (3.00 / 0) (#17)
    by flashman on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:07:01 AM EST
    Lately, whenever I talk to my friends about the upcoming elections, I've taken the track that the Republicans are toast.  There time is up, it's over, roll up the carpets and turn off the lights on your way out.  This election is coming on the heals of 8 years of lies and manipulations, many of which are becoming solidified in the minds of many voters.  The mortgage lending scandal and associated securities scandals have burned alot of investors and home owners.  Enron, Halliburton, Blackwater have become names synonomous with unholy alliances between the Republican party and unscrupulous corporations.  Memories of rolling blackouts still haunt the West.  Unnessary war has taken the lives of thousands of our most dedicated citizens.  Incompetance and corruption plagued the incubment administration, which has manifested in record budget and trade deficits.  The economy and markets have been volitile throughout the period.  Corporate malfeasance has only been bested by that of Republican lawmakers Larry Craig, Tom Foley, David Vitter, Duck Cunnengham and their BFF Jack Abramoff.  To add to all of that, the Democratic party has been energized and enjoys a positive enthusiam gap.  Money has flowed like a river into their coffers.  By and large, Dems don't have to worry about not having enough resources to respond to unsavory attacks from the Republican smear machine.  And the coup de grace is, IMO, the storms hitting the US coast, which should bring back memories of how little the government did in the wake of Katrina to help the victims.

    Democrats should win big this year.  Let's just hope they don't screw it up.

    You highlight the parties' strengths (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by cymro on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:15:41 AM EST
    Republicans are good a screwing up government.

    Democrats are good at screwing up elections.


    No, no, no (none / 0) (#99)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:40:40 AM EST
    It is the American people who are better at both.  We tolerate and enable bad government, and we allow private corporations, and their proprietary computer code, to control elections.  

    Politics is merely a reflection of our own apathy and disconnect.  Blame politicians all you want.  It is WE THE PEOPLE who have the ability, but not the will, to change things.


    kepp on talking about Palin (none / 0) (#1)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    because now even the pollsters are including a Palin vs Clinton matchup for future president in the daily tracking polls on who is the most likely first female president.  Check Rasmussen today.

    I'm sure the Obama campaign is thrilled with that.

    Actually I'm sure they are (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:49:00 AM EST
    Who wouldn't be excited about the idea of a woman POTUS?

    I'd put every dime I have on Clinton though. Palin isn't even close.


    Clinton is ahead (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:52:25 AM EST
    by 11 points.  But, Palin's numbers are not embarrassingly small either.  Over 35% think it is likely that she will be the first.

    my first impression (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:54:13 AM EST
    was that she had some of Bubbs political skills.
    we will see.

    I meant close in terms of experience (none / 0) (#12)
    by elonepb on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:03:11 AM EST
    And what she's done for the country, legislation, White House experience, etc.

    Palin isn't even in the same league as Hillary as a politician and a candidate for POTUS.


    As Stephen Colbert... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:08:43 AM EST
    ...(or was it JS?) said, the only thing Sarah Palin is qualified for is a Northern Exposure reunion show.  

    Not surprising (none / 0) (#187)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    35% is about right--there's probably 30 to 40% of the American electorate who are so thoroughly wedded to the Republican party that they'd choose Hannibal Lecter over any Dem.

    It's one of the fundamental lessons of American politics: The right wingers block vote, the left wingers form circular firing squads.


    Who Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by flashman on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:09:57 AM EST
    Who wouldn't be excited about the idea of a woman POTUS?

    Pelosi, Reed, Dean, Kerry, Kennedy...


    You forgot Obama (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by ding7777 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:20:11 PM EST
    Hmm (none / 0) (#11)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:02:38 AM EST
    When you say "pollsters" do you mean Rasmussen, a single Republican pollster?

    I haven't looked at the others. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:12:56 AM EST
    It was just the first newly published poll of the day that I happened to see.  I went inside the details to see if I could find yesterdays number to compare with today's and the Palin/Clinton poll was what jumped out at me.

    the more everyone talks about Palin and Clinton, the less anyone talks about Obama and Biden and that can't be good for thedem ticket.


    I can't believe over 80% think there will be (none / 0) (#34)
    by tigercourse on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:16:51 AM EST
    a female President within 10 years.

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:21:30 AM EST
    there will be one in about 5 years

    Hopefully in 2012. Go Hillary! (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Angel on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:37:12 AM EST
    Even if Obama loses now, in 2012 Clinton (3.00 / 0) (#114)
    by tigercourse on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    will be up against the same primary system that killer her this time. She still has to face Iowa (one of her weakest states) first. With Mark Warner as a likely opponent, she will do worse in the South. The party (with the possible exceptions of Dean and, sadly, Kennedy) will still be around doing everything they can to destroy her.

    Mark Warner? Pfffft. (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:09:28 PM EST
    Gov.(Senator?)Brian Schwietzer is the rising star for the Democrats.  He's already LOVED in the West and he would win the Heartland over in no time.  

    Does anyone thing Obama will try again (none / 0) (#167)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST
    if he loses this year???
    I see alot of other names out there, but no Obama-repeat?

    But at least 50% of the people think (none / 0) (#65)
    by tigercourse on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    Obama will be elected this year. If they think Obama will be elected, how can they expect a female President within 10 years?

    well (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:31:48 AM EST
    between you and me I dont agree with that 50% but its still possible I guess, right?

    He's only going to serve until (none / 0) (#75)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    January 2017. President H.R. Clinton is inaugurated at that time.  Less than 10 years.

    I got into a disagreement in an earlier (none / 0) (#82)
    by tigercourse on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    thread when I mentioned this, but Biden isn't go to roll over for her, and the sitting VP almost always wins the party's nomination. Particularly when the party leaders hate the opponent.

    Candidates after a term in office (none / 0) (#6)
    by dead dancer on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 10:54:23 AM EST
    Before and After photos ( mouse over photos )

    That's Scary (none / 0) (#36)
    by flashman on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:18:09 AM EST
    It's all a game (none / 0) (#55)
    by elwood on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:23:38 AM EST
    It's not about the issues. It never is. That's the flaw with politics these days. I wonder how much of Palin being a woman has to do with her being selected. It might sound sexist to say that, but I wonder if the Republican party cares less about what she stands for and more about picking up the Hilary supporters who might be willing to vote Republican to support a female in office. Now the Democrats are going to make it all about her daughter for a while. Then the Republicans will start saying Obama was the spawn of Satan and all that. We'll never know for sure what either candidate stands for until after the winner is chosen. Politics has become a crap shoot with the catylist being who is the better speaker, who looks better, who has the best hair do, and who can make us feel all warm and coazy inside. It's all hogwash.

    I'm pretty sure ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by cymro on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:46:57 AM EST
    I wonder how much of Palin being a woman has to do with her being selected.

    ... she was every bit a woman before she was selected.

    Nah. I've heard this before (none / 0) (#157)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:10:32 PM EST
    and I completely reject this theory:
    I wonder if the Republican party cares less about what [Palin] stands for and more about picking up the Hilary supporters who might be willing to vote Republican to support a female in office.
    I think is the 800 lb gorilla:
    I wonder if the Republican party cares less about what [Palin] stands for and more about picking up the Republicans and Independents who were previously unenthused about McCain because they might be willing to vote Republican to support a female in office.
    Or something along those lines.

    I seriously doubt there is/was much hope to get Dem voters who were enthused about Hillary to vote Rep by nominating Palin.


    The O'Reilly Factor (none / 0) (#79)
    by SomewhatChunky on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:32:55 AM EST
    Obama is going on the O'Reilly Factor Thursday.  Should be interesting.....

    Let's pull up Hillary's youtubes (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:34:46 AM EST
    and prepare to compare/contrast.

    Maybe KO can do an interview too?

    And that newspaper board?


    And no one criticizes him??? (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    Hillary got bashed up and down the street if she even thought about going on FoxNews.

    But Obama goes on O'Reilly and he's brilliant???  Whatever.


    silly (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:39:04 AM EST
    you forgot about the Obama rules

    during mccains speech (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:38:55 AM EST

    Geez... talk about high risk, high reward (none / 0) (#109)
    by Exeter on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:44:41 AM EST
    I admire him taking the chance... I hope it turns out well.  It certainly worked out well for Hillary.

    McCain is a genius (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:38:22 AM EST
    For months Obama has been hoping and trying to kill the Hillary stories relative to the feuds in the party.  His operatives have been working tirelessly to change the subject.  Even after the full endorsements by HRC and WJC the nightly news was filled with coverage of the fracture in the democratic party.

    McCain makes one announcement and the HRC stories are completely gone on the nightly news and all but gone on the blogs.  He did what Obama could not do.  If I were a republican operative, I might be a bit angry at this point.....

    Eh... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Exeter on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:42:15 AM EST
    but he's given many former Clinton supporters something to be angry about:  mistreatment of Palin.  And the problem with that it Palin is definitely more demographically similar them than Clinton.

    honestly (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:43:17 AM EST
    my wife and her friends (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:07:39 PM EST
    think that the media have been soft on her, allowing the campaign to get away with HRC comparisons based on gender and not discussing how HRC is extensively more qualified than Palin.  My wife and her HRC supporter friends are hoping to see comparative analysis between Palin and HRC to demonstrate that HRC should have been on the ticket.  I do not agree with that but do feel like HRC's accomplishments allowed her to crack the ceiling and not her gender.  I will wait and judge her on her debate performances and see if she is worthy of any such comparisons but I do so with much reservation.

    Focusing on Palin is none to bright. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Radix on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 11:38:44 AM EST
    With the constant focus on Palin, we allow McCain to fade into the background, this is bad. If we were to ever break through the non-sense of McCain's Maverick meme he needed to stay sharply in focus.

    Didn't expect you would (none / 0) (#208)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    Well Capt Howdy, bust my britches and color me surprised, but when you make 130 posts since yesterday morning and almost all sounding like you are against the Dem ticket or fawning at the feet of the McCain ticket, how else can it be viewed? Maybe the old adage is true, you can't judge a book by 130 pages.

    It's not a new ad (none / 0) (#211)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    Many McCain ads attack Obama's experience. That's why it's silly to ignore the issue. It should be confronted head on, along with McCain's previous statements that he would select the most qualified VP for his ticket.

    Comments at 200, thread closed.

    After the media's tabloid rush, (none / 0) (#213)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 01:28:59 PM EST
    a clearer picture of Governor Palin's positions, policies and reasons for her selection will emerge. The Republicans have lined up behind her immediately because, well, because they are Republicans.  PUMAs have new examples to stoke their fires.  But, hopefully, Democrats and others concerned about continuation of, and maybe enhancement of, Bush policies, will acknowledge the shopworn and dangerous ideas of McCain, and recognize that Governor Palin is actually a younger version of Phyllis Schlafly.

    Watch this video (none / 0) (#214)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 02:23:55 PM EST