Expectations on Gov. Palin's Speech Tonight

Gov. Sarah Palin will give her speech tonight to the Republican National Convention. CNN provides punditry on what she is expected to say and what she should say.

The time to listen to Gov. Palin for clues as to who she is and what she believes has passed. That was last week, before the McCain campaign professionals took control to remake her in their image.

Whatever Palin says tonight is practiced, scripted and reflective of the Repubicans, not her. They would no more send her out there to speak on her own than they would their surrogates. In fact, as I reported the other day, the McCain campaign acknowledged pre-scripting her speech:

[McCain spokesman Rick]Davis said a generic, "masculine" speech was being prepared before the pick was made and, now that Palin is the choice, she is adapting the speech to her own needs and personality.

That's why its so important to review what she said and did and who she was before becoming a VP candidate. She's the product of image makers now, not reality.

< Palin , Prisoners and the Alaska Prison System | Site Update on Comment Rules >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    in politics (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    appearance is to often accepted as reality.
    part of the reason she was picked was her telegenicity.  I do not expect her to disappoint.
    but I am very curious and I expect the rest of the country is.

    Is Peggy Noonan (none / 0) (#15)
    by nalo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    now under control of left wing bloggers also?

    I just don't see how Palin can still give the speech today.


    what? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:17:05 PM EST
    she will.  I assure you.  not sure I understand.

    Noonan, Mike Murphy and Chuck Todd (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:19:53 PM EST
    were caught on open mic today talking about how cynical the Palin pick is.  More evidence that there are party heavy-weights who are very unhappy with Palin.

    heavyweights not withstanding (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:21:03 PM EST
    she will give the speech.  

    I never thought she wouldn't make (none / 0) (#94)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:48:24 PM EST
    her speech.  I have always thought she'd likely be fired on Thursday - don't ask me why - just my gut hunch.  Of course, if this speech is the greatest thing since sliced bread, she could hold on longer - but I think it is going to have to be an amazing speech - after seeing her speak last Friday - my guess is that she won't even come close to the high bar.

    Yes, and Noonan declared (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:46:46 PM EST
    "It's over."

    Go listen for yourselves.


    question (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:53:15 PM EST
    why the [blank] would we care what Peggy Noonan says?
    help me out  here.

    Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by chrisvee on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:08:25 PM EST
    it's situational. When she doesn't agree with Dem talking points, she's a hack. When she does, she's an authority.

    not necessarily so (2.00 / 1) (#79)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:44:26 PM EST
    it could well be that the Palin pick falls so far beyond the media's comfort-zone narrative that their cynicism is the least-resistance outcome

    it's amazing how much our traditional media twists to present a fantasy version of American politics: sanitized for the masses' consumption, complete with a full array of Disney-inspired characters

    seems like the media wants to cast Gov. Palin as Cinderella's stepmother, while the McCain camp was hoping she'd be Cinderella herself


    Have you listened to the exchange? (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:51:21 PM EST
    "It could well be" what you say, but it wasn't.  These old pro's don't like what they're seeing and they think they are going to lose.  Today anyway.  What they think tomorrow may be different.

    why? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Lil on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:16:46 PM EST
    HAHA (none / 0) (#33)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:21:21 PM EST
    Do you really think anyone cares what Peggy Noonan said on a hot mic? Do you really think the McCain campaign is going to live or die by anything that happened on MSNBC?

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by nalo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:22:56 PM EST
    I do.

    So you think that Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#46)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:25:07 PM EST
    is going to bow out of the speach tonight because Peggy Noonan went on a rant? Please. Read Peggy's column today.

    Well no (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by nalo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:30:40 PM EST
    It'd be disastrous for Palin not give any speech at the last minute.

    The only PR spin I can think of...

    Would be for Palin to give a personal story speech and allude to some uncertainty or possibly even hand it over to the next VP choice (maybe Pawlenty is popular in MN with a surprise announcement).  The things is they don't have a good savior choice, and choosing Kay Bailey Hutchinson would be exponentially cynical...


    wow (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:32:43 PM EST
    thats really . . .  interesting.

    You really think (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:36:53 PM EST
    that what Noonan said on the hot mic is that disasterous? You can't be serious.

    Jesse Jackson said worse.


    I don't get what's so awful about the transcript (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by davnee on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    Basically they rip the pick for being cynical.  Okay.  It is, both as to women and as to the base.  Is it the end of the world for McCain to be cynical?  It may not be good, but end of the world?  And they don't really rip Palin as being utterly unqualified, just that she is not as experienced as other female choices like KBH.  But KBH would not fire up the base.  If anything she might annoy it, because she is not really pro-life.  If anything what Noonan said about narratives is also a swipe at Obama.  Pick a candidate based on the story rather than the qualifications.  She's lamenting that the R's did it, probably because she doesn't like narrative candidates, especially when the R narrative candidate represents a part of the Republican Party she herself does not like.

    Wasn't Reagan the ultimate "narrative" (none / 0) (#200)
    by Mshepnj on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:59:47 PM EST
    president? And wasn't Noonan a Reagan fangirl?

    Noonan seems to be a conservative who "falls in love" with inspirational pols who speak the pretty words (especially when she writes them). Maybe she's like Chris Matthews and falls for a politician who gives her a tingle up her leg.   I think that if Palin manages to give an inspirational, heart felt speech, Noonan will soften towards her.

    What I've noticed about the Punditocracy across the political spectrum is that they tend to imagine the worst, which is narrative.  They are the cynics so maybe that's why they get pissy about politicians who are "cynical".

    Look at all the speculation about the supposed feud between Obama and the Clintons and the cynical commentary before  Hillary and Bill gave their speeches. It was a whole different tune when they were finished, of course.


    It ain't what she said. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by nalo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:47:36 PM EST
    The Media is really angry at McCain.  If McCain loses the AP, Time, Newsweek, WaPo, LA Times, AND Wall Street Journal?   There's only so much weight Drudge/Dobson/Limbaugh/Hannity can pull.

    How many Electoral College votes (4.00 / 3) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:55:14 PM EST
    does the media have?  I've forgotten.

    Maybe 500 (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by nalo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:06:03 PM EST
    100% the news and information I get is through some form of media (I hate the TV networks, so it's mostly online and books for me, and then I monitor the radio/TV to see what people are saying.)

    I suppose some voters might only attend rallies and never check facts on media, but what could that count for...5%?

    So, I'll guess that 500 electoral votes are controlled through media coverage.


    what? (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:57:56 PM EST
    you're suggesting the media doesn't matter? that the general voting public will get its storyline somewhere else?

    better go read you some Bob Somerby


    It is an admission that there is (none / 0) (#83)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:45:55 PM EST
    a faction in the party - who are considered to be very relevant by the way - who are extremely nervous about Palin's effect on the campaign.

    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:52:01 PM EST
    but the faction that adores Palin is the faction that is driving the bus these days.  It's certainly a faction the GOP can't afford to cut loose.

    You could make a case that keeping the evangelicals on board is far more important to the GOP than winning this individual election, even.


    It also represents the schism in the party (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by davnee on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:57:07 PM EST
    The R's are a party that has been having an identity crisis for years.  The fundie part of the base and the elitist old-school part of the base do not happily cohabitate.  Danger for McCain may be if the Palin pick sends the old school R's truly running.  Let's see how she performs.  If she does well, I suspect that the Noonans and Scarboroughs of the world will grin and bear it.  

    the reason it's disastrous: (none / 0) (#86)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:46:28 PM EST
    not that America cares what Peggy Noonan said.

    it's what's been revealed about what our nation's pundits think. that storyline won't morph much.


    Let me get this straight (none / 0) (#95)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:48:30 PM EST
    it's over for Gov. Palin because of what a couple of top pundits think? Voters don't matter? Who will this influence exactly?

    not exactly (none / 0) (#118)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:55:46 PM EST
    Governor Palin's in trouble because the media is building negative associations. Peggy "Magic Dolphin" Noonan's moment here is evidence of the underlying storyline that seems to be near fully adopted: that Palin is a lousy, if not disastrous, pick.

    Most voters (none / 0) (#137)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:01:13 PM EST
    have exactly ZERO idea who peggy Noonan is and don't give one thought to what the media thinks when they go and vote.

    Yeah, it is pretty amusing... (none / 0) (#119)
    by ks on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:56:13 PM EST
    But, they've found another bone to play with so let them have a bit of fun before reality comes crashing back in. Though, unfortunately they are probably going to spam it several more times before then...

    again, please (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:54:40 PM EST
    who do you know that cares a fig what "the nations pundits" think.
    I seriously dont get this.

    You seem to care an awful lot... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:58:32 PM EST
    ...about what Agent Flowbee tells you.  Shall I list the "issues" that you brought over here in your attempt to smear Obama?

    Larry is not really a "pundit" (none / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:05:59 PM EST
    but knock yourself out.
    that will be your job.

    then you are woefully misguided (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:25:10 PM EST
    No one seemed to care what Jesse Jackson (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Valhalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:49:28 PM EST
    said on a hot mike, and he's got scads more moral authority than Peggy Noonan.  Noonan is a much saner version of MoDo; she doesn't allow her childhood traumas to infect her writing like MoDo does, but her opinions do follow the money in terms of attention-seeking (as do most people who make their livings off of punditry).

    This assumes (none / 0) (#38)
    by JAB on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:22:16 PM EST
    that it wasn't staged.

    Isn't it always appearance? (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:42:46 PM EST
    Granted that the time to hear anyone--politician or not--is before the "script" is written. Of course, that would especially apply to any new national candidate on either side. So...other than the record in Alaska, the rest is speculation to some extent. So #2, we are left with focusing on the speech tonight. With the sturm & drang we have all dutifully played in, the networks should reel in the viewers. (Yes, I'm a tad cynical today.)

    and Obama isn't?? (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Josey on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:03:36 PM EST
    >>>>She's the product of image makers now, not reality.

    Stick to the topic (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:07:55 PM EST
    Comments that add nothing but "What about Obama" are no more enlightening and just as distracting as they were when I wrote about Hillary.

    That's changing the topic. Such comments will be deleted if that's the only meat in the comment.


    What topic? (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Buckeye on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:11:59 PM EST
    It sounds like you have decided you don't like her at all and find her speech completely irrelevant.  That is fine, but if so, why bother to listen to anybody.  All speeches are scripted.  One thing we could learn is whether she is a confident speaker or a shrinking violet that is out of her league.

    Some candidates actually write (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:23:16 PM EST
    their own speeches and or outline exactly what they want to talk about and have the speech writer develop the flow for them.  It will be interesting to hear what her hometown papers have to say about whether or not the speech sounds like her or if she sounded to them to be heavily scripted.

    It's not too hard to pick up Jeralyn's (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by lizpolaris on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    real point here - this woman is crappy.

    Sounds to me like the generic 'masculine' speech would have been presented to any male VP candidate picked by the Republicans.  In what way would that man be more or less scripted than Palin?  It doesn't seem to matter as long as we can bash Palin with it.


    Jeralyn is giving us plenty of clues as to what (4.00 / 4) (#39)
    by vml68 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    the topic is (bash Palin but don't compare/contrast or say anything negative about Obama) but some of us are having trouble falling in line. To be fair this is her blog and she can decide what she wants and does not want.
    Hopefully when BTD is back we can go back to critical thinking/posting.

    This is a hit piece Jeralyn. (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by alexei on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:53:30 PM EST
    Where are the words you speak of from Palin  for us to contrast with your so-called "made over" candidate.  Where is the meat you speak of on these issues?  When I started this piece I thought that I would be reading about what Sarah Palin's positions on crime were and from you, who I did respect, particularly since this is your expertise.  But no, just a run of the mill hit piece that I could get from any hack from the MSM or Kos blog.

    Talk about the issues.  There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Palin and McCain.  And you open the door on the comparison to Obama.  You may delete what people write, but you can't erase what they are thinking.  You are better than this.  Let's see real analysis, not this type of yellow blogging.  I am expecting a short life for this comment, and perhaps I will be banned.


    at the risk of JM's disapproval (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by wystler on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:50:36 PM EST
    She is the product of imagemakers.

    But not all the imagemakers work for the campaign.

    In fact, the most important imagemakers are the pundits, reporters, editors and producers who make up the traditional media.

    And it's entirely probable that, when the imagemaking is over and done with, Rick Davis will be seriously unhappy with the resulting picture Americans have of Governor Palin.


    It doesn't matter if it was scripted (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by justinboston2008 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:03:43 PM EST
    If she comes across as sincere and down to earth, the Dem ticket is in trouble. None of the things that have come up so far, will be her undoing. Many folks who don't pay attention normally to politics will be watching tonight to see how she does. This is her first test. The debates will be her next test.

    It would seem that (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:05:19 PM EST
    Peggy Noonan is none too pleased with the Sarah Palin pick.

    The Noonster was caught with a hot mic earlier today.  And it ain't pretty.

    Note there is some vulgarity in the clip from Peggy.

    neither is Dr Laura (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:09:51 PM EST

    although I suspect it is possible they are the same person.



    Oh, great. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:13:30 PM EST
    Thanks a bunch.  Coffee all over my keyboard and I have to start work shortly.  Coffee all over the cat, too.

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:18:03 PM EST
    poor kitty

    LOL (none / 0) (#22)
    by kempis on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:17:28 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    at least she's consistent on this point at least.

    That's gross (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:17:21 PM EST
    In so many ways...

    have you ever seen them together? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:18:51 PM EST
    OT, so feel free to delete... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by vml68 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    If the Democrats want to win they have to do better than this......

    From CNN: Sen. Joe Biden on Wednesday defended criticism of running mate Barack Obama's Senate record while campaigning in the crucial battleground state of Florida.

    "Barack has real experience," the Democratic VP candidate said. "This guy could have written his ticket to go anywhere. Anywhere at all."

    ....How about giving actual examples of that real experience!

    What a statement! (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Inky on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:58:17 PM EST
    "Barack has real experience," the Democratic VP candidate said. "This guy could have written his ticket to go anywhere. Anywhere at all."

    So Obama could have punched his ticket to go anywhere at all. And yet he settled merely for the presidency of the United States. What humility! What a guy!


    You know (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:05:48 PM EST
    while your post is funny, it strikes me as pretty obvious that Biden was referring to Obama's options after graduating from Harvard Law School, not his current options.  You know, the narrative we've all heard a million times about how he could have worked on Wall Street, but he chose to do community organizing on the South Side instead.

    Does any politician speaking (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:17:28 PM EST
    to a national audience write their own speeches? Aren't speechwriters commonly used? Every speech made at the Dem convention was reviewed and edited by the Obama campaign, though there was some discussion of whether WJC's was so he might be the exception.
    Every politician is a packaged product-that's why they become unrecognizable after they're elected.

    Bill is always the exception. (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:24:15 PM EST
    Remember the state of the union speech where the teleprompters malfunctioned?  The audience could not tell because Bill just winged it.

    Oh Gosh (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by flashman on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:39:49 PM EST
    Thanks for the memories.  At my age, I need to review every once in awhile.

    Obama wrote his own (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:48:53 PM EST
    for last week at Invesco, and the Philadelphia speech on race.

    I think he's written most of the rest of his own, too.


    And, excuse me, how exactly do (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by frankly0 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:56:35 PM EST
    you know how much Obama wrote of these speeches?

    I think it's obvious enough that the source of that claim is simply the Obama campaign itself.

    And I'm sure that a political campaign would simply never exaggerate the achievements of their candidate, especially when it could never found out to be otherwise, right?

    The truth is no one knows how much of these speeches Obama had himself contributed.


    Where did you get the "fact"... (3.00 / 2) (#136)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:00:45 PM EST
    that Obama was the author of his speeches?
    A good many of his speeches (Just Words being one glaring example) have been plagiarisms (whether the original author said he/she gave him permission to "borrow" because it just fit the situation!

    I know I'm in danger of being deleted, but I just can't idly stand by reading such revisionistic statements about the candidate's whatever.


    Much of his speech was almost the same (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Valhalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:17:15 PM EST
    wording as Bill and Hillary's speeches.  So I'm thinking he probably didn't write his all by himself.

    The most common thing is for speechwriters to write drafts, and the principals go through them and rewrite or edit them.  Great speechwriters (and I'm sure Obama has at least some on his staff) are able to capture what the candidate believes and wants to say very well.


    John Kerry, (none / 0) (#158)
    by blueness on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:13:02 PM EST
    it is said, wrote the speech he delivered last week.

    Expectations are very low, thanks in part (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:19:37 PM EST
    to the poor judgement of the leftosphere.

    I dont really agree (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:41:56 PM EST
    that expectations are all that low.
    she set the bar pretty high with her performance the other day.
    I think most people are expecting a lot.

    I don't know... (none / 0) (#65)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    I keep seeing Republicans on teevee saying that all of our doubts about her will completely evaporate after we see her speak tonight.  I think that is a pretty high expectation in the face of all of the drama surrounding her career in politics.

    She's the product of image makers now, not reality (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by zaladonis on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:20:33 PM EST
    That's what I keep saying -- she's just like Obama.

    These campaigns are more like a reality TV show than a serious political election.

    And, not to point a finger, but we have "Obama Democrats" to thank.

    tomorrow (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:22:08 PM EST
    crow for everyone I suspect.

    Broken Record. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:44:34 PM EST
    You keep saying things like that... and being wrong.  'Just wait for X!' doesn't work forever.  You eventually run out of time.  

    how about this (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:50:48 PM EST
    I will meet you here tomorrow and we will discuss how it "went"?

    Oh Please. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:59:50 PM EST
    You bashed both the Clinton's speeches at our convention.  Claimed you could tell that their hearts weren't in it.  Discussing Palin's speech with you would be a total waste of time.  

    Well, do we need (none / 0) (#98)
    by suki on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:48:53 PM EST
    to remind Peggy of the George Bush narrative?
    Seems like that worked pretty well for them.

    She'll have to sell the speech... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:22:14 PM EST
    ... no matter to what extent it was handed to her by somebody else. And the public perception of her will be based on that, as it should be. She'll most likely spend the next four years trying to be who the McCain camp thinks she is and wants her to be, anyway, as is true of all VPs.

    I have to imagine (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:24:22 PM EST
    that she will give an impressive speech, because she is, in my estimation, an impressive politician.  I don't believe she is Dan Quayle.

    I don't expect to watch the speech tonight, even though I might miss the fabled intersection of reality TV with presidential politics.  No one at my office can believe they've flown the baby's father all the way from Alaska just to make a political impression.

    I don't want her to (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Lil on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:25:44 PM EST
    but I expect her to have a great night. Lowered expectations are not good for Dems on this one; she seems like a good orator to me.

    The real draw to Palin's speech is to see (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kempis on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:26:24 PM EST
    what the script will be and how she delivers it.

    Her nomination has definitely created a dramatic stir. The question now is how will the GOP market her and how well will she do.

    We begin to find out tonight.

    Obama is marketed as a hip, new, post-partisan kinda guy--liberal who's friendly to "Obamacans." I'm curious to see if Palin, who is from Obama's generation, will be marketed similarly. She's clearly a social conservative--as are most Republicans--but there's also something different about her, something different in the way they're presenting her. I think they're trying to find a way to make her appeal not only to social conservatives but to independents and suburbanites (or exurbanites). If so, it's going to be interesting to see how they think they can pull this off.

    this is the key to the Palin pick (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:30:45 PM EST
    I think.
    Obama had this sewn up because most americans, when given a choice, do not want to be on the wrong side of history when given the chance to cast a historic vote.
    McCain rather brilliantly has given people with doubts about Obama another, different opportunity to cast a historic vote.
    whatever else, you have to admit it was pretty damn smart.

    yep (none / 0) (#89)
    by kempis on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:46:57 PM EST
    It counters "history" with "history" and raises one blank slate up to another.

    Like Obama, Palin's thin resume can work to her advantage because there's more room for the political operatives to define her.

    She could become Dan Quayle or she could become an Obama of the right: a young, charismatic symbol of the future of America. {{{involuntary shudder}}} At least of the GOP.

    It may be that Palin is being rolled out now not so much with the though that the McCain ticket will win but to get her ready for 2012--if all goes well.

    It's going to be interesting to see if all does go well for her, to see what sort of poise and intelligence she brings to the game--or if she's lacking.



    2012 and Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    pass the popcorn please.

    Image makers... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Oje on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    That is a good point as a pivot into the kinds of things that Democrats want to discuss. Rather than becoming a fulltime concern troll, here is what I am thinking now:

    To the extent we still focus on Sarah Palin, Democrats should paint her as a complex person, not a conservative caricature of womanhood. Her affiliations with unions, Feminists for Life, AIP, earmark lobbyists, Alaska politicians, etc., etc., provide quite a bit of fodder to unravel any image that McCain's team will try to make. Then, from Noonan (via MyDD I think):

    Final point. Palin's friends should be less immediately worried about what the Obama campaign will do to her than what the McCain campaign will do. This is a woman who's tough enough to work her way up and through, and to say yes to a historic opportunity, but she will know little of, or rather have little experience in, the mischief inherent in national Republican politics. She will be mobbed up in the McCain campaign by people who care first about McCain and second about themselves. (Or, let's be honest, often themselves first and then McCain.)

    That image will have nothing to do with the complexity of Governor Palin's life. So, begin to pick apart that image a la Bob Somerby. Palin, her family, and her political career have benefited immensely from all things federalism and liberalism defends and provides: unions, tax dollars, gender equality, corporate regulation (Somerby), etc., etc. Sarah Palin is a liberal, maybe even a feminist, but she choses to affiliate with the dominant party in her state. She either does not get it, she reaps the benefits of liberalism and but vows to sow the seeds of its destruction, or she has been playing politics in her own state as a means to power. From abortion, to federal spending, corporate taxes, etc., Sarah Palin speaks one way, governs a second way, and lives yet another.

    (Sorry if this is duplicate post, my first attempt appeared to fail).

    I hope he does win by double digits (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by justinboston2008 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:30:59 PM EST
    that said, most of the folks on this blog are shall we say A LOT more versed in political matters than the average folks. Case and point. My family lives NH and do not really follow politics at all. My brother's first impression of Sarah Palin is that he "thinks its cool that she hunts."

    People don't care about the things the MSM is dredging up.

    Agree (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by nell on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:32:28 PM EST
    I also think people feel she is being unfairly attacked (I agree).

    does not matter (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:40:35 PM EST
    McCain camp and the entire right closed the gap with the "not experienced" meme and used HRC and Bidens words to that effect.  He had tremendous momentum from the in-feuding within the democratic party and the nightly debates amongst the punditry provided him with a ton of free negative coverage.  He completely removed that from the equation. He also puts american women in the position of voting for a woman who has not accomplished a fraction of what HRC has as the person to finally break the ceiling.  That will not sit well with HRC supporters and despite their anger at Obama they will reluctantly vote a "lesser of 2 evils".  HRC was persecuted and villified by the right and then torn apart by her own party to some degree (the level depends on who you ask) and she stood up and showed the O camp who she really was.  No one has suffered more at the hands of both parties than her and methinks most women will be hell-bent on making sure that the first VP-POTUS is not a token campaign piece.

    I love the armchair psychoanalysis (5.00 / 6) (#101)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:49:43 PM EST
    of Clinton supporters as a monolithic group. We were all racist, ignorant, bitter, dried up, etc etc. Now we are hell-bent on making sure the first woman VP is not a "token." Could you possibly be any more insulting?

    Do keep it up. I am learning so much about how others perceive us. It's interesting despite having no basis in reality.

    You didn't know us then, and you sure don't know us now.


    do you have something of value to add (1.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:42:01 PM EST
    or are you just going to drink more of your everyone is against hrc but me koolaid?  

    What I wrote (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 06:02:14 PM EST
    is easily more valuable than your based-on-nothing "analysis" (read: fantasy) of what Clinton supporters will do.

    And mine has the added advantage of actually being true.


    I feel like some sort of (none / 0) (#131)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:59:18 PM EST
    odd bug being peered at through a microscope from time to time by Biology 101 students.

    Except that we're under a different (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Valhalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    microscope than they're looking through.

    yadda yadda yadda (1.33 / 3) (#193)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:49:57 PM EST
    so you are an anti choice creationist who wants more guns and someone with less qualifications than the archenemy evil Obama?  Oh yeah, you are gonna stay home and protest, I am sure...

    Uh, no (none / 0) (#199)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:59:46 PM EST
    just because you went to the other extreme in your faux "analysis" doesn't make you nay closer to reality.

    "Yadda yadda yadda"? How substantive!

    Here's a hint: there's a long word in my comment that starts with "mono".

    We are not that.


    Well (5.00 / 11) (#56)
    by nell on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:31:00 PM EST
    I, for one, am really looking forward to hearing her speech. Just as I looked forward to listening to the speeches of the other Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominees.

    I know enough about who Sarah Palin is to know that I could never vote for her. But I do not hate her. I just disagree with her.

    I have been really taken aback at the sheer anger at McCain/Palin that appears not just here, but also at other left sites that I really enjoy visiting. Did we really think McCain was going to put a Democrat on the ticket? Why are people so mad at McCain for putting a REPUBLICAN who holds REPUBLICAN values on the REPUBLICAN ticket? Great, they are republicans, we disagree, I won't be voting for her.

    But I don't dislike her, I actually find her to be an interesting person, I am impressed with how far she has come from being a small town girl and mother of 5 to becoming a Governor and now a VP (if nothing else, she has to be a multi-tasker and super efficient), and I am interested in hearing what she has to say.

    Besides, after she gives the big speech and the media stops obsessing about the Palin family's collective uteruses, maybe we can get back to talking about the issues.

    Me, too (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:43:17 PM EST
    We're not getting much for MSM, or MCM on Gov Palin that can be taken as fact. It's all just a rush to judgment.

    I've never heard of Kaine, either. In fact, I had never, ever heard of Governor Clinton before 1992, and he had served multiple terms. I don't think it's unusual for Governor's to be relatively unknowns outside their state.

    Quick, anyone NOT from Oklahoma. Who's their governor, what party, how many years in office, good choice for advancement?


    According to McCain's National Co-Chair (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by domerdem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:58:11 PM EST
    Meg Whitman, the media coverage has been fair and not sexist.

    I don't need Whitman (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:52:34 PM EST
    to tell me what is sexist and isn't.

    Hee! (none / 0) (#117)
    by Klio on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:55:42 PM EST
    I think I'm the only one here who's from Oklahoma, so I can't play.  Hint:  Our governor and our lieutenant governor (a woman, btw) are BOTH Democrats.

    Thanks Nell! (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:53:41 PM EST
    Your comment is sensible. Thanks for the down-to-earth evaluation & perspective. I'm almost starting to turn away from my favorite blogs in view of the hysteria fueled by Palin, one professional woman politician. I agree wholeheartedly; lets get back to the issues. (Else we run the risk of becoming the cruel, intolerant conformists that we have long professed to abhor.)

    The anger has perplexed me too (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by davnee on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:06:46 PM EST
    I can't figure it out.  Is it sexism?  Is it rage that the R's outmaneuvered the D's this cycle and might actually break the glass ceiling first with the "wrong" kind of woman?  I don't get it.

    I've wondered if it's 'cause (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:31:34 PM EST
    Palin apparently is serious about fighting corruption. I don't believe Corporate America wants that, and both Biden and Obama have some issues involving 'pork barrel-itis', i.e., Obama, I believe did vote for the bridge to nowhere, and Joe was not known as Biden (D)-MBNA for no reason.
       Naw, much safer to focus on family issues and distract from fiscal responsibility as an issue.

    Hear hear (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Valhalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:08:17 PM EST
    I'd like to know more about what she's actually said and done, not just Democratic partison spin-projection of what she's said and done.

    Already there are at least 50 comments in the past few days saying she's anti-contraception.  The only evidence I can find directly contradicts that.  (membership in FFL and oppo research).  None of it definitive.  But in the rush to demonize her, a lot of folks are bungee jumping to conclusions and repeating them as gospel that are just plain false.

    One of the most destructive successes of the Rovian/Axelrodian tactics over the past decade (or longer) is this idea that any opponent must be absolutely destroyed, regardless what the facts are.  Not one positive point can be admitted against an opponent.  That guiding principle has permeated both parties now.  Really, can anyone think of any 'fact' that's known about Palin that hasn't been castigated, ripped on, lied about or condemned here, in the media, or on A-list blogs? It hasn't even been a week.  She's a bad mother, a bad mayor, a bad governor, a bad human.  Ok, maybe I haven't heard any denigration of her snowmobiling prowess.  But there's still time!

    Jeralyn said that life's too short to be consumed with irrational hate.  I agree, but she and I are talking about very different people as to whom it applies.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by justinboston2008 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:32:01 PM EST
    Fiorina would have made a great pick.

    I am honestly amazed (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:47:53 PM EST
    that so many people are grasping at this episode with these three blowhard losers.
    I think it says a lot, frankly.

    Yes, it does say a lot (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by domerdem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:51:51 PM EST
    So McCain's previous campaign manager and Reagan's speechwriter are now blowhards, lol?

    what is your point (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:56:30 PM EST
    these are people you would revile and shun if they were not accidentally saying something you like.
    these people are worthless gasbags.
    IMO only of course.

    Don't know Murphy much (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by domerdem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    but I actually like Noonan.  She is bright, funny and though partisan, usually says what is on her mind, even if it not the GOP party line.

    well (none / 0) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:09:01 PM EST
    alrighty then

    That is the point (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 06:06:08 PM EST
    The fact that even strident Conservatives are not thrilled with the pick.

    Says everything (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:56:36 PM EST
    KBH is on Cspan (none / 0) (#156)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:11:18 PM EST
    wasn't vetted, spoke to the campaign all along, made it clear she wasn't interested. Also talks about cohesiveness of ticket.

    Tweety is munching popcorn (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by waldenpond on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:52:52 PM EST
    The guy is just gleeful over everyone he is going after on his show.  He has that sneering little grin he does.  He is smiling at himself just before every break about his 'gotchas'.  Obama still has his leg tingling.

    My prediction... CNN and MSNBC will find her lacking and Fox will say she did well.

    I agree about msnbc (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:58:54 PM EST
    but I think some at CNN are looking for an excuse to admit they like her and to fall in love with her. Kyra Phillips did a great piece on Palin today, on her record. She came on via sat to show off Sarah's signed basketball from the state champs, her trophy and offered to do an interview with her while playing basketball.

    I am telling you...CNN wants to like her and is just waiting for an excuse.


    McCain cancelled a Larry King (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:02:36 PM EST
    appearance because of the comments of that primetime woman.  forget her name.
    they are going to try harder.  I agree.

    Campbell Brown (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:08:37 PM EST
    She was very toned down last night even as she defended herself. I am betting CNN will be very complimentary tonight.

    lol (none / 0) (#149)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:08:32 PM EST
    the comments? You mean when she asked the Republican spokesdude a question he couldn't answer? I watched that moment live, it was pretty entertaining to watch any news celebrity get rough with anyone. Kinda reminded me of when Mathews went after that guy with the "can you name me any of Obamas accomplishments" line. In fact it was pretty analogous down the line on that front.

    actually (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:10:21 PM EST
    I think it was about the fact that she went on a tear about how could she be a mother and a VP.
    but I didnt see it.

    it was indeed more about what she said (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:14:43 PM EST
    at the beginning of the clip. But CNN keeps leaving that out.

    Except that later (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM EST
    Campbell Brown admitted later, when they were talking about the incident, that while she felt right to ask that indeed Sarah Palin has in fact made decisions to deploy the Alaska National Guard to combat massive fires. At that point she had been contacted by the Palin people to clear that up.

    Tucker Bounds=republican spokesdude" (n/t) (none / 0) (#204)
    by sher on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 06:07:13 PM EST
    disagree about CNN (none / 0) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:57:46 PM EST
    they are on thin ice already with Palin and I think they will be respectful and deferential.

    The script is feminism, wrapped up in a shiny (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by vicndabx on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:09:19 PM EST
    Republican box.  Expect her to talk about how it's OK to be a stay at home mom, a working mom, a pro-life mom, or a pro-choice mom - that's what feminisim was supposed to be about, women having the choice to be who they wanted to be, do what they wanted to do, w/o being pigeon-holed by limitations on choice. Limitations created by men.  As a man who grew up in the 70's listening to Enjoli, "I can bring home the bacon" commercials, it's obvious to me.  Why so many dems don't see it, or are afraid to see it amazes me.  Once again, we are gonna blow it because we are so wrapped up in being now-it-alls and look down our noses at those who don't live the way we think they should live.

    Heard that Dr. Laura (none / 0) (#173)
    by domerdem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:24:15 PM EST
    castigated her today.  It's coming from all directons

    Dr. Laura doesn't like her? (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:50:10 PM EST
    Another BIG point in Palin's favor.

    I'm trying hard to be objective, but she seems to be reviled by all the right people.


    Welcome (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by flashman on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:16:10 PM EST
    And congratualtions for escaping the Kososphere.

    BTD was so right that the left should address her (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by jawbone on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:21:34 PM EST
    issues, no herself or her family.

    And here's a sad post that shows how correct BTD, among others, was.

    This makes me sad for Left Blogosphere...or whatever it's called nowadays.

    well (none / 0) (#176)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:27:52 PM EST
    Thats politics. There will always be a few willing to go low.  Look at what the right did to Hillary for 20 years.  They had her selling secrets to the chinese, murdering white house staffers, sleeping with female staffers, etc.

    If you intentionally look for gutter rhetoric, youll always find it.  I guess if you want to feign outrage its useful to look for it.  Most of us have seen this before so its not really shocking.  

    I think its obviously being used as a political tactic to avoid answering substantive questions about her experiences.


    What short memories they have (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Valhalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:23:50 PM EST
    Republicans always run on narrative.  How many Democratic presidents in the past 40 years?  And who's the only one to serve 2 terms?  What was that?  Why, it's the Man from Hope, Bill Clinton.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#180)
    by chrisvee on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:32:54 PM EST
    I must have dreamed morning in America and the CEO president.

    Chuck Todd (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:52:42 PM EST
    I wonder if Todd also thought it was insulting that Hillary was not even vetted.  Methinks not.  

    Color me unimpressed with the collective clutching of pearls by the MSM.  These folks always managed to get outraged by the stupidest things.  Millions of homeless?  shrug.  Presidential sex?  the horror!

    Also - I don't know about Noonan, but Murphy was fired.  Doesn't he have a bone to pick now?

    Did you apply the same test to Obama? (2.00 / 1) (#140)
    by suskin on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:03:53 PM EST
    "That's why its so important to review what she said and did and who she was before becoming a VP candidate. She's the product of image makers now, not reality."

    Shorter: Pols will be pols. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:36:09 PM EST
    I'm trying to think of the last time I saw a pol being genuine.  Hillary has genuine passion for certain issues and it shows, but she's had decades of experience to teach her a lot of self censorship.

    Anyone who has read Pratchett's "Making Money" knows all about the utility of Appearances and Public Relations and the carefully constructed personality one uses to deal with the public.  

    It all comes down to "What have you done for me lately?".  Prove you are capable of addressing issues important to me and I'll vote for you.  


    Yes (none / 0) (#206)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 06:46:09 PM EST
    Palin may do okay but she is no Obama (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Rover1 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    Whatever you think of Obama's credentials he is in fact one of the most gifted speakers to spring out of American soil in generations. It is why so many powerful Dems wanted him to run in the first place. Is it lost on everyone that this guy is just really really smart as well. Or is intelligence a bad thing now? Obama is  the best and brightest that we have...we deserve a President like him. McCain and Palin are lightweights at best.

    As I recall the last time we had a truly intelligent President the country did pretty well. When "we" went for the guy you'd like to have a beer with we ended up in the cesspool.

    Now we are trying to say something nice about the VP candidate who sold snowmobiles in Alaska as if that's right up there with being on Harvard Law Review.
    Call me elitist but mediocre candidates who have to be packaged and marketed should be ashamed for even running. It is an insult to our country.
    For Heaven's sake the whole country is going to tune in tonight to listen to a woman speak who really has no better credentials than my kids' high school principal. How have we come to this?

    Jesus, (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by frankly0 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:15:36 PM EST
    one of the most gifted speakers to spring out of American soil in generations.

    Generations? You mean over 70 years?

    Look, you only have to go back either to JFK or, even more impressively, MLK Jr., to see how absurd that comment is.

    I defy you to find a single truly quotable quote from an Obama speech - something that compares favorably with the more memorable passages from a JFK speech or an MLK speech. I don't know how many times I've proposed this challenge, and never had anyone produce a passage that truly stands out. The single thing that Obama seems to do well is deliver the speech with some resonance.

    Insofar as Obama is a "gifted speaker", it's because today's politicians, compared to politicians and orators of some decades ago, suck so bad at speaking.


    And if you want to see (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by frankly0 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:22:19 PM EST
    a truly remarkable, and deeply inspiring speech that was delivered extemporaneously, I suggest you take a look at the speech Robert Kennedy gave immediately upon hearing of the assassination of MLK Jr.

    Try to find any speech given by a politician today -- certainly including Obama -- that compares with that speech.


    here;s the link to Kennedy's speech (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by frankly0 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:28:02 PM EST
    And courageous as well (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by domerdem on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:37:31 PM EST
    The cops wouldn't go with him into the Indianapolis neighborhood.  It was a truly remarkable, moving speech.

    Let me see if I have this (3.00 / 2) (#202)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 06:03:52 PM EST
    You are asking for someone to show which speeches of Obama's will have the staying power of speeches that have lasted for over 40 years?

    Don't look now but your pettiness is showing.


    I'm sorry, but (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by TomStewart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:26:46 PM EST
    you're either supposed to bash/defend Palin, or trash Obama, not remind us what so many people find inspiring about the guy.

    Really, Obama is a brilliant speaker, he not only knows what to say, but when and how to say it. He could have gone for his usual soaring style in his con speech, but he chose a lower key, more straight forward and specific speech. Not as inspiring as some others, but just what was needed for people tuning for the first time to hear what he had to say.

    Palin can give a good speech, and I believe she will, but she's still the VP candidate, not the one at the top of the ticket, and does little to enhance McCain's image as, well, a grumpy old man. In fact, she points it up.


    Republican opinion (none / 0) (#11)
    by indiependy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:13:23 PM EST
    I recommend everyone check out the conversation between Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy had when they thought their mic's were off on MSNBC.

    For Republican opinion (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    I recommend you look for a replay of today's press conference by some powerful Republican women calling out the press on sexism and mistreatment of female candidates...Palin, Clinton and even Gerry Ferraro.

    Grave job of paving the way for a sympathetic audience to Palin's speech tonight.

    What a contrast to the dead silence from the Democratic Party in the recent primary campaign concerning the sexism we all saw and heard.

    If the MSM reports on it tonight on their regular news roundups it will be bad for the Democrats.


    I called it. (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:29:24 PM EST
    The Republicans will defend their candidates from sexism.

    I don't even care if they're doing it "cynically," they're doing it. And they should. I wish Democrats did too.

    More defense noted here


    Being rerun right now on C-SPAN! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:32:11 PM EST
    They're Not... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:34:40 PM EST
    Defending her from sexism.  They're claiming that essentially every criticism of Palin is sexist.  It's insulting and won't work with the vast majority of women.  

    Gosh, who do we know.. (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:43:51 PM EST
    What other candidate was it who refuted every valid and reasonable criticism with a charge of another "-ism'? Insulting everyone who didn't support him?  It's on the tip of my tongue....I think it starts with an "O"...

    Help me out here.


    Site vilator sher (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:43:58 PM EST
    awarding ones for disagreement.


    Why is sher still here?


    I Have Better Things to do... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    Than re-fight those ridiculous fights.  Want to actually talk about what we're here to talk about?  

    Learn from the past or be doomed to (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:51:58 PM EST
    repeat it.

    MMM yes (none / 0) (#142)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:05:18 PM EST
    that was dumb and so is this.

    Ah, but it worked. (none / 0) (#170)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    So good on (none / 0) (#198)
    by Faust on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:58:19 PM EST
    Obama for "playing the race card" and good on Palin for "playing the sexism card?" Is this your position?

    They made no such claim. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:39:19 PM EST
    So I Guess... (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:31:38 PM EST
    We should just ignore Meg Whitman, one of McCain's national Co-Chair saying today that there was no sexism in the media coverage?  And please, does anyone really think that the constant efforts to tie Palin to Clinton are working?  They're not.  They can keep right on trotting Palin out in orange pantsuits for the next two months, nobody is going to buy it.  

    Whitman (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by nell on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:34:19 PM EST
    is wrong. Just as so many Dem women (pelosi et. al) were wrong when they claimed Hillary was not subject to sexist attacks.

    She was. And Palin is.

    This is not a reason one should vote for Palin, or even like Palin, but I think being a feminist means defending all women, regardless of political ideology, from clearly gender-based attacks.

    No man has had his sexual organs come under such close scrutiny.


    Whitman is Right. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:39:58 PM EST
    You want to pick out one or two things that are clearly sexist, but ignore that the vast amount of the coverage of her has been about the issues and corruption and the McCain camp's vetting process.  

    Criticize the sexist stuff, but don't let them blur the lines between that and the real issues.  


    When was the last time (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:02:06 PM EST
    you heard a male candidate called a bad father? Or that he should stay home and take care of the kids? Or question if he could do his job based on number/age of children?

    That's just for starters. Thought the obvious would be a good place.


    Once More... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:14:17 PM EST
    Let me quote myself, from the post you were replying to, since I don't know if you read it:
    Criticize the sexist stuff, but don't let them blur the lines between that and the real issues.  

    You're letting them cover a huge number of totally legitimate issues with Palin through your anger and outrage over the sexist stuff.  Don't let them play you.  


    Haven't heard any of that stuff (none / 0) (#181)
    by TomStewart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:35:55 PM EST
    you must hang out in all the wrong places.

    One person. Big whoop. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    When you get the entire Republican leadership, including the party chair and ranking members of Congress saying there is no sexism in the coverage of Palin, get back to me, mkay?

    They're... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:43:01 PM EST
    Going to claim that every single criticism of her is sexist, because that's the best way to distract the gullible and naive from Palin's real problems.   It's the McCain camp's strategy to deal with these issues with Palin, and most of the party is going to be on board in echoing those lines.  The truth tends to slip out from those lone people, for a variety of reasons.  

    No! (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by Valhalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:37:02 PM EST
    I don't believe it.  The Republicans are turning a defect in the Democratic primaries against them with a full-court press?  Using hypocritical exaggeration?  Oh no, say it ain't so, Joe.

    Lecturing a group of people who've been watching Republican political tactics for a very long time as if we're too stupid to see what they're doing is condescending. It's echoing the Democrat's screechy cries of 'Women should be insulted!' no, no 'Women must be insulted!  I command you be insulted!' tack.

    Republicans are trying to beat the Democrats at their own game (or what should have been their own game).  Democrats left themselves wide open for it to work.

    Many of the attackes on Palin since last Friday have been deeply sexist.  The fact that it's Republicans (of all the freakin' people) who are saying the same thing does not magically make it untrue.


    Again. (4.00 / 2) (#132)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:59:18 PM EST
    Going to claim that every single criticism of her is sexist, because that's the best way to distract the gullible and naive from Palin's real problems.

    And because it worked so well in the primary, coming from the other side.

    Ah, Schadenfreude.


    Sire violator Brillo (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:18:59 PM EST
    for awarding 1s to comments for disagreement.

    Schaudenfraud... (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:30:23 PM EST
    Gotta say, people feeling schaudenfraud at the thought of Obama 'getting his' over past primary battles annoy me.  It's over, celebrating everything that hurts him (and more importantly, our party...) is pointless.  

    But I checked the rules again, sorry for the 1.  Didn't realize.  :P  


    Schadenfraud? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    I like this new word. It means "damage" from "deceit."

    I will add it to my vocabulary.

    And for the record, I do not forget or forgive injustice just because it happened in the past. ALL injustice happens in the past, whether it was last century, last month, or one minute ago.


    What's a "Sire violator"? (none / 0) (#197)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:57:13 PM EST
     In the context of sexism, sounds nasty. . . LOL

    Carly Fiorina (none / 0) (#169)
    by tree on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:21:41 PM EST
    just attacked the Obama campaign for its "sexist" attacks on Palin. See her statement here

    Three possibilities... (none / 0) (#207)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 08:12:48 PM EST
    Meg didn't get the memo.
    Good cop/bad cop.
    Meg wants to preserve her own relationships with media for her future use...let somebody else complain about them!

    A bit disingenuous of them, (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:46:16 PM EST
    don't you think?

    I doubt that they held a press conference to speak out against the sexism leveled at Clinton and Ferraro when it happened.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them engaged in it themselves.

    Pure politics.  


    This... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:21:58 PM EST
    After Noonan wrote an article today calling Palin a huge danger to the left.  Nice to see so clearly the difference between what everyone knows to be true about Palin, and what the conservatives are trying to feed us.  Also witness the initial reactions from Scarborough and Buchanan, or all the NRO writers.  They know this is a horrible pick, whatever they may try and tell us now.  

    these are the same people (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:24:34 PM EST
    who were writing McCain obit a few months ago.
    lets just see.  shall we?

    Interestingly, that was one of McCain's (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:32:32 PM EST
    key mistakes in rolling out Sarah Palin.  By giving people like Scarborough and Buchanan advance notice and talking points, they allowed honest reactions from a trully stunned media.  I was watching Scarborough and Buchanan that morning, it was as if they thought it just had to be a joke - they could not believe it.  Mika confirmed it and Andrea Mitchell cautioned her not to run with it.  They all seemed to think that it was some crazy unbelievable rumor.

    While surprise may be a good thing on some level, utter disbelief isn't really the kind of reaction you want when you make a campaign announcement like that.


    Typo - By NOT giving advance notice ... nt (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:42:22 PM EST
    If you want real republican opinion (none / 0) (#50)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:27:19 PM EST
    though I don't know whay anyone would, we should be able to make up our own minds, you should read redstate

    Redstate opinion (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by nalo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:53:08 PM EST
    Current frontpage on Redstate shows Republican views about Sarah Palin:

    Public Opinion: Smoking hot in a "naughty librarian" sort of way

    Limbaugh's also said this is the reason why McCain should choose Palin and there's a good chance McCain was forced into this pick.

    And yet all the McCain Pointers on this site only want to complain about the inherent sexism in the liberal blogs.(not saying there isn't any, I'm just theorizing that the majority of the bad sexist stuff on Kos, etc. is also likely due to McCain Pointers such as yourselves as well.)


    Her Speech (none / 0) (#13)
    by limama1956 on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:14:22 PM EST
    Looks like she was for it before she was against it.

    Speaking of Practiced and Scripted... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Brillo on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    McCain and the whole Palin family come out to show off the young daddy:  http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212890.php

    No need for McCain to be there if they actually wanted this to be a 'private family matter' as they are trying to claim.  They're gonna try and milk that kid and situation for all it's worth.  All while studiously avoiding any of the real issues surrounding Palin.

    How dare (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by chrisvee on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:44:14 PM EST
    John McCain actually meet Sarah Palin's family in public in broad daylight! Doesn't he know this should only be done under cover of darkness? Then we could criticize him for trying to hide them.  Heads we win, tails he loses.

    I'm glad we have such insight into his motives to exploit these kids. After all, it couldn't be remotely possibly that he's providing a little emotional support to two kids who are getting chewed up and spit out by the media?

    I look forward to getting back to discussing issues instead of motives, which are essentially unknowable. I've had enough of that with the Clintons.


    You know (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:47:53 PM EST
    I saw on more than one blog posts that claimed Levi was in his mid- to late-twenties.  Given that some of those posters were saying he should be prosecuted for child abuse or put on "to Catch a Predator", it's not crazy they would want to show that he is in fact another high school kid.

    Who's Fiona? (none / 0) (#27)
    by echinopsia on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:19:49 PM EST

    sorry (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:21:16 PM EST
    Fiorina.....Former CEO of HP

    Fiorina is hated by many (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Grace on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:46:14 PM EST
    Probably hated by more than Hillary.  That would have been a terrible choice.  

    Meg Whitman might have been a better choice.  


    Meg is eBay, right? (none / 0) (#96)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:48:33 PM EST
    I thought eBay was Canadian. But, wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

    IIRC, she's from the Cincinnati area (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:54:45 PM EST

    Fiorina is widely (and justifiably, to many) hated not just for what she did to H-P, but also how.


    Meg is hated by many too (none / 0) (#185)
    by Grace on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:39:11 PM EST
    just not to the extent Carly is.  Carly exhibited some attributes people don't like to see in either men or women -- but I particularly don't like to see them in women.  

    Meg did well with eBay stock so I'm sure shareholders like her pretty well.  I don't know about eBay sellers or partners though.  


    Fiorina or Whitman (none / 0) (#67)
    by Manuel on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:37:17 PM EST
    would have been much better picks IMO but I bet they too would have been labeled inexperienced and they would not have energized McCain's base.  Did they even make McCain's short list?

    Fiorina, Carly (none / 0) (#81)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:45:09 PM EST
    Former CEO of HP. She is frequently interviewed on TV, and is working hard for the McCain campaign.

    Let the Eagle Forum soar, (none / 0) (#82)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 04:45:55 PM EST
    the speech is very likely to go well . The content and prose will have the benefit of the best Republican speechwriters and the delivery is likely to be folksy and good.  After all, Sarah Palin is a governor and not unfamiliar with public speaking.  If this is the way it, in fact, turns out  she will be proclaimed a great choice for vice president and excellent stand-by equipment for president.  It is the speech, you know, that tells everything.  However, when McCain recently gave a terrible speech with an eerie green-colored backdrop, and demonstrated difficulty with that new-fangled teleprompter,  it was acknowledged as a disaster, but good speech-making really means nothing, it is something celebrities are good at, say like your opponent.    

    I'll have to miss the speech (none / 0) (#154)
    by kenosharick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:10:38 PM EST
    for class tonight, but I have a feeling all of the attacks on palin will backfire, just as they did at Hillary (but too late). They will help solidify mccain/palin in states such as Virg.,where they thought they had a shot and also help them greatly in Penn.,Ohio, Mich.

    The Villagers have declared their side in this (none / 0) (#162)
    by jawbone on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:15:37 PM EST
    election.  (It's not McCain.)

    The villagers (none / 0) (#165)
    by demchick on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:18:12 PM EST
    and by that I assume you mean the media, may be on the opposite side of the voters...

    Yes, the MCM, which Digby calls The Village (none / 0) (#174)
    by jawbone on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:24:20 PM EST
    The Villagers come to some kind of podpeople like consensus, then say almost the same things.

    MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media


    well (none / 0) (#167)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    Of course a good speech wont answer the questions.  The drip will continue until most of her skeletons have been poured over. Then well see whats what in a few weeks.

    They have a funny clip over at HuffPo of Peggy Noonan bashing the Palin pick off camera. Which Im sure many moderate republicans feel like saying but cant right now.

    What the heck is a masculine speech anyway? (none / 0) (#205)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 06:13:43 PM EST
    As Devilstower wrote on DK:

    Here's McCain's own campaign manager confirming that Palin was a last minute choice, and that the original speech was written for someone else. Right now, they're sitting at that table with the diced up remains of a speech that was originally written for Romney or Pawlenty and putting a dress on it.

    It would be interesting to see what the before and after versions of the speech look like. What will be missing from the revised speech? What parts of the speech did the Republicans find so "masculine" that they just couldn't let their VP pick deliver them? Just the fact that they're busily putting pink paint on a speech designed before McCain threw his Hail Hard Right pass shows what they really think about Palin, and about women in general. Unless the speech was full of references to jock straps, just what was in it that Palin couldn't say? Really, how sexist is it to describe a political speech as "very masculine?"