Palin Diminishes McCain?

Greg Sargent, while reporting on Obama's strategy vis a vis Palin (Obama agrees with me, do not focus on Palin), comes up with an interesting idea:

One idea that's being kicked around by Dems: Because huge amounts of media coverage of Palin are inevitable, why not start pushing the idea that she's upstaging the guy who's supposed to be at the top of the ticket? The idea here is that her speeches will energize audiences more than his will, and she'll prove a stronger fundraising draw than he will -- facts that Dems can point to in order to portray McCain as being diminished and overshadowed by his more-charismatic and energetic number-two.

(Emphasis mine.) I am not sure I buy it, but it is certainly a better idea than acting as if Palin is the top of the ticket.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Palin's Real Soul Mate: George W. Bush | Palin Criticized From the Right Before Criticism Was Withdrawn >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Stick to the economic message ... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:49:46 AM EST
    it's starting be in most of the clips of Obama that they're showing on the evening national and local news.

    And these sources are still more important than cable.

    The message isn't solution-based enough for me.  But this is still the winning message.

    I think you are right (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:55:34 AM EST
    But at least this idea is worthy of discussion imo.

    Everything must be tied back to McCain.


    He certainly looked "upstaged" (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:57:50 AM EST
    but happy when Gov. Palin was speaking at the Sterling Hgts., MI event yesterday.  I assume he also spoke but didn't see that part.  He was standing by herside beaming with pride.

    Yahoo headline (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:24:24 PM EST
    McCain-Palin ticket becoming Palin-McCain?
    He is being upstaged but I do not think he minds.  I thought people said here that she had gone back to Alaska and yet I see pictures of her with McCain everyday.

    She's making appearances w/ (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:53:46 PM EST
    McCain today in CO and New Mexico.

    AP had that article up also; seems there is some GOP concern she is becoming a rock star and they won't be able to use that line against Obama if this keeps up. What is amazing to me:  who ever thought families these days were having six or seven children?  Amazing.  But the women with lost of children are showing up at the campaign events because "she's one of them."


    So are these women (none / 0) (#116)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:12:47 PM EST
    who don't believe in birth control or Christian women who believes the Bible tells women their role is to multiply?  Either way  those aren't new McCain voters --- he already had them anyway.

    I'm sorry to say, (none / 0) (#118)
    by DFLer on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:30:06 PM EST
    But I find that a snotty remark, about big families.

    What the hell is the point of that tack? None of your biznez to judge, I'd say. Smacks of condescending ...okay, I'll say it, ...elitism.


    It IS our business to judge (none / 0) (#120)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:46:54 PM EST
    that's how we make decisions on who to vote for:  we judge what people and policies are the best.  And since the main McCain/Palin rally today was in Colorado's fundamentalist heaven I think I have a good idea of just what kind of "large families" there were at that event.  Bet they want creationism taught in schools.  Bet they home school their kids because of the dangerous secular teachers.  Bet they talk about protecting the rights of the pre-born.  

    My husband is from a family of 11, which includes a 35-year old brother who has Downs. I'm not putting down women with big families -- I'd give anything to be able to have another child to make my daughter not an only.  I am criticizing the mindlessness of the extreme "Christian" right.  If that makes me elitist -- well, so be it.  I like jazz and opera too so maybe I fit in that category anyway.


    Its one of those fake republican frames (none / 0) (#124)
    by dailygrind on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:13:41 PM EST
    in which to be open minded one must be tolerant of the intollerant. I am not exactly sure when progressive/liberal became doormat, but there you have it.

    I expressed surprise because I (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:35:32 AM EST
    don't know anyone who has that many kids.  Not judging, just surprised.

    I agree completely (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by esmense on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:58:31 AM EST
    focus on the disturbing economic events -- and offer specific, creative solutions.

    Average Americans are frightened. They want change. But the change they want is NEW IDEAS. Not just new people pushing the same old partisan attacks.


    I don't think they want ... (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:10:45 PM EST
    NEW IDEAS, they just want ideas that work.

    Obama's added a section in his stump speech comparing growth during the Clinton presidency to decline during Bush.

    Arguing that we (the Democrats) did it before, and can do it again, is a pretty good argument.


    Palin is Bush wearing lipstick (none / 0) (#99)
    by 1980Ford on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:32:59 PM EST
    The radical Right loves Palin for the same reason they loved Bush. The difference is she can talk and is charismatic. She is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that McCain is more of the same. Every time the Obama camp mentions her they should say she is Bush wearing lipstick and give one undeniable comparison, just that one sentence and then dismiss her. That concentrates on McCain and diminishes Palin at the same time.

    examples (none / 0) (#103)
    by 1980Ford on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:54:20 PM EST
    Palin, in her politics of divisiveness, is Bush wearing lipstick.

    Not every state governor can buy popularity with oil handouts and once we subtract that, Palin is Bush wearing lipstick.

    McCain picked Palin because he picked the politics of division. Divided we fall and Palin is Bush wearing lipstick.

    Short and sweet soundbites, over and over and over again for the next 60 days and everyone of them should include "Bush wearing lipstick."


    Yes, but present the economic woes (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:35:12 PM EST
    with specificity and understandability.  For example, specific and named bank failures, the government take over of Fredie Mac and Fannie Mae, number of foreclosures in the specific campaign area, the stock market decline and the effect on retirement accounts.  Also, forget the sound-bite of the top 1 or 10 percent, as so many think they are in that bracket--state annual income of over $1 million, etc. Then, indicate how Bush, and now McCain have got us into this economic mess, and how McCain is, in effect,  dedicated to its continuance  Oh, and that pesky Iraq war and its $10 billion per month (and put that abstract amount into an understandable perspective, e.g. Bloomberg's net worth blown in a month, or all Ivy League University's endowments spent in 6 months.  The Obama plans for the country's economy including pledges to maintain and sustain social security, medicare, as well as move to universal health care, need to be placed in juxtaposition to such laughable McCain alternatives such as social security privatization or health care through emergency room services.

    Might work with people who ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    aren't feeling the pinch.

    For the rest, just layout the solutions.


    It isn't either .or (none / 0) (#113)
    by dailygrind on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:47:16 PM EST
    You can attack McCain as McSame using Palin as an example even on the economic issues. I think , as I've said for a few posts, that people are spliting needless hairs here.

    Possibly an unfruitful path (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:50:36 AM EST
    In a certain segment of voters, couldn't this strategy unfavorably contrast how egos play at the top of the ticket?

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TChris on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:51:34 AM EST
    it's a better idea to remind voters that McCain showed incredibly poor judgment by picking a VP candidate who is under investigation and that he damaged his reputation as a maverick by pandering to the extreme religious right with his pick.

    But then the inevitable comparison (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ding7777 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    is that Obama ruined his reputation of "bringing change to DC" and taking on corporate lobbyists with Biden as his VP pick.

    Forget Palin... yes, even forget McCain, go with It's the economy, stupid!  Everyday for the next 60 days.


    I like this line of attack myself. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Faust on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:01:12 PM EST
    Exactly (none / 0) (#26)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:11:38 PM EST
    Palin isn't the target.  She is the lever the be used against McCain.

    The Obama campaign should stay out of this.  The media will do the work here.  


    Agree completely (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:50:42 PM EST
    very well said, TChris.

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    Could work, but I fear it would reinforce the "celebrity" attack against Obama.

    Run against McCain, say I. Obama Co. Clearly agrees:

    Mr. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said that his team was not concerned that independent voters and undecided women might be drawn to Ms. Palin, and that the Obama camp did not plan to run hard against her.

    "As the post-convention dust settles, we believe a lot of the battleground states will be close, and that this will remain a race between John McCain and Barack Obama," Mr. Plouffe said. "She'll be out there promoting John McCain's economic message, which is fine by us because it is so bad for middle-class voters."

    That's not real savvy: (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:00:05 PM EST
    to announce he's not too concerned about independent voters and undecided women

    If you chop off the rest of the sentence, sure (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    Leave it to the Dems (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by fercryinoutloud on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    to be blind to the world.

    When Biden was added to the ticket the talk was how he could go out and be a loud voice and an attack dog leaving Obama to fly under the 'static' radar and stay above the fray.

    Now Palin appears to be doing the same thing, something that traditionally all VP candidates do, and it is bad for McCain - but the same strategy is good for Obama. Mama Mia!!!

    The Dems should be so lucky that Biden would be as dynamic as Palin and a unifying force instead of them being afraid when he is going to next stick his foot in his mouth.

    Bad idea on the part of the Dems.

    The problem is not with Palin (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:56:24 AM EST
    it is with McCain. You missed the point.

    I understand who McCain is (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by fercryinoutloud on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:15:30 PM EST
    The country also understands that he isn't and never has been a dynamic speaker or charismatic figure and if elected it won't be because of either of those two things.

    And it is exactly because he is not those things that a person like Palin is a good addition to his team if you think about it. Especially when you are going up against a dynamic speaker and  charismatic figure. Palin helps balance the McCain team out in that respect. Are you missing that point?

    As I said yesterday Palin is the new Rock Star and is taking some of the shine off of Obama. That's a problem for Obama, and a problem that he nor the Democrats seem to have an answer for. To ignore her as you suggest is suicide. You can't ignore a part of the opposition that is going to be in the spotlight and whose job is to cut you, Obama, off at the knees. You are way off base that she should just be ignored IMO.

    Obama now has two people to worry about - McCain and Palin. Palin is more of a problem for Obama than Biden is for McCain. If Palin can hold her won in the VP debates then it's a win for McCain because Palin beats Biden in charisma and charm and for being 'just like me' with a lot of folks.


    sure it's the ecomony (none / 0) (#33)
    by RJ4 USA on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    but when u have a tool that seems broke or not working to well don't we toss them to the garbage. and get a new one the gop is like the blind leading the blind go obama

    How exactly (none / 0) (#23)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:09:07 PM EST
    is she going out and acting like an attack dog?  

    She isn't speaking to the press AT ALL.  She isn't campaigning.  

    You're not an attack dog if the only thing you do is give prepared speeches, you are a P.R. spokesperson.

    Why not just have Dana Perrino as VP?  

    One cynical speech does not an attack dog make.


    Not campaigning? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by fercryinoutloud on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:21:21 PM EST
    Where have you been? Try watching the news, her campaigning in Michigan and Wisconsin has been all over TV screens.

    She's in Colo. Springs today (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by rdandrea on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    And Albuquerque tomorrow.

    She's campaigning hard.  Just not answering unscripted questions.


    Saturday schedule (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:32:20 PM EST
        Saturday, September 6, 2008
        Colorado and New Mexico

        10:00am Media Interview
        10:30am Satellite into AARP Convention
        11:30am Media Interview
        12:30pm MT "The Road to Victory Rally"
        Colorado Springs, CO
        1:45pm MT Depart Colorado
        2:50pm MT Arrive NM
        3:30pm MT Media Interviews
        7:00pm MT "The Road to Victory Rally"
        Albuquerque Convention Center


    Meanwhile: Biden has the (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    day off per NYT.

    Jeez, (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Brookhaven on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:21:44 PM EST
    He's tired already?  HRC would have been out there 24/7 with no days off until possibly Nov 5th.  From what I understand, she's booked solid until Nov 4th.  She's working diligently for down ticket Dems.  And, will go after McCain when on the stump and not Palin.  No one is smarter or harder working than HRC.  And, there is the rub, for lots of us.

    Maybe he could (none / 0) (#78)
    by oldpro on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:07:02 PM EST
    go to Hawaii for ten day.

    Yeah...that's a good idea...


    I'm not sure I buy it either (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Faust on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:59:23 AM EST
    What is the end game of such a strategy? McCain is diminished and weak? McCain is less than Palin? How does this ultimately get us away from Palin? Inevitably such a strategy invites the question: is McCain overshadowed by Palin because he is so weak or because she is so "strong?"

    In the end such a strategy still involves endless disection of Palin. Palin this Palin that, Palin, Palin, Palin, Palin.

    The Palin cantip is so strong, however, that it is hard for me to see how this particular singularity can be escaped. The media (including blogs) seem to have passed beyond the Palin event horizon and now cannot get out of the pull.

    I have no good advice here, as I said previously, I agree with the dangers of Palin obsession, I agree the focus should be on McCain but you can't move 5 feet in the information flow without tripping over a Palin story.

    Gergen said last night something like "Obama needs to keep this on the issues." (P.S. Our JOURNALISTS should keep us on the issues. That's their damn job. Except it isn't of course.) But I don't see how Obama or anyone else can de-rail Palin frenzy. It seems to have trancended, at least for the moment, any kind of rationality.  

    So whatever strategies are developed need to function in a Palin focused milieu.

    Nah (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:59:40 AM EST
    McCain isn't threatened by her. If he were afraid of being diminished, she wouldn't be on the ticket. If you look at footage, he seems thrilled about peoples enthusiasm for her. And the bigger the crowds she draws, the better for him since she's selling him.

    And then there's the fact that Obama couldn't bring himself to put Hillary on the ticket . . . but she's needed out there on the trail to draw a certain segment of the population in . . .

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:15:49 PM EST
    Sargent is projecting a bit IMHO.

    Similar to my thoughts. McCain isn't threatened (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Angel on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    by Palin, but Obama is threatened by Hillary and Bill.  Why oh why does it keep going back to Hillary?  Because she should have been the nominee.  If so, we wouldn't be having this discussion about Palin.  It would be McCain/Pawlenty.  And it would be about CDS in the media instead of a lovefest over Palin. But the public is over the media's hatred toward Hillary.  Democrats could be measuring the drapes by now but now we're locked into a statistical tie.

    Who the heck mentioned (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:23:53 PM EST
    anything about...oh forget it.

    The media, commenters on this and other blogs. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Angel on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    Hillary is an issue in this campaign whether or not some people choose to believe it.  

    If Sargent's next suggestion (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:27:43 PM EST
    is that we publicly fret over Todd Palin's role in a possible McPalin administration, the theory will be proved. How can we possibly have him out there snowmobiling all over the world? Loose cannon!

    I don't think (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:50:08 PM EST
    McCain is threatened by anybody.  This is the man who a few months ago said if he won, he would go to Congress for an American version of "Question Time", and said 2 times in his speech:

    "Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn't think of them first, let's use the best ideas from both sides. Instead of fighting over who gets the credit, let's try sharing it," McCain said in an acceptance speech that stamped him as the new leader of the GOP. "We're going to finally start getting things done for the people who are counting on us, and I won't care who gets the credit."

    The fact that he could go before the Republican National Convention and tell them to share credit with (shudder) those awful Libruls, shows me he's pretty confident.

    Hmmm...instead of upstaging him, maybe he thinks Palin "completes him"


    I (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sas on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:01:53 PM EST
    think the more press Palin gets, the happier McCain is.

    Also, the more sexist crap the A list blogger boyz deal out, the happier he is.

    Remember - he needs some of the Hillary voters to win-not all of them, just some of them.

    And women are taking notice - see Rasmussen Reports today.

    Or Gallup (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by BrianJ on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:12:01 PM EST
    Obama's lead is down to two points, 47-45.  Well, there was your bounce.  Did you enjoy it?

    So this is the best McCain can do? (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:14:24 PM EST
    Sorry, Charlie.

    Oh, McCain will do better (2.00 / 0) (#40)
    by BrianJ on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    Check back with Gallup tomorrow.  And the next day.  And the next.

    Shorter BrianJ: "Go McCain!" (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:27:11 PM EST
    Guess again (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by BrianJ on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:35:03 PM EST
    I'm an Atlanta Braves fan, and follow their games whenever I can.  I remember where I was when Sid slid.

    But I also know that this year's Braves are 17.5 games back with 20 games remaining.

    Similarly, I know Obama's campaign is going to lose because it keeps getting blindsided by moves only slightly less predictable than the sunset.  That doesn't mean I have to like it.

    You want cheerleading and smoke blown up your ass?  Go to the Big Orange Blob.


    I think other people here (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:37:37 PM EST
    can attest to my disinterest in cheerleading.

    But I think the fact that you've already decided that McCain will win is. . .interesting.


    a lot of people have already decided (none / 0) (#109)
    by sancho on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:30:23 PM EST
    obama is going to win. i personally have no idea but want to believe btd. but the dems have to win by making economic arguments and they have not proved very good at that in past elections. so i can identify with those who think he will lose. already i fear this election looking like past ones and that means he loses. obama is going to have to develop a strategy to make the econ case he needs to win. and he is going to have deal with repubs lying about their econ case.  i hope he does make the shift. and i hope the media lets him. because talking about his "funny name" and dissing hillary has gone about as far as it can go. and the media has a new favorite star. and she has more charisma than obama, imo.

    Not buying it (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM EST
    yes, she is a more energetic and telegenic personality. I think it takes a certain mindset though to believe that diminishes    McCain or anyone else. The same mindset that thinks the candidate that draws the biggest crowds is the best.

    Your thinly (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:20:50 PM EST
    veiled shot Obama is well received by some but off the mark in reality. No one, and I mean NO ONE supporting Obama is suggesting Obama's crowds make him better than McCain. Every supporter of human variety says his POLICIES are superior to McCain. I think it takes a certain mindset to believe Obama's crowds are due solely to telegenics. The same mindset that thinks AAs and others are voting for Obama just because he's black.

    I was referring to the primaries (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    when exactly that point was made many many times.

    It is interesting to me to see the mindset revealed in the primaries reflected in the strategies against Palin.


    Hammer McCain on this issue (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ding7777 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:11:44 PM EST
    McCain "supports private accounts as one of the ways to reform the [Social security] system":

    Not a good argument for him (none / 0) (#68)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:28:15 PM EST
    When one of his chief economic advisors, Jeff Liebman "has been supportive of efforts towards social security solvency, with partial privatization, increased taxation and reduced benefits."



    It is almost funny (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by standingup on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:22:19 PM EST
    There are so many Republicans who were unhappy and disengaged in this election with the thought of McCain as president. McCain chooses Palin and instantly those depressed conservatives are as excited as they have been with the prospects of the 2008 election.

    Now what do many Dems decide is a good strategy? Keep a razor focus on the popular VP candidate which is energizing their conservative base? I would do everything possible to put the spotlight back on the guy who obviously had many of the Republicans depressed. If the Republican ticket wins, McCain not Palin, will be the President, correct? Remind them McCain will be elected President, not Palin.

    Anecdotal ... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:31:28 PM EST
    but in my conversations in the last 24-hours with the crowd at my local diner reinforced a concern I had about the McCain's speech.  

    Some of these blue-collar types seemed quite taken with the speech, his serious albeit boring manner reassured them, one even said, "He seems less risky."

    So I would agree with the notion of reinforcing the riskiness of the McCain presidency.  But I think this is best done by tying him to Bush, as BTD has suggested for months.  Though perhaps more pointedly, and policy focused.

    BTD -- Here's why it won't work (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by esmense on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    McCain is presenting himself as a humble, and humbled, servant of the country. The primary message of his speech was this; you can trust me because I've proven my devotion to country is greater than my devotion to self. I've proven my willingness to sacrifice myself for others.

    Within that context, his willingness to let Palin -- representative of a new political generation, of reform and change -- shine, even if it means out-shining him, is not diminishment. It's further proof of his point (which is his selflessness), and of his confidence, too.

    Agreed ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:04:45 PM EST
    and as I suggested yesterday, to much derision by the crowd who buys the pundit talk, that his boring, awful speech countered his chief negative frame:

    The grumpy old man.

    McCain may be a member of the Vietnam generation, but he presented himself more as if he was a member of the "greatest generation."

    The appeal was more Eisenhower, than Reagan.  

    This may be a sweet spot for McCain.

    Buttressed by a backward-looking convention this image could take hold. Even the videos, despite their high production values, seemed like something you might watch on an old 16mm projector.

    Although party activists on both sides crave excitement.  And they swoon or attack the Palins and Obamas of this world.  Regular voters may prefer boring.

    Many could see the "great, dull man" as the less risky choice.


    Agreed. Who do you trust? is always the most (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by esmense on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    important question asked in any presidential election. It's a more important question than where you stand on the issues because where you say you stand on the issues isn't worth anything if your word can't be trusted.

    This is why the Republicans -- who are never right on the issues -- always make the campaign about "character."


    If this election becomes a referendum... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by cosbo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:16:06 PM EST
    on "who do you trust?"...McCain will win hands down. IMO.

    esmense you're right on point. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Bob K on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:46:22 PM EST
    The Republicans sell a narrative about being able to trust McCain. And he has shown he will put others first. While Obama is trying to sell a litany of things that he wants to correct, but doesn't have a track record of accomplishment that shows he can deliver.

    Having one party control all aspects of government while having the top person someone of unknown quality would make many people opt for the known quantity from the opposition. Divided government with a know quantity at the top.

    I'm a believer in divided government. They are more likely to keep each other in check.


    Excellent analysis, Esmense (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:55:21 PM EST
    I've been wondering about the slow intro to McCain's acceptance speech. Dull & plodding? OR, reassuring & calmly competent? When put together with the second half of the speech, the selflessness portrait painted there points toward an impression of  longterm capability and self-discipline. It is a picture of a strong, composed man. That is why it is so important for Democrats to keep drilling...on issues. If this election really turns toward personalities and perceived character, the McCain and Palin images may well have the big advantage because they represent essential American prototypes. The sacrificing "country first" Gary Cooper-ish type (or, in politics, maybe someone like the old hero Democrat John Glenn from Ohio) and the western pioneer Annie Oakley plus sophisticate woman. Beat, beat, beat on the issues. Especially, the economy. If one of the foursome does not make a major mistake in the next several weeks, whoever can present at least one good, doable, practical economic step to help the average Joe/Jane--I believe--will win this election.

    Humble, that is the word. (none / 0) (#104)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:55:33 PM EST
    As the media called it boring, some people called it humbling. That is a word I have heard. Maybe that is why they referred to Truman. To remind people that Harry was a humble man. And he looked proud of Palin. In fact, I think they took good use of his 96 year old Mother too to point longevity in the family. Bush used being folksy to gain people's trust. I suspect that McCain is using humble and confident enough to pick a woman as his campaign message. I didn't hear it Thursday or Friday, but I heard it today from a few people.

    When a proud papa stands on a stage (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by tootired on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:45:06 PM EST
    behind his daughter while she makes a speech to a roaring crowd, does he feel upstaged? No. He beams with pleasure and takes pride in his creation. McCain has made Sarah Palin into the sensation that she is, and he feels much like a proud papa. This is a pseudo father/daughter team. There will be no jealousy to stoke here. Think issues not personality.

    Secondly (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:48:13 PM EST
    The democratic party need to do nothing more than pour through the 2004 speeches and the 2008 speeches at the repub convention.  If you do not think they are more of the same, just read the transcripts.

    Bad bad Muslims, powerful republicans.  Or are they waiting for John Stewarts team to do all the leg work.

    Palin upstaged McCain in a speech and has since been muzzled.  Several repubs have said she is ready, if she is ready why the silence?  Why the escort?  Why the "leave her alone" messaging?

    Old tired strategy and I for one would like to see the blogs attack hard and heavy, they seem to have become the feeders of the MSM and when there is enough traction in blogs they start to cover something.  

    Hell the enquirer has scooped more than the MSM lately.  

    Let me guess this straight.  We are afraid to question her because she might actually be good on issues?  Or are we afraid because middle america might feel like the left is full of bullies.

    Someone needs to counter Rush and Fox and anyone who does in my opinion is demonstrating that they have a spine.

    She isn't being muzzled (none / 0) (#76)
    by BrianJ on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:43:07 PM EST
    Look at Pianobuff's schedule above.  She is the public face of the McCain ticket to an even greater degree than McCain.

    She's just not doing interviews right now.  Honestly, how many minutes of your life would you want to spend with Matthews or O'Reilly?  Besides, not talking constantly makes people more interested in you when you DO speak out.  You don't have to go any further than her convention speech to see that.

    Obama's campaign and surrogates need to stop obsessing over Palin and start attacking McCain, if there are any policies left on which they do not agree.  Both of them shift so constantly that I have trouble telling.


    Buchanan's comments on Palin (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:58:47 PM EST
    and press is spot on, IMO.  He sd. you can ask but she doesn't have to answer.  Then you can talk about how you asked and she didn't answer.  

    Buchanan was speaking (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by BrianJ on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:35:18 PM EST
    From his experience in Nixon's White House Press Office.  His statements, really, were almost banal:  McCain and Palin will do what they think will be best for McCain and Palin, and neither Matthews nor any other journalist has a right to an interview with either of them.

    Judging from the frenzy that has resulted, it looks like McCain and Palin have outwitted the press.  Of course, a moderately smart kitten could do the same.

    The Obama camp can't very well say Palin is "cloistered" if she's making multiple campaign appearances each day.  In general, McCain and Palin are doing a very good job of leading technically accurate but misleading impressions, and the Democrats are doing a poor one of jumping to conclusions.


    You don't become Preisdent by beating the VP. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    They need to run against McCain, and only really emphasize Palin where she's basically the same as he is. Palin will probably have some economic appeal to self-employed types in the Mountain West states, but neither she nor McCain really has any answers for the blue-collar voters whose jobs are drying up in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. I'm not certain Obama has the best of answers for those voters either, but trying to come up with and communicate some is the path to winning.

    Ignore her (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Lahdee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:14:57 PM EST
    She is #2 on the ticket, time to treat her as such.
    However, if it turns out that her actions as governor display bad judgment, bad governance or illegal activity hit up McCain for the seriously flawed decision.

    The more attention Palin gets the better fr McCain (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by mexboy on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:40:49 PM EST
    Obama and the Dems put themselves in this position by their sexist attacks against Hillary, and, or by not standing up for her like the Republicans have done with Palin.

    They simply don't have a leg to stand on and I don't think this strategy BTD is suggesting will work because it makes her more powerful, not only for now but for 2012.

    McCain is not threatened by a woman, he seems to thrive in the attention she's getting. I don't get the sense he's as egotistical as his opponent. This puts him in a great position with voters who are fed up with the attacks on Senator Clinton.

    You attack Palin, it reminds voters the nastiness towards Clinton in the primary. You say she's upstaging McCain, it reminds voters the reason Hillary is NOT on the Dem ticket with Obama. Lose/Lose situation.

    Let's face it, the Obama/Dem camp have been out-strategized by McCain.

    Yes!!! (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by aafan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:45:46 PM EST
    I agree.  Obama made this monster by not having the courage or common sense to choose Hillary, who got 18 million votes.  

    Now does Obama need Hillary to fight back against Sarah?  Talk about upstaging the main candidates!   If those two women get into a public debate, who will pay any attention to the guys in the suits?  It would be media candy and the pundits would  go crazy.  That's why Hillary will go after McCain, not against Sarah.  No?


    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#100)
    by mexboy on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:52:21 PM EST
    Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.

    BTD (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Cal on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:42:47 PM EST
    Glad to see you back!  I don't always agree with you, but I respect your insight and more importantly, your integrity.

    When you stopped writing here, I left.  But I'll be back now.

    I Find This The Most Amusing (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by limama1956 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    All these people who are professing such great adoration for Palin, hell, they wouldn't have been able to pick her out of a beauty contest line-up before she was nominated.

    What it tells me about the Republican "base": at heart, they were never that ga-ga over McCain.

    Call me sexist, but my daughters and I are in agreement about Sara Palin: we sense that she is trouble with a capital T.

    She's a sign of R desperation (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:14:09 PM EST
    and not much else. I think Booman has hit on why Palin was picked - from WSJ:

    Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will appear at around 30 fund-raising events in the next two months leading up to Election Day - about one every two days on average, officials with Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign said today.

    The funds will go to the RNC to finance ads and GOTV for down-ticket races. McCain by contrast has only four fundraisers scheduled.

    She obviously is a draw for fundraising that McCain isn't. She was picked precisely because she will upstage him in that way with a certain part of their base. So pointing it out may end up being counter-productive because anyone it will affect in a way helpful to Dems already sees her flaws.

    The fact that she's so obviously unready for stepping into the presidency and yet was picked says they're not expecting to win the presidency. If they keep her to a schedule of fluff media interviews and prep her enough to survive the VP debate that's good enough for what they need. She's there to pick the pockets of the newly enthused evangelical hordes and not much else - a last-ditch effort to keep Republicans from being wiped off the map in November.

    Uh (none / 0) (#85)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    McCain is accepting public financing, so he doesn't HAVE to do a ton of fundraisers. If he's attending fundraisers, it's to fund the RNC.

    As I said (none / 0) (#95)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:15:59 PM EST
    She's there to fund-raise for the RNC. McCain has been a failure at fund-raising, at least until he abandoned his principles and reversed himself on offshore drilling in order to bring in oil and gas money.

    It is not just an "idea" (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Lil on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:56:47 PM EST
    For the moment Palin is bigger than McCain and he is diminshed by it. I just hope our guys don't get diminshed by it, but I love what Biden is doing, if only the media covers his impassioned speeches enough fo folks to see it.

    Two-tier strategy (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Coral on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    Obama needs to attack McCain.

    Meanwhile, someone else has to attack Palin. She is charismatic, poised, and an excellent VP, attack-dog type -- what with the "pit-bull with lipstick", hockey-mom shtick and the ties to the radical right and the money and enthusiasm that delivers to McCain.

    But in order to attack her and the GOP ticket successfully, Obama/Biden cannot risk alienating working-class voters by attacking her on a cultural level.

    So, what's left? The scandals, the lies, and the fact that the McCain-Palin agenda is basically what Obama articulated in the acceptance speech -- people you are on your own in the Republican "ownership" society. Change means dealing with health care, the mortgage problems that are leaving working and middle class neighborhoods in places like Ohio swamped with abandoned houses, lowering taxes on the middle class and letting millionaires like McCain pay their fair share....

    I strongly object to attacking her on personal issues, such as her taking time from her children to campaign, daughter's pregnancy etc. That risks alienating hard-working women with children, especially working-class women. Sarah Palin reminds me of a lot of those I know.

    Left blogs should make positive case for Obama. (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Lysis on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:18:41 PM EST
    Relentlessly focusing on and attacking Palin is a waste of time for three reasons:

    1. On the fence voters who read the left blogs because they lean left politically need to have that case made specifically and repeatedly. The positive reaction to the DNC speeches proved that it's a case that left-leaning undecideds are sympathetic to, as long as specifics are the foundation.   It's not about getting these voters to support Obama; it's about getting them to the polls in November.

    2. Independent voters who read the left blogs because they want to hear the case for Obama from his own side are getting fed nothing but Palin attacks.  Since her speech was well-received and the attacks feed into the storyline she promoted in it, it's counter-productive.  

    We're not trying to convince people to not buy the Toyota the other car dealer is selling; we're trying to convince them to buy the Ford that we're selling.  A case based on issues and specifics will close the deal.  Attacking the other guy implies we're trying to keep them from looking under our hood.

    3. Right-wingers and media types who skim the blogs to get their talking points regarding the left are having the McCain meme reinforced.  In fact, if you read some of the A-list blogs (other than TalkLeft), the meme is being validated.  We're not doing everything we can to motivate our base (see #1) while doing everything we can to motivate theirs.  In an election that is virtually tied, that's a recipe for GOP victory.

    This is called grasping at straws (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Bornagaindem on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:53:38 PM EST
    My prediction - Obama is going down in flames and Palin did it. Sadly she will be a  formidable opponent for Hillary in 2012 unless they really screw up. The good news is the economy is going to be tough to fix in only four years and that may be something to hang them with since it is their weakest link.

    I am however comfortable with making sure the repugs own this war all the way and  having a repug president helps insure that. If Obama had gotten in and things went badly it would have frozen democrats out for decades. I am even willing to have repugs get credit if it brings our children home.

    A REAL nightmare scenario......... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:16:04 PM EST
    What if:
    1.  Sarah Palin is smarter than all of us put together?
    2.  All the "scandals" turn out to be duds?
    3.  She makes the perfect public statement i.e.:   "While I hold strong personal beliefs regarding religion, family values, and the role of government, when I take the oath of office, I will be representing YOU, the people. I understand that not everyone holds the same beliefs as I do, and rest assured there is no one in the United States of America that understands where the line is that separates Government duties from personal beliefs." (Think John Kennedy, Elliot Spitzer, Mitt Romney, et al)
    4.  When asked about foreign affairs, she appears at the podium, slightly disheveled, hair a little amiss, hint of perspiration, arm full of briefing books, and a #2 pencil behind her ear.....then with a smile says, "Look fellas and ladies, three weeks ago I was Governor of Alaska, I had never done THAT before either, but I'm pretty smart, a fast learner, and if I didn't think I'd be ready for the challenges ahead, I wouldn't have agreed to accept this position. Barack Obama, has less executive experience than a rookie 7-11 manager, and thinks he can fool the people with his focus group phony motto, `Change.' We have a motto too, "AMERICA FIRST", the difference is, WE MEAN it!"
    5.  She finishes with: "Look people, I know I've been on a fast track since Senator, and soon to be President, John McCain asked me to be his running mate. We don't always get to pick and choose when duty calls, but I think the American people would rather have a person who actually wants TO Do the job than someone who's been lusting for it since he's been old enough to hear his own voice."

    Time to go pick out colors.

    Somewhat OT, (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by frankly0 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:17:42 PM EST
    but it's hard to come up with many sets of political attacks that have backfired as obviously and as dramatically as the attacks from the media and the left blogs on Sarah Palin.

    The only thing that comes to mind is the attacks on Bill Clinton over Monica. The media and the nutwing right attacked, and Bill's numbers went up.

    So it is with Palin -- except, of course, it's the moonbat left (yes, Virginia, we have our moonbats -- they are often colored Orange) and the media teaming up to do their mass psychosis.  

    I just don't get how the self declared "reality-based" left can look at the poll numbers regarding how the public viewed her being attacked, and how well she was perceived to have done in her speech, and how much McCain's numbers have recovered, and not conclude that their strategy of attack could not have been more counterproductive.

    Yet they can't seem to stop themselves anymore than the right could. This seems to be about expressing their anger, and letting something very primitive have its way. And I have just the slightest suspicion that for many of them, this is perhaps what politics has always been about.

    Run Aganist the Repub. Ticket... (4.50 / 2) (#71)
    by santarita on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:37:15 PM EST
    Palin is a distraction, a diversion.  The Republican record on the economy, on Iraq, on the "War on Terror", on energy, and on the environment is a horrible.  They threw Palin on the ticket to divert attention from the record.  They are succeeding.

    If this race becomes about personalities and sound bites, the Dems lose.  The Dems need to make the case that we are in a bad state because the Republican mantras sound good but when put into practice they have brought the country to its knees.  The Dems also have to persuade people not that big government is good but that appropriate government is good.  And the Dems don't necessarily need new ideas, they need to convince the electorate that they are the party that appropriately balances the needs of the individual with the needs of the community.

    FWIW (none / 0) (#8)
    by rilkefan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:57:24 AM EST
    I've been thinking about this myself.

    What Palin diminishes (none / 0) (#12)
    by AF on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:59:34 AM EST
    Is McCain's claim to be serious about foreign policy experience.

    I'm with Krauthammer on this.

    More and more people (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:03:16 PM EST
    are starting to see the point made at the heart of this article. The most stupid defense that the repubs and Palinites have made is the executive experience argument. It's only effective if you are a partisan beyond reason, or your brain doesn't have the ability to think beyond one step. Palin's experience makes her more qualified than Obama or Biden? Ok. Then she should be president over Hillary, and yeah, McCain. And since Bush has more exec. cred, he's a better leader than Palin. Oh and I forgot, Lincoln and Washington had less government cred than Obama, so now that they are deemed terrible, that disqualifies Obama. Wait, this just in...it's not only Palin's experience, but the excitement she brings? She's a rock star that McCain can't compete with? Hmmm. Sounds familiar... :)

    McCain threw out the experience argument for a (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by esmense on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:30:08 PM EST
    better one; trust. You can trust me because my biography proves I put country before self. You can trust my running mate because her biography proves she puts reform before party.

    The real reason Republicans have been so successful at winning elections, despite not being very successful at governing, is because they understand this basic truth about average Americans -- they do not believe that the government works for them, that politicians share much in common with them -- most especially, that they share enough in common with them to actually represent them.

    And the fact is, this is not an erroneous perception. (Have you ever thought about how many times greater a Congressional representatives salary is than the nation's average per capita income? About 4 and a half times greater. Now think about how many times greater it is than the per capita income in many, if not most, congressional districts.)  

    It's not race, general stupidity, religous bigotry, etc., etc., that presents the biggest challenge to Democratic victories -- it is their refusal to come to terms with, and find effective ways to overcome, the absolute mistrust Americans feel for politics, politicians and therefore, government. Most especially on the national level.

    Sad to say, lack of experience is likely to be a  greater disadvantage for Obama than for Palin because she has offered an alternative to experience -- a reason to trust her despite her lack of experience (her claim to being a successful reformer) -- while he, so far, has not.


    I don't know about it as a strategy (none / 0) (#19)
    by vj on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:06:04 PM EST
    But it did occur to me that she is upstaging him.  

    The VP candidate is more popular than the P candidate.  Is there a modern  precedent for this?

    Except that her speech is peppered (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:10:36 PM EST
    with almost worshipful references to Sen. McCain, who is modestly beaming beside her and she pulls this off quite well I think.  

    Not for me (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by vj on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:57:32 PM EST
    It makes me want to hurl, to be honest.

    What I've been reading around the web (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:22:24 PM EST
    is completely the opposite.  Not only is she not upstaging McCain, it's diminishing Obama to compare qualifications with the VP candidate (especially as Joe Biden has virtually disappeared).

    BTD - correct again.


    You need to reread the post. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Don in Seattle on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    BTD: "Dems can... portray McCain as being diminished and overshadowed by his more-charismatic and energetic number-two. I am not sure I buy it, but it is certainly a better idea than acting as if Palin is the top of the ticket."

    That sounds to me like BTD's qualified approval of the argument that Palin is indeed upstaging McCain.

    And btw, Biden has hardly disappeared. You just aren't looking.


    Dukakis/Bentsen ? (n/t) (none / 0) (#89)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    Fox is live from CS (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:08:18 PM EST
    Talking about crowd sizes.

    The Obama campaign (none / 0) (#24)
    by AF on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:10:23 PM EST
    Should focus on the economy and McCain.

    The media and bloggers should continue to pursue Palin on all fronts, just as they would with a male VP candidate with a similar record.  All of Palin's weaknesses reflect badly on McCain's judgment and the Republican ticket.  Nobody should be intimidated by Steve Schmidt's crocodile tears.

    I think all this strategery (none / 0) (#29)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    is really groping blind for a tactic to respond to Palin. Ignoring her is a form of response.

    The ticket is McCain/Palin now whether we like it or not. Ignoring Palin means ignoring a highly popular part of the ticket and letting her run free as the half of the good cop/bad cop ticket. Attacking Palin means a whole other set of challenges, including rallying her supporters and generating sympathy.

    But the problem is with the way the quesiton is asked. I don't think it should be about responding and about Palin.

    They fit each other on multiple levels, and they are very organic because they share the same basic narrative. Because that narrative is based on a shred of truth, it will still be credible to a lot of people once the Republicans market the hell out of it. This underscores and exploits the mistake Obama made by nominating Biden, because Biden doesn't reinforce his message and his image.

    I think we are asking the wrong question.

    It should be about dealing with the McCain/Palin ticket as a whole and the way they are driving the narrative.

    I think "More of the Same" is a good strategy (and probably the only strategy left), but it needs to be urgently refreshed, nuanced and extended. The current 90% BS is tired tired tired

    very nice (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:50:43 PM EST
    and 90% means nothing, give us concrete examples of the bad 90% and people will listen.  Everyone spins numbers and this one is strong but meaningless unless you follow policy closely.  

    And on top of that (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:54:35 PM EST
    to every Democratic statement like 90%, there is a Republican counterstatement. Biden and Obama voted with Bush like 65% and 70% of the time or something like that. Biden's son is a professional lobbyist. Biden's 36 years of experience lead him to call for diving Iraq into 3 countries, etc, etc, etc.

    So the bait from the Republicans is simple: drown the Democrats in the back-and-forth, while showing to voters that McCain/Palin are more believable ticket in terms of "ability" to change things and more "safe" ticket in terms of fixing problems but not moving into some kind of untested liberalism.


    Deja vu (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    Hearkens back to Bill Clinton's comments last week about what kind of prez you vote for... 50% agreement/can get something done.... 100% agreement/can't get things done.

    Please help me recall.... (3.40 / 5) (#92)
    by aafan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:59:32 PM EST
    Didn't Obama vote fin favor of Bush's energy plan?  Didn't McCain vote against it?

    How did Obama vote on FISA, again?  And how did McCain vote....and how did Hillary vote?  Oh, please help me recall...I must be getting senile....


    Great (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:40:46 PM EST
    If she is that strong than perhaps she should do a few interviews so that we can confirm her positions.  Memorization of McCains positions should not give anyone comfort of her ability to step in for a 72 year old.  We need to know where she stands not what the talking points are.  I am sure the country would be happy with the help at the white house being let go, AF1 being sold a corporation, rebates from any company making more than 15% profit margin (or is that only for oil companies), book burning parties, creationism in schools, criminalization of abortion and elimination of the WASTEFUL drug war.  Dismissal of FISA as it is time for the gov't to give us our country back etc.

    Let's appoint judges with 2 years experience to Supreme Court with virtually no stances on positions other than they appeal to the christian right.

    Let's eliminate miranda rights for all citizens accused of violent crimes as violent crime is a form of terrorism.

    Extreme, taking things out of context?  How would I know, she hasn't declared her positions.  I can assume as much because I can.  

    I got vetted much harder when I applied for a top secret clearance in the military.....

    With all this (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    talk of Obama needing to focus on the economy I have to wonder if picking Biden doesn't help at all in this area. It seems that Obama is really just trying to get by on the economic front and hope it's enough. Hindsight being 20/20 maybe it would have been better for him to have a governor who actually had some experience getting jobs in his area.

    I think that the economic sell might be hard coming from 2 senators. Now, that's not to say that McCain has any great ecnomic sell either hence the polls continually being tied.

    A friend of mine told me this week that she thinks we should skip this election and go to 2012 since neither candidate "gets it".

    To me the question is what kind of GE candidate (none / 0) (#63)
    by vj on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    can Obama be?  He ran a great primary campaign, but this is a different ball game.  

    Fact of the (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:11:46 PM EST
    matter is he didn't run a great primary campaign. He ran a campaign that was good enough to get by and get the nomination but he had no thoughts past that. His whole campaign has been predicated on the belief that winning the Dem nomination was enough to get him into the WH.

    More precisely (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by BrianJ on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    Obama ran a great caucus campaign and a terrible primary campaign.  DNC rules allowed the former to outweigh the latter.  They don't apply now.

    I'm with your friend (none / 0) (#83)
    by esmense on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:58:30 PM EST
    but not confident they will have learned anything that will help them "get it" better by then.

    Overshadowing granpa (none / 0) (#84)
    by pcpablo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:05:06 PM EST
    well now have our answer... (none / 0) (#93)
    by thinkingfella on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:05:25 PM EST
    That's just silly (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:13:59 PM EST
    because it's back-and-forth.

    All the Republicans have to do is run a commercial reminding people Obama's connection to $750 million in earmarks for his wife's hospital.


    And The Rev. Pfleger's faith-based (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:00:37 PM EST
    initiatives to deal with gangs and guns.

    disagree (none / 0) (#111)
    by thinkingfella on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:37:32 PM EST
    I don't see any gains to be had by "diminishing" McCain by allowing the inflation of Palin. The fact is you have to diminish both of them. Obama is clearly doing just that, by going after McCains lack of an economic policy, while pointing out that Palin is plain and simple "making stuff up", which, in fact, she is.

    And before somebody says "well Obama's vulnerable on this or that of he attacks" my response is "yeah so?"
    Bush was an AWOL drunk draft dodger but that didn't stop him from going after Kerry and all his medals. Let's face it, if you want people to talk about your opponents weaknesses you need to spell those weaknesses out in clear and plain language. Obama (and Biden today too if you saw his speech) have clearly identified the lack of an economic plan as a weakness. They can develop this theme if they are careful, in a way that will be easy to talk about and hard to refute. It's the Economy stupid.


    at this point (none / 0) (#112)
    by indie in CA on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:43:19 PM EST
    Gov. Palin is upstaging everyone. You wouldn't believe how many ridiculous emails I've received just today about Palin. Obama supporters are in a dither.

    BTD (none / 0) (#115)
    by Andy08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:51:13 PM EST
    I agree with you re. Palin. However, the follwoing is not quite clear:

    (Obama agrees with me, do not focus on

    He has gone after Palin today  

    I don't think he should be going down this road for he invites comparison to Joe Biden on the subject of earmarks and greater scrutiny of Biden and his lobbyist ties.

    Moreover imo, by focusing like this on Palin, his opponent's VP,  he is lowering himself to fighting with the bottom of his real opponent's ticket. It is the job of his VPs to punch and Obama's job is to stay above the fray and make his case on the Dem. issues versus those of McCain's and the RNC.

    The majority of (none / 0) (#117)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:20:49 PM EST
    his speech was directed at McCain, at what McCain would do and what Obama would do.  He made one mention of Palin -- don't think that would qualify as "focusing" on her.

    But (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Andy08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:45:55 PM EST
    it is some comment every day. he should not mention her at all. For ex. in PA on Friday he said

    Sen. Barack Obama ditched his normal languid cool today, punching back at Gov. Sarah Palin as he spoke with reporters in York, Pa, hotly defending his work as a community organizer. He said he assumes Palin "wants to be treated same way guys want to be treated, which means their records are under scrutinty. I've been through this for 19 months. She's been through it, what four days?"

    The "same way guys want" is really silly language....


    Forgot (none / 0) (#121)
    by Andy08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:47:01 PM EST
    the link for my quote above

    Here (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Andy08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:48:32 PM EST
    I see your point. (none / 0) (#123)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:51:18 PM EST
    And BTD may agree with you. I don't.  I think that McCain should be the focus of the "attacks," but I have no problem with mentioning Palin once or twice by lumping her in with McCain Bush.   McCain seems to be saying that she'll bring change.  The Obama campaign needs to say the Repub ticket will not bring change or the needed solutions to our problems.

    I almost think it would seem odd if the campaign never mentioned her.  


    Biden should (none / 0) (#126)
    by Andy08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:08:01 PM EST
    mainly do that; that's his role...

    I agree (none / 0) (#144)
    by Andy08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:12:43 PM EST
    with both your comments above Bobbigirl.