Friday Night Fights: Lies

You don't win elections with one hand tied behind your back. The Democrats need to come out swinging against Sarah Palin, the unqualified, radical right choice of John McCain to occupy the nation's second most powerful leadership position. The fact that she's under investigation for abuse of power alone should be enough to disqualify her. Tell her to come back after she's been cleared and has shown she brings something other than tokenism to the job.

The Democratic strategists and pundits who think Obama should ignore Palin and stick to debating the issues are the best example of why the Democrats lost the last two elections.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is not remotely qualified for the Vice Presidency. She has zero foreign policy experience, nothing to add about health care, education, jobs, social security, the economy, terrorism, civil liberties or criminal justice. She's about to go into hiding from the media in Alaska so she can be prepped like a Stepford Wife to regurgitate the lies Republican have been peddling for the past 15 years, since Newt Gingrich's Contract On America.

The real threat to our country is the phony legitimization of an unqualified candidate plucked from obscurity. She is totally unprepared to assume the presidency if something happens to the 72 year old, frail candidate with a long history of medical issues, including four bouts with cancer, who heads up her ticket. (Yes, I know he was a P.O.W.)

Evangelicals do not yet make up the majority of voters in this country. Obama needs to look past them and strike his own brand of fear in the heart of every other voter. The evangelicals are already lost. The rest of the voting public is still up for grabs.

Every day Obama and the Democrats wait, she gets more training and another opportunity is wasted.

Ads? Forget the 3am ad, how about a 3pm ad, depicting John McCain taking his afternoon nap while Sarah Palin answers the phone and has no clue of how to respond and searches everywhere for the 1970's style rolodex telling her who to call? (There's no computer in the oval office because John McCain doesn't know how to use one.)

The best hope of beating McCain/Palin is by investigating her heretofore unexamined public life to the Nth degree. No impropriety is too small to report.

By the end of October, one will come to light that by itself, or in combination with the others, becomes the final straw that gets her out of the race, causing the implosion of the McCain campaign.

The Democrats are letting Sarah Palin turn into a runaway train.

(Big Tent Democrat positively and absolutely disassociates himself from this post.)

< The Candidates and World Leadership | Open Thread: : Runaway Train >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Definitely in your camp on this Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by glanton on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:45:42 PM EST
    Why so many seem to feel that the Dems aren't capable of simultaneously attacking McCain And Palin is beyond me, it really is.  There are important truths to be told about the dangerousness of them both.  So let those truths be told.  And informed electorate is an empowered electorate.

    With Obama (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by sas on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:48:27 PM EST
    on the top of the ticket,I don't think
    the Democrats ought to go anywhere near the "unqualified" theme....

    I think everytime Gov. Palin (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    is labelled "unqualified" people think, well is Sen. Obama?

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:55:11 PM EST
    the difference between their political experience is pretty small. Then it makes you think about who is qualified? Biden and McCain. Who's at the top of the ticket in that pair? It's all circular and ends up with a win for McCain.

    And you're comparing a VP pick (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by otherlisa on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:45:25 PM EST
    to a Presidential nominee.

    I am so with BTD on this. If you have to attack Palin, attack her on her policies and where they would take the country. But that's ultimately about McCain as well. Treat them as a unit. McCain/Palin.

    THE best way to insulate Obama against the "unqualified/inexperienced" charge is for him to show that he has a genuine grasp of issues, policies that make sense and will benefit Americans and a plan to implement them. Big bonus points for showing he can communicate to the working class folks who tend to be skeptical of him.

    Look at the Gallup poll someone quoted earlier. Most Clinton voters like Obama. Even the Clinton voters who right now don't plan to vote for him or are unconvinced. They don't want to vote for him, they say, because they don't think he's qualified.


    Excellent point. I thought no name calling? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:50:16 PM EST

    there was no name calling (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:03:13 PM EST
    "bring something other than tokenism"

    "prepped like a Stepford Wife"

    Name calling is calling someone a name, like an idiot or a jerk which I would never do.

    But I"m sure you knew that.


    :) You're cracking me up (none / 0) (#132)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:35:32 PM EST
    I believe that is absolutely (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Serene1 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:51:50 PM EST
    the wrong tactic to adopt. This unhealthy curiosity with everything Palin by the left blogs and MSM is that what led to record ratings of a convention which otherwise everybody had written off. By keeping the scrutiny on Palin on the perverse assumption that McCain will die will only make Palin and McCain look more like victims and thus sympathetic.
    Democrats should play on their strengths now. If Democrats are able to convince the electorate that the country has suffered enough with the failed policies of republicans and hence Democrats who have a record of good governance should be given the chance then the election is for the Democrats to loose.
    But if the Democrats insist on making this battle all about personalities and personal issues - then just one warning - people living in glass houses should not throw stones at others.

    Couldn't agree more. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:56:32 PM EST
    If we can't win on the issues (and we can) then I don't really think we deserve to win simply based on, for lack of a better term coming to mind, flash.

    If we're right substantively, then everything else will fall into place.  I know, I know... but I have a lot of faith in the American public seeing through BS.  Let's face it, they can smell "marketing" from a mile away... because they are flooded with it ALL day long :)


    The problem is ... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by eustiscg on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:21:49 PM EST
    ... the other guy is always willing to win the election that's "not about the issues."  You don't get points for integrity--only for its appearance.

    Faith In The American Public (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by limama1956 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:32:22 PM EST
    I'm with Jeralyn on this one.

    Did the American public see through Bush in 2004?


    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:13:07 PM EST
    The people saw through Bush in 2004.
    Unfortunately, they also saw through Kerry.

    No the People didn't see through Bush and Why (none / 0) (#150)
    by Serene1 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:48:55 PM EST
    Because Democrats allowed the republicans to make it an issue about personalities rather than policies or issues facing the country. When it came to a battle of personality Kerry with his I was for it before I was against it stood out badly against Bush's dumb arrogance and faux machoisim. Republicans are very good at this game.
    If Democrats had strongly hammered Bush and his partners on the state of the nation and the iraq war I am positive the results would have been reversed.
    The biggest mistake Obama and his gang made in the primary and are since continuing making is making this a contest b/w Obama and the rest. The battle will be won if it is b/w Democrats and republicans not if it is b/w Obama and McCain or Obama and Palin. Everybody has enough skeletons in their cupboard to make the clash of personalities battle dirty and the outcome uncertain.

    Yep... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by otherlisa on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:17:32 AM EST
    If this becomes a battle about personal narratives, I think that Obama will lose.

    By all means, let's attack the Republicans - let's attack them for what they've done to the country for the last 8 years. No more of this mushy post-partisan crap.


    I mean, not like I want to quote Reagan (none / 0) (#157)
    by otherlisa on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:19:26 AM EST
    but it's really simple: "Are you better off than you were 8 years ago? Do you think America is better off?"

    The kind of campaign Palin/McCain choose to run IS (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by DeanOR on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:17:38 PM EST
    (try that again) IS an issue. Not calling out emotional manipulation for what it is, and obeying the manipulator's rule that you can not comment on what is going on below the radar, is suicide. It doesn't have to involve attacking a personality, a family, a religion, etc., but their nasty campaign does reveal their lack of character. Character is what they make the center of their campaign, but on their terms, if we play by their rules. It's the same old script. Silence is accepting humiliation and looking like you don't stand for anything at all. Standing up to it doesn't have to become an obsession, especially with personal detail. It can be quick, smart, and effective.

    Here's another wrong tactic......... (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:43:35 PM EST
    Obama is crying wolf one too many times.

    From CNN:
    "When [the Republicans] say this isn't about issues it's about personalities what they're really saying is "we're going to try to scare people about Barack"," he told a small gathering at a glass factory near Scranton. ""We're going to say that you know, maybe he's got Muslim connections or we're going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals or he's not patriotic." Just making stuff up."


    More like 4 or 5 too many times (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by BrianJ on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:17:55 PM EST
    I thought Obama had learned something from seeing his lead evaporate this summer, and from being called out on baseless accusations of racism.

    I guess not.  Is there any way short of losing the election that he will learn?  And will even that be enough?


    Responding to something that was not said (none / 0) (#146)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:38:14 PM EST
    Means not responding to what was said.  I do get frustrated.

    Mama Barracuda vs Baby Barracuda (none / 0) (#178)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:36:26 AM EST
    The beautiful part about involving Hillary would have been to see Hillary calmly and quietly eviscerate Palin on populist issues; but apparently that's not to be, since whoever talked to the Times from the Obama campaign apparently butchered the framing, and it turned into a "send in the women" thing.

    What the framing should have been IMNSHO was "send in the populist women," because that's what Palin is: A right wing populist, a hockey Mom with an all-too-typical family running against elites. (Yeah, I know, unbelievable, but that's what's happening.) And if Palin pulls off the running against elites frame, which has worked in the past, and which she's good at, then attacks like Jeralyn's recommending here will just blowback: Palin will make it all about the trooper, which is concrete and a simple story, as opposed to "abuse of power" which is abstract and a complex story.

    And the populist campaign would have been a two-fer: 1. Finally the Obama campaign gets to talk about real issues that matter to real people (the boring bullet points about policy really are how to do populism without the Village tagging you with the word); 2. Our women are smarter and tougher than yours, and care about your life more.

    Another missed opportunity. Oh well. Have fun!


    I think the issue (none / 0) (#180)
    by lilburro on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:50:55 AM EST
    has been more with the Times...BTD posted as to how the Hillary camp and the Obama camp are not going to go after Palin.

    I don't think Palin is going to be a populist - her campaign speech was good at attacking Obama, but defending the interests of the poor, not so much.  Huckabee is the closest the GOP has gotten to economic populism this election cycle.  

    The antidote to Palin's faux-populism is to pull out the experts, show off the plans, push the nuts and bolts of Dem policy to the fore.  Palin is not going to be able to pull off populism, I'm 99% sure - I think her priorities are overwhelmingly evangelical ideology.


    I have to disagree (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by BrianJ on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:54:05 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was "under investigation" throughout his term as President, even though most of the "investigations" were baseless fishing expeditions.  The ethical cases against Palin don't look any stronger than those against Clinton.

    I'm all for examining her public life, but examining McCain's would seem to be more fruitful.  He is the Presidential candidate, after all, and the guy who will decide what (if any) role Palin has.

    In addition, Obama supporters seem to be unable to tell the difference between "coming out swinging" and "flailing wildly and ineffectually," judging from their attacks thus far-  the eBay plane sale and Troopergate are examples of "investigations" that can only help Palin, which isn't the goal here.

    Lastly, you say By the end of October, one will come to light that by itself, or in combination with the others, becomes the final straw that gets her out of the race, causing the implosion of the McCain campaign.  I'll bet you whatever amount you care to name that won't happen and she will be McCain's VP choice on November 4.

    Neither Bill clinton nor Al Gore (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:05:12 PM EST
    were under investigation in 1992 when they first ran for national office. Apples and oranges.

    The Whitewater case (none / 0) (#41)
    by BrianJ on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:11:50 PM EST
    Had already been written up in the New York Times, on the front page, on March 8, 1992.  It wasn't (yet) a criminal investigation, but there were people already snooping around the case-  as they would be, pointlessly, for ten more years.

    Not quite (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:22:18 PM EST
    No allegations by a government agency were made against Clinton before he became President in 1993. The New York Times article is not a governmental investigation into his alleged misconduct as we have with Palin.

    See Wikipedia.

    David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against President Bill Clinton in the Whitewater affair, claimed in November 1993 that Bill Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, pressured him to provide an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, the partner of the Clintons in the Whitewater land deal.[1] This allegation by Hale was questionable, as Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during testimony in the original FBI investigation of the failure of Madison Guaranty in 1989.....Only after coming under indictment in 1993 for charges in just such a scheme did Hale make allegations against Clinton.[2]

    A New York Times article published during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign reported that Clinton and his wife had invested in and lost money in the Whitewater development project.


    There was no governmental investigation based on allegations of Clinton misconduct in 1992 when he ran for President.


    Note the Madison Guaranty (none / 0) (#78)
    by BrianJ on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:31:48 PM EST
    Investigation, which had already begun in 1989, and would be expanded to cover the Clintons.  The Wikipedia article you link to also says that:

    In March 1992, during his presidential campaign, the Clintons acknowledged that on their 1984 and 1985 tax returns, they had claimed improper tax deductions for interest payments made by the Whitewater Development Company and not them personally.[37] Due to the age of mistake, the Clintons were not obligated to make good the error, but Bill Clinton announced that they would.[37]

    (This tax error would have been actionable if the IRS had determined that it was likely the result of fraud or tax evasion.)

    To quote the former President in question, it depends on what your meaning of "investigation" is.  Were there claims that Clinton was a criminal in 1992?  Absolutely.  Were they backed by officialdom?  Not yet, but they shortly would be.  Oh Lord, would they be.


    anyone can write anything (none / 0) (#115)
    by kenosharick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:06:26 PM EST
    in wikipedia- truth or lies. As an undergrad some friends added a few lines about the "panzer tanks" at Gettysburg and it stayed up for over a week.

    The LA Buddhist Temple (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:15:38 PM EST
    fund raising event occurred in 1996 and Gore was being questioned about it before the 1999 campaign.  Also the allegation he was making campaign fundraising calls from his government telephone.

    you make my point (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:24:40 PM EST
    Those were after they were already in national office.

    No one I can think of was under government investigation when they first came upon the national scene and announced their candidacy for President or Vice President.

    I'm not talking about re-election bids. The country was well familiar with them by the time they ran for re-election.


    Yes, yes, yes!! N/T (none / 0) (#75)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:30:27 PM EST
    OK for Biden to challenge Palin as needed; (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jazz on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:54:13 PM EST
    for Obama to do so seems likely to backfire because of lack of parity--he's running for top spot and she's in the VP slot.  It gives her more attention and makes her supporters feel she's picked on.  It also invites comparisons between those two on celebrity type measures instead keeping focused on Obama vs. McCain.  I disagree he needs to scare people more.  That isn't working (e.g, SCOTUS).  He needs to excite people more or excite more people.  The positive message is what worked best for him IMHO.

    Scaring voters (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:57:04 PM EST
    only gets you so far. You're going to have to also give them a reason to vote FOR you.

    Scaring voters (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:17:39 PM EST
    is the GOP number one strategy.

    Vote for us OR

    Taxes raised
    Gays Married
    Guns taken away
    Terrorists win

    Fear is all they do.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:27:36 PM EST
    I've got to say you've got me there!

    Once in a while they actually are FOR something but not in quite a while it seems.


    Whaaa??? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by pluege on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:29:26 AM EST
    I think the last 28 years of republicans running only on fear (which includes character assassination - 'oooooo the liberal bogeyman is going to get you) without a shred of positive policy for the average American has been a damn successful strategy considering they've dominated American politics with an ideology that the majority of Americans don;t agree with. Not that I'm advocating nothing but fear  tactics for Democrats - just observing that republicans haven't really discovered a limit yet to their fear mongering.

    To me, McCain's choice of Palin (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:57:07 PM EST
    answered any questions I might have had as to whether McCain might move toward the center if elected.  Other than that, ignore her.  

    The problem with coming out (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by tootired on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:00:09 PM EST
    swinging is that Obama doesn't have control of the narrative. He, Biden, and his official surrogates could keep the "swinging" confined to attacking her on the issues. (The experience thing is not a winner for Obama no matter what you think.) But the MSM and the leftie bloggers won't be able to keep themselves from attacking her in ways that are blatantly sexist. With what went on in the primaries, the potential for serious backlash from women (and some men) who would not normally support someone with Palin's views is huge. Relegating her to the back seat and going after McCain instead is a better strategy. If Obama concentrates on McCain it is more likely that the media will follow suit. He needs to take the media darling position back.

    she's in Alaska, unvailable to the media. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ApacheTrout on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:03:06 PM EST
    so make it seem like shes trying to hide her past.  make it seem like she's afraid of being seen in public.  Make it seem like she's terrified of answering questions.  This is how Obama gains the narrative.  Make the effort to define her in our terms, not those of the Republicans.

    Is she hiding? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by themomcat on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:54:46 PM EST
    Well, since she is the Governor and still has state business that needs her attention, will have to make arrangements to tale care of state business in her absence while on the campaign trail and just might have some personal family business, just maybe, she had some good reasons to return to Alaska? I don't think trying to say that she is "hiding from the media" is a very good campaign tactic that good easily backfire. And when was Obama last press conference? See how easy those tables can be turned.

    I think I read that she also is spending time (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:18:31 PM EST
    with her son before he leaves Thurs or Friday.

    You are right that Obama is limiting his press access. I think he is mistaken to limit it too much. As for Sarah Palin, she will have to make herself available after a week or so or it will look like they are afraid of what she will say.


    She is hiding (none / 0) (#131)
    by nalo on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:31:32 PM EST
    But I suspect the point is to get her expectations low and play for the sympathy vote.  "Why is the media being so mean to her and hounding her to answer questions?"

    Palin's been running for VP for a over a week, and only done scripted speeches and a People magazine interview.  With only 60 days left till the election, the McCain campaign spokespeople say she's still being briefed and is not ready to do interviews for 2 more weeks.


    Is she appearing (none / 0) (#149)
    by themomcat on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:48:49 PM EST
    in Colorado Springs tomorrow with McCain? Jeralyn is going to be in the crowd.

    I wouldn't blame her (none / 0) (#167)
    by themomcat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:55:48 AM EST
    The weather in Alaska is already starting to get cold. In the Summer, the mosquitoes are the size of a Piper Cub. LOL

    She's hiding in plain sight! Cedarburg, WI, for (none / 0) (#175)
    by jawbone on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:17:08 AM EST
    yesterday's example. Colorado today?

    She has not had a press conference or one-on-one interviews with and MCMers, so is that hiding? Might be just good strategy right now. Let the MCM collect more info to grill her about before she does those interviews.

    BTW, Kathleen Hall Jamison pointed out on Bill Moyers' Journal last night that the MCM's vetting seem to be rushed as well. She pointed out how an MCM article criticized Palin for hypocrisy, saying she'd cut funding for special needs children.  What the MCMer had seen was the previous governor's proposed budget, which Palin overruled and then increased funding. But Soledad O'Brian ran with the story on TV!

    Jamison's point was that if the MCM does this kind or reporting, and the corrections are hard to find, it ill serves the public and the republic. The MCM also did this when saying Palin cut funding for unwed mothers' shelter. (One such facility, yes, but that was after steep increases to that group to build a larger building.)

    But, now these stories are "out there." And they may become conventional wisdom, as have several false stories about Al Gore. I hated it when this was done to our pols--I can't support it when it's done to the other pols.

    The pretending to be pregnant with her newest baby is out there big time. When Vanity Fair does a You Decide! timeline (the "authoritive" timeline) to show how the daughter could have beome pregnant within a month of possibly giving birth, things are pretty sad in MCM land.

    When US Week has a cover and lead article about the supposed deception, that's also pretty sad.


    As hunter said (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:43:59 PM EST
    politics is all about controlling your environment. Obama needs to regain control. I don't see him doing anything since the convention except tell O'Reilly the surge worked. Not exactly controlling the environment.

    Yeah I didn't like that at all. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:13:01 PM EST
    That was weak.

    Define Poline While She Hides in Alaska (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ApacheTrout on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:00:50 PM EST
    I fully agree that the Democrats should be attacking Gov. Palin.  With her holed up in Alaska trying to avoid a deposition, why not take the time to introduce to America the book banning Palin?  Why not take the time to introduce to American the police-chief firing Palin?  Or the earmark loving Palin?  Why on earth should the Democrats hold their fire?  Treat her with kid gloves?  No way, no how.

    She's not hiding and it would be a (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:24:27 PM EST
    bad move to suggest she is. Especially if she's doing her job and getting organized before going on the road.

    Seriously, what part of what you saw of her suggests she would go into hiding?


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:01:30 PM EST
    I was just having this conversation with a lawyer/friend last night.  To be quite blunt, I think my friend and I are far more qualified than Sarah Palin.  In fact, I submit that many on this list are more qualified.  This is horrible and certainly with McCain's age, the likelihood that Palin will ascend the throne to the highest office in the country cannot be ignored. The opponent for Obama is truly McCain-Palin, not McCain.  

    I am not suggesting a personal savaging of Palin at all.  I just wish Obama and his followers would simply ignore that Palin is a woman and go after the candidate.  Is that too hard a concept for the Dems??  

    She is dangerous in too many ways to enumerate.  The fact that she has a presence on stage is all the more threatening.  She should not be ignored.  While I agree that the actual opponent is McCain, the focus is on Palin and people are swept up with her biting humor and sarcasm, as if she actually authored her own acceptance speech.  It was theatre, plain and simple.  What I can say is that Palin has a good delivery and excellent timing, nothing more.  

    Tom Brokaw, overheard during Palin's acceptance speech, stated he was expecting her to blurt out "Live from New York; it's Saturday Night. Theatre pure and simple.

    Problem is this is real; it is not a movie that we can watch and enjoy and then go on with our lives unscathed.    

    I agree (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:06:30 PM EST
    I'd bet every lawyer who reads this blog is more qualified.

    Just lawyers? (none / 0) (#68)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:25:22 PM EST
    well (none / 0) (#72)
    by sas on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:28:50 PM EST
    I guess that leaves Obama out then

    he's not qualified then


    Obama is a lawyer (none / 0) (#80)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:32:21 PM EST
    Inactive but still.  Harvard Law; President of Harvard Law Review.  Remember?  Magna cum Laude.

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#173)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:47:07 AM EST
    She is a governor. On what basis is 'every lawyer who reads this blog' more qualified? Because they can pick through legislation better? So should only lawyers seek office?

    Honestly, this is becoming farcical. She is more qualified than you, she is more qualified than me, she is more qualified than hundreds of millions of Americans. Attack her on the issues and you might win; make unrealistic statements like that and people will just laugh and assume you've been driven to desperation because you fear her as a candidate. Would they be right?


    I had assumed the Brokaw remark was based on (none / 0) (#176)
    by jawbone on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:19:15 AM EST
    how much she resembles Tina Fey.

    I'm hoping SNL will entice Tina Fey back for a few special appearances as Palin. That would be too cool.


    You are so right, Jeralyn! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:01:39 PM EST
    So right! Did you hear Palin is refusing to take questions from the press? What more evidence do we need to prove she is unqualified for an office of this magnitude?

    Leave her alone? Hell no! I'm not voting for McCain, and I hope he loses, but if he wins, Palin as Vice President? NO! This is insane!

    which is why.... (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:27:31 PM EST
    the press has started to turn on him. His cloistered, yes, arrogant, stiff-arm to the traveling press is not going over so great.

    maybe you're right (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:12:45 AM EST
    I think he's an introvert. One of those smart introverted guys. He's not a charmer, like Bill was, that's for sure.

    Two on Obama (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by abdiel on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:01:48 PM EST
    I think you're half right.  After the convention, it's pretty clear that Palin is there to steal the hype and character assassinate Obama while McCain thinks he can win at the debates on issues.  So in that sense, something does need to be done about Palin because tarnishing Obama's image is one of the few things that actually worked for Hillary.  

    It's dead wrong to say she's a token candidate though.  If her job is to steal the spotlight and hammer Obama's image, then she is doing a brilliant job.  

    Biggest irony of the election is that the token candidate is Joe Biden.  He doesn't seem like much more than just the obligatory old white man on the ticket.  He certainly isn't covering Obama on experience or foreign policy right now.

    No one except the left is going to be impressed (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:08:07 PM EST
    by personal attacks on Palin.  Just not gonna happen. The more inexperienced and unqualified you make her out to be, the more you look like a bully for beating on her.  That's why Hillary's enemies had to make her out to be a tough monster before they could beat her up.

    The best hope of beating McPalin is to get Obama in every media venue possible in the next month talking specifics about the economy. When he is not doing that, he darn well better be preparing for the debates.

    please read more carefully (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:10:37 PM EST
    I mentioned nothing about a personal attack. I said:

    The best hope of beating McCain/Palin is by investigating her heretofore unexamined public life to the Nth degree. No impropriety is too small to report.

    Public life. Service in Government. I've said that 100 times.


    You're right, sorry. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:16:32 PM EST
    If I scratch out the word personal I still stand by my comment.  I don't think attacking her public life will be much more effective, mostly because it is so limited.   Trying to make an issue out of Alaska political scandals when the top of the ticket is from Chicago is just asking for trouble.

    I think the time and energy is better spent elsewhere.


    Your comment makes no sense (none / 0) (#56)
    by dailygrind on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:19:39 PM EST
    without the personal attacks angle. essentially- you are arguing that the views of the VP says nothing about the way mccain thinks. If those views are linked to mccaina nd bush - it most certainly does matter.

    Sure it matters, but it is a matter of priority (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:33:56 PM EST
    We have 26 years of examples of how McCain thinks.  We had plenty of ammo against him before his VP selection even happened.

    Debate Palin honestly on the issues and move on.  Any more media attention spent on her, even if it is covering some professional scandal, is time away from Obama.


    "No impropriety is too small to report" (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by demchick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:18:33 PM EST
    I disagree. Eventually we just start looking petty...or worse.

    Just shoot me (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:57:16 AM EST
    You know what I'm worried about? Choosing between heating fuel and food. Me, and many, many other Americans -- not just marginal schlubs like me.

    And you know what Palin's answer to that is? "Drill now."

    Laughably stupid answer, right?

    Well, at least she's got an answer.

    And I'm not hearing any kind of answer from the "left" [cough] blogs, the "progressives" [cough], the "creative" [cough]* "class" or the Obama campaign, for that matter. (What a lost opporunity on FOX, eh?)

    And now we're going to focus on Palin's "public life" with an "abuse of power" frame?

    And waste a few more days figuring out that won't work any more than the "she's a slut and he's old" thing didn't work?

    She's a right wing populist! You don't fight that with the second coming of the Watergate Committee!

    Is there a simple, one line, not "check-the-website"-type answer to my question "And we get?" "Drill now" is such an answer. "Change" is not. "Enough" is not. What are you guys doing about that? Because, reading this post, it looks to me like the "latte" zinger is right on target.

    Shoot me. Just shoot me.

    NOTE * Sorry for all the coughing. I chose food over fuel, and its f***ing cold in here.


    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ajain on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:08:45 PM EST
    We can't make this election a referendum on Palin. She might win that one. I think she is a very good politician. I agree with your criticisms of Palin, but underestimating her and in the process lowering expectations for her performance (just as it was done before her convention address) is bad for the Democrats.

    Plus the economy is bad enough that people would care about the issues. I think a referendum on anyone except Bush is bad for the Democrats.

    Nobody cares about Bush (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:11:49 PM EST
    he's leaving. McCain is selling lies that he'll bring change. That's enough for most of the public.

    People have to be told about Bush (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ajain on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:47:37 PM EST
    They have to be reminded that John McCain is a Bush re-incarnate. Pound that theme day in and day out. Don't completely ignore Palin, but let her not be the focus.

    The focus on McCain should include his VP pick (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by barryluda on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:11:41 PM EST
    We need to stay focused on McCain.  But his pick of Palin is relevant to that focus in at least two ways.

    First, since McCain is so inarticulate, we're able to learn what McCain's policies would really be like by listening to Palin.  As McCain (with a freudian slip) said a few weeks ago:

    I will choose a president -- I will nominate a -- a person to be vice president, my running mate, who shares my principles, my values, and my priorities.

    It also tells us a bit about his integrity.  We can each judge for ourselves if out of all of the people he could have chosen for VP, he made the decision based on what would be best for our country.

    The ex-brother-in-law... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ineedalife on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:14:27 PM EST
    at the center of the abuse of power scandal is a Palin supporter. Somehow I don't think that dog will hunt. If he is pulling for her, then I think we have been somewhat hoodwinked and bamboozzled by the faux outrage ginned up over this.

    And Jeralyn were you the inspiration for Obama's camp Eagleton talking points, or were you following them?

    I was well ahead of them on that one (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:37:51 PM EST
    And everyone else who is now raising it. I wrote that on September 1.

    I have no idea if they read mine -- it was prominently quoted in the NY Times Opinionator blog so I suspect they did. (I doubt they read talkleft)

    The funny thing is the first time I wrote about it  in July, it was in the context of Obama being like McGovern for moving to the Center and choosing Eagleton.

    My point: I think Hunter would jump on a candidate who moved to the center after campaigning on leftist platforms and exciting unprecedented numbers of young voters to become engaged in politics.

    Wooten Does Not Say He Supports Palin (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by limama1956 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:40:31 PM EST
    He is very careful with his words. After all, he is still a state trooper.

    He says that her nomniation is great for the state of Alaska, and he wishes her and her family well.

    That's the extent of his "support".


    Right (none / 0) (#109)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:57:13 PM EST
    He wants to keep his job.

    Or Wooten realizes (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by ding7777 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:21:36 PM EST
    the being under the scrunity of the federal government is not the same as having a Trooper commission examine his actions

    that is odd (none / 0) (#62)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:23:48 PM EST
    I read that his mother is adamently agaisnt Palin.  Cannot recall where exactly I read this.

    We do not need to (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by demchick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:15:51 PM EST
    be acting as if Obama is running against her and not McCain. if we do, we lose. Period.

    That is not fair (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ineedalife on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:29:40 PM EST
    Jeralyn was a strong Clinton supporter, as was I. But I do not get the irrational Palin hate. Issues-based is fine, but I am getting a visceral hatred coming from Jeralyn.

    There are people you describe though. My own sister for one. She has hated Hillary with the intensity of a thousand suns from when she was first aware of her 16 years ago. That same flame is now focused on Palin. But she despises all successful, powerful women.

    I don't think that Jeralyn is irrational (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by BrianJ on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:36:21 PM EST
    But the people making fusses over the eBay plane sale and Troopergate (again, one of the innumerable wild goose chases against Clinton bore that name too) strike me as people who won't debate the issues, where Palin is quite bad enough.  She must be a criminal too!  Why?  Because... well, because she is, alright!?!

    I am dismayed to see this attitude surfacing here, on what has been a very good political site.  I hope it passes quickly.  But I don't think it will if other "progressives," like the Big Orange continue to fan the flames of irrational suspicion and hatred.  I think someone from the Obama/ Biden campaign may need to directly ask them to knock it off if they actually want Obama to win.


    They can ask all they want (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:52:18 PM EST
    and I will follow my own counsel. I think the danger in this election is no less than handing our government over to the radical right.

    I'll fight for my country my way, others can choose their way or the way of politicians and strategists. As I said originally, the Dems didn't do so good with their strategy in 2000 or 2004.

    Just like the Republicans have instilled fear in the heart of every American, I'd like to instill fear of the radical right in all who aren't already members.


    left out a word (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:54:03 PM EST
    I typed too fast. That should be

    "Just as the Republicans instilled fear of terrorism in the heart of every American, I'd like to instill fear of the radical right in all who aren't already members.


    attacking the radical right could be effective (none / 0) (#170)
    by kempis on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:38:37 AM EST
    If people could be reminded of the GOP's interference in the Terri Schiavo case in an ad, that would probably be helpful.

    Most Americans, including the religious, were horrified when our political leaders took sides in a private, painful, family debate.

    The fundamentalist-Dobson wing of the GOP is still influential (obviously) and people need to be aware that a vote for any GOP ticket is a vote for these people.

    But I agree with others who say that the attacks on Palin have thus far boomeranged because they've been too personal and too clumsy. As long as Democrats think "small town mayor" and "mother" are suitable lines of attack, they'll perpetually alienate non-urban, non-academic America and perpetually lose elections they should win. They do this by alienating the very voters they claim to care most about: the working class.


    100% with you here (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Lil on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:56:49 PM EST
    I think fundamentalism is dangerous and Bush's Fundametal beliefs have close to destrouyed the country. I do not want another one anywhere near the WH. It scared me when you said they were not yet a majority, as if that day may come. When it does...wow, I don't even know what to say.

    It's not hate, (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:45:32 PM EST
    The visceral response to Palin is about ferociously defending the country we love.  The GOP and our puppet president are ruining our country, our economy and our good name in the world.  The conservative right is now driving the McCain campaign bus.  

    It's nothing personal with Palin.  She just represents the foot dragging, g-d fearing, anti-freedom, anti-American lunatic fringed that has blocked progress in our country since the 1960s.  They're the surprise element that gives us Republican rule even though we outnumber them.  

    No, it's not hate, it's a quiet determination based on the desperate realization of how powerfully pathological that constituency is.  

    Speaking for myself only...


    Focus (none / 0) (#118)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:14:16 PM EST
    I also believe that the focus should be on McCain and McCain's Republican positions throughout. As a purely gut reaction: If McCain is successful in making this an election on person/character/individual (whatever one terms it), there is a good chance that he will pull this off because he is known, has a hero's biography, can reasonably construct the reformer's pose (especially in view of some "maverick" breaking from his party on 3 or 4 significant issues. If this becomes an election about issues, the national situation of the last almost 8 years, I believe that we Democrats will win with the large undecideds swinging in the manner of 1980 to the new guy. The Palin complexity is a trap. While she cannot be completely ignored, I do believe that she has to be viewed at a bit of a distance and with dispassion. Else--as in the early days after the announcement--Democrats run the risk of seeming unusually angry, hysterical, afraid, etc. We were not a pretty sight. Jeralyn: I really hate to say this--because your blog is my favorite internet reading place--but, my impression (my personal reaction) is that you have really let Palin get under your skin in such a way that your columns relating to her now almost vibrate with emotion. I am trying to relate; and, I do understand your concern--really. Maybe we all need to stand back a bit so that we don't become part of the storyline. If she is stronger than we initially thought, all the ferocity we can muster will not change that. My question: How do we avoic falling into that trap?

    First, the investigation she is the subject (5.00 / 10) (#87)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:34:38 PM EST
    of is one she called for herself, something that is always missing from the discussion whenever this comes up; I think it's an important element.

    Second, as a governor, she is most certainly dealing with economic issues like health care and jobs and crime - all governors do.  And since 9/11 all governors are dealing with security issues, readiness for terrorist attacks, etc. What exactly do you think she does as governor - is she just window dressing?

    Suppose Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee or Tim Pawlenty had been picked?  Where's their foreign policy or social security experience?  

    And frankly, this continuing characterization of Sarah Palin as an empty-headed know-nothing is getting old, and is not playing well out in the real world.  It pushes people to come to her defense because they recognize it as being patently unfair. Stepfordization?  Really, that's just reaching too far.  You've likened her and her family to redneck hillbillies who have no minds of their own - and even went so far as to muse that they drugged their baby to keep him quiet.  

    It's been unnecessarily mean and petty - unnecessary because the answer is right in front of you: it's the issues.  The other day there was mocking a-plenty when Rick Davis said this election would not be about issues - and you are making that come true, and it is playing right into their hands.

    I do not agree with Sarah Palin on any issue I can think of. Nor do I agree with McCain about much of anything.  But I didn't agree with Romney or Huckabee or Thompson or Paul or any of the other GOP luminaries, either.  And because I think they are wrong on the issues, I don't see them as being "qualified" to lead the nation.

    As Democrats, we lose when we don't tell America why we are right on the issues, why what we propose is better for America than what they have done and want to continue to do.

    It's all right there in front of us - unemployment rising, home foreclosures, declining incomes, more uninsured, more homeless - make people feel better and more confident that we are the people to help people sleep at night, and you win.  Make it about Grandpa McCain and Caribou Barbie and you lose.

    you sound like a professor (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    i'd rather see a street fighter approach.

    You are just repeating their spin.


    As fierce and fervid (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by onlyme on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:24:28 AM EST
    as you are, there are those on the right just as fierce and righteous-feeling. This intense polarization continues and I see a real shooting civil war in the future or secession and/or revolution attempts. Or will the centrists/moderates hold sway? And by that I don't necessarily mean just moderate in the political sense.

    I'm libertarian/leftist but I'm always able to see both sides of an issue. And I realize that most people find the extremes on both ends of the political spectrum disturbing. I don't demonize The Other or paint the world in stark black/white colors. What's ironic is that many on the left have the same qualities as the religious right--good/evil outlooks, a fear of opposing viewpoints, self-righteousness, demonizing those whose ideology they disagree with, expecting an apocalypse, looking toward an utopia/heaven, putting trust in an idolized leader, refusal to examine their own beliefs or opinions, etc.


    Thanks for the sermon.. (3.66 / 3) (#182)
    by Boia on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:30:02 AM EST
    I'm libertarian/leftist but I'm always able to see both sides of an issue....I don't demonize The Other or paint the world in stark black/white colors....

    As the Church Lady used to say, "Well, isn't that special?"  And, so what?

    To judge by many of the posts here today, Lewis Carroll has not only entered the building but taken it over.

    Why is anybody on a site named Talk Left defending Sarah Palin on any grounds whatsoever?

    Have people here sunk to so dismal a level of political correctness that they don't grasp that Sarah Palin is the sworn and savage enemy of everything that matters to those on the left, near, middle and far?  Are they so horrified that she might be called nasty names, or her family might be exposed to vile ridicule that they're willing to see her and McCain elected?  Are we back to, 'we're nice, and they're not, and we'd rather lose than not be nice'...?

    In distinction to all the savants around here, I have no idea what tactics would work best to neutralize Sarah Palin, but as far as I'm concerned, anything short of violence and outright deceit is fine, and the rougher the better.  

    Unlike the virtuous (and self-congratulatory) ONLYME (and all his fluttering-hankie kin) I'd rather win and be labeled a cynical, corrupt, heartless political assassin than see McCain & Palin in the White House.  

    Paint it black.


    Use whatever tactics (none / 0) (#183)
    by onlyme on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM EST
    you want. Whatever floats your boat. BTW, no where in my post was I defending Palin.

    My recollection of both (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:21:15 PM EST
    Bill Clinton wins was because he did campaign on the issues 90% and against his opponent 10% of the time.

    I think that's why Hillary did so well from Feb thru May, as well.


    Bill Clinton is the best (none / 0) (#151)
    by abdiel on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:55:03 PM EST
    not because he campaigns on the issues, but he can criticize his opponents while still looking like the good guy.  He savaged the Republicans at the DNC campaign, but ended his speech with most people convinced that he stuck to the issues.  

    Contrast that with most Republicans this week, who sounded like crass Fox News reporters with their bad snark.  Even when they talked about issues, it sounded like they were taking cheap shots.  


    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by obiden08 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:41:56 PM EST
    It's obvious to me that the Republican base is not going to dump Palin and that they're going to rally around her regardless.  The base is not excited about Palin, but about what she represents:  John McCain's total capitulation to the right wing of the party.  

    Obama wins if he stays on message.  His opponent in the IL Senate race self-destructed when his divorce details were exposed.  I'm firmly convinced that Hillary would be the nominee if she hadn't put forth that "gas tax holiday" scheme around the time of the Indiana/North Carolina primaries.  All it did was allow Obama to get back on message: Old politics vs. new politics.

    I believe in his message. He has to believe it, too.  What's the point of winning if you lose your core?  I pity McCain.  He's given up all that made him McCain in search for an office that he wouldn't even be able to enjoy because the right-wing would be breathing down his neck.

    I know it's risky, but Obama needs to win this with the truth.  That's the only way change is going to happen.  

    That said, I want him to hit Palin and hit her hard.  I don't understand how they're letting her reformer nonsene play when it's clearly a lie.  I hope something is coming soon.

    THIS IS (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:54:44 PM EST
    the kind of rhetoric I AM TALKING ABOUT!  Absolutely come out with guns a-blazin' and take no prisoners.

    FINALLY!  A liberal who isn't afraid to FIGHT!  I wish that more candidates would adopt this kind of stance.  Sorry to all those who disagree but you HAVE to be tough to be in politics.  The days of "gentleman's disagreements" are gone.

    Republicans play for keeps.  You CANNOT negotiate with a scorpion or a rattlesnake, and THAT'S what the R's are.

    I know that as progressives we are supposed to take the "high road."  That path has left us HIGH AND DRY.  Nice to see someone say the things I have been saying on my blog for the past three years.  This is a rational approach to me.  Punch them on issues and matter of personal character.  Running for the highest offices in the land?  THEN NO you are NOT beyond reproach.

    I like this type of talk...keep it up JM!

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:01:59 PM EST
    I think as a criminal defense attorney, I am used to the fight and know that it is necessary.  The Repubs are playing by different rules and the Dems are still wedded to the high road.  Think Dukakis; think Kerry; think Gore.  But remember Bill Clinton?  Now that guy knew how to fight back and he did it for over 8 years.

    Right on (none / 0) (#112)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:04:58 PM EST
    I will fight for the right causes with every fiber of my being.  My passion runs deep for the things I hold dear.  That's what we need in politics:  people who are willing to fight the good fight on PRINCIPALED issues.  Dems are better on every issue regarding the rights of people.



    I wish you guys were as intent on fighting (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:41:26 PM EST
    terrorism, dictators and totalitarian regimes as you are your political enemies.

    At the end of the day, we're all still Americans first right?


    That should be a given (none / 0) (#140)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:51:54 PM EST
    if you can't discern that, well that's your problem.  How typically republican.  Take your insecure questions of patriotism somewhere else.

    I'm confused (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:05:13 PM EST
    Evangelicals do not yet make up the majority of voters in this country. Obama needs to look past them and strike his own brand of fear in the heart of every other voter. The evangelicals are already lost. The rest of the voting public is still up for grabs.

    But, what about the Joshua Project, and all the faith based initiatives with the abundance of religious events at the convention? Wasn't this the demographic he thought he could get to help him close the gap created by dissing women, elderly, working class, and latinos?

    And, if they are so awful, do the democrats want them?

    no we don't want the evangelicals (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:24:31 PM EST
    and I criticized him plenty for reaching out to them. Not all people of faith are evangelicals, anti-choice, and trying to hijack our three branches of government.

    There's faith and then (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:25:10 PM EST
    there is fundamentalism right-wing faith.  I speak from knowledge as I myself am a evangelical Christian.  I went to a Christian high school where most of my graduating class attended Bob Jones University.  I attended Taylor University - a Christian college (moderate - not radical like Bob Jones.)  

    I appreciate Obama reaching out to people of the Christian faith.  It is working as several members of my family are voting for him.  For some it is the first time ever voting for a Democrat.  

    There is a broad spectrum in Christianity.  But the right-wing fundies are dangerous people.  They are dogmatic, authoritarian, and see the world in black and white terms.  Very un-Christ like in my opinion.  I know them and I am scared of them running the country.


    Best option seems to be (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Bob K on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:41:43 PM EST
    have Biden withdraw for health reasons and replace him with Hillary. If she'll take it. Not sure she would at this point. Then hope the public doesn't see it as a ploy.

    Hope the MEDIA (none / 0) (#169)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:36:50 AM EST
    doesn't see it as a ploy.

    Sure, it's the same thing in effect, but let's remember where the real power is - The People are information consumers, not generators.


    How to Lose (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by DeanOR on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:43:45 PM EST
    Let McCain and Palin make "jokes" and sarcastic, snide remarks about Democrats lack of patriotism, being weak, elitist, repeating lies, etc. day after day and don't say a word about what they are doing out of fear of the backlash. Prove to everyone how fearful you are. Just let it go on and try to talk economics. Doesn't anyone remember swiftboating and Kerry's deadly silence? Kerry himself remembers it well, and he was great last week. Obama understands it: "Don't tell me Democrats won't defend this country!"

    Would republicans lay off a democratic Sarah Palin (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by pluege on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:44:27 PM EST
    Hell No. They would make the campaign entirely about her using the media to propagate their talking points all the while slagging the media.

    Democrats just don't know how to play the game. And since Obama is counting on high new voter registration and turnout, he sure as hell better be ready for the republican campaign to suppress that turnout.  

    Disconnect on what "attack" means (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by pluege on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:07:06 AM EST
     1) Obama doesn't attack Palin, surrogates do. Obama stays above the fray - acts presidential.

     2) Surrogates push stories in a gossipy incredulous way to the MSM so the MSM will run with them.

     3) The best part about Palin is that unlike republican smears of democrats, there is no need to make anything up - just keep the media running with the unsavory truth about her.  

    Wow, quite Rovian (none / 0) (#165)
    by BlueMerlin on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:25:45 AM EST
    In my opinion (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:37:39 PM EST
    "you are the reason Democrats lose" is a rhetorical trump card, but it doesn't actually prove anything.

    I agree with BTD that there is no reason to focus on Palin.  We can win the election without taking her down, and there's no reason to take on that battle.  

    as an independent voter (none / 0) (#2)
    by indy woman on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:40:46 PM EST
    I think not addressing some of McCain Palin views also makes the Obama Biden camp look like they are running scared.  Though I find myself looking at Palin closely and positively so far, I would welcome a debate on whether she holds extreme rightist views and would enforce them on others if she were vice president.  I think Obama needs to take charge of the debate and  not let McCain take control of the daily debate

    What you're asking for is using issues and (none / 0) (#174)
    by jawbone on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:50:04 AM EST
    experience to handle the Palin phenomenon, I think.

    Bringing up the experience part also brings to mind for voters Obama's limited experience, so I don't see that as a win-win.

    Issues? Ab-so-lute-ly.


    I don't agree that Palin (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:47:42 PM EST
    is the right target.

    Palin will fade (none / 0) (#8)
    by Nevart on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:49:35 PM EST
    No one votes for Vice President and VP choices, even unqualified ones, don't affect the outcome of presidential elections (cf, Quayle, Dan, Agnew, Spiro).  The ado over Palin will fade, and so will the enthusiasm of the right-wing base, and whatever appeal she has to independents.  Obama and Biden should do as they're doing -- focus on McCain and his complete inability to articulate a vision of how to get the country out of its economic mess, other than doing exactly what Bush has done.  To quote a well-known theme of another election in which an "inexperienced" outsider triumphed over an experience candidate, "It's the economy, stupid."

    Normally, (none / 0) (#20)
    by sas on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:57:44 PM EST
    I'd agree that the VP selection does not motivate....but this year with two totally unsatisfactory choices for pres, in the eyes of many, it may come down to VP.

    Jeralyn, although I suggested you (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:50:17 PM EST
    go to Colorado Springs and hear Gov. Palin speak I am now kind of worried we may have to stage an intervention if you do so!  Anyhow, Pat Boone endorses Gov. Palin.  (snark)

    I'm with BTD on this... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Addison on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:57:23 PM EST
    ...Palin gets strength through engagement. She gets legitimacy when Dems respond to her, not when they ignore her.

    Palin made a big media splash, but now she's going into seclusion apart from some fundraisers and the splash will fade (it already has started to) except for the dribble of negative news stories (McCain has already released all the positive ones).

    Unless Dems decide to keep her in the news.

    Don't debate Palin and make her more than a one-hit wonder. When she makes a substantive statement revealing her radical views, talk about those views so the two statements can be played back to back on the nightly news. But no more.

    We spent time in another thread thinking (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:25:05 PM EST
    of things Dems could do to get the spotlight back, like announcing big endorsements.  Well, we have Barack freakin' Obama as our candidate - I think he can grab the spotlight by asking for it and doing some media in the next couple of weeks.

    Now is the time.


    she got it the moment she was nominated (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:44:27 AM EST
    Democrats are powerless to stop her from becoming the topic, they can only derail her by exposing her leadership deficit and her adherence to the radical right agenda.

    You can't stop people from talking about her. You can only hope (and assist) in making her implode based on what develops about her record.


    i wrote about it at tlc (none / 0) (#28)
    by Turkana on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:04:35 PM EST
    the reason to go after palin is that her selection proves mccain is unfit to be president. we also need to bury, once and for all, the idea that it is acceptable for someone on a major party ticket to be a creationist.

    Raising false allegations is not (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:07:46 PM EST
    what I had in mind. She had no objection to teaching creationism in schools, but I don't think she is a creationist.

    What? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Nevart on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:21:24 PM EST
    She's a member of a Pentecostalist church.  That's practically the definition of a creationist.  But if I ever hear her come out strongly in favor of evolution, I'll take this back.

    Until there's proof (none / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:32:13 PM EST
    she governs by her beliefs . . .

    She thinks debate is healthy. And her father was a HS science teacher.

    I'm not at all comfortable with her beliefs, but so far, I haven't seen many/any signs she's converting Alaska to her belief system. She seems to be more about making government more efficient.  


    she can't control anyone (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:46:43 PM EST
    it's about Dobson or others on the radical right controlling McCain because he picked her. They will fund him and propel him to an otherwise unattainable win. He then owes them. And the same thing will go as to controlling her should something happen to McCain and she becomes Pres.

    The radical right is trying to buy this election. She's the unwitting pawn.


    Will he owe them? (none / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:39:43 PM EST
    The advantage of his age and, maybe, his special background is that he may decide he owes noone. I've wondered about that. A 40+ or 50+ individual may have designs on various power positions or places, but he will be 76 at the end of four years. (None of us really know, of course, but his "conversion" to the Dobson group is quite new. Who knows who is using whom?) Please note that this comment is not to argue for him; it is only to point out a thought that keeps floating around my head...particularly in light of his background with the far right. Lots of deals are made for convenience.

    even that (none / 0) (#119)
    by Turkana on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:16:36 PM EST
    is absolutely wrong. i have no problem with creationism being taught in comparative religion classes, but she wants it taught alongside evolution, in science classes. creationism is not science, and if kids aren't taught the difference between mythological theories and scientific theories, they are not being taught.

    But you (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:10:39 PM EST
    see, you are going after for her stances. The problem is that most of the Obama supporters can't seem to do that. Right off the bat they made this whole thing personal

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#60)
    by Nevart on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:22:17 PM EST
    Cite one example.

    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:31:12 PM EST
    you haven't read the blogs that were talking about Palin's personal life. Reid called her "shrill". Biden, iirc, said something stupid too.

    There's a couple of examples for you.


    Biden (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:33:50 PM EST
    said she was prettier than him and also referred to her as the Lt Gov.

    I can't believe you'll are falling into the trap (none / 0) (#51)
    by Serene1 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:17:07 PM EST
    once again.

    Palin is supposed to be a distraction. By going after Palin you'll loose your key talking point which is McCain is continuation of Bush. Already McCain is himself trying to distance himself from Bush fearing the outcome and you'll are only helping by keeping the focus on Palin. She believing in creationisim or any other right wing ideology is not the issue. The issue is Bush and his republican cohorts literally destroyed a country in every which way and are Americans going to reward the republicans for it by electing them again.
    Keep your eyes on the war not on the battle.


    I don't think saying McCain is another Bush (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:29:48 PM EST
    is the best argument for rural, blue collar voters in the swing states. If his "change" meme isn't exposed as lies, they will welcome him. Especially those that voted for Bush. They like those values, they just no longer like Bush. McCain will be change enough for them unless he's exposed.

    He tricked them by selling out to the radical right, putting his presidential aspirations ahead of the good of the country.

    I'm fighting the radical right, not Bush. Bush is history.


    After (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:34:20 PM EST
    your posts tonight I'm starting to see where you are going and you might be right. I agree that Bush is history and there's no point in discussing him. It's his ideology that's the problem and how that spills over into the McCain ticket that should be discussed imo.

    The best argument (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:11:27 PM EST
    for Democrats to make to those voters to win is the one we did make those two times we won:

    1.  Democrats are looking out for your interests
    2.  Republicans are terrible at government

    I don't even think this is about McCain - Republicans suck at governing:  as a individuals, as an ideology, as an organization.  People know this - that's why generic Democrats beat generic Republicans.

    Republicanism is a discredited ideology.  We should kill it and bury it now while we have the chance.  Focusing on individuals and personalities - except so far as proving the above (Republicans are bad at governing/ideas don't work) - is all a distraction from the main battle.

    A personality war is a wash - might as well flip a coin.  But I think of what Bill Clinton said:  to paraphrase, Republicans have had these bad ideas for 25 years.  We finally got to see them in action.  They utterly failed our country.  Kick the bums out.

    Doesn't matter if it's McCain, Palin, Bush, Norm Coleman or Liddy Dole - they are all part of the same failed machine.  Kick them out.  Bury them ten feet under and put the Unity Pony out to pasture.


    Fantastic post. (none / 0) (#160)
    by lobary on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:37:44 AM EST
    You've crystallized the reasons Obama will win. Americans are sick and tired of Republicans lying to them and governing with the interests of their few over the interests of the many.

    The Republican machine is a lie factory. It may have come four years late, but the average voter finally sees through the Republican charade. The gig is up.

    As disappointing as it is that HRC didn't get the nomination, I'm extremely optimistic about November. I am certain that Obama will win the election simply because he's not a Republican.

    Republicans have lowered the standards for governance to such a miserable level that Democrats can win just by not sucking at it as bad as Republicans. This is where we are now. Democrats may have won their trust by default, but they certainly haven't earned it. If Obama can deliver substantive policy changes and help stem the rightward turn of the federal judiciary, maybe the Democrats can win subsequent elections for who they are instead of who they aren't.


    If Obama (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:30:53 AM EST
    doesn't pivot and start selling the idea that Republcans are bad he isn't going to win. He continues a war of personalities which is a loser for him. For some reason, he largely can't move past his primary campaign.

    i disagree (none / 0) (#76)
    by sas on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:30:30 PM EST
    i think her selection is a stroke of genious by mccain

    can you imagine it his choice was another white man?

    how dull

    her selection has energized his base and has you all talking


    Genius for the election (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:33:49 PM EST
    Not as potential President of the Free World!!  

    Mostly with you ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by seanwright on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:05:22 PM EST
    However, I don't think they need to be overly hasty in going after her.  She will either screw or remain suspiciously sequestered away from the media.  Either way the Obama campaign should go hard against McCain and downplay Palin until they spot the right moment to pull the rug out from underneath her.  Palin is so new and her profile so blank that her entire wessonality can be undermined by the right blow at the right time.

    Agree (none / 0) (#42)
    by dailygrind on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:13:49 PM EST
    But, I would rethink how I am doing it. BTD is right that the focus should be McCain. You are righ that we shouldn't ignore Palin. The goal must be to tie Palin's extremist to McCain as a reflect of McCain is the same as Bush. In 2000, Bush sold himself as compassionate conservatism. This time- we are being more of the same. The goal of negative branding Palin is to link that negative branding to McCain. One example- her position on abortion- she says

    "I am against abortion even if my daughter is raped."

    I would do a commercial in which one asks is this something McCain agrees with ? I would slap on McCain- more of the same. You don't say Bush- but imply it. I would use more of the same each time I say something about McCain to negative brand him. Everytime I talk about Palin I would talk about her as more of the same but use things that negatively brand her as well.

    You get a twofer.

    Palin is no bill Clinton (none / 0) (#54)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:19:21 PM EST
    Rhodes Scholar; Yale Law School; longest sitting governor in the country.  I know Bill Clinton.  Sarah Palin is no Bill Clinton.  

    On that we agree (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by BrianJ on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:24:11 PM EST
    I lived in Arkansas during Clinton's governorship.  Terrific governor.  Did a lot of things that were absolutely necessary to drag Arkansas into the latter half of the 20th century.

    Being the governor of a small state means dealing with a small group of business and political leaders regularly.  I'm sure that circle is even smaller in Alaska, and includes known cretins like the Murkowskis and Stevenses.  Scandals can be pretty easy to invent if you want to-  and if you're running a political campaign, you want to very much.


    well (none / 0) (#69)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:26:07 PM EST
    The GOP talking point on the palin investigation will be that breaking the law (if records were accessed) was justified.  Same defense they use for Ollien North and G Gordon Liddy.  They like hyper-partisan lawbreakers so it doesnt hurt her.

    attacking (none / 0) (#71)
    by lynnebrad on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:28:17 PM EST
    I think Barack should be focusing like a laser beam on McCain. Call him out. Show everyone that he is just trying to sell his war record and not even talking about the changes he would make.

    I also think they should be tearing into Palin, but it should not be Barack. Biden and others can do that.

    Maybe they should have an ad that says (this is true) the Repubs are not letting her out to meet with reporters...why? Because she won't know what questions are being asked let alone the proper response.

    I think they should tell Biden to unload as best he can in the debate. He probably won't have a chance to.

    Let's take a walk down memory lane... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Exeter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:33:37 PM EST
    2004 -- Edwards wasn't attacked by Bush, Bush won
    2000 -- Lieberman wasn't attacked by Bush, Bush won
    1996 -- Kemp wasn't attacked by Clinton, Clinton won
    1992 -- Quayle wasn't attacked by Clinton, Clinton won
    1988 -- Bentson wasn't attacked by Bush I, Bush I won
    1984 -- Ferraro wasn't attacked by Reagan, Reagan won

    That just in the last 25 years.

    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by pluege on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:21:39 AM EST
    Besides, the Presidential candidate doesn't do the attackind, surrogates do. Obama should confront mccain's policies juxtaposed against what he will do for Americans. It is everyone else that should attack Palin just like Edwards was turned into a "girly" man and Qualye was attacked as inexperienced and an ignoramus.

    Ferraro couldn't be attacked because she was a woman (although the media trivialized her having fun with her poka dot dresses), but there was no need to attack her because the country wasn't supporting her. Same for Lieberman - he was a liability for Gore, why waste capital on that.

    And there was no reason to attack Bentson - a seasoned, respected pol, because Dukakis was a goof.

    Democrats need to make sure Palin doesn't become a plus for mcinsane by becoming America's sweetheart.  


    And Quayle (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:39:23 PM EST
    was attacked by Dukakis who lost.

    And don't forget the Al "Ozone Man" Gore (none / 0) (#177)
    by Exeter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:02:51 AM EST
    Attacks.  Those really hurt the Clinton-Gore ticket

    No (none / 0) (#88)
    by rdandrea on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:35:28 PM EST
    The Democrats need to come out swinging against John McCain.

    Palin is a diversion.

    I heard Paul Begala say today, "Aim for the organ grinder, not the monkey."

    Palin is the monkey.

    Monkey? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Lil on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:40:20 PM EST
    sexist? Racist? That must be something politically incorrect these days. (snark)

    well it looks like CNN (none / 0) (#91)
    by Lil on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:38:47 PM EST
    is still trying to discredit her.

    explain (none / 0) (#123)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:18:21 PM EST
    more info please.

    You'll love this (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:56:00 PM EST
    What do you suppose insulting a community organizer is code for?

    There are good ways to get the attention back, and then there are feeding frenzies about that.

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:22:45 PM EST
    by ineedalife has been delted as well as the false and insulting comment after. Ineedalife has been suspended.

    Hey Jeralyn (none / 0) (#120)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:16:49 PM EST
    If you haven't read Perlstein on Palin

    I recommend this.

    Troopergate (none / 0) (#122)
    by Bob K on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:17:48 PM EST
    isn't going to amount to a hill of beans.

    Imagine yourself an Alaska state politician of either party.
    You're one of the good old boys and Palin has been a cramp in your butt. You know something that could be mildly damaging to her VP chances. It is in your best interest to keep quite so she moves on an gets out of your hair. That way you can again go back to good old boy business as usual.

    If you can't destroy her in Alaska politics, she's coming back still governor and your life is gonna be hell. Even then, do to her popularity, if the voters in Alaska think you did a dirty deed, they might take you out at first opportunity. Best thing is to keep quite and put pressure on others to do the same.

    Frankly, I don't think there is anything there anyway.

    Sarah Palin's America (none / 0) (#139)
    by klem4708 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:48:58 PM EST
    I hope that Obama-Biden keep on "ignoring" her. Let her think she can just keep shooting off her mouth without any push back. Then during the VP debate, I think Biden should "bork" her with his version of Sarah Palin's America. He doesn't have to be nasty--he just has to lay it all out there. She is not a social conservative--she is a social extremist.

    Sarah Palin isn't going to decide this campaign--she isn't going to be allowed to do enough to make a difference. People are interested in her like they were in Obama in 2004 and 2006. But interest does not equal vote. McCain made it pretty clear last night that he is going to try to run away from Bush, but run on Bush's agenda. I don't think it will work this time.

    Ignore it briefly, sure (none / 0) (#141)
    by DeanOR on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:58:54 PM EST
    and then let 'em have it in a sentence or two. I like the "She is not a social conservative--she is a social extremist." Done well, with the right tone and timing, it could be another "I knew John Kennedy...and you're no John Kennedy" moment.

    was I deleted (none / 0) (#143)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:15:28 PM EST
    for my last query?

    I don't want to re-write it if I was.

    Theoretically, they could represent 16 years (none / 0) (#144)
    by sallywally on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:17:28 PM EST
    of choosing SCOTUS justices.

    Bush is not History (none / 0) (#152)
    by Serene1 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:55:45 PM EST
    That is the narrative republicans want so that McCain can start with a fresh slate. Bush is very much there and the disastrous policies of Bush is also very much there. If Democrats are truly intent on seizing the narrative and winning this election then as per me the next few days should be spent on educating the electorate on what the disastrous policies of Republicans have done to the country. The approval rating of Bush and republicans are at an all time low and this is what Democrats should be playing at.

    But if Democrats want to behave like Rove clones and start attacking Palin on any or every issue then let me just say we have not seen the end of Rezko, Wright, Ayers and others. Also you all are then opening the floodgates to more racist dog whistles etc. which till now the republicans were desisting from for fear of backlash.

    Not very useful (none / 0) (#153)
    by pluege on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:59:13 PM EST
    Palin's answer will be: DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!!!

    I still think Jeralyn's Approach is wrong (none / 0) (#161)
    by SomewhatChunky on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:46:00 AM EST
    I said before the debate that it was a mistake to go after Palin.  The reason 38MM people watched her was the vicious attacks on her family and her qualifications by the left.   I thought if she spoke well, that would be a problem.

    Not only did she speak well, she hit a home run.  It doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what America thinks and many many people (media and voters) think that.    Of course many were turned off be her.  But many many were excited and before Palin not that many people were truly excited about McCain or the republican ticket.

    Obama deserved what he got in her speech after comparing his campaign to her service as a mayor (Note to Barrack - she's a Governor and has been for a few years).  That did not go unnoticed in my town.  In any event, it and the many attacks legitimized her bulldog approach in the eyes of many.  And boy can she turn the knife with a smile.

    The democratic left is a huge reason Palin is now a star.  I think Jeralyn has a blind spot her because of her strong views.  McCain should send the DailyKos a thank you note- the over the top stuff they started fueled the frenzy and the backlash.  Keep it up and she will only become more popular.  Based on what I have seen so far, I wouldn't count on her performing badly on the stump or in the debates.    Palin has tons more personality than Biden and my bet is she'll "win" their debate, especially after the talking heads set another low bar because she lacks foreign policy experience.  You can bet she'll be up to speed on the talking points by then.

    I played golf today - 3/4 guys in my group said their wives loved Palin.  The men liked her 3/4 as well.  Only one of the wives was a McCain voter previously.  The two young ladies in the beer cart overheard us discussing what women think and asked us (oh so correctly I might add) if we'd like to know what two actual women think.  They both were going to vote for McCain solely because of Palin.  They loved her.  I live in a small town in Nevada (a swing state) and she is wildly popular here, especially among the majority of people who pay little attention to politics.   I've never seen anything like it.

    Attacks from both the media and "big city" liberals go over like a lead balloon here.  People in small towns might not be sophisticated, but they aren't stupid.

    I think the best tactic is to ignore her, which, over time, will marginalize and diminish her.   Comparing Obama's qualifications to hers is not marginalizing her, especially when a strong case can be made that she is more qualified.   I don't think the far left is capable of that.  Everybody thinks they have to score points every day.  The real goal should be to be ahead at the end.

    Correction (none / 0) (#162)
    by SomewhatChunky on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:48:55 AM EST
    Meant to say before Palin's speech, not before the debate...

    All, please visit votesmart.org (none / 0) (#166)
    by BlueMerlin on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:38:35 AM EST
    There you can see a very long list of Palin's decrees, proclamations, budget vetos (line item).   It doesn't take long to figure out a few things.  She is a fiscal conservative determined to save the state money which she claims to be putting in the bank against future needs.   Hm ... Federal budget could use some of that.    She exercises the line item veto very carefully, meeting with budget request sponsors and affected members of the community.   She then justifies each veto in some detail, saying whether the request is redundant, could be obtained elsewhere, etc.   She has increased funding for education significantly.   As for "hunting" wolves from the air, that is not done by Palin or anyone else in AK.    Rather, packs are culled by Fish & Game officials, by shooting from the air, as are ungulate herds.   Sounds horrible, but wildlife management of this type is done in other states as well.   She has recently created a cabinet-level commission to study climate change and has put all animal management activites back under Fish & Game (former Governor had moved them to Dept. of Natural Resources).   She recently praised Obama's energy plan.  

    Do I agree with her on everything?  No!  She is very pro development, especially the oil/gas pipeline thing.   She has made statements suggesting she considers creationism a worthy topic for discussion in Science classes and I would look at her record on support for reproductive rights very closesly.

    I love the disagreement (none / 0) (#171)
    by s5 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:07:25 AM EST
    Jeralyn, I love that you and BTD are disagreeing on this, because you both reflect the conflict I'm having internally over it. Run against her head-on, or downplay her celebrity and run against McCain? It's a hard call, and there are merits to both arguments.

    As for me, she offends me in every possible way. Her celebration of ignorance and deep loving embrace with the religious right is revolting to me. I can't think of a worse direction for America than to go further into the depths of an Idiocracy-like future, and she embodies that horrible vision completely. So in that sense, I really can't get enough opposition reporting against her.

    It also offends me that she was picked over far more qualified Republican women. I mean, obviously, this was an identity play. But if they're going to go for that, at least pick someone qualified! There are certainly other choices they could have gone with that wasn't a slap in the face. Though who knows, maybe a slap in the face is what they're after.

    All I know is, since her speech, I've been emptying my wallet and giving the contents to Obama and Biden. So if they were trying to rally the base, it worked. They rallied our base.

    Who to call? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    Sarah Palin answers the phone and has no clue of how to respond and searches everywhere for the 1970's style rolodex telling her who to call?

    What I'm afraid of is that she wouldn't bother calling anyone because she believes she already knows what to do because God chose her to be his instrument in the world. ::shiver::