Open Thread: : Runaway Train

Via Crooks and Liars:

Asked in 1996, her first year in office, about her ability to “effectively run” the city, Palin claimed:

“It’s not rocket science,” Palin said, “It’s $6 million and 53 employees.”

This is an open thread.

< Friday Night Fights: Lies | Judge Rules Against Deportation of Imam >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    McCain = Bush (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by themomcat on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:12:19 PM EST
    Jon Stewart just did a side by side sound bite comparison of McCain's and Bush's acceptance speeches. Priceless.

    Just saw the same thing. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:37:36 PM EST
    Absolutely perfect comparison. I encourage everyone to find it. Guaranteed this will make the rounds. Probably they will post it on crooks and liars in short order.

    John Bush (none / 0) (#122)
    by andrys on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:59:30 AM EST
    Did you see the guy (I think he had been a VP nominee candidate) who was speaking last night before McCain came on for his acceptance snooze and called him John Bush ?



    That was Tom Ridge (none / 0) (#124)
    by themomcat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:09:30 AM EST
    He was being interviewed on MSNBC by Tom Brokaw. The video is up on YouTube. Or you can go here:

    Must have beent hinking about Jeb Bush (none / 0) (#125)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:17:31 AM EST
    since John is his real name. :)

    A slip of the tongue (none / 0) (#126)
    by themomcat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:39:26 AM EST
    Brokaw was asking about McCain. It was certainly amusing. Look close at Ridge's face. He knew he made a faux pas.

    priceless (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by white n az on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:24:18 PM EST
    Just saw new commercial from Obama linking McCain and Bush - it was excellent

    I'll bet it's the same one I was getting ready to (none / 0) (#3)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:28:47 PM EST
    comment on. Really light hearted sounding music and announcer but with pictures of Bush and McCain and how they benefit corporations and McCain saying he supports the President 90% of the time, etc? It was a good ad.

    it was the same (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by white n az on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:44:23 PM EST

    The Same - link to video on Crooks and Liars

    Saw tonight on CNN


    lol, that's it "The Same". I like it (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:52:14 PM EST
    because I guess it would be considered a "negative" ad but it didn't leave me feeling as if I'd just seen a negative ad. I like the picture of Obama with Biden at the end.

    It's the rolled up shirt sleeves (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:02:21 PM EST
    and the comfortable "we're getting down to work now" look that makes me feel good.  

    They're still stirring the pot of resentment (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:39:24 PM EST
    On Hillary's potential to help limit Palin's popularity:
    "Let me tell you something," said Luanne Van Werven, a Republican delegate from Lynden, Wash., as the convention closed late Thursday night. "I secretly think Hillary loves Sarah Palin."
    "Because she wants Barack to lose, so she can run again, of course!" Ms. Van Werven said with a laugh. "I just bet Hillary was watching Sarah's speech on T.V. Wednesday night and cheering, `You go, girl!' "

    From NY Times article.

    makes sense... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by white n az on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:51:13 PM EST
    to ask republicans what Hillary is thinking - not

    That article is the kind of stupidity that the main stream media excels at - useless, meaningless junk.

    If McCain's team wants to go to war with the main stream media and keep hiding Palin from them - then I think it works to his disadvantage but c'est la vie.

    As for Hillary...let's give her some credit for being genuine. She promised to help, she is helping and let's just accept that.


    Hill's been great (none / 0) (#53)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:34:36 PM EST
    I envision the New Yorker printing a cartoon of her boxing with Palin, but alas, it would backfire and make us look mean again.



    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:44:57 PM EST
    delivered the most succinct line of the campaign with regard to Palin:  "she's a new and historic voice added to the campaign who's policies are wrong for America."

    (something close to it).  

    She will take McCain to task on GASP the issues.  That should be HOT!


    Suspicious..... (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:40:32 PM EST
    Don't you find it a little suspicious that all of a sudden you have different people writing e-mails about how they think Palin is unqualified. Who are all these people who claim to know her so well. And why isn't the media talking to them?

    I deleted the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:44:05 PM EST
    with an overly long, unverified email supposedly by an Alaskan who opposes Palin. We don't traffic in rumors circulated on the internet. I've received four very similar ones. I'm not buying any of them and don't want to spread that kind of unsubstantiated allegation here.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#11)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:48:14 PM EST
    I located the alleged author of the email:

    Pete Hauschka
     PO Box 29
    Cantwell, AK 99729


    He is a school principal in Alaska. I will email him.  


    You know what has me (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:25:20 PM EST
    befuddled? Of course not so I'll tell ya. In that e-mail he says he doesn't even know if she's been abroad. I've only known about his Governor for a week and even I know she's been abroad. His whole e-mail just seems so personal and comes across like someone who had his pride hurt because she didn't seek his counsel.

    she went out of the country (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:28:06 PM EST
    once in her 40's. She didn't have a passport till then. I don't find it unusual at all.

    Her first trip to NY was for the 2004 Republican convention I think.


    It's 3am (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:41:38 PM EST
    do you know where you Governor is?

    My point is; that how does a constituent who is so involved and such an integral part of the community that previous administrations call on him for his opinion not know if his Governor has been abroad?

    When she was in Kuwait and in Germany visiting the Alaska National Guard last year what could have been dominating the news cycle in Alaska to keep her visit from appearing in the evening news and in all the local papers?

    When my Governor was at the Democratic Convention hugging it out with his father-in-law it was on all the news casts. Yes, in a such a big state and in a major television news market my Governor hugging with his father-in-law was major news.


    I got an email response from the author (none / 0) (#142)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:47:53 AM EST
    He did in fact author the comment/email.  He is a real person who is a principal in Alaska.  He teaches science; he knows Sarah Palin.  Here is his reply to me:

    Hello Marie,
    Thanks for checking.  Yes, I did write this letter which you have a copy of below.  This is the original version.  I am a "Real" principal teacher in a rural Alaskan K-12 school of 36 students; I wrote this letter last week when the pick was announced and sent it out to my family and friends.  Yes, this letter is what I think, these are my statements:)  Feel free to pass it on if you feel it will make a positive difference.
    Have a good weekend,
    Later, Pete


    I think you forgot (none / 0) (#17)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:00:38 PM EST
    his social security number and blood type.

    It is all over the net; (none / 0) (#26)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:13:21 PM EST
    He is a part of a science consortium in Alaska. I got it right off their online listing.  He also posted the exact comment on Palin in the Seattle Times, under his real name. Let's see if he replies to my email.  

    then can you link to it without (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:26:19 PM EST
    reposting it in full here? We don't reprint entire articles, both for copyright purposes and to save bandwidth and not make people have to scroll down forever. Thanks, I'm not criticizing you at all, just asking.

    Here is the link to the Pete Hauschka comment (none / 0) (#143)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:55:35 AM EST
    in the Seattle Times; I have verified that he is a principal in Alaska and did in fact author this comment:



    It's online already (none / 0) (#33)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:19:03 PM EST
    at something called The Alna Erratic blog.

    He says he's been asked by previous AK governors to comment on education policy.  If he knows her and has insight into her decision making, especially w.r.t. Palin's claim of running an open or transparent government, he should be invited to post here. :)


    Media has looked into her (none / 0) (#155)
    by rachelann on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:45:12 PM EST
    Whatever your thoughts on the email, I thought I point out the source has been confirmed, here is an NPR interview, and she is also referenced in a NYT article



    And to think... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Strick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:58:21 PM EST
    Asked in 1996, her first year in office, about her ability to "effectively run" the city, Palin claimed:

    "It's not rocket science," Palin said, "It's $6 million and 53 employees."

    To think that after she proved she could manage that, the people trusted her with 15,000 employees and $6.7 billion (2007 operating budget).  Isn't it amazing how far a woman can go if she doesn't let the bastards get in the way?

    Why do I sense that people who go so far out of their way to belittle Palin's actual accomplishments do so out of a sense of insecurity?  As if they are afraid to admit how tough a real comparison would be.

    And then they bristle when someone mentions community organizers without the slightest sense of irony...

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:24:01 PM EST
    It MUST be because she's a woman.

    Because all of us love male Republicans and never, ever say mean things about them.  And certainly we never try to mock their accomplishments.  Never, ever.


    I think you sense this (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:05:32 PM EST
    because you are unfamiliar with the real world.

    How far did she go, exactly? Don't you like polar bears? Cuz I do. If she has her way polar bears will be extinct. Puh-lease.


    Puh-lease! Save the polar bears for my grandchildren, or are they unimportant to you? I hope there's more who think like me than those who think like you.


    Wrong... (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:22:04 AM EST
    ... but don't let facts get in the way.

    Fact: She took a city (Wasilla) which had no debt when she bacame Mayor, and left it with a long term debt of over $20 Million ($3000 per citizen of the city) when she became Mayor.

    True, she got elected Governor.

    False that she was fiscally responsible as Mayor of Wasilla.  She failed miserably in that regard.

    Google is your friend.


    Please, you're better than this (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:18:46 AM EST
    I'll be voting Democratic, but we shouldn't be spreading crap. Didn't you read that lawyer's email to the world where he said what a dump  Wasilla was? The money, approved by public reforendum went for capital improvements in the town. She did what every mayor in the country does; take on some low-interest, long term debt to build and improve infrastructire. They don't build schools, community centers, fire departments, etc. from cash flow, you know.
    Lord, you make it sound like she pocketed the money....how republican of you.

    Um... No.... (none / 0) (#153)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:33:49 PM EST

    Additionally, consider the source. This is a CONSERVATIVE Critique.

    For those who don't wish to open the link, here's a snippet:

    It isn't Kucinich-level mismanagement of a municipality, but the story about Wasilla's relatively enormous debt burden that Palin left the town with from her time as mayor has to give Palinites pause.  If the idea is that she can do for the federal budget what she did for Wasilla's, the possibility that she might well become President at some point in the next four years is unsettling.  We are indeed, as Peggy Noonan quoted, a nation of Wasillas, and this is even more true when you consider our tendency to spend money we don't have.  Yes, Sarah Palin really is one of us when it comes to getting irresponsibly buried in debt-or, in this case, getting other people irresponsibly buried in debt.  Mind you, this is the same mayor whose town received $27 million in earmarked federal funding, and thanks to her projects the town is now $20 million in debt.  In carrying out some of those "actual responsibilities" Palin talked about on Wednesday, it seems that she made a hash of things in her drive to have a hockey rink/athletic facility built in the town.


    On what planet?

    My ultra-liberal friend, the big Obama supporter, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:58:37 PM EST
    told me today that he loves Sarah Palin!  If she got her hooks in him then this country is in big trouble.  

    for someone to switch from (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:03:27 PM EST
    obama to Palin means they aren't basing their decision on values or issues. It's a shallow personality choice -- flavor of the week. Ask again in a month.

    He loves her, he's not voting for her. Should (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:05:50 PM EST
    have made that clear in the post.  He will vote Obama.  

    At least the correct head is voting. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TChris on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:16:42 PM EST
    That's what I told him! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:18:32 PM EST
    Don't you think there are people who are voting (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:13:38 PM EST
    for Obama who fall in that category. IMO Obama is going to lose a few of those "celebrity worshipping" voters to the newest celebrity in town.

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by themomcat on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:19:08 PM EST
    It seems like the average voter picks the candidates by that first impression. The guy you would like to have a barbecue and a beer with, the hockey mom with 5 kids, a blue collar husband....
    Bill Clinton was a down home boy who could talk a blue streak but made sense. This is going to be a very interesting 2 months.

    So bring the Big Dawg on! (none / 0) (#39)
    by sallywally on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:23:51 PM EST
    Oh no. If Bill wasn't good enough (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:45:17 AM EST
    for prime time at the convention, it means that Obama doesn't want Bill on the campaign trail.  Obama made that clear.  You'll just have to get over Bill and go it with Biden.

    Bill would also never (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by demchick on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:58:07 AM EST
    denigrate the experience and importance of being a governor.

    Flavor of the week (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by blcc on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:10:03 AM EST
    is how we ended up without Hillary at the top of the ticket.  

    Why (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by sallywally on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:22:26 PM EST
    does he love her? His brain and compassion can't love her......

    He thought she was a "spitfire." (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:34:21 PM EST
    He loves strong, smart women.  

    He said that he liked her because she seems like a normal person.  He thought her family looked nice; she is living a life with challenges that many families face:  the special-needs child, a teenager who is pregnant, a son going off to war.  

    I think he was just reacting on a personal level rather than a political level.

    Make no mistake, he disagrees with her on the issues.  (This guy is an old hippyish liberal whose wife still smokes dope.)

    I think that she appeals to many people for the same reasons, and whether or not we like it many people vote for the person that they can relate to.  So she will get McCain a lot of votes, a whole lot of votes.  


    A quote from 12 years ago (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:05:09 PM EST
    how important is that?  It isn't getting to the heart of the matter.  Which are the issues and McCain's determination to be Bush III.  Heck, if it wouldn't be construed as in poor taste, I'd suggest the Obama camp air a commercial saying Bush I "couldn't ask for a better son."

    I agree though Jeralyn with your goal of showing the country how terrible the religious right is for everyone.  I'm not offended Palin was chosen out of tokenism (I don't think she was) - I'm offended that she represents an exclusionary and hateful ideology that has done little good for this country and injects incredible amounts of hate into our discourse.  I mean, she makes Rick Warren look liberal.  When the f* are they going to get the memo that the culture wars are over?  Are they going to try to ban gay marriage nationwide when 49 states have it legalized?  Urm, yeah, probably.

    Gas Prices: More Important than Palin (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:17:50 PM EST
    Two pollsters on separate shows on PBS tonight stated that high gas prices is the greatest concern of voters.

    Obama's plan offers a $1,000 "emergency energy rebate" to families, paid for by an increase in windfall profit taxes on oil companies.

    (This is in addition to the $1,000 per year tax credit to working families.)

    Do people know this?  Why would they?  For reasons known only to the Obama "brain trust," he didn't even bother to mention it in his convention speech.  In fact, the phrase "gas prices" also wasn't used.

    Seems like a stupid omission to me.  Long term plans are fine, but you also have to show you recognize immediate needs.

    If Obama had mentioned it at the conference (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:26:52 PM EST
    McSame would have stolen the idea and used it himself.  (It's right there under the Energy & Environment Issue on Obama's website, but McCain doesn't use the Internet...)

    Most voters (none / 0) (#57)
    by themomcat on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:38:13 PM EST
    don't use the intenet either. Obama needs to get these messages out via conventional means. Get his spokes people out on the talk shows where ever they'll be heard. Be in every news cameras face with a clear message that this is what change means and Republicans are just more of the same or worse.

    It is on his website, but would it ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:38:40 AM EST
    kill them to put up a "gas prices" or "energy costs" link?

    And, as you say, many people don't look at candidate websites.

    This energy ad mentions high gas prices, but only lists the tax cut, not the rebate.


    Could you send this (none / 0) (#91)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:44:57 AM EST
    excellent suggestion to the Obama camp via e-mail. Great idea. Maybe he didn't think of it. Share it with him. This may be a real opportunity for you to make a difference.

    High gas and rising utility bills will be a (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:32:18 PM EST
    big issue. My most recent electric bill was $60 higher than my previous highest and TVA is increasing rates across the board by 20% on October 1.

    My neighbor's electric bill (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by themomcat on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:41:30 PM EST
    nearly doubled from last year and she is retired on a fixed income. She owns her home and is now considering selling except that the market here is stagnant. She is voting for Obama.

    Do your state's citizens have any recourse? (none / 0) (#68)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:53:19 PM EST
    How do the utilities justify such large increases? Is there a limit on how much they can increase in one year?

    Seattle is planning on raising electric rates 29% and garbage rates 40%. Our city council will invite a riot if they vote for those increases. But, um, I already have plans in the works for how to deal with future council elections...


    I doubt anything can be done. TVA is (none / 0) (#73)
    by Teresa on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:06:55 AM EST
    owned by the Federal Gov't.

    They say that our rates are lower than average but I've read some things that contradict that. I guess it's relative to the income of the residents. My bill would probably seem small to others but it was huge compared to what I'm used to.


    New hook! (none / 0) (#127)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:12:06 AM EST
    Move To or Move Your Business To Our Town Because We Have Low Low Energy Costs!

    The cost of living anywhere is based on a number of things and energy costs is one of them.  There's also the natural disaster cost, which is part of infrastructure costs, building costs and insurance costs.  I keep reminding people that one of the reasons CA is so expensive is that they have to build hardened infrastructure because of the earthquake dangers.

    It's all part of the cost/benefit package of your region.

    Maybe the campaign marketing geniuses could focus on "Conservation" and "It's the economy, &%#!*".


    I just read an article on Yahoo about the most (none / 0) (#146)
    by Teresa on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:19:01 AM EST
    affordable places for home buyers. They were almost all in Ohio and Michigan (maybe one in Indiana). It surprised me. The prices were lower than here in TN and I thought ours were pretty good compared to other places.

    Maybe I should move..I want to see snow again. We used to get at least three or four decent ones a year (sledding type snows) and now we get zip.

    Would I have to root for Ohio State? That would be rough. :)


    The Rust Belt. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:43:25 AM EST
    Naw. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:43:19 PM EST
    I wouldn't make Blue and Gold your favorite color scheme though!

    I'm not an OSU fan mostly because OSU athletics had a PR problem on par with some professional teams in terms of multiple players being in trouble with the law each season.  That's multiple players per TEAM - so the football team and the basketball team.  It was a constant parade of drug, alcohol and DUI violations AND theft AND firearms violations AND reckless driving violations AND assault and domestic violence.  It wasn't so much that it happened, but that players weren't suspended or simply kicked off the team.  


    New York State and City (none / 0) (#76)
    by themomcat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:08:17 AM EST
    surrender any governmental oversight of utility companies and the Metropolitan Transit Authority years ago. My neighbor owns her home so she is not eligible for any state funded relief.

    If this is true (2.00 / 0) (#37)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:22:00 PM EST
    spread the word. Stick a poster outside your  house, and announce it to the world! Obama needs your help.

    Perhaps the fascination with Gov. Palin (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:28:57 PM EST
    will pale.  Just watched part of her speech on C-pan from campaign event today in Sterling Heights, MI.  Same speech she gave at the RNC, including "the good ole boys" and that plane on eBay, the chef, and chauffeur.  Perhaps people will get bored w/her?  Although the crowd at the event was clearly enchanted with her.

    I suspect (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:34:56 PM EST
    that unless she adds a new dimension, you are correct that people will lose interest, although of course the base will continue to eat it up.  There's only so many times the media can report, "hey, she said that line about having actual responsibilities in yet another state."

    I agreed with BTD that they misused her at the convention and I think they're continuing to misuse her.  They're making an impressive politician into a novelty sideshow.


    But the media will continue to report (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:38:41 PM EST
    on every little thing she does, and how Hillary Clinton may or may not feel about it, according to a Republican voter across the country.  I mean, this is real reporting here.  

    Heh (2.00 / 0) (#69)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:53:56 PM EST
    The cable networks loved the ratings they got from the primaries but they were hurting all summer.  The conventions will net them big bucks from advertisers, but they'll be scrambling for more.

    The best thing we can do for ourselves would be to turn off the TV every time Palin comes on, and encourage everyone else to do the same.  


    I think the gender angle (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:36:29 PM EST
    will provide at least 60 days worth of pyschodrama for our media.  Which I find more offensive than any other aspect of her selection, really.

    I don't normally watch Fox, but I was flipping (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:39:36 PM EST
    channels and Hannity is interviewing Elizabeth Hassleback (sp?). Those two are flat out in love with Sarah. That scares me. It's like they worship her. I think we will be referring to Sarah's cult before long.

    One more thing (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:46:20 PM EST
    If this Canadian journalist's account is accurate, it could be the biggest problem for Palin yet.

    Even if it isn't, I suspect all it takes is one or more of something similar to knock her out of the box.

    Doesn't seem... (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by prose on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:02:07 AM EST
    like very good journalism (but if it were true I wouldn't be surprised).  It's incredible what people say when they don't think anyone will care.  I'm a pastor and run in pretty conservative circles.

    One time I was at a meeting and heard a religious leader say, during prayer, "God, thank you for this food, even if it was made by Mexicans."  I couldn't believe it.


    wow (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:35:04 AM EST
    being of Mexican descent that type of remark disappoints me but it doesn't surprise me considering its source.

    the republicans use the immigration issue as a bloody red flag for the conservatives.

    i have asked jeralyn's permission to write a diary on TL about this issue considering the line of work I am in, and the legal ramifications I encounter.

    I hope that if there really is a god, it will forgive them for being so pathetically judgemental to their fellow human beings.


    In case you haven't noticed (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:18:18 AM EST
    This election cycle and the past week in particular have pretty much proved that this is the status quo, not some rare exception.
    being so pathetically judgemental to their fellow human beings.

    I knew that already, of course.  


    make that (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:50:49 PM EST
    An american journalist living in Canada. Here's the original from his website.

    Please Jeralyn Don't do this (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Serene1 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:12:57 AM EST
    Don't start giving credibility to any Tom Dick and Harry who has an axe to grind with Palin. This blog used to be better than that. Also this kind of exercise can be very dangerous. Till now Republicans have been restrained in their attacks on Obama. But if Democrats indulge in such attacks then it will be like giving the republicans the legitimacy to start attacking Obama more viciously. Is that an area where you would want to go?

    I have said this before I am saying it again. The reason Palin's speech was so watched and admired by many was because of the vicious attacks she was subjected to prior to that. If she had been treated the way Republicans treated Biden then her speech most probably would not have found many takers and instead would have been dismissed off as petty and mean minded.


    Jeralyn, I would be careful with this one. (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Teresa on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:18:22 AM EST
    Several people have written about this on DKos and have been troll rated for it. I think it is similar to linking to Larry Sinclair stuff about Obama. There's just no backup for it.

    Didn't you just say (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by LatinoVoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:42:39 AM EST
    yes, but he's a journalist (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:34:10 AM EST
    and he identified his source. I'd like to see a denial.

    I got it! I got it! (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:50:35 PM EST
    Sara Palin should be Bob Barr's running mate. Much better match. I knew there was something wrong with that picture. You know that song from Sesame Street, it goes, "Two of these things belong together, two of these things are kind of the same."

    Does anyone know? I don't think she mentioned it at the convention. Maybe I missed it?

    She didn't mention any positions... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by prose on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:02:43 AM EST
    except "Drill here, Drill now."

    WAY (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:48:03 AM EST
    too easy!  Anyway, I would think that she would tow the evangelical line on us civilation-ending-sodomites.

    Sarah Palin's views on homosexuality and same gender marriage would be pretty easy to figure out.  She caved on the same sex partner benefits thing in AK because the ligitation to fight it was too cost-prohibitive.

    I am glad that dollars made the difference to my gay brothers and lesbian sisters in "the last frontier".


    She's more than likely (none / 0) (#149)
    by Radix on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:07:20 PM EST
    in the Stone them crowd, considering her religious affiliations. Not saying all religions feel this way, only certain sects here.

    Jeralyn, since ur into music (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:40:57 AM EST
    I guess you may have already heard about the flap that McCain is using Heart's "Barracuda" in their campaign for S Palin.

    The Wilson Sisters have shot off thru their record label an order to "cease and desist" to the RNC and McCain for co-opting "Barracuda".

    McCain's campaign has said they obtained the rights to use the song thru the proper channels (they did).  One of the writers of the song, who as you know, has the power of the copyright, said he was thrilled to have McCain to use the song.

    The proceeds gained from the GOP and McCain to use the song are being donated to Obama.

    I say that is a stroke of brilliance. The writer of the song, who, agreed to its use by McCain, said in essence that the GOP was supporting Obama!

    Why is this brilliant? (1.00 / 0) (#95)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:49:45 AM EST
    We're talking about artistic greats, here. Like Cameron Crowe, and Ann and Nancy Wilson who in no way support McCain.

    McCain is using their artistry in a false manner to gain support from folks who admire Cameron Crowe and Ann and Nancy Wilson.

    Pretty deceptive. Pretty sneaky. What a pig he is. What a pig.


    Because the royalties (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:55:30 AM EST
    are being used to support Obama.  More than likely when that line gets out the campaign will stop using the song.

    In the mean time the revenue from the rights to use the song have already been paid and support Obama.

    NOW do you get it?  And the publicity doesn't hurt the Wilson Sisters either.  More sales=more money to Obama.  I would think that a person supporting Obama would think that's a GOOD thing.


    Could you provide a link (1.00 / 0) (#98)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:58:45 AM EST
    to prove that the royalties from this are being used for Obama?

    It's dirty money if you ask me. Dirty money.

    I don't think the Wilson sisters are that much in need of publicity that they would sell their souls to the devil, I don't.

    I hope what you're saying isn't true. Please provide a link.


    Here ya are o ye of little faith (none / 0) (#101)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:31:18 AM EST
    Who the Hell is R Fisher (none / 0) (#97)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:55:39 AM EST
    and what business does he have stealing this song from Ann and Nancy? (A.Wilson/N.Wilson/R.Fisher wrote this song. Who the Hell is R Fisher?

    Why not try looking it up yourself? (none / 0) (#120)
    by cymro on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:51:01 AM EST
    u need 2 relax (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:52:26 AM EST
    it's a POP song, not the Constitution.

    You don't get it. (none / 0) (#112)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:01:05 AM EST
    Barracuda has passion and feeling and real truth which Republicans have none of.
    Appearances. It's all about appearances for Republicans.
    They have a huge country western following. They should have gone with a country western song.

    barracuda (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:21:03 AM EST
    is a SONG...man u need to totally let it go.  ur a little too unsettling for me.

    ur not good at representing obama.  u need to dial it back.


    good thing for her (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by cpinva on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:52:03 AM EST
    "It's not rocket science," Palin said, "It's $6 million and 53 employees."

    it wasn't rocket science, that candle would have crashed and burned.

    as i analyze the "accomplishments" of gov. palin, it becomes abundently clear that she fits right in with the current iterration of the republican party: fiscally irresponsible, rigidly doctrinaire, and intellectually immune to facts.

    she represents the complete evolution of the modern republican. well, perhaps the "creation" of it.

    if she has one policy flaw, it's that she would allow an abortion, if the mother's life were at stake. given time, i'm sure that can be corrected.

    You are wrong on the facts. (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by ding7777 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 07:27:45 AM EST
    Polar Bears live not only in Alaska but also in  Greenland, Norway, Russia, and Canada.

    Polar bears are considered a vulnerable species, not an almost extinct species.  

    The placement on the endangered list did not provide an exemption for subsitence hunting by native people, as Governor, Palin was correct to sue because of this omission.

    Also, the bears were placed on the endangered list, not because they are endangered (bear population has steadily increased since the ban of commericial hunting) but because computer models said the ice shelf might melt in 45 years.

    So how do you know Palin "doesn't care" about the bears?

    Palin Putting Country Second (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by john horse on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:24:41 AM EST
    Alaska's government receives more money per capita in federal earmark money than any other state, despite being the only state in the union with no income tax and no sales tax. They fund their government primarily with petroleum money, and recently distributed oil profits to its citizens in the form of rebate checks.

    The theme of the Bush/McCain team is that they are supposedly putting "country first".
    So if they are putting country first then why does Palin continue to bill the rest of the country for paying for Alaska's infrastructure improvements especially given they have so much oil revenue that they can pay for it themselves?  Couldn't the oil rebates that Alaskans received been used to pay for their own infrastructure?  How is Palin giving Alaskans rebates instead and billing the rest of us for Alaska's infrastructure an example of putting country first?  

    Governor Palin in her speech about the bridge to "nowhere" (she was for it before she was against it) said that if Alaskans needed a bridge they would build it themselves.  What she forgot to mention was that they would build it but the rest of us would pay for it.  

    Link? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:43:03 AM EST
    It's not like Alaskans are living lives of luxury.

    Alaskans get a pay out from what is called the Permanent Fund, but they are also getting a one-time resource rebate (to offset the cost of higher heating fuel bills) this year.

    The $1,200 rebate, paid from this year's record oil revenue, is intended to help Alaskans cope with skyrocketing fuel prices.

    However, the dividend paid from the Permanent Fund (which has been around since 1976 and is constitutionally established), plus the one time resource rebate will be taxed. Residents are also being urged to put aside some money to defray some  fuel bills, since there are places in the northern country where gas is $9 / gallon.

    Other expenses that may be defrayed by this payment include:

    One of the biggest energy bills in Gambell is stove oil, Boolowon said. A one- to two-week supply now costs about $400.

    "That dividend will help out," he said.

    Sam Shields, who lives in the Kuskokwim River town of Bethel, also is among the 610,768 people who will receive the dividend this year.

    Shields said the money is desperately needed in his community, where he recently saw a whole chicken selling for $23 at the grocery store. Gasoline is going for almost $6 a gallon, but that price is expected to reach $8 when the last barge of the season delivers its load of fuel.


    $23 for a whole chicken????


    Things Are Tough All Over (none / 0) (#151)
    by john horse on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:13:28 PM EST
    and there are as many people here in Florida and in the other lower 48 states who are in need of assistance as there are in Alaska.  

    As someone who believes in putting "country first" I don't mind helping people in other states out if they can't help themselves. It would be one thing for the Alaska government to ask us to pay for their infrastructure if they were hurting but in Alaska's case they had a huge surplus from oil revenues.  However, instead of using that to pay for their own infrastructure they use it to give themselves a $1200 rebate.  

    Palin was able to give those rebates to Alaskans because those of us outside the state of Alaska are paying for a substantial part of Alaska's infrastructure.    

    I just don't understand how this is putting country first.  

    Or should we judge McCain and Palin on what they say rather than what they do?


    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:13:13 PM EST
    So if they are putting country first then why does Palin continue to bill the rest of the country for paying for Alaska's infrastructure improvements especially given they have so much oil revenue that they can pay for it themselves?
    Just like CA's Ag industry doesn't pay for CA's infrastructure, nor does NYC's real estate industry pay for NY's, nor does FL's tourism industry pay for FL's.

    The money for those earmarks come from all Americans in every state. Therefore, all Americans in every state should have a shot at them, or no Americans and no state should have a shot at them.

    Alaska's government receives more money per capita in federal earmark money than any other state

    Regarding earmarks, we all know earmarks pay for infrastructure almost exclusively. So, states with lots of citizens per mile of road and, therefore high population densities, like NJ, have very low earmark $/citizen (~$64/citizen in 2005).

    And, conversely, those states with lots of miles of roads and bridges and relatively few citizens, and therefor, low population densities, have very high earmark $/citizen.

    Not surprisingly, after Alaska, in 2005, the state with the next lowest population density, Wyoming, received the next most earmark $/citizen at ~$375/citizen.

    And after both Alaska and Wyoming, the next least population density state, Montana, received the next most earmark $/citizen at ~$200/citizen.

    fwiw, Alaska's pop density is ~80% less than Wyoming's, the next lowest pop density state...


    She has done several (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by BernieO on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:47:20 AM EST
    very impressive things.

    Over the objection of many in her own party she worked with Dems to pass a law that instituted a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. This law also cracked down on their deductions and imposed stricter enforcement of the law. She has also fought to have state inspectors oversee the pipeline rather that trusting the oil companies to do this. Needless to say the oil companies and the power brokers in her own party (Think Don Young and Ted Stevens) fought against her on this.

    She worked with Democrats to pass a strong ethics bill, also angering the right wing of her party.

    When she was on the Alaskan Oil and Gas Commission she blew the whistle on Randy Ruedrich, Alaska's Republican Party Chairman who also served on the commission, for ethical violations such as being too close to a company he was supposed to be regulating and for doing party business on state time. She pushed for his resignation, then resigned because of this.

    I also have heard that the Natural Gas Pipeline that she has managed to lay the groundwork for (after her task force studied the issue in depth)is part of Obama's energy proposals.

    I got this information from the Alaska Daily News, from an interview on NPR's broadcast last Thursday on Here and Now ("Convention Roundup" segment), US News, CNN's Money, and the Juneau Empire.

    As I said before, attacking this woman for lack of experience will backfire. There are plenty of issues to go after McCain and Palin for - like the proposal to lower taxes while being fiscally responsible, like the lies about Obama raising everyone's taxes, like his promise to appoint right wing judges to the Supreme Court. However to challenge Palin's experience opens Obama to closer examination of his experience. This is not a winning strategy, especially if his record fighting corruption is compared to hers. Passing a bill that requires lawmakers to stand while eating their free meals and having a close, long-term relationship with Tony Rezko whom you call your "political godfather" does not make Obama look good in comparison.

    DEMOCRATS NEED TO BACK AWAY FROM THE EXPERIENCE LINE OF ATTACK!! Also, we should not resort to Republican tactics of lying about opponents records. Bill Clinton did not resort to these tactics (although the media always accusing him of it) and he won -TWICE!

    Good! (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:26:30 AM EST
    I'm glad to hear you've become more courageous. God just pops surprise lessons right in front of us when we least expect it on a daily basis, doesn't He?

    You gotta be on your toes, so you get it. Otherwise, the same surprise lesson will keep popping up over and over again, til you get it.

    That's the way God works which may be the explanation for the right wing Christian movement in the United States government today.

    Geez, I hope they learn their lesson, this time,  before they vote.

    Opinions on Palin (none / 0) (#8)
    by Politalkix on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:41:46 PM EST
    Article on the way people are viewing Palin. Please follow link

    I had my husband bring fresh tomatoes (none / 0) (#12)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:51:11 PM EST
    to all my adjoining Republican neighbors, tonight. The most amazing tomatoes ever are $3.00 a lug at the produce stand out near where he works. And he couldn't resist the bargain. He bought 2 lugs home. I can't eat that many tomatoes. Can you believe I live in a place that is surrounded by Republicans? I'm always nice to them. Very nice. My weather resistant Obama banner will be displayed very soon, stretched across the fence that borders my property alongside the street. Maybe i can take a picture and post it!

    I love fresh tomatoes (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:01:57 PM EST
    are you in Denver?

    California (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:14:05 PM EST
    Can you believe the the only Republicans in California are surrounding me on all 5 sides?

    I live in NYC (none / 0) (#46)
    by themomcat on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:27:57 PM EST
    in the only borough that has a Republican representative in the house (which should come to an end this cycle), has a Republican/Conservative Borough President, 2 of 3 council members that are Republican/Conservative, Republican State legislature members......AAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!
     Except for my 1 sane next door neighbor, I am surrounded

    What is a lug? Same as a bushel? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:09:56 PM EST
    I think it's a box of tomatoes, a standard size. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:11:25 PM EST
    Not sure though.

    I looked at web definitions. There are tons of (none / 0) (#35)
    by Teresa on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:19:11 PM EST
    them. One says a wooden box used to carry fruit or vegetables but doesn't say how big it is. I could eat a box of tomatoes by myself!

    A lug is also an ear, an ear lobe, a village in Serbia, and that little thing that closes a bracelet. The things I learn on TL.


    A lug (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:16:03 PM EST
    is a big old box. About 6 inches deep and 20 inches long.

    Obama (none / 0) (#41)
    by sallywally on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:25:18 PM EST
    needs the Clintons' help. Desperately.

    Obama needs your help. (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:30:53 PM EST
    Help must come from outside Washington. It should. We want change. Big time change. Sign up and help! We need YOU!

    Ok, everyone, carry on (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:40:16 PM EST
    I'm going to sleep to get up for my big day at the McCain/Palin event in Colorado Springs. 10,000 are expected. I'll be writing a journalistic-type  article on it for Salon.com afterwards which  should appear there Sunday afternoon.

    Any questions you think I should ask any evangelicals willing to speak to me? I'n not sure I'm required to interview anyone for Salon, but it might be fun for TL readers.

    What should I be on the lookout for other than checking for how their message to evangelicals is different than the one they gave to the RNC?

    I'm also interested in seeing how McCain's stamina is holding up.

    Sleep well host and fellow Dem. (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by MyLeftMind on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:15:39 AM EST
    I'd like to see an article that focuses on the differences between what motivates evangelicals to vote versus what inspires us.  Remember the feelings of inspiration you had when you envisioned Hillary as President.  Think about the inspiration Obama has brought to the millions who trust and believe in him.  What do they feel about McCain?  Or is all about Palin and what she represents?  Do they really feel like their candidates are great, or do they just see a way to control the crazy liberals through the McCain/Palin ticket?

    Perhaps you can delineate the two campaigns in terms of the spiteful, vindictive, disrespectful comments Palin made versus the inspiring, uplifting oratory we hear from Obama and Hillary.  

    Are they open to the concept that McCain's POW experience might make him obsessed with winning an unwinnable war?  Could they live with us calling it quits in Iraq, or do they think sacrifice is essential in keeping us safe?  Do they know what it costs us, or are they floating on rhetoric and the soaring American flag and disregarding the cost to them, their kids, their grandkids...?

    Oh, here's a good one:  Do they think Armageddon can still happen if McCain is elected, or will it take the election of the anti-Christ Obama to fulfill that prophecy?  /snark

    Good luck, and thanks for the great work you do here.


    Ask them about (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:08:01 AM EST
    TRUTH. Show a few videos of Bush talking, or O'Reilly, or here's one that might work from Sean Hannity.


    Ask them if they supported the views of someone like Sean Hannity, and then discovered a year or two later everything that came out of his mouth was crap. But it came out 2 years later. Ask them if they feel a little responsible for that lie he told?

    Ask them if the state of our world today might be their fault?


    Quite right. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeannie on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:39:20 AM EST
    I have a good friend who is mayor of a small northern town. She is popular and works hard for a small salary, and likely has the support of 80% of the inhabitants. But the other 20% dislike her for one reason or another, from a run-in with the dog catcher to energy exploration. And then there are maybe 1% who are literally crazy and she has had death threats and people stalking her.
    So take all these 'reports' with a very large grain of salt.
    I think with Palin having an 80% popularity in Alaska means that the negative stories have a 20% chance of being true.

    Hmmm. (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:06:32 AM EST
    I think that popularity rating has to do with $1200 for every man, woman, and child in the state of Alaska.  Combined with smarts, good looks, and an appealing family, there's no politician in the world who would not have an 80% approval rating.

    But getting the citizens of one state to think you're swell is evidence of nothing at all.  Could she be the leader of the free world?  How quickly is she capable of ramping up on some basis for informed decision-making?

    I'm weary already of this game McCain has set in motion.  And he dares to claim he's all about "country first."  Pteh.


    she's had that popularity rating (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by demchick on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:04:49 AM EST
    for much longer than the rebate has been around. She has hovered between 80 and 90% the entire term in office so far.

    Research is your friend.


    Actually, the fund has been around (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by BrianJ on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:56:50 AM EST
    For a lot longer than Palin.  The Alaska Permanent Dividend Fund was started in 1980, with the first checks cut in 1982 (for $1000, just like in the Simpsons movie).

    The one-time payout was a result of a new tax on oil producers and high oil prices;  trying to castigate a politician for finally sticking it to Big Oil will not play well.


    A "higher plane" I (none / 0) (#104)
    by Oje on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:43:27 AM EST
    I keep thinking about the argument that Obama needs to get back to issues after the Sarah Palin deathwatch Eagleton-circus. As a former Hillary Clinton supporter, the idea that Obama has been running an "issues campaign" - to return to - just does not resonate with me. By accident today, I found a hint:

    We keep losing elections because the parties are fighting on two different levels. We talk about competence and issues. They talk about character and values.

    We appeal to narrow self-interest and a laundry list of issues. We are down in the weeds. They appeal to a higher plane, as pollster Cornell Belcher puts it, getting a substantial number of low income whites to vote not `against their economic interests' as some would have it, but for what they see as higher interests.

    Belcher joined Obama's team as a pollster in January, 2007. I looked into more of Belcher's work and I found that this is a consistent theme. As the DNC's pollster, after the 2004 election, Kerry's failure to gain an edge from the gender gap,  Belcher did a poll for the DNC that concluded "that women their voting decisions are influenced as much or more by their religious faith as by traditional political issues." (By the way, women came "home" in 2006.) He had been advocating an Obama-like campaign since at least 2005 (I recall blogs arguing what this "values" strategy meant) and outlined a strategy to target African-American and Hispanic voters as early as 2006, with Donna Brazile (both work closely with Dean). In Obama, Belcher thinks he found his model transformational candidate. The Obama campaign is operating on "a higher plane" than issues.

    A "higher plane" II (none / 0) (#105)
    by Oje on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:46:07 AM EST
    Belcher has obviously had a deep influence on the strategy and the message of Obama's campaign (I should add, he has evidently been an architect of establishment Democrats' strategic thought and influenced the topical discussions on left blogs for the past 4 years... this is the kind person historians love to "discover" anew. People keep talking about Axelrod and Plouffe, but they may  just be faces for this man's work of the past four years for the Democratic party.) Under Belcher, Obama has been running a campaign on a "higher plane" that is designed to build "a new majority coalition" in the general election. In my estimation, his values-coalition campaign is not subject to sudden shifts in emphasis to issues (I heard Gergen on CNN say tonight that Obama mentions unemployment, but he fails to pivot fluidly in 2-3 statements to outline his policy position on unemployment... it is a different kind of campaign discourse that has to be developed over the course of a primary). The FISA and the surge's success beyond "our wildest dreams" - two issues - are key points of failure for that strategy. Obama and his team likely have to stick to what they know - what they campaigned on - the rest of the way, because each engagement with the issues entails... oh, horror... compromise (flip-flop).

    Anyway, to bring my overly though to a close (in two posts!), the question then is, how can the left blogs become an effective agent for Obama (accepting that the Orangemen have become counterproductive)? Ironically, I think Anglachel, who sidelined herself a few days ago for the remainder of this election, has set about doing it for Obama. She has turned her attention to poll analysis (rather than poll dismissal and denunciation which seems to be a bloodsport at the Obama blogs) and issues. (Does Anglachel want to elect Obama? I will take her at her word, but she is a good Democrat. She  seems to be doing what she would do for Hillary if she were the nominee, not working for Obama, but with a clear Democratic conscience.)

    What if, what if, the Obama blogs (who are obviously read by the media and read verbatim at MSNBC), started to look for real investigative "issue stories" to pump to the media or just into the political discousre? Not apocryphal stories about how grandma rushed to the phone to contribute to Obama for the first time when she saw [FILL IN THE BLANK] speak (I am not sure who these stories are directed at, but if the polls are correct, they are a resounding failure to this point). Obama's campaign is not calibrated to bring issues to the forefront in soundbytes ("lists," Belcher says) and the media only mentions hardships as an aside. What if the Obama blogs mined the newspapers, mined the court records, for collaborated stories of hardships to circulate among the general public. Turn the internets into a virtual skid row. Perhaps, even, one or two originate in Alaska (as Jeralyn found the other day).


    I think a "Me, too!" campaign (none / 0) (#130)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:22:26 AM EST
    would be an improvement for Obama.

    As in, look at Hillary's last three months of campaigning and Do What She Did.  Because it worked.  Despite the negative media, it worked.  Despite the constant accusations of Being Female, it worked.  Even though the race cards were being thrown, it worked.

    Go with what works.