home

Media's Revenge: Ignore Palin

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:43:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Josh Orton, who apparently did not get enough of the Media's Palin feeding frenzy, reacts to the news that Palin is going back to Alaska and is snubbing the Media by urging: "Traditional media: get thee to Alaska!"

I urge the opposite - Media - ignore Palin. My advice is both what I want as a Democrat and legitimate advice for the Media. As a Dem, I would much rather the Media cover McCain and the fact his agenda is identical to George Bush's eight years in office. For the Media, the best way to smoke Palin out is in fact to ignore her and to cover McCain's similarities to Bush. I guarantee you McCain will be trotting out Palin in no time as a result.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Palin's Miranda Bashing | TrooperGate Report Will Be Released 3 Weeks Early >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Media's Revenge: Ignore Palin | 138 comments (138 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The media (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    actually focus on issues? Surely you jest.

    So true (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by dutchfox on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:29:03 PM EST
    Even the coverage of the two coronations in the
    last two weeks were disappointing. All about
    image, personalities. Ain't helpin' now that the Obama people are pleading for a discussion of the
    issues, NOW.

    Parent
    I am very worried (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:46:51 AM EST
    that the week-long Palin distraction has done a great deal to damage Obama's November prospects.

    And may continue to do so. How (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:48:56 AM EST
    will Obama regain the Media's interest?

    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:51:51 AM EST
    know that he can. When the media decides that they are bored with a storyline then it's pretty much done.

    The press is fickle and will turn on a dime.

    Parent

    Sarah Palin, the GOP Greta Garbo (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:54:50 AM EST


    Parent
    "Palin-Mania Sweeping Nation" (none / 0) (#75)
    by fercryinoutloud on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    That's a CBS News headline.

    The media has a new Rock Star!

    Palin is, of course, no longer "Sarah Who?" and, a week after her stunning naming to the Republican ticket, Palin items have become hot properties.

    From t-shirts to thong underwear, from the flattering to the not-so-flattering, sales of just about everything related to the McCain-Palin ticket have been flying off shelves,...
    ...
    Pain's leap to fame is also benefiting such Web sites as CafePress.com, which now has an inventory of 137,000 Palin-related items.
    ...
    "Alaska's waited a long time to kind of be on the map, so to speak; we're kind of overlooked up here," Williams says.

    But now, Blackstone points out, the cold state has the hottest name in politics.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/05/earlyshow/main4418621.shtml

    Say Adios_Amigo to the old media Darling. Seems like McCain has scored an uncalculated coup with Palin effectively pulling the red carpet out from under Obama's feet.

    If she can play it right and be the reluctant and evasive hockey mom turned Governor turned Rock Star then Obama's shine just got duller.

    There is no way the media is going to pass on this. I can understand BTD's want for them to ignore her because he recognizes that if they don't Obama is in big trouble. There is a new smile on the scene.

    Parent

    "Palin-Mania Sweeping Nation" (none / 0) (#79)
    by fercryinoutloud on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM EST
    Sorry I forgot about the link thingy. Delete the post above if it messes up anything, :(

    That's a CBS News headline.

    The media has a new Rock Star!


    Palin is, of course, no longer "Sarah Who?" and, a week after her stunning naming to the Republican ticket, Palin items have become hot properties.

    From t-shirts to thong underwear, from the flattering to the not-so-flattering, sales of just about everything related to the McCain-Palin ticket have been flying off shelves,...
    ...
    Pain's leap to fame is also benefiting such Web sites as CafePress.com, which now has an inventory of 137,000 Palin-related items.
    ...
    "Alaska's waited a long time to kind of be on the map, so to speak; we're kind of overlooked up here," Williams says.

    But now, Blackstone points out, the cold state has the hottest name in politics.

    CBS

    Say Adios_Amigo to the old media Darling. Seems like McCain has scored an uncalculated coup with Palin effectively pulling the red carpet out from under Obama's feet.

    If she can play it right and be the reluctant and evasive hockey mom turned Governor turned Rock Star then Obama's shine just got duller.

    There is no way the media is going to pass on this. I can understand BTD's want for them to ignore her because he recognizes that if they don't Obama is in big trouble. There is a new smile on the scene.

    Parent

    There's always something (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:55:40 AM EST
    I've made two suggestions:

    1. Announce that August fundraising broke $100M

    2. Announce a Chuck Hagel endorsement.


    Parent
    I Cannot Believe (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by BDB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    the Obama campaign doesn't have some big announcement today, but it's already after 2 on the east coast and I haven't seen anything (have I missed it?).  They are not seriously going to let Palin dominate the news cycle for ANOTHER weekend are they?

    I'm very unhappy with his campaign.  They are reactive.  It's like they think they're still running in a primary where they have SDs to bail them out at the end.  If anything between Diebold and voter suppression, the game is fixed for the GOP.  They have the unhappiness with the GOP, but I fear they are p!ssing it away by constantly agreeing with McCain (most recently on the surge).  If he's right, then why should I vote for Obama?

    Parent

    They (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:25:07 PM EST
    used up everything they had for the primary. They have no general election strategy. Apparently they expected to coast until Nov. based simply on the unpopularity of Bush.

    Parent
    Other Long-Shot Obama Endorsements Wanted: (none / 0) (#36)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:19:44 PM EST
    Alphabetically:

    • Blanche Lincoln
    • Richard Lugar
    • Colin Powell
    • Olympia Snowe

    I don't know if any of these are realistically gettable.

    Parent
    Blanche Lincoln should have already endorsed (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:24:40 PM EST
    She is, after all, a Democrat.

    The others seem quite unlikely, though Powell is within the realm of possibility.

    Parent

    I'd be willing to make Lugar Secretary of State (none / 0) (#44)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:30:42 PM EST
    in exchange for his endorsement. Getting Indiana would virtually guarantee the election for Obama.

    Parent
    Powell is a definite possibility (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:49:06 PM EST
    He likes Obama and has said he would wait until after the conventions....

    He cannot be impressed with Palin as VP.....Zero foreign policy experience?  CINC of the Alaskan National Guard?

    And McCain's fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants style is anathema to the cautious Powell.  Obama is cautious and deliberate like Powell.

    Parent

    Oops (none / 0) (#39)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:25:58 PM EST
    Blanche Lincoln is a Democrat, so presumably her endorsement is not so far-fetched an idea.

    Parent
    Not sure it matters, (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    who the hell is she? (Rhetorical question, mostly, illustrating a point.)

    I think Powell's the only name that would resonate with the average undecided/unmotivated voter.

    Then again, I think it's been pretty well documented previously here on TL that endorsements have little/no effect on voting...

    Parent

    As much as I now disrespect Powell (none / 0) (#80)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:17:26 PM EST
    his endorsement of Obama would be a HUGE blow to the McCain campaign, a PR disaster they would not be able to control. Every media outlet would be clamoring for an interview with him. A Powell piece on 60 Minutes one month before the election could totally derail the McCain/Palin fantasy train. The Dems wouldn't have to go after Palin at all. Powell would be asked about her readiness and ... watch out for his response.

    I'm not saying the Dems should be banking on that alone. The Obama/Biden campaign has some serious work to do over the next two months. But even a Hagel endorsement wouldn't sink the GOP's hopes nearly as much as a nod from Powell.


    Parent

    Ok. Powell may have that kind of potential impact. (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    Should be interesting.

    Parent
    Speaking from a core Dem demographic (none / 0) (#96)
    by DaleA on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:32:04 PM EST
    ie: gay and lesbian, an endorsement by Powell is poison. Powell is a long time hard core homophobe. And one of the main architects of
    DADT. He might help with other groups, but is not a help with the base.

    Parent
    I'm in that same demographic (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by blueaura on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:17:18 PM EST
    ...and I didn't even know that about Powell. I doubt an endorsement from him would really hurt Obama's chances with the base.

    Parent
    A Powell endorsement is not intended for (none / 0) (#100)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:42:26 PM EST
    the Democratic base. The net result would be its appeal to disaffected Republicans, Independents and swing voters. It moves people out of McCain/Palin's column. And I do believe the GOTV for Obama/Biden would be greatly enhanced by it.

    Parent
    And if it moves (none / 0) (#107)
    by DaleA on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:02:17 PM EST
    core Dems to McKinney? The whole argument here seems to be that core Dem groups should vote no matter what insults are directed at them. And Powell is an insult. From what I can tell, Obama has problems with his base. And is not doing much to shore up what should be his core support. A Powell endorsement may move many LGBT voters away from him. Ever since McClurkin, Obama has been on thin ice with older GL voters. There is a limit how many putdowns and insults we can absorb.

    Parent
    FYI: Not just GLBT voters mad about McLurkin (none / 0) (#113)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    I found that entire episode to be unseemly.

    But you're seriously going to go vote for McKinney -- the 9-11 truther -- just to spite Obama for possibly getting an endorsement from Powell?

    Some things are unfathomable to me and that is one of them.

     

    Parent

    An endorsement by Powell (none / 0) (#114)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    isn't like an endorsement by McClurkin.  There's much more to Powell than his beliefs about gays in the military.  

    GLBTs won't elect McCain via McKinney just because Powell endorses the Dem candidate.  

    Parent

    I suggested a Powell endorsement (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:36:35 PM EST
    as a joke last night.

    If that is really a strategy, we are in more trouble than I realized.

    Parent

    Lots of Dems and Indies respect Powell (none / 0) (#124)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    and there's nothing wrong with focussing on our similarities rather than our differences.  That's big tent thinking.  The Repub platform represents the lunatic fringe because that's their consistent base w.r.t. votes and money.  Otherwise, there aren't such huge differences between our side and theirs, except that each side has people pushing the extremes.  

    Abortion:  We all want fewer abortions, the path to that goal is where we disagree.  Our side has refused to acknowledge that abortion is killing a person, their side has enabled lunatics to murder abortion doctors.  Some Repubs want no abortions, but most are pissed off that their taxes have paid for abortions.  It's their fringe religious leaders who take them down the road of limiting birth control.

    Helping the downtrodden:  most people care about others, but our side promotes tax based supports, their side sees lots of people sucking off the public and taking advantage and would rather not be forced to pay for programs they don't agree with.

    Taxes:  Most middle class Repubs would be happy to shift taxes to the super rich if they got a reduction for themselves.  So would our side.  

    Gay rights:  When you talk to Repubs about children of gays, they connect on the concepts of parents having the rights they need to protect their families.  The disconnect comes from the aversion to male gay sex and their deperation about marriage and schools and kids being "turned gay."  

    Anyhow, this year is a good time to open up to moderate Repubs because pushing them away as "the other" clearly isn't a good strategy.

    Parent

    We could (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:59:15 AM EST
    get lucky and they get bored of Palin too...

    I'm hoping for sooner rather than later.

    Parent

    This is just a temporary move, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Klio on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure.  Taking the time to do some needed remediation.  I expect we'll see plenty of Sarah.

    But, and this will come as no surprise to you, I don't think the press is going to take your advice anyway :-)  

    We ignore Palin (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:57:17 AM EST
    and the influence of the radical right in this election at our peril.

    I will be attending and covering her and McCain's campaign appearance in Colorado Springs tomorrow.

    Sarah Palin is a pawn of the radical right. It has nothing to do with her family, but her values, and she is a huge cash cow to McCain because the radical right will now fund his campaign.

    Before this, his matching funds couldn't compete with Obama. The evangelicals will now pour unlimited sums into his campaign as a reward for putting one of their own on the ticket.

    Her gender and family have nothing to do with it. The females she is delighting are those anti-choice females who would never have voted Dem. anyway. Once the Dem. and Independent women realize she stands for the antithesis of everything they do, they won't vote for her. That's why the media has to stay on her, and her ties to the radical right.

    Fundraising (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    So far Sarah Palin has done more for the Dems than the Republicans in terms of fundraising.  And McCain has already been keeping up more that was expected.

    Parent
    Obama's touted money gap has been dead (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    for months now.

    It was an illusion that required us to forget the RNC and state parties.

    Parent

    Exactly. McCain has been ahead in funding (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    for a long time now, because he has the RNC funds, and those are massive compared to what the DNC has raised.  Let us call the latter the Howard Dean Memorial Fund and be done with his dismal failure.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:36:50 PM EST
    I think they are about tied.  But the big difference is McCain is about to get a big chunk of cash that he doesn't have to spend time fundraising for.

    Parent
    And the difference is (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    that the Obama campaign said it planned to raise and have at hand a lot more -- I've read from three to five times as much, as in the primaries -- as that would be needed to implement its plan to again run many more ads, have many more offices, hold many more mass events, etc., than the McCain campaign.

    Parent
    Palin is a decoy, a distraction (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Manuel on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    While the media is off chasing Palin, the focus is off the McCain/Bush connection and off the Obama/Biden ticket.  The only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity.  Right now Bush and Biden are getting no publicity.

    BTW The more the media covers her, the more donations whe will attract.

    Parent

    Don't forget... (3.00 / 1) (#81)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:18:40 PM EST
    the focus is also off the 72 year old who is looking for a new job, when most other 72 year olds are either planning their retirement or already retired.

    The only other 72 year olds I can think of looking for a job are those that are in danger of starving.  Did Cindy cut his allowance or something?...:)

    Parent

    Kdog (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:30:12 PM EST
    I think we all appreciate that you are not politically-correct (you've stated as much here recently) but that comment was just blatantly ageist and offensive.

    My grandmother ran our family's business until she was nearly 80. My father is now 78 and still working. Apparently, you are under the impression that everyone over 70 is either brain dead or too physically disabled to function, let alone continue working, whether out of necessity or desire.

    Please get a clue.

    Parent

    Sun god bless 'em.... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    for still working at that age.  But they aren't looking for new jobs.

    I stand by my comment...how many 72 year olds have you heard of looking for new jobs who aren't in danger of starving?

    His age is an issue whether you want it to be or not.  Just as a 21 year olds age would be an issue if 21 year olds were allowed to run for president.

    Speaking of ageism...the only ones who can gripe are the those under 35 when it comes to the presidency.

    Parent

    I've heard of many older (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by tree on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:09:42 PM EST
    retired Americans looking for new jobs after retirement. They aren't starving, or in danger of starving either. Many of them are looking for new challenges or something to keep them busy. Me, I have lots of plans on how I will spend my retirement years when they come, and none of those plans involve a paying job. But I understand how many seniors, especially those in good health and with many years of productivity and value ahead of them, may wish to continue working in their later years.

     I don't think the problem is your lack of PC-ness. I think its a lack of connection or awareness of those who are outside of your immediate community. Its a sort of "If I don't know such people, then they don't exist," mentality.  

    Parent

    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:49:30 PM EST
    You're right, I do not see 70 year olds looking for employment in my circles, unless they have no choice....but I don't doubt they exist.  There are all kinds...all kinds.

    Back to the issue at hand, I wouldn't vote for McCain if he was 35, 55, or 75...and I think his age is a valid issue.  I worry about a repeat of Reagan's second term...I don't think he was all there at the end.

    Parent

    Well, my uncle, for one. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:49:20 PM EST
    OK, not 72, he's 70. Just changed co's and opened his own stock brokerage office a few months ago. He is most assuredly not in danger of starving. I also expect to keep busy by working, looking for new challenges, etc., until, well, until the end. I like it.

    Not that I would suggest it's particularly common or anything...

    Parent

    To each their own brother.... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:55:03 PM EST
    I plan on working till the day I die...because I don't expect social security to be there and I have no respect for money, so in my case it will be necessity:) Unless I hit the pick-six or a big poker tourney...then I will be a beach bum until the cash runs out, then look for a job:)

    One thing for certain, I won't be looking for a job that effects the lives of so many...at any age.  

    Parent

    The truth (none / 0) (#111)
    by Manuel on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:22:13 PM EST
    is that under either Obama or McCain we are likely to see an increase in the retirement age.  This is a mixed bag.  On one hand, people are living longer, staying active longer, and being able to contribute longer.  On the other hand, there will stress on the health care system and on the social security system.  McCain is just out ahead of the curve.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:19:10 PM EST
    They will be giving nothing to McCain's campaign, because as of last night, McCain is receiving public funds.  They will, however, be giving to the RNC, which will be poured into downticket races.  The RNC has tons of money already, while the DNC (at the end of July) only had something like $5 million on hand and the RNC had something like $80 million.

    Since Obama is not receiving funds, and has consolidated power in the party and wants all fundraising to go through his campaign, this has the potential to hurt downticket Dems.

    Parent

    I'll say this simply, Jeralyn, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Roz on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:32:19 PM EST
    You're wrong. This is wishful thinking.

    And BTD, you're wrong, too. The media is not going to have to smoke Sarah Palin out of Alaska. She is an asset to McCain and down ticket Republicans. You will see a lot of her.

    The media won't want to, nor can it ignore her. She's the new black. Obama will have to get over it.

    Parent

    I'm not convinced any Dems. (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:00:17 PM EST
    or others who value a woman's right to choose and/or who deplore the U.S. presence in Iraq could have missed, by now, the fact Sarah Palin is on the opposite side as to each of those issues.

    Parent
    my point is (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:02:53 PM EST
    they need to know she is their pawn. Their quid pro quo and the agenda of the right wing groups that back her is to take over our Supreme Court. She isn't just a candidate, she is the face of and a tool of a very dangerous movement.

    Parent
    nooo (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:10:06 PM EST
    they need to know McCain is Bush's Third Term.

    Parent
    Most republicans (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:15:09 PM EST
    want to stay Republicans. They won't mind a Bush third term so long as Bush is not at the helm of it. They still like his principles -- by saying McCain is Bush's third term , many will be attracted to that, since they know Bush will be gone.

    Your argument will work with independents and Dems who are thinking of crossing-over to vote for McCain.

    I think we should keep up the attack on both fronts: McCain is Bush III and McCain is now a tool of the radical right.

    Parent

    Really only one front (none / 0) (#137)
    by robrecht on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:44:54 AM EST
    I'm very tempted to agree.  Especially with the focus on McCain (not Palin) as a tool of the radical right.  The problem is the line of reasoning requires that Palin also be discredited and most rabid attempts to do this backfire by loosing focus on real policy issues.  So I very much like your expression of the '2nd front' as focusing on McCain instead of Palin.  

    But, in fact, it's really not two different fronts because Bush II was also a complete tool of the radical right.  All he had was his father's name and a pitiful career when they made him governor.  Talk to some of the other co-owners of the Texas Rangers.  He was always clueless, an empty suit with his father's name and borrowed money to have a minimal stake.  Totally clueless.

    Parent

    Fair enough - but the informed voter (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by scribe on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:15:32 PM EST
    likely already has made up their mind.  Getting "the word" to the low-information voter would not exclude making sure they know (a) McCain = four more Bush years and/or (b) McCain means the Fundies rule you.  Whatever gets them to vote Dem.

    In the meantime, what ever happened to (a) that generic commercial the kids over at FDL and (IIRC) Howie Klein put together in 2006 with the bouncy "Have you had enough?" tune?  and (b) the vide/audio of the "Four more years" being chanted at CPAC when McSame showed up there, this past spring?

    Both of those would make admirable commercials that would get through to even the densest low-info voter.

    Parent

    They need to know both (none / 0) (#42)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:28:12 PM EST
    Is it really asking too much that the truth about these people be out there?  Why just one part of the truth?  And consider that both are equally scary to the Independents McCain needs to woo, in order to implement that Third Term.

    Parent
    So, the Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM EST
    emphasizes both McCain and Palin are right-to-lifers and Palin is against abortion unless a doctor says the mother will dies; and both McCain and Palin firmly support the war in Iraq and Palin says it's God's will.

    What does the Obama campaign say about Obama's stances on these same issues, given his admission last night "the surge" was a success, his votes for funding the war, and his statement during his acceptance apeech on reducing the number of abortions?  

    Parent

    Obama's Abortion Statement (none / 0) (#71)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:54:48 PM EST
    Was not something that angered any Pro-Choice person that I know.  I don't know anyone who is Pro Abortion, if such people exist at all.  The desire for less abortions is something that we can come together on.  In the most affluent society in the history of the planet, it ought to be offensive to all of us that so many who get pregnant feel that, because of economic reasons, they have no choice but to get an abortion.  

    I welcome Obama's comments about abortionto become part of a bigger conversation, by all means let's shine a light on it.  Indeed, the whole segment on the Culture Wars, in his speech, was important--we need to tone it down and reach compromises and stop letting politiccians use this issue to get voters to vote against their economic interests.

    GOPers like McCain and Palin care an awful lot about what a woman does while pregnant, but they don't believe in sex education and they don't give a rat's patooty what happens tgp her or the child, after after the child is born.  All they care about is criminalizing abortion.  Which is ironic since for someone like Bristol Palin, abortion will always be an option whether legal or not.  A nice little jaunt to Europe, a discreet vacation, comes back not pregnant.  

    As for his comments about the war, they have been consistent all along by my lights.  That he and Hillary Clinton were the best we got on Iraq ought to have saddened all Dems, but for whatever reason, those were the ones we got.  And there is no question but a McCain Presidency will cause far, far more corpses than an Obama Presidency.  

    So yes.  Let's get it all out there.  Every last bit of it.  it's too important not to.

    Parent

    I strongly disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:10:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Argument well made (none / 0) (#89)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:27:00 PM EST
    Sorry, for a moment there it looked like you were willing to participate in a discussion.

    Your rebuttal would have fit in well in St. Paul, this past week.

    Parent

    I'm happy for you that you (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:29:39 PM EST
    liked your argument, but I would like Obama to clarify his positions.

    Parent
    He has clarified them (none / 0) (#99)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:39:33 PM EST
    If you have been listening.  But I share your desire  for him to keep talking about these positions.  Even though the GOP won't touch such discussion with a ten foot pole, unless forced to by the people of America.

    Parent
    Ditto. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:26:36 PM EST
    We have seen enough, already, of our allegedly Dem politicians toning it down and compromising on this issue.  There is hardly anything left of Roe v. Wade in my state and many others.

    Of course, that means the SCOTUS argument carries no weight here.  On to other issues, it is -- such as who will stand for removing religion from politics.  On that, we also need more clarification, not more compromise.

    Parent

    That's a sad comment (none / 0) (#131)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:50:44 PM EST
    for a lot of reasons.

    Parent
    Yes, it is very sad when Dems (none / 0) (#132)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:57:29 PM EST
    have not lived up to their own platform plank on this -- one that distinguishes them from Republicans.

    Parent
    That is a lie (none / 0) (#133)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:43:06 PM EST
    The last time we had a Dem President in the White House, he put TWO staunchly pro choice justices in the Court and you know it.

    It's been a little harder with W in there filling up federal judgships with extremists all over the country.  And with W having the bully pulpit talking about "Culture of Life" and funding Faith Based Initiatives &c.

    And then your argument is specious because you know well the vast distinction between these GOP nutjobs and the Dem ticket on judicial appoibntments (even Biden looks like a constitutional champion compared to what the GOP are giving us) but you downplay it anyway, for whatever banal reason.  

    Parent

    Under a Dem Congress (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:53:28 PM EST
    we now have a conservative majority on the Court.  And we have had Dems in the White House and a Dem Congress for a good portion of the three decades-plus since Roe v. Wade, and under Dems as well as under Republicans, it has been eviscerated.  None of your bright shiny distractions about nutjobs and Biden and such nonsense are relevant to the core of the matter.

    As for the future, for that matter, we now have had the debacle of a Dem convention opening with a minister who used his opening invocation to denounce this plank in the Dem platform.  Astonishing.  Even the Republican invocation did not denounce the Republican platform.  

    Parent

    So much fabrication from you, (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:06:10 PM EST
    And in little bandwidth.

    As if the Dems had Control of the Congress when Bush put either of the two bozos on the Court that are there.  As if, even if they had control of Congress, they would have been able to FORCE him, the President, to put an abortion rigths defender on the Court.

    Congress gets advise and consent.  They do not pick the judge. Clinton gave us excellent justices.  And actually, other than Carter, there has only been ONE Democratic Pres since Roe.  And that was Bill Clinton.  Who, if you'll rememer, gave us excellent justices.

    But don't worry.  You have a great new meme going in that last comment.  It won't affect abortion rights who wins the Presidency, because of an anti-choice invocation.

    God.  At least the Naderites have conviction and intellectual honesty.  You can disagree with them but still respect where they are coming from.  

    Parent

    The informed voter likely already knows it (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:06:48 PM EST
    or will by election day.  It's the low-informaton voter who needs to get the word, and the meaning thereof.

    Parent
    True - but the best way (IMHO) (none / 0) (#19)
    by scribe on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:05:44 PM EST
    to go after McSame through Palin is to keep pounding on his failure to have properly vetted her (and circumventing normal, historically-tested procedures in choosing a VP) having been the prime cause of all the bad press she's getting.

    And more is coming.  It looks like the Enquirer ran with the story about her affair with her husband's former business partner.  The former business partner has filed an emergency motion to have the Alaska Courts seal the records of his divorce case.  

    How much you wanna bet Palin's named as a correspondent in that case?

    You won't hear anything different from Palin tom'w, BTW, as it appears her stump speech is exactly the same speech she gave the other night.

    Parent

    Every Day Spent on Palin's Personal Life (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by BDB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:35:41 PM EST
    is a day that goes to McCain, IMO.  For every person who dislikes her for it, there will be one or more sympathetic to the media pile on and nothing fires up the right-wing base like hating the media.  It won't matter if it's true or not, since when has the GOP ever cared about truth and from what I can tell a lot of "progressives" care less and less every day.

    While the misogyny in the air might create a backlash against Palin if it turns out she had an affair, I think that's a risk since she's a GOP woman.  A Democratic woman would be sunk because the Dems would join the GOP in going after her.  They'd treat her worse than they did Bill Clinton because, as we've seen this year, there's a decent sized misogny brigade within the Democratic Party.  But she's not a Dem. and the GOP tend to defend their own no matter what.  That leaves as a question whether America cares and I'm not sure they do.

    I've said this before, but if this election becomes a referedum on Sarah Palin's family, then Obama is screwed (and stupid).

    Parent

    Please note: Sarah Palin (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:41:22 PM EST
    is referred to as "Ms." in Falcone's piece in NYT.  Hillary Clinton is always referred to as "Mrs."  

    Also, didn't Obama get rid of his opponent in an Illinois contested primary by making sure the press knew about the allegations in a divorce case court file?  Scummy.  

    Parent

    Yes, well, (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:20:25 PM EST
    Hillary should have been "Senator", and Palin should be "Governor". If the NYT is also using Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama, it is just a show of disrespect to not acknowledge the elected positions of the women.


    Parent
    This kind of misinformation (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    really makes me mad.  Obama had nothing to do with Jack Ryan's divorce dirty laundry being exposed.  The entire issue came up as a result of the REPUBLICAN primary.  Ryan assured the Republican establishment and the voters that there was nothing bad in the divorce papers.  He lied and had to remove himself from the campaign.  Obama had nothing to do with it.

    Also, calling the Dem nominee "scummy" would seem to be the kind of name-calling that is not allowed here.

    Parent

    Unclear (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by BDB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    I think you're overstating your defense, but also that others overstate the case against Obama.  There were rumors in Illinois at the time that Axelrod was behind the leak because they wanted the strongest opponent taken out.  But they were just rumors.  I doubt we'll ever really know.  IIRC, Ryan blamed Obama for it because he had video crews following him around trying to catch him doing something, but I can't now remember where I read it so grain of salt.

    Parent
    I live in Indiana (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    in the Chicago media market.  I heard the entire thing play out day after day.  At that time I really didn't know anything about the O guy - didn't know his name then.   I was just enjoying the imploding of the Republicans. It was the Ryan's Repub opponents and his enemies in the Repub party that kept the story alive.  They were the ones commenting on it, they were the ones leaking the info.

    And Ryan could have/should have gotten out of the race since he knew just how damaging those divorce papers were.  If he had the Repubs would have had a real candidate.  The entire election would have been different.

    Parent

    John Kass of the Chicago Trib (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    disagrees on that, and he knows this beat darn well.

    Parent
    the back end of your first sentence (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:09:22 PM EST
    is why you do the front end.

    you have missed my point for a week now.

    Parent

    I thought she was a right wing nut as well, but (none / 0) (#28)
    by Exeter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:14:54 PM EST
    I listened to an interview with Shannyn Moore, who hosts a progressive radio talk show in Anchorage-- here's her blog.

    She said that she did not vote for Palin and would not vote for McCain-Palin, but her insights were interesting.  She said that the right wing in Alaska absolutely hates her, have called her a socialist, a Dem-in-disguise, ect.  Her greatest suprise was that the far right wing love her nationally but she is SOOOO hated by that group in Alaska.  She also said that she is very nice personally, that the speech she gave at the convention was nothing like the person she knows, that she is somewhat like Forrest Gump-- not that she isn't smart but that she just beats to her own drummer and things always seem to break her way.

    Anyway, I thought she might be an interesting interview for you.

    Parent

    I thought she was a right wing nut as well, but (none / 0) (#29)
    by Exeter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:15:01 PM EST
    I listened to an interview with Shannyn Moore, who hosts a progressive radio talk show in Anchorage-- here's her blog.

    She said that she did not vote for Palin and would not vote for McCain-Palin, but her insights were interesting.  She said that the right wing in Alaska absolutely hates her, have called her a socialist, a Dem-in-disguise, ect.  Her greatest suprise was that the far right wing love her nationally but she is SOOOO hated by that group in Alaska.  She also said that she is very nice personally, that the speech she gave at the convention was nothing like the person she knows, that she is somewhat like Forrest Gump-- not that she isn't smart but that she just beats to her own drummer and things always seem to break her way.

    Anyway, I thought she might be an interesting interview for you.

    Parent

    Obama ran a radio ad (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    on abortion rights this week.   Targeted ads may the way to go.  Let suburban women know what she stands for without elevating her even further....

    Parent
    BTD...you were right all along... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by LatinoDC on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    the right thing to do was simply to ignore her...it was a mistake that Obama's campaign realized too late (yes, half an hour is too late).  Now they repugs have an openning... I just hope the Obama campaign comes up with something quick...

    I agree.... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:58:26 AM EST
    ..she is a big trap for the media, but I doubt they'll be able to resist taking the bait.

    She has magical powers, I suppose (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:36:15 PM EST
    The whole thing is now laughable, as our electoral politics have been for some time.


    Parent
    Might As Well Tell Them To Ignore a Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by BDB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:12:32 PM EST
    Neither the bloggers nor the MSM are going to be able to ignore Palin, they are obsessed with her just like a lot of them are with the Clintons (we just don't know yet whether the MSM obsession will be out of hate or love or something in between).  This will only hurt Obama, but hurting Obama has never stopped many of his supporters from going after Hillary.  They can't help themselves.

    It is interesting that I don't think I've read nearly as much vicious stuff on the blogs about McCain as I have about Palin.  She seems to inspire a level of hatred normally reserved for Hillary.  Now, Hillary and Sarah Palin are very different people so one would not necessarily expect them to inspire the exact same kinds of feedy frenzies.  Well, they're different except for one thing.

    I'm afraid BTD that you aren't going to get your wish here.  Although I agree that in a culture where the media functioned properly and where Democrats and their supporters let their brains instead of their ids do the talking, what you want to see is what would happen.    

    One More Thought (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by BDB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:18:35 PM EST
    This could also be another round of rope-a-dope for Palin.  She was very smart, IMO, to stay out of sight during the week before her speech.  She let the Democrats and Blogger Boiz drive expectations to the basement and raise interest (her speech got nearly the same rating as Obama's when nobody had ever heard of her a week ago, nicely done, Democrats!).  

    The VP debate I believe is in early October.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if she goes back to Alasks, ventures out for some campaign appearances in smaller, more rural parts of Virginia, Ohio, etc., but does it in a way that feeds the frenzy without actually doing much so that she gets to debate Biden in the same atmosphere.

    Personally, I'm very worried about Biden in that debate.  His initial reaction was to call her pretty and either today or yesterday he mistakingly demoted her to Lt. Governor.  He also made a somewhat sexist comment (dressed up as humor) when he introduced his own wife.  The man doesn't seem to be able to help himself.  

    Parent

    Interesting strategy vs. celebrity overexposure (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    narrative about Obama.  You could be correct.

    Plus, Congress is on vacation -- but state governments are not.  She probably has to head back up there to put in place some interim processes, with the lieutenant governor and agency heads and the like, for her forthcoming absences on the campaign trail.  

    Push this narrative about why-the-heck-head-back-to-Alaska, and the answer might make her look better -- and bring up attendance records in the Senate again.

    Parent

    For all those who opined she (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:45:01 PM EST
    needs to take care of her children:  o.k., now what do you say?

    Parent
    I never was one who said that. I deplore (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:49:41 PM EST
    that entire line of discourse.  The kids have two parents, and a lot of families do taking turns as de facto single parents.  As one who went through the crap of the judicial system attitudes about mothers with careers, I always deplore those who speak of husbands as "babysitting" their own kids.  But I have seen that attitude even here from so-called progressives.  Really, can they hear themselves?!

    Parent
    I hear you on husband's claiming (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:52:30 PM EST
    they are "babysitting" their own kids.  Used to piss me off big time.  

    Parent
    Sally Quinn really went there (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:57:31 PM EST
    She has a now-grown special needs child, so she felt qualified to opine....

    The most sustained criticism along those lines actually seem to come from other women who felt qualified as mothers to judge other mothers.....The men who were jeks were more likely to do a drive-by one liner.

    The family issues and "mommy wars" let her avoid the issues about actually being for the Bridge to Nowhere, and winning her first campaign for Mayor on an anti-abortion platform....

    Parent

    Rush was having fun with (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:08:01 PM EST
    the women commentators telling Palin how to raise her kids and whether she should just say home since she has so many of them.

    Parent
    Mike Gravel's take on Palin (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:26:24 PM EST
    Link

    Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, has been plucked from obscurity and now shares the stage with three other national leaders vying to head the next government of the United States. Sarah is very much of an Alaskan character. Politicos and pundits will have difficulty handling her as she is being tested in the crucible of media scrutiny over the next nine weeks. My guess is, Americans will relate to her and love her story.

    ...

    Sarah has literally come to the national scene without owing anything to any party or corporate interest--not even McCain--he needs her more than she needs him. Imagine a person a heart beat away not owned by the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, corporate America or AIPAC. WOW! Can this last? Probably not. But she does have an uncanny sense of political direction and the ability to capitalize on change like putting the public interest above Republican Party interests.

    I strongly disagree with her views on abortion, creationism, stem cell research and a host of extreme conservative views that are a product of her environment. We must bear in mind she is running for vice president--a heart beat away--not president. If McCain is as fit as his doctors report, Sarah will have ample time to be the perfect understudy. She will have the opportunity to travel, grow and mature intellectually.



    Finally, a reasonable assessment. (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:47:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Can this last? (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:31:32 PM EST
    Imagine a person a heart beat away not owned by the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, corporate America or AIPAC. WOW! Can this last? Probably not.

    She's in the Republican party Mike, of course it can not last.  You can remove the "probably".

    If Palin were a real danger to the complex, Wall St, AIPAC, or monolith corporations...she would not be on the ticket.  She's on the ticket to play a role, like the lot of them.

    Parent

    I always look at the headline on the news.coms (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:26:41 PM EST
    On Yahoo there are two stories.  
    McCain sketches policy blueprint on taxes, spending
    and
    Obama sends high-profile female supporters to blunt Palin impact
    Now, which one of those headlines sounds positive and which one negative. One says McCain knows what he is doing and it is issues and the other says Obama can't deal with Palin himself. He has to send the gals.

    On CNN, there are 7 McCain stories and one Obama story

    Clinton set to work against Palin
    Where is Obama in this? He is the candidate. IMO, I think this is the wrong message to be sending.

    I just read a headline on (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    newspaper blog (NYT or LAT) stating Obama campaign urged the Eagleton comparison.  Hope that story dies really quickly.

    Parent
    Yeah, especially with this new Yahoo one (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    Poll: Palin more popular than Obama or McCain
    Ouch. But with Troopergate report being released 3 weeks early, it might be very bad for her or it might be seen as trying to knock her down. There is a very thin line to walk right now.

    Parent
    I agree w/BTD on the trooper (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    issue.  Bad cop, should have been fired [underlying facts re cop support Palin urging his dismissal]. Probably a powerful law enforcement union and weak commissioner, whom Governor had the discretion to replace and did. Public safety issue and vote getter in Alaska and everywhere else.  

    Parent
    This could be very interesting (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by skuld1 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:49:50 PM EST
    If this report comes out and is unfavorable to Palin (or the repubs get wind beforehand that it makes her look bad), I fully expect that the repubs will loudly publicize the underlying facts regarding the cop.

    The part that will absolutely blow me away is that some bloggers (and maybe even some press folks) will defend, directly or indirectly, a cop who tasered his stepson, made death threats to people, etc. just to get at Palin.  Progressives supporting that kind of cop?  It will blow me away...

    Parent

    "talkright" (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:31:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Ah, that was an Obama plant (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:30:56 PM EST
    That explains why it showed up on several blogs so quickly.  Good to know, as a means to assess those blogs as well as the Obama camp react-and-respond timing and tactics.

    Parent
    Not true as far as I can see (none / 0) (#98)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:32:23 PM EST
    I just checked both the pages you cited and I don't know what you are talking about.  Link please.

    Parent
    Maybe This Is What's Being Referred To (none / 0) (#138)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:13:12 AM EST
    From Ambinder/The Atlantic

    But the campaign denied the Eagleton reference and the source for that is one unnamed surrogate so...whatever.

    What I do think is a good approach is something the campaign owns promoting which is compiling quotes from other Republicans and headlines about Republicans who are expressing concern about the Palin nomination. There follows in this article a fairly lengthy list.

    Otherwise:

    "Obama spokesperson Bill Burton said that surrogates haven't been pushed to mention Eagleton. "We did not give that guidance," he said.

    Responding to Palin has been a challenge.

    In public, the Obama campaign has stuck to its message, noting that Palin's speech last night barely referenced the economy. Today, Obama told reporters that he didn't particularly mind Palin's jabs at him, and he then made one of his own: "I assume that she wants to be treated the same way that guys want to be treated which means that their records are under scrutiny. I've been through this for 19 months. She's been through it, what for 4 days so far?"

    "One of the Democratic surrogates said that when he asked for guidance about Bristol Palin,  Palin's pregnant daughter, his handler at the campaign told him that the campaign had nothing to say about it and did not want Democrats to mention it."

    Parent

    Use Palin to show McCain has moved far right. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    You use her ideology to show that McCain is not the bridge builder he says he is, but has in fact tied his image to someone further to the right than Bush.

    Unemployment is now 6.1% (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    That should be the focus.

    Parent
    If this election is about Palin ... (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:31:39 PM EST
    John McCain will win.

    But I wonder if the toothpaste isn't already out of the tube.  With Palin and her family getting coverage in gossip rags and sites, even if the political press ignores her, she still may be the main story.

    This is one of the pitfalls of nominating a flavor of the month.  A new flavor comes along, and the old flavor's press clippings are only seen lining bird cages.

    I keep thinking (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by eleanora on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    of Robert DeNiro in Wag The Dog. "I need one day, two days. We just gotta distract them. We just gotta distract 'em. Got less than two weeks until the election. Change the story, change the lead."

    so Dems. are no longer (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    incensed with Powell for his lies to the UN?

    I'm conflicted about this (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by hookfan on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:24:25 PM EST
    Because I'm working class, and neither Jeralyn nor BTD are, I suspect I see this through different eyes. I also strongly suspect that at times I'm a fool. since most here know more than I do, I'll leave it to you to decide whether in this case I live up to that label.
      And as a confession I personally like sarah Palin because her personal story gives hope to working class peeps like me. I also fear her and believe she and McCain will bring ruin to me, mine, and the nation (not necessarily in that order).
       BTD I think is wrong (please don't beat me up like the last time-- that was embarrassing lol) because one doesn't want to deal with a prepared Palin, on topics of her choosing, on her timing. Ignoring her would just do that-- poor joe. Sarah is very smooth and a quick study. She will play the media I believe just like Reagan did. The inexperience meme has to be established now, on tropics of Joe's choosing, before she gets prepared. Or you will pay a huge price by being placed on the defensive. I would hate to see Biden, who's had it soft for years, try to effectively handle sarah on her prepared issues, on her timing, on her turf. she is not known as the barracuda for no reason.
       Jeralyn's suggestion of painting her as rightwing extremist runs the grave risk of alienating many bluecollar reagan democrats especially in the east, places like ohio, virginia , and the midwest like Missouri.Conservative blue collar workers will not take kindly to your approach and may rally to defend one of their own. If they don't matter to you, you better ask how many will you lose, and how willing are they to vote for the other side. Sarah will play to them, and her history plays well.
      What I suggest, because I'm at times a fool, is that Joe Biden get off his duff and attack (uh, "challenge") Palin NOW on foreign policy. Not tomorrow or when he feels like it-- NOW.Or he will be sorry when he gets disemboweled.

    This is going to get even worse (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by demchick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:12:53 PM EST
    Now that Obama is dispatching Hillary to the trail to combat Palin the story is going to become about Palin vs. Clinton. As soon as that happens, it's over for us. It becomes about 2012.

    Rass is already polling it. Pundits are already talking about it. Voters are already whispering it.

    Obama needs to stop talking about her and so do the bloggers.

    Senator Clinton Has More Important Work (none / 0) (#139)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM EST
    to do on the trail.

    Nobody is sending her to attack Palin, but rather she will work to discredit McCain.

    Talk Left

    Parent

    What kind of Democratic (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:54:40 PM EST
    candidate has supporters who want Republicans to bail him out?

    Pathetic.

    Hegel.  Eisenhower's grandaughter.  Now you need Powell?

    Not my Democratic Party.

    Her son is leaving for Iraq. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:32:30 PM EST
    Give the woman a break.  She's seeing her son off to Iraq.

    If the media follow her to Alaska (none / 0) (#3)
    by demchick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:48:33 AM EST
    and are seen as trying to disrupt her from doing her work as the Gov of the state while she goes about the state's business it won't be seen as a positive.

    She won't be doing the state's business (none / 0) (#22)
    by scribe on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    for at least the next two months.  No disruption.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by demchick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:35:33 PM EST
    according to Politico she will be in Alaska to catch up on state business as well as pack her bags and get her personal affairs in order to travel.

    There was also a story yesterday on CNN saying that her state stafff has been with her as she continued to do state's business on the road with McCain. She is not abdicating her job as Gov of Alaska.

    Parent

    Someone used the analogy of 1988 (none / 0) (#10)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:57:19 AM EST
    Did the GOP successfully tear down Lloyd Bentsen?  Did they link him to scandal?  Did they destroy his popularity?

    Did they have to?

    Bensten was an entirely different (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:58:52 AM EST
    kind of VP. I don't like the analogy.

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:10:51 PM EST
    Why must we defeat Sarah Palin in order to win this election?

    Parent
    I didn't say that (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    I just don't think the comparison holds.

    Was anyone in America excited by Lloyd Bentsen?

    Parent

    It makes no difference (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:37:03 PM EST
    If you agree with me that it's not necessary to destroy the opposition's well-liked VP candidate in order to win the election, that's all that matters.

    Parent
    John Edwards works almost as well in that case (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:44:02 PM EST


    Parent
    He wasn't "shrill" but he sure (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:43:09 PM EST
    launched a zinger.

    Parent
    Excited? No. (none / 0) (#140)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:23:46 AM EST
    Relieved and more confident with the idea of him as VP than Dan Quayle?

    You betcha.

    In fact, now that I look at the two years were it not for Palin's 'star quality', she might stand in pretty well for Quayle.

    Did Quayle soothe the right wing's uneasiness about GHW Bush?

    And there's Biden--unexciting but a  heckuva not more ready to be VP.

    Parent

    Ummmmm (none / 0) (#18)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:05:15 PM EST
    The GOP stayed away from Bentsen because Bentsen's favoriability far exceeded that of Dukakis.

    On Palin:

    First of all, she is going to cause massive turnout among the GOP base, regardless of what the media does.  Second, if McCain cannot get his share of Independents, then he is cooked in a state like Virginia and a state like Ohio.  

    And so third, Independents need to be reminded of two truths over and over again, both of which ought to scare the bejeezus out of them.  The first truth is the Bush Third Term thing.  But the second truth, regarding what Palin's policy views reallyh are, will also turn the stomachs of a great many reasonable people who are not yet decided.

    It needs to be both.  While Obama hammers home the Bush III message, others must prevent McCain and Palin from hiding her away on the Issues. Since she's an extremist and all

    Parent

    Come on, folks. 'The analogy of 1988' has nothing (none / 0) (#136)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:17:12 AM EST
    to do with Bentsen.

    To the extent that Palin has a 1988 analogue, it is obviously Dan Quayle -- the young candidate with movie-star looks, who was widely presumed to appeal to women voters on that basis.

    Quayle is mostly remembered as the butt of various humorous anecdotes, all ending with a quote showing how dumb he was:

    • P-O-T-A-T-O-E
    • (To the people of Tonga) "You look like happy campers to me. Happy campers you are; happy campers you have been; and happy campers you shall remain."
    • (Butchering the UNCF slogan) "What a terrible thing it is to lose one's mind. How true that is."

    Quayle did receive passing marks for his anti-Dukakis acceptance speech, iirc. And of course, Quayle was elected. (Hopefully this is where the analogy breaks down.)

    Parent
    My take? (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    What goes up, must come down.

    And the faster the media builds you up, the faster they'll tear you down.

    It's a race against time, if she can stay "up" for the next 59 days the Reps might have a whisper of a maybe of a might of shot at the WH.

    If she gets torn down before Nov 4, the Dems will win the WH and many congressional seats by a landslide.

    The situation is the tensest!

    Of course, (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Jeannie on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    the same goes for Obama. The GOP have been very restrained until now. "The faster the media builds you up, the faster they'll tear you down."

    Parent
    I don't disagree. (none / 0) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:43:01 PM EST
    At this point in time, I think Palin has a more tenuous hold on the media, but then again I have a 50% chance of being wrong.

    Parent
    I would be absolutely shocked... (none / 0) (#56)
    by skuld1 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM EST
    if the media took your advice.

    Bloggers and the media this cycle (none / 0) (#63)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:47:26 PM EST
    have been extremely interested in going after the Clintons and Palin.  They have churned out a lot of text that tears them apart personally and politically.  That's convenient, and makes Obama a media success by default.  His biography has been the story, not his policies.  "Obamanomics" is the closest we've come to a positive major policy story about Obama.  He needs to brand the plans that he has and foist them on the media as part of his leadership, so that people think, "hey, Obamanomics might work."  Or "That Obama Plan for national service and school loans might be helpful."  I understand why he might want to shy away from "Obamacare" when it comes to health plans, but otherwise, I think this is the direction he should be taking.  That might feed the people who say where's the beef.

    Looks like Oprah is doing that (none / 0) (#83)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    we'll see how it plays out.

    Oprah backfire (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by stefystef on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:52:27 PM EST
    I think Oprah needs to stay out of this.

    Her ratings have suffered since she professed Obama as "The One".  From what I've read, Oprah received many letters from her audience (mostly middle aged white women) unhappy at her involvement in politics.  There has been a well-hidden backlash against her.  So her involvement has been minimized.

    I can't see anything good coming from Oprah (or Whoopie) getting involved.   Barack is a big man, he should be able to do this himself without getting celebrities to shill for him.

    Parent

    Whoopi too (none / 0) (#85)
    by Pianobuff on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    I believe one of Whoopi's blog postings attacks Palin for among other things her support for Alaska to succeed from the USA.

    AP's leading article: (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    McCain/Palin in small town in WI

    Just fyi, Cedarburg may seem a small town (none / 0) (#130)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:49:42 PM EST
    and is picturesque -- an old mill town on the river, with those old mills now turned into trendy shops and condos and apartments.  I.e., it's actually a booming burb in a booming county that is part of metropolitan Milwaukee.  We're in the city, but we go there and even beyond for movies and shopping all the time (especially at Christmastime, when it takes "picturesque" up to the level of "adorable," angels everywhere).  Most who live in Cedarburg just reverse the route, as they work in Milwaukee.

    When I clicked on your "small town in WI," I expected to see something much farther from Milwaukee.  That's really where McCain and Palin  were -- much like when Obama went to Waukesha in the primaries.  

    Maybe Wisconsin is a swing state, after all.

    Parent

    She sells (none / 0) (#101)
    by Lahdee on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    so I expect the narrative to include the lipstick pit bull until it gets boring or a shinier object comes along.
    CNN seems to be doing it's best to nudge the story by interviewing the ex-brother-in-law trooper this afternoon (heard the tease, but not the interview on XM).

    Mickey Kaus agrees (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:47:00 PM EST
    And when someone I hardly ever agree with (Kaus) agrees with someone I usually agree with (BTD), I tend to think it is the right answer.

    Kaus:

    May I suggest to my fellow conspirators that we move directly on to Plan 3: Forget Palin. Stop writing about her. If we make the election about Palin, we will lose. She'll probably win her debate and will almost certainly handle the interviews well enough (to the satisfaction of the voters, at least, if not the experts). The election's not about Palin. It's about McCain. We can beat McCain
    Frenzy is correct (none / 0) (#106)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:56:47 PM EST
    but it isn't just about Palin.  In the last 2 weeks we've had Biden's named as VP, the Dem convention, Hillary's speech, Bill's speech, Obama's speech, the Palin announcement, Gustav, Repub convention, Palin's speech,etc...  The media is running around crazed.  

    Too much drama to process it all.  It's fun to watch and the bases are energized  - - but when it is said and done, what will undecided/swing voters take from the whole thing.

    Media can't ignore Palin (none / 0) (#121)
    by stefystef on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:41:25 PM EST
    because it's such the soap-opera train wreck.  And it's easier than dealing with real issues.

    Also, I think the media is bored with Obama now.  And so is the American public.  That's why the polls today have Obama and McCain even.  

    Celebrity lasts only so long...

    Media's Revenge: Ignore Palin | 138 comments (138 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment