Palin's Real Soul Mate: George W. Bush

Here's a comparison of Gov. Sarah Palin and President George W. Bush, demonstrating their similarities.

In Gov. Palin, the GOP has its new Bush, same as the old Bush, but more polished, more presentable, more user-friendly than the original ever was -- and, they hope, still fresh and unencumbered enough to run as a "maverick" against the legacy of Dubya 1.0's failures.

The examples on the second page of the article are striking:

If there's a common cause for Bush and Palin's less-than-complex worldview -- one that should disturb the security minded of both parties -- it's their profound disinterest in understanding or even experiencing other countries and cultures.

The mastermind behind both: Karl Rove. [more...]

As to Palin's invoking Harry Truman in her convention speech, the writer notes:

But Truman -- a Democrat -- was a thoughtful and voracious consumer of facts and opinions, particularly those related to foreign affairs, and his years as a U.S. senator gave him considerable opportunity to gather them on a global level prior to ascending to the executive -- the same opportunities afforded Sens. John McCain, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

....Palin, meanwhile, is notable for having told the press that she was so focused on her state that she "hadn't focused much on Iraq" -- despite the upcoming deployment to that country of her son, Track, an infantryman based in Fort Wainwright, Alaska. Her parochial mind-set -- Alaska First! Alaska Always! -- and willful ignorance regarding the greatest international issue facing our nation matches Dubya 1.0's famous dismissal of newspaper reading for lack of intellectual curiosity.

Oh, there's one other thing to keep in mind when making Truman comparisons:

Truman became president when Roosevelt died suddenly of a massive cerebral hemorrhage, just 82 days into his final term in office. He was 63 years old -- almost a decade younger than McCain will be if he's elected.

Karl Rove is now masterminding the McCain campaign, according to Salon:

....given the complete takeover of McCain's campaign by Rove and his disciples, it's hard not to think that the selection wasn't a fantastical piece of rope-a-dope on the part of master manipulator Rove, who by pushing Romney, terminating Lieberman and "begrudgingly" accepting Palin, now has the ingredients to reconcoct his Dubya success: a folksy, seemingly harmless outsider with rock-ribbed evangelical credentials, big-money connections and outsize ambitions, ready to be groomed to run for the Oval Office herself, or to stumble in by accident in the event of presidential tragedy.

< Alasks Daily News Editorial: Palin Should Stop Stonewalling on TrooperGate | Palin Diminishes McCain? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Typos in your post (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:34:37 AM EST
    You wrote Palin when you meant McCain.

    The only typos (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by fercryinoutloud on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:32:32 AM EST
    were in actually referenceing the article in the forst place.

    The author writes comic books about Asian Super Hero's and writes a newspaper column about Pop Culture.

    Sounds like a hit piece by an Obama supporter in which the article is long on finger pointing but short on actual relevant references.

    It's particularly funny how he tries to say a governor hasn't paid attention to or traveled the world. That isn't a governors job unless it has to do with trade which is something that Palin has done with the Russians without having to travel. How many governors have actually traveled extensively just to see the world while in office? Ridiculous!


    funny, only I didn't (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:39:30 AM EST
    make any typos I can see and neither did the Salon author. We both were talking about Palin.

    You need to link Palin to McCain being more of the (4.00 / 1) (#57)
    by dailygrind on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:52:03 AM EST
    same with Bush. I happen to think both you and BTD are right as far as your arguments go. The problem with your post is that you dont fit it into the greater narrative building about McCain- IMO. You can define Palin in the negative while using that to brand McCain. You seem to think its enough to brand Palin as like Bush or Palin as negative. People need to see why Palins negative is more of McSame.

    Thank you for saying this (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    I've been thinking the same thing for the last few days.  I don't think we need to define Palin except as part of the same failed McCain - Bush policies.

    Certainly the Obama campaign can focus group an ad that talks about how McCain's ideas are just 4 more years of Bush. Block quote from McCain about the economy, then block quote from Palin about the environment, etc. Ending with some tag line --The Same/More of the Same/We can't afford 4 more years of this...

    Wouldn't that approach meet both Jeralyn's approach and BTD's?


    This is my thing (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by dailygrind on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:11:36 PM EST
    Talk about the overlap. Dont try to waste time with separate narratives, but instead figure out ways that she fits into the present narrative.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:48:51 AM EST
    I didn't realize Palin was running (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by rooge04 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:38:44 AM EST
    for President.  Why are we this obsessed with this woman?  

    McCain is running for President. McCain is horrible in and of himself.  We don't need to tear down this distraction of a VP choice by obsessing over her relentlessly. In doing so we have swallowed what the GOP has fed us hook, line, sinker.

    This is what they wanted.  And here we are giving it to them.

    Because she would be President (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:40:36 AM EST
    if something happened to McCain. I'm not playing russian roulette with my future. If you can't understand that, I'm sorry.

    Jeralyn, I respect you (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:42:57 AM EST
    immensely but I think obsessing over this woman only gives the GOP more ammo.  We can WIN and easily if we focus on McCain.  His mother is 96. Why do we think he's going to up and die within months of getting into office? If Obama runs against McCain, he wins. If he runs against Palin, it's bad news.  

    anyone can die at any time (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:47:26 AM EST
    That's why.

    As I just commented in another thread, 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.


    Yes, but (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:01:38 AM EST
    so could Obama from lung cancer, or a bowling injury, or falling off a dais, or whatever. You said it yourself - "anyone can die at any time." Then we'd have Biden.

    Please, please, please stop this argument.  Not only is morbid, to talk about someone's impending death, when it does not appear to be the case, all you do is make people come to Palin's defense because this is the same kind of junk we saw from Kos, Americablog, and Arianna during the primaries.  Don't become them.


    Yeah except (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Faust on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:16:35 AM EST
    Jeralyn would clearly be more upset with Palin than Biden. That's her point. And given how unexcited she was about Biden that's saying something.

    What's not clear (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:20:35 AM EST
    is that she would be more upset with McCain than Obama.

    I know it to be true, but she is not talking much about that.


    Intellectually I agree with you (none / 0) (#44)
    by Faust on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM EST
    but I have to admit sympathy for Jeralyns antipathy.

    Ahh, but MY empathy (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by sharmajee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:18:39 PM EST
    for Jeralyn's antipathy stops a clear tad short of sympathy for her conclusions. I do find Biden to be another "inadequate male" for a whole host of reasons: puffing, pandering, plagiarizing, parsimony etc, etc.

    Well that comment says more about you (none / 0) (#93)
    by Faust on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    than it does about Biden.

    but (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:08:03 PM EST
    But its not just a matter of death.  Its doubtful McCain would run in four years (an 80 year old president?) so Palin would could very well be in position within four years.

    Completely ignoring her is a mistake.


    If something were to happen (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:38:25 AM EST
    to Obama, Joe Biden is qualified.

    Now, stop complaining about what I write about. If it's not your cup of tea, please visit another blog.


    Mitt Romney (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by tootired on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:44:47 AM EST
    agrees with Sarah Palin on most issues. Would you be devoting this much space in your blog to him if McCain had chosen him? How about Mike Huckabee?

    the GOP wanted us (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by rooge04 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:46:55 AM EST
    distracted. They got it. This woman is a right-winger.  So is Romney. So is Huckabee. Everyone that was considered was an extremist in some way or another. It's no shock. Like Bill Clinton said, Republicans are extremists.  There is no need to go after this woman so ferociously when there is so much to choose from where McCain and Republicans in general are SO wrong.

    Obama and Biden seem to actually understand this. Now if they can just get their supporters in the media and the blogs to get it.


    rooge04 this is definitely not (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:03:38 AM EST
    directed at you because at least your comments seem to have a strain of integrity and principle. I find it incredible- absolutely incredible that the same people lecturing Jeralyn for going after Palin on issues said nothing about the lack of McCain threads on this site and every other sites for months. I can count on one hand the number of people who have credibility on the subject, and one of them is BTD. Personally? I think Jeralyn should focus more on McCain and less about Palin. But all this time commenters have savaged Obama and his supporters with a brush as broad as Biden's smile and they had to take that crap. Be fair to all the candidates, or please spare us the hypocrisy.  

    If you're familiar (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:13:56 AM EST
    with this blog and its history and its commenters. That is, if you aren't one of the people who think that its reason for being was and remains the Democratic Primary.

    Then.  You will understand that the ones you named and many, many other extreme Rightists and their transgressions have indeed received copious space.

    But, Palin is one of the two people on their ticket.  It is she, not Romney or Huckabee, who the GOP is attempting to sell to Indys as an example of McCain's "Maverick Independence."  The truth is that McCain is an extremist as well, and by allowing him to sell Palin as a reasonable person, we allow him t sell himself that way as well.

    We can walk and chew gum at the same time.  Both McCain and Palin are horrible and both truths can be spoken.

    Sadly, there are stll a lot of commenters here, as well as seemingly one primary contributor, who have gotten to the point where they would rather look for sexism than address what is at stake in the election.

    Sarah Palin is not a victim of sexism.  But we are all at risk of being a victim of Sarah Palin.


    My point is not about coverage (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by tootired on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:32:48 AM EST
    before McCain made his choice, but now in the aftermath. I have been reading TL for many months and do not remember much space being devoted to Romney, BTW. Romney is a single term governor and is very conservative in his personal beliefs. My question to Jeralyn is that if Romney was running as the VP with McCain would she have devoted this much of her blog space to him. I was not implying sexism of any kind. I have my own beliefs as to why Jeralyn is doing this, but I am interested as to whether she would be following this path if Romney were the opposition. McCain would have the same chance of dying, Palin's and Romney's past political experience would be similar, and his personal beliefs still at odds with Jeralyn's world view. It just seems to me that Jeralyn has gone over the top, and from reading other comments from people who seem to know more of the history of this blog, I don't seem to be alone. And I think that what she is doing serves McCain more than Obama. If I were a McCain supporter, I'd be cheering her on.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    Speaking for me only (heh), I can say that I'd be lowering the guns on Romney no less than McCain in every Open Thread.  And for many of the same reasons, although I'm not sure if Romney ever tried to ban books in a public library or if his opposition to abortion now extends to cases of rape, incest, and even when the life of the mother is in question. But no matter.  As you point out Romney is a dangerous man on many fronts, and reasonable people would be going after him here and elsewhere, were he anywhere near getting his hands on the White House.  

    But as a longtime TL reader and commenter (going back to 2004), I will add, that when you say you've been reading this blog for months, that means your only point of reference with it is this election.  Yes?

    But in the last four years Jeralyn and TChris have lambasted politicians and injustices all over the country.  Bush and Cheney of course have been called out routinely, as have the Attorneys General and Rummy, etc.

    But answer this if you ignore everything else.  Please.  Don't you think that if the Media and bloggers take BTD's advice and "ignore Palin," that this increases McCain's marketability as a "moderate" to Independents?


    No, I don't. (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by tootired on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:06:43 AM EST
    Pointing out how conservative Sarah Palin is what makes McCain look moderate. People already believe that he choose her to satisfy his conservative base so that he can adopt more moderate views himself. Looking for ways that she tried to force her own views on the Alaskan people might help with the "a heartbeat away from the president" argument, but either the Alaskan people are as conservative as she is, or she didn't because  you don't get an approval rating like hers if you do things your people don't like. Attacking her daily continues to energize the Republican base. They love her. There are two groups of feminists out there - those who want a liberal woman to become president and those who will take any woman they get as long as the glass ceiling is broken. Attacking Palin daily like this energizes the second group to support her. Palin isn't going away, and this constant bashing isn't helping Obama. Why continue it? When you're in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging.

    Mitt Romney (none / 0) (#30)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:21:47 AM EST
    may now agree with Palin on most issues, but no one would deny that he has actual creds.  He was my governor.  When he first assumed office, he was aghast to learn that appointed counsel had not had an increase in rate of compensation in almost 25 years.  I won't say that we got it because of him, but he certainly did not stand in the way, like the presvious governors. He has many wonderful achievements and is a financial wizard.  

    If he were the VP nominee, there would not be this kind of attention because he would have been up for the job, despite his positions.  


    So what you are basically saying is that (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Serene1 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:30:06 AM EST
    you are o.k with republicans just not Sarah Palin. Great and then Democrats wonder why they loose.

    Not at all (none / 0) (#47)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:35:15 AM EST
    If Mitt were the VP nominee, I would not be arguing he is not competent at all.  I would be arguing that he does not represent my positions.  With Palin, my argument is that she is not competent AND she does not represent my postions.  

    On rare occasion (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoephone on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:17:39 PM EST
    the Republican choice IS better than the Democrat. Case in point, Bill Weld over John Silbur, at least from my perspective. I was living in Bostin during that 1990 election and Silbur came off as a scary, scary guy.

    Of course, I meant (none / 0) (#88)
    by shoephone on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:19:06 PM EST

    Romney was my governor, too, (none / 0) (#45)
    by tootired on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:34:51 AM EST
    and there's a reason why he didn't run for re-election.

    Yes (none / 0) (#50)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:39:17 AM EST
    and there is a reason why most sitting Mass. governors flee for another job, preferably out of state.  

    A question (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by RoboDruid on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:33:23 PM EST

    Okay, may I ask a question?  Lets say for the sake of argument that President McCain dies suddenly in the first six months of his presidency.  And we have President Palain.  

    What would really change?  While her domestic policy may be slightly different than McCain's, his Secretary's, who were approved by the Senate would still be there.  The Budget is still controlled by congress.  Court nominees are still approved by the Senate.

    The only thing that I can figure out is that people fear that she would get into a war that McCain would not.

    I just don't see how President Palain would be significantly different that President McCain, especially since there are still checks and balances.




    What they're really afraid of... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CK MacLeod on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:21:53 PM EST
    ...imho, as a McCain-Palin supporter, isn't that Palin might take over for McCain, but that Palin herself is positioned to become a major force in American politics for a generation.  I think that fact (or threat if you prefer) and the version of a highly conservative yet populist, frontier feminism that she presents in her own person, have helped motivate the overdone attacks - including the incredibly inane and revealing "Eagleton" wishful thinking that Obama operatives were trying to encourage and astroturf last week.  

    I told my conservative friends many times over the last few months, as we were discussing the possibility of a Palin VP nomination, that things would get ugly, very quickly, and in recent months I always had at least partly in mind a post on Talkleft denying Gov Palin any personal or moral credit for having decline to abort her Down Syndrome child ahead of time.  It was obvious to me that the whole complex of emotions in and around abortion and related "cultural" issues would be unleashed.

    It's not just for this reason, but obviously also Gov Palin's popularity and, yes, her extensive and varied record and life experience both in and out of polics, that make her such a threat - to the extent that many on the left will devote themselves to taking her down regardless of the effort's deleterious effects on near-term electoral prospects.  Otherwise, I suspect, the resounding and embarrassing backfire of last week's failed assault on her would have gotten through to more of you.

    Small wonder that David Warren, the dean of Canadian conservative pundits, when looking south this week declared "[h]er nomination as the Republicans' vice-presidential candidate, and then her extraordinary speech to their national convention...[to be] easily the most important world event of a week in which there was significant breaking news from Georgia, North Korea, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Thailand, and elsewhere."  He want on to make the by now commonplace comparison of her to Margaret Thatcher, nothing that when Thatcher first arose.  Thatcher, says Warren,

    received exactly the same reception from the British Left when she first rose to prominence: the same sarcastic references to her class origins, the same suggestions that she was utterly unprepared, the same visceral misogyny, the same panicked search for domestic tabloid scandal, the same "why don't you go home, dear, and take care of your children" dismissals. And likewise, this response played an important part in helping her flatten them.

    So, yes, I think we do understand why you can't let go.  And, no, we don't expect Hillary's army to defect en masse.  As for the two women themselves, in a better world, Hillary might have been free at least to stand up against the worst of the Palin smears.  Her little kiss of death for Obama regarding her expected efforts - not to expect too much of them, especially considering her commitments to down-ballot candidates - spoke loudly enough to those who were listening closely, however.

    Those wonderful checks and balances (none / 0) (#89)
    by shoephone on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:21:29 PM EST
    haven't woked out too well for us the past eight years.

    I'm of the belief that divided government would be horrible this time around.


    Well, seriously... (none / 0) (#39)
    by prose on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:30:50 AM EST
    even the MSM has taken to calling McCain Palin's running mate.  I think its obvious who the GOP really loves.

    I heard someone on the radio refer to them (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by independent voter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:03:05 AM EST
    that way yesterday and I was shocked. Maybe they'll switch spots on the ticket to really kiss their base's __

    I made that comparison after reading (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Birmingham Blues on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:50:06 AM EST
    this post by an Alaska blogger detailing Palin's response to a FOIA request for emails sent by two of her aides.  She claimed executive privilege for some of them despite the fact that her husband, a private citizen, was included on the distribution list.  Just what we need - four more years of that crap.  And this is the woman who ran on a platform of transparency in government.

    Spousal Privilege? (none / 0) (#31)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:22:53 AM EST

    Choices in this election (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:53:49 AM EST
    Jay Cost has a very interesting perspective on how McCain is trying to frame the choice for voters in this election.

    I think any successful attempt to deal with Palin has to acknowledge this strategy.

    Because it will show that the ultimate goal is not to allow McCain to define choice in this way.

    And also because we would then realize that demonizing Palin via a witch-hunt would help them - and if their Cost's view of their strategy is correct, it would also hurt Democrats, incrementally, by pushing us into extreme liberal corner

    If the goal (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by sas on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:44:27 AM EST
    is to win and keep Hillary voters....then demonizing Palin is a huge mistake.

    Palin should not be the topic (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by tres on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:02:03 AM EST
    unfortunately she is..she is not allowed to speak to the press, which in turn creates press coverage of her inability to answer a question or two. She is unknown and television friendly, McCain is a known quantity and not near as "exciting". I suspect many of us have a person like Palin in our own families,in mine it is my right wing sister, so she is familiar in a way that a "hero" can't be. So how to turn it back to McCain, his recklessness and poor judgement, in picking Palin (there she is again)? Maybe attack his truthfulness in his speech on Thursday? Suggestions oh how to bring it back to the grumpy old man and not his "girl friday" (sexism is not intended this is about her place on the ticket.)

    Groundhog Day (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by factchecker on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:06:36 AM EST
    I think I`ve seen this movie before. Lets look at the shiny new object over here so we don`t look at the man picking our pocket over there! Classic Karl being replayed over again. Haven`t we learned yet? I think Barack should stay focused on McCain. I`ll just say everyone should replay Ed Shultz`s show on Tuesday Sept 2nd. Fast forward to the segment with Mr Dobson. Listen carefully to his overtly boastful comment about his communications with McCain when he dicusses his dipleasure with a possible vp pick of Pawlenty,Romney or Liberman. He said NO! He said not only would the evangelicals stay home this election but that they would not write checks as well. When Ed asked for a reation Mr Dobson gleefully said words to the effect of "well he listened very well" Guess what Thurday came Mr Dobson`t blessings...Some Maverick

    Please Listen (none / 0) (#69)
    by factchecker on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:38:00 AM EST
    I listen and read as much as I can whether I agree with it or not. I encourage you to listen to just the Dobson segment. Listen and learn is what a great teacher I once had said.

    This strengthens the argument (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by elmey on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:10:09 AM EST
    that McCain = Bush's 3rd Term.  That's where the focus should be.  Do we reward the Republicans with 4 more years to screw up the country?  There's no point in obsessing on Palin IMO.  McCain/Palin = Bush.

    Vastly underestimating Palin (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by abdiel on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:19:33 AM EST
    by comparing her to Bush doesn't make it true.  That's just wishful thinking so everyone can bring back their anti-Bush meme.  It smacks a little bit of desperation, and I'm sure Rove smiles every time he sees someone like you lose their focus and start chasing ghosts like this one.  

    This meme does nothing to hurt McCain.  Or Palin, as a matter of fact.  All it does is cast Palin as a victim of media bias and distract from the issues.

    Enough silly comparisons (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by sharmajee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:10:58 PM EST
    already! First Steinem compares her to Phyllis Schlaffly, now Jeralyn compares her to Dubya, still others to Obama.  Someone quick please, start comparing her to Dick Cheney.  Sheesh. Give it a rest. The smears, the spin, the repetition, endless reprisal of the swiftboat methodology, done by either party is tiresome. Let's talk programs, plans and not rhetoric

    Swiftboaring is lying (none / 0) (#95)
    by 1980Ford on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:04:33 PM EST
    No lies here. She is Bush wearing lipstick.

    Fascinating... You're a.... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:28:34 AM EST
    ... Clinton supporter who will "take her chance with McCain."

    A true Clinton supporter would NEVER "take a chance" with ANY politician who holds positions diametrically opposed to Clinton on: The Iraq War; Health Care; Taxes; Choice; Equal Pay; etc.

    "Clinton Supporter?" Doubtful.

    Fascinating... You're a.... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:29:50 AM EST
    ... Clinton supporter who will "take a chance with McCain."

    A true Clinton supporter would NEVER "take a chance" with ANY politician who holds positions diametrically opposed to Clinton on: The Iraq War; Health Care; Taxes; Choice; Equal Pay; etc.

    "Clinton Supporter?" Doubtful.

    Sorry, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by sas on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:30:52 AM EST
    in my view, in Gov Palin, the GOP has its own Obama.

    The "change" theme all wrapped up.......

    Wrong (none / 0) (#96)
    by 1980Ford on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:06:00 PM EST
    More people watch McCain, not Palin. It's the drama.

    OMG! (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Strick on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:57:56 AM EST
    Truman became president when Roosevelt died suddenly of a massive cerebral hemorrhage, just 82 days into his final term in office. He was 63 years old -- almost a decade younger than McCain will be if he's elected.

    I was under the illusion that 80 was the new 60.  There have been no advances in life span or the quality of life for those over 60 in all the decades since Truman came to office?  I'll be danged.

    Perhaps McCain's 96 year old mother would have an opinion on all this.  :rolleyes:

    Heredity isn't everything (none / 0) (#90)
    by shoephone on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:28:34 PM EST
    Did McCain's mother suffer the injuries he suffered in the Hanoi Hilton? Of course not. Has McCain's mother battled skin cancer or other cancer? We don't know.

    My grandmother lived to be 99 years old. Her daughter, my mother, died at 69. Obviously, heredity is only one factor in life span.


    Fathers are a part of the genetic package, too. (none / 0) (#102)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:24:01 PM EST
    Much is said about the longevity of Mother McCain in discussions of John McCain.  But, little is said to buttress the argument with paternal life spans.  McCain's, father, Admiral John S. McCain, Jr. died at age 70, his grandfather, Admiral John S. McCain, Sr. died at age 61.  

    This says it all... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Exeter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    Please, this is as boring and silly (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by sharmajee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:25:14 PM EST
    as the purported talk by the other side using references such as 'why--'  Can we talk about solutions, programs etc. Enough smearing!

    god's decisions (none / 0) (#13)
    by jpete on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:54:21 AM EST
    one would think her tendency to see important decisions as God's word may blunt her critical abilities.  Very Bush like!

    Women going to McCain/Palin? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:01:54 AM EST
    Are we going to have a post on the new Ras poll?

    Now, I do (none / 0) (#21)
    by JThomas on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:08:29 AM EST
    think Obama and Biden must concentrate on McCain and the bad economy that Bush/McCain have wrought. Just as idle discussion, it is hard to ignore the similarities between Bush and Palin beyond the Rove thread.
    Both governors of oil states that really did not require much expertise to run. Alaska has been awash in oil cash since she took over so her biggest decisions have been what to do with the huge surplus. Tough gig,huh?

    Both hard core evangelicals.
    Reading some of Palin's pastors comments in todays Chicago Trib indicate that she is a true believer in the rapture and he says that is her core belief which will not be affected by politics. Hence her non-belief in man-made global warming as she is convinced that all true christians will not be here to see the ultimate fall-out. Also ties into her belief of the need to use all those fossil fuels ASAP..nothing on earth really matters as long as the rapture is coming.
    Then her admission that the Iraq war is Gods plan is also reminiscent of Bush's seeking guidance from a higher power in making his foreign policy decisions.

    I liken McCain more to Cheney...a hard core neo-con who is not really a religious zealot,just willing to use whatever justification he can find to ''tranform the middle east''.

    Look, I agree that the campaign focus has to be on McCain and his lousy economy and his neo-con advisors like Norm Podhertz from AEI and his 169 lobbyist running his campaign.
    I do think Palin's religious zealotry has to be exposed because I honestly think the majority of voters want a reality based foreign policy after the debacle of the last 8 years.

    Just a reminder (none / 0) (#33)
    by abdiel on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:25:48 AM EST
    McCain was the pick of the neocons in 2000, not Bush.  

    It's wrong to compare McCain to Cheney though.  For better or worse, McCain is a zealot who doesn't care about oil and profits.


    He absolutely wasn't. (none / 0) (#92)
    by rooge04 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    Since George Bush isn't going to (none / 0) (#24)
    by tootired on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:14:33 AM EST
    hit back, McCain could fire at will. Obama would be caught in a slug fest with the person vying for the lower position in the other party pointing out that VP is the better slot for him. As Biden said, "she's prettier", and her personal story is just as compelling as Obama's and not as "exotic". Biden's lack of anyone to run against begs the question "Why is he here?" The answer is to help Obama beat up on the girl. Palin's selection was a masterful choice on McCain's part, and the media and the blogs are falling right into the trap. Only Hillary seems to be shunning the role set up for her. Obama seems to be catching on that he shouldn't be playing McCain's game, but he can't seem to resist when he's personally attacked. Look for more of it. Play at your own risk.

    I agree with the "Palin is a (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:26:16 AM EST
    distraction meme". I almost got caught up in the trap myself. At first I railed against the pick as a cynical choice (it still is) but now I see there was more strategy to it than it just being a slap at Affir. Action. Obama caught on from the beginning though as a result of lessons learned the primary that real or imagined sexism/racism is going to hurt the corresponding candidate and you must distance yourself quickly from over-the-top attacks. It doesn't make logical sense, but it's political reality and didn't just start in 2008. It's just magnified this year.

    Sing with me now... (none / 0) (#36)
    by prose on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:29:40 AM EST
    "It's a Cult of Personaaaaaaaaality!"

    I was like you (none / 0) (#42)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:32:35 AM EST
    I did change my postiion and will support Obama/Biden now.  This blog did influence me, along with the speeches of Hillary and Bill Clinton. It is about the issues and that is why I support Obama.  I agree that Palin is a bad distraction but she is much more than that.  She is a heartbeat away from the presidency; grossly inexperienced; wedded to some pre-ordained, fatalistic, religious world view; and the mirror image of GW. Her "character and belief systems" are extrememly relevant since she is McCains' choice.  This choice goes to the heart and soul of McCain's judgment.    

    Yeah I remember your (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:48:13 AM EST
    previous position befuddledvoter. As for myself, I voted for HRC because of her history. I want a female and a minority Prez, but identity is secondary to issues to me and I just felt more comfortable with Clinton. But I liked our field of candidates and thought Obama was a good person. Heck I don't hate McCain but I don't like his politics or his tendencies with women. So my conversion of support came back in July. As for Palin, she does remind me of Bush. There's a malice to her that I find familiar...

    ii do not believe people can say (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by sas on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:50:06 AM EST
    Palin is grossly inexperienced with out saying Obama is too.

    As long as Democrats focus on the experience factor they will lose.

    Indeed, you are asking the public to choose someone for President whose experience compared to hers is slightly different.

    And indeed, in terms of executive office, she has more experiance.



    I agree about focusing (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:12:18 AM EST
    on the issues, but at the same time the GOP talking point about executive experience has to be rebutted with basic common sense:

    GOP hack: But but but Palin has more executive experience!

    Sane person:Obama has more legislative experience.

    GOP: But but but governors make great presidents!

    Sanity: True. But governors also make presidents with 30% approval ratings. Also, most of history's great leaders (American and otherwise) had no executive experience. So by that "logic" Gov. Palin's Governorship automatically makes her more experienced and qualified than any President that wasn't a Gov.

    GOP: But but that evil community organizer touts his lack of experience as evidence of his superiority.

    Sanity: Actually, you're lying. AGAIN. Obama says his judgement (and he's been right btw so far) Obama touts his credentials, but he never said his lack of extensive "credentials" in government is better than his opponent's. That would be asinine and ridiculous wouldn't it?


    Dem Chick is blogclogging (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:43:35 AM EST
    51 (non-deleted) comments in 3 days.

    10 a day for new users please.

    what a surprise (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:44:40 AM EST
    Demchick is a previously banned commenter. She won't be back.

    Can Democrats walk AND chew bubble gum? (none / 0) (#61)
    by pluege on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:04:45 AM EST
    Any reason why democrats can't go after BOTH mccain and palin? They're both horrible, and together they're horrible squared. seems to me there is plenty of fodder on both accounts and any chink on either helps to sink the ship.

    What is however, a super waste of time and effort to me is arguing about whether or not to go after palin. Talk about you're helping mccain/palin and missing the whole point.

    Interesting AP article (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:21:54 AM EST
    on whether Gov. Palin was sufficiently vetted:


    Professor Brady, UC Berkeley political science/public policy:

    In the end, it may not matter, Brady said.

    "She's worked out pretty well," he said of Palin. "She gave a heck of a speech."

    Glad for new toys (none / 0) (#70)
    by RJ4 USA on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:45:27 AM EST
    plain is like getting a new toy at christmas. by new years that toy is sitting in the closet. forgot until it's time for a yard sale or a landfill lol we know obama has been watching and can see she is doing all the damage to herself. we don't have to say a word just watch and laff very smart man obama is YES WE CAN

    Jeralyn, if Rove is masterminding (none / 0) (#71)
    by ding7777 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:53:59 AM EST
    Palin, it contradicts your "Palin not experienced enough to be President", since she would just be a figurehead.

    ha (none / 0) (#74)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:03:27 PM EST
    What's worse, she's GWB without his education or experience.  The day may come when we look back to Bush with fondness compared to her.

    Since Jeralyn made the comparison (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:16:18 PM EST
    Truman was only a high school graduate.

    And there's nothing wrong with state universities.


    funny talking point (none / 0) (#79)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    In those days many business leaders were just high-school graduates.   She didnt come up in the 20s and 30s, she came up in the 1980s, where education and the potential for academic distinction were readily available.  There is no doubt her resume is thin on several points.

    Well, this is a digression (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    But Truman failed at every venture he ever tried until he became POTUS.

    And once again, just because someone went to Harvard doesn't automatically make them better than someone who went to a very good state university.


    well (none / 0) (#91)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    You can walk into a fortune 500 company and sing them a song about Truman but its not going to secure you a job.  The world has changed.

    Its not her state university or community college experience that's at issue.  Its the 5 colleges in 6 years to get a 4 year degree in journalism.  To go on to become a sports anchor?  That's not usually the pool we draw national leadership from.  it doesnt diqualify her, its just that she doesnt seem to have a strong resume.

    Education and experience dont speak to judgement but she also ha questions about her judgement.


    Again, a digression (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:05:27 PM EST
    But the number of schools and the years it took her to finish keeps getting conflated with each of your posts.

    She attended 3 community colleges and then the University, and my guess is the reason is because of money (2 of those community colleges were only for 1 semester). She took 5 years (82-87), which, even then, wasn't unheard of. She went to UI, then did a semester at a community college in Alaska (which was home for her, so maybe money again was tight), returning back to UI, where she graduated.

    From Wikipedia:

    Palin spent her first college semester at Hawaii Pacific College, transferring in 1983 to North Idaho College and then to the University of Idaho. She attended Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska for one term, returning to the University of Idaho to complete her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.

    Now, can we please move on to substantive stuff about her?  Or do we have to start going through Obama's transcripts (if we can find them), and Biden's elementary school report cards?


    Well (none / 0) (#98)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:52:00 PM EST
    Obviously every point about Palin is a digression to some.  Seeing as she wont answer any questions I guess she believes she needs special treatment.

    I know you cant follow my intial point for some reason but it's still standing there.  Her education is inferior to that GWB, who did have an MBA.  Your apparent deep interest in Harry Truman notwithstanding.

    Her resume is quite thin and isnt even on par with that of Bush.


    Infuriating (none / 0) (#77)
    by sas on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:17:40 PM EST
    as this story is....

    The report of Palin's comment is "hearsay".  

    I (none / 0) (#78)
    by sas on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:22:24 PM EST
    will say this - McCain's choice of Palin has turned this race on its ear......

    [another white man would have been so dull  (as in Joe Biden - even tho' I do like Joe)]

    It really was a stroke of genius on McCain's part....

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#86)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    Wondering why, if she has those views, she married Todd.

    ha (none / 0) (#99)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:05:20 PM EST
    silly story.

    Palin has simple views about the world, a slim resume, a record of deficit spending, a heavy pursuit of pork for alaska and her small town and a record of lying about her record... but I doubt she's a racist.

    well, (none / 0) (#101)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:09:36 PM EST
    The reaction would be the same if the pick was James Dobson. Not because he might win, but because the viewpoint is so radical.

    They can't hide her from the media for 8 weeks without raising more doubts.  They are walking a tightrope as well.

    Palin's Baggage (Tag not included) (none / 0) (#107)
    by leftfielder on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:49:17 PM EST
    Karl Rove, yeah of course. He uses George W. Bush tactics, such as telling John McCain who is proper and who is not proper. George W. Bush has probably threatened McCain with treason if he doesn't support him. That's why they sound the same.

    Barack Obama needs to use a steel pipe, probably Nancy Pelosi more if he's going to win this race.

    Karl Rove/Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#108)
    by rhiles2760 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:15:24 AM EST
    I just believe that Karl Rove needs a little quiet time in jail and that Sarah Palin isn't qualified for the office of President of the US.