Obama's Palin Plan

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:38:37 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Sarah Palin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is on the right track on how to go after Palin.

*****

Greg Sergeant at TPM outlines two possible plans of the Obama campaign for dealing with the Sarah Palin issue. One seems to be do nothing, see how it plays out and continue to fight against McCain. The other is to point out that Palin is upstaging McCain which shows...I'm not sure what.

The problem with not fighting back against Palin is that the Republicans are using as their central argument that Obama is inexperienced, ignoring that their VP candidate has no relevant national experience that qualifies her for Vice President. Palin doesn't hestitate to make that argument against him, and I shake my head every time I hear it, wondering how she of all people can make that claim with a straight face. [More...]

I heard 2 hours of Obama-bashing by various politicians today at the McCain-Palin event in Colorado Springs. Those arguments may work if Obama doesn't fight back against them.

McCain should be criticized for choosing someone with such a lack of experience for the second most important leadership position in the country. Nothing reflects more poorly on his judgment.

And Palin should be mocked for crtiticizing anyone's lack of national experience when her's is zero.

Having seen Palin today, my impressions are she isn't remotely qualified to make a major decision for the country.

She was ho-hum, not star quality. Her role was to introduce John McCain -- a campaign aide could have done that.

McCain is running on a G-d, America and apple pie platform. There's nothing heroic or particularly accomplished about her. She has a lot of baggage. I think a lot of Democrats are distressed at the amount of media attention Palin is getting and are waiting for Obama to hit back hard. We want to see a fighter, and he's not fighting back. Instead, millions are being infected by the Republican spin that he's not qualified and will bring economic doom to the country.

I listened to Obama's speeches in Indiana on the radio today, and he mocked McCain's message of change, saying people aren't stupid enough to buy it. I think everyone rolls their eyes by now at the word "change" and what he should be attacking is McCain's poor judgment in his VP pick. Who's stupid enough to think Sarah Palin could lead in a crisis if something happens to McCain? And who's stupid enough not to worry about it?

< Saturday Evening Open Thread | Saturday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's Palin Plan | 57 comments (57 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama speaks to Palin's love of earmarks (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by jwh186 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:51:58 PM EST

TPM has a post up reporting on Obama's speech today in which he addresses head-on Palin's love of earmarks. He also makes some good points about the ridiculousness of McCain's claim to being an agent of change, by pointing out the lobbyists McCain has currently surrounded himself with.

How does that argument work, when (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Anne on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:20:34 PM EST

Obama's record will show how much he sent back to Illinois in the form of earmarks?

As for the lobbyist issue, all that needs to be said to counter Obama's point is "Joe Biden and MBNA" and it goes out the window.

I think this is the wrong tack for Obama, but we shall see.

[ Parent ]

Or the fact that Biden's son (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by LatinoVoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:25:45 PM EST

is a professional lobbyist.

I don't see how he can possibly win with the earmarks or lobbyist stuff.

[ Parent ]

: Palin's Convention Crafted Image (none / 0) (#67)
by daring grace on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:52:48 AM EST

is as a reformer and a fiscal conservative 'budget fat' cost cutter. It's her major issue to run on beyond her 'family values mom' image and her gung ho drilling everywhere energy policies. So pointing out the hypocrisy of her practices with earmarks and hiring a lobbyist to snag millions in federal taxpayer money is a savvy move since this is her major signature issue, and she's vulnerable on it.
The Republicans will go after Obama and Biden anyway. Not spotlighting Palin's true record won't grant Obama/Biden any cover. And whatever can be said about them on this issue does not compare with the potential damage Palin's image could suffer.

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Maggie on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:30:25 PM EST

I agree with you. As a matter of logic, the argument should work. We've been told that THE reason McCain picked her is because she's a reformer. But that's all a tissue of lies.

Obama has not campaigned on the grounds that he's a reformer (i.e. someone who defines reform as being only about pork). His message of change means primarily a move away from Bush policies and Rovian politics. Secondarily it means an effort to move past the culture wars or at least an effort to find places where we agree, rather than focuses on our radical differences.

So logically, Obama is right to make this complaint about Palin. But you are right that politically, people aren't going to follow the logic involved. His charge is about her hypocrisy (and her LYING). She ignores that and says we all do pork. It's intentionally shifting the subject. But people probably won't see that.

The Republicans excel at those sort of dodges. It's quite enraging. They count on us being stupid.

[ Parent ]

I've not checked the accuracy, but (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by JavaCityPal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:51:49 AM EST

I have heard that John McCain has not requested earmarks for his state. Not sure if that is over his entire Senate career or just recent terms, though.

He's going to make Obama work very hard for a win when his history walks his talk.

[ Parent ]

Palin and Earmarks (none / 0) (#66)
by daring grace on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:43:58 AM EST

Regardless Of Obama's or Biden's record with earmarks, Palin is explicitly running as a reformer and a budget cutter.

Keeping the facts out there of how her record disputes that campaign crafted image is one way to make her and McCain keep explaining/defending it. Keeping them defensive and making them talk about issues as opposed to personality/bio as they want takes them off the strategy they want to follow.

[ Parent ]

Way back when (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by YesVirginiaThereIsASanta on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:11:06 AM EST

The topic of Father Pfleger was being discussed in the media, it was published in several locations that Obama sent a pretty sizeable earmark back to his friend.

This might be a place Obama shouldn't want to lead the dogs to.

[ Parent ]

What about the problem... (none / 0) (#50)
by CK MacLeod on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:29:21 AM EST

...that being a recipient of earmarks as a governor, mayor or other local official is fundamentally different from being a Congresscritter requesting them?

The issue isn't whether or not it's ever justified to fund local public works or other projects with federal money, but whether the utter lack of transparency and consideration on the federal level doesn't lead to waste, corruption, and maladministration. No one's proposing that all earmarkers be impeached, that all earmark-funded projects be rescinded, or that all association with past earmarks be disclaimed. In short, it's a federal problem primarily.

That Mayor or Governor Palin may, like any other mayor or governor, have accepted or sought money set aside for her town or state - in some cases supporting whatever projects, in other cases, as with the Bridge to Nowhere, getting it diverted to other projects - is pretty close to utterly immaterial, where not entirely to her credit as an official putting the interests of her constituents first. It wasn't, or shouldn't have had to be, her job to make judgments about the level of federal legislative transparency that may or not have been afforded to such entirely legal appropriations. Arguing otherwise suggests a complete misunderstanding of the underlying issue.

(BEWARE - McCAIN-PALIN SUPPORTER!)

[ Parent ]

: Isn't Palin Supposed to Be A Fiscal Conservative? (none / 0) (#68)
by daring grace on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:41:43 AM EST

That's my sense from the little we've glimpsed of her and her scant record of public service so far.
That image of her seems to collide with her hiring a lobbyist to solicit millions in federal taxpayer money.
Whatever abuses exist among 'congresscritters' and earmarks--and there's no doubt they're there to be seen--this divide between Palin's alleged fiscal conservatism and her aggressive pursuit of earmark cash is something that bears scrutiny.

[ Parent ]

Who's controlling the narrative? (none / 0) (#62)
by Pianobuff on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:20:12 AM EST

Could the repeated references to the bridge to nowhere, earmarks, reform, etc. not be designed by McCain-Palin as taunts to generate exactly the kind of responses they now seem to be getting from Obama? If Obama presses on earmarks, then clearly a bigger chunk of the narrative will have been ceded to McCain. Checkers vs chess, at least for the last few days.

[ Parent ]

Of course... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Jerrymcl89 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:11:33 PM EST

Clinton and Carter both had no national experience. And Carter, a one-term governor, had marginally more experience than Palin has. Republicans don't want to compare any of their candidates to Jimmy Carter, so they won't bring that up, but it's still true.

I think the proper attack, if any, on Palin is on her extremism on some issues, not her lack of experience, since I do think it's debatable whether Obama's is greater than hers, and it's not debatable at all that McCain is the candidate of experience.

There are some points that can and should be made against Palin. But Obama is running against McCain, and that is what will win or lose the election.

: New face, same old partisanship (none / 0) (#59)
by esmense on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:11:11 AM EST

and policies.
It doesn't have to get more complicated, or personal, than that.

[ Parent ]

Mendacity (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by hoser on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:14:41 PM EST

First and foremost it should be stated clearly that McCain and Palin are lying to the American people, not merely distorting or exaggerating. Lying about themselves and what Obama's plans are.

: Obama needs to hit back (none / 0) (#19)
by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:21:21 PM EST

first. He needs a knock out and quickly.

[ Parent ]
: the republicans lie (none / 0) (#34)
by sancho on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:39:37 PM EST

every presidential election. the dems do too.
the republicans are better at it.

[ Parent ]

The most obvious (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by mg7505 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:24:38 PM EST

question: where the heck is Joe Biden? Isn't he supposed to be the attack dog? The highly hyped one we waited months for? The veteran scrapper, the loudmouth who should be attacking both the top and bottom of the Repub ticket?

Frankly it's kind of insulting for Obama to have to attack Palin. I'm glad he isn't stooping that low, because it should be left to his surrogates (who are led by his VP). But it's infinitely worse that Biden is unable to make any statements that get on the public radar.

He had a barn burner (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Maggie on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:32:26 PM EST

yesterday that at least got a lot of links around the web.

He's in there pitching -- and loving it. I mean, yesterday was awesome.

[ Parent ]

Biden (none / 0) (#26)
by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:27:52 PM EST

may be muzzled by Obama camp, you know. I would not hold him responsible for this at all.

[ Parent ]

: If BIden isn't meant to speak (none / 0) (#30)
by BrianJ on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:33:55 PM EST

Then what the he-double-hockey-sticks is he doing on the ticket?

[ Parent ]
: I don't hold him (none / 0) (#35)
by mg7505 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:39:46 PM EST

responsible, but would it be fair to hold the Obama camp responsible? Not that their only criterion in picking a VP should be the attack dog factor. But hey, it's not a bad quality to have.
Also: thanks to those posting links on Biden's latest events. I didn't mean to imply that he isn't trying...just that his voice isn't being heard. Maybe that's due to the Obama campaign, or maybe the Media is ignoring him. Either way, I don't like it.

[ Parent ]

Biden's Brand (none / 0) (#38)
by WakeLtd on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:45:04 PM EST

I read somewhere today that Joe Biden is chaffing at the role of "attack-dog" because he doesn't want to damage the "Biden brand".

[ Parent ]

: Big vote of confidence there (none / 0) (#42)
by BrianJ on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:07:39 AM EST

N/T

[ Parent ]

Spinning in circles (5.00 / 8) (#24)
by WakeLtd on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:25:58 PM EST

The last two two-term Presidents had no "national experience" when they were elected. Palin can argue with Obama about the experience issue because it doesn't hurt her at all, and he is arguing with other side's VP pick. Hence, it is a trap. McCain, meanwhile, has shifted into Act III, moving away from attacking Obama on experience, and into a "Trust" theme.

If the Democrats continue to focus on diminishing the GOP pick for the number-two spot, I think this is a tactical error. It causes a possible perceptual problem: is Obama unwilling or unable to take McCain head-on on this "trust" issue? Sometimes the Obama campaign seems to be stuck in Act I, "Obama vs. Hillary". If Palin's presence in the campaign leads to a re-enactment of that rather bitter scenario, it leads them to imply things like, "People who think Palin could be President are stupid." Well, people do not like being called stupid. And yet, there is a juggernaut out there right now called Sarah Palin, like it or not, and there are only 60 days left. And early attempts to quickly dispatch her seemed to have failed miserably. And most importantly, it has forced the Obama campaign way off-message. I think there is going to be a lot of "overtime" expected at the Obama Campaign War Room.

The best tactic could be to grudgingly accept the Palin presence as a good-move for the other side, and focus more on "Obama vs. McCain". If Obama is everything he said he is, he needs to leave no doubt in voter's minds about that decision. And stop already with the "they will try to make you think..." statements. Don't tell people what the opponent will try to make them think, tell them what YOU think. Over and over for the next 60 days.

: THANK YOU for that! (none / 0) (#71)
by allimom99 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:31:22 PM EST

Might I also add that sending out female supporters to attack Palin is oh-so-transparent and insulting. Makes it look like Obama's sensing out the girls to clean up this mess because. Address the issues, and attack McCain, fer chrissakes - I don't se McCain's people getting their panties in a bunch over Biden - if you don't rise to their bait, she becomes irrelevant.

[ Parent ]

I think the Indiana speech was strong. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by IndiDemGirl on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:26:37 PM EST

He explained on taxes, health care, jobs, etc. what he would do and what McCain would do. Yes, he mocked that McCain/Palin would bring change. He ended with

"Don't be fooled. These are the folks who have been in charge. John McCain's party, with the help of John McCain, has been in charge."

Democrats (none / 0) (#55)
by themomcat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:32:00 AM EST

hold a very slim majority in the Senate. The Republicans, along with some conservative Democrats known as "Blue Dogs", have used Senate rules to block any legislation that does not fall in line with Republican and Bush policy. This makes the "control" of both houses very tenuous. I think that the Democrats have taken the wrong tactic under the leadership of Sen. Reid. I think they could have handled the Republican obstruction in the Senate better regardless of some Democrats that crossed the aisle.

[ Parent ]

Yes on the House (none / 0) (#56)
by FreakyBeaky on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:36:35 AM EST

Not really on the Senate. 51st Senator is Lieberman, plus Republican filibusters.

[ Parent ]

: ALso (none / 0) (#57)
by themomcat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:39:58 AM EST

Sen. Bernie Sanders VT(I) caucuses with the Democrats.

[ Parent ]

Lack of Interest (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by rachelann on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:50:49 PM EST

I think the problem is not just her lack of experience on national issues, but the utter lack of interest in them. She has only cared about Alaska politics. Given her refusal to submit to a single press interview perhaps Obama can just harp on that, and remind people that McCain claims she had national and foreign policy experience but not enough apparently to answer questions about it or her opinions.
I also think the link to Bush is quite worthwhile. While I think Palin is smarter than Bush, he too had not real interest in national interest. Hopefully people don't want a President just like them anymore.

It should have been the issues (5.00 / 5) (#47)
by WakeLtd on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:32:26 AM EST

The inept reaction of the "progressive" blogs (and here we can lay most of the blame on dkos and their MSM avatar Andrew Sullivan), by attacking her so strenuously on "personal issues" - created a visceral level of support for her for many voters, before they really knew anything about her political views. This creates a problem in the short-window of 60 days before we vote. Now, in light of last weekend's rather bizarre feeding frenzy which was about everything but "issues": complaints about her views ring hollow to some voters. "Well, you hated her from the start, and you lied about her pregnancy, so you would say anything about her now." If anyone could rightly say that everything, including the kitchen sink, was thrown at her, it would be Sarah Palin. Now that she has given her widely-viewed acceptance speech and apparently does not "seem" like the trailer-trash enabler of incest as was hinted (again re-read Sullivan at Atlantic.com for the suggestions), the next move seems to be "open mouth, remove foot, start again". Precious time was lost, though. While the silly bloggers wagged the media dog, a level of credibilty was lost.

In Sarah Palin I see a person who, politically, is about as opposite of me as humanly possible. I also see someone who was elevated into celebrity status by the very people who wanted to destroy her. But, they did not try it with the issues at first. They went "gutter". I guess that Law of Unintended Consequences came into play. And it is very difficult to push that toothpaste back into the tube.

Obama DOES stand up against Palin & McCain (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by MSS on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:59:29 AM EST

Obama is speaking out against Palin very directly. (Your post probably came out hours before his speeches made the wires.)

Don't miss the AP story:Obama rebukes Palin on Earmarks.

TERRE HAUTE, Ind. - Barack Obama made his first direct criticism of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin on Saturday, saying she pretends to oppose spending earmarks when she actually has embraced them.
Speaking to 800 people at the Wabash Valley Fairgrounds in Terre Haute, Ind., the Democratic presidential nominee ridiculed John McCain and his running mate, the Alaska governor, for describing themselves as agents of change at this week's GOP convention.
"Don't be fooled," Obama told the crowd surrounding him in a large barn. "John McCain's party, with the help of John McCain, has been in charge" for nearly eight years.
"I know the governor of Alaska has been saying she's change, and that's great," Obama said. "She's a skillful politician. But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up."

Don't Attack Her Experience, (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by bob h on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:48:38 AM EST

attack her record, her ignorance, and her ideas. Attacking her is vital because she is McCain's anchor to the hard-right of the Republicans, and doing so will weaken the Party's appeal to moderates, independents.

Lots of traps (none / 0) (#2)
by G Davis on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 10:58:01 PM EST

Lots of traps involved with going straight after Palin. If Obama focuses on McCain hard it might remind the media that he's not running against Palin, but rather the older guy at the top of the ticket.

Plus it's only been a couple of days since she was announced. We're seeing a few cracks in the hard right armor and the media is getting more impatient with her being off limits.

There's so much bad about her and there are so many others to go directly at her. Obama should stick with McCain and the farce the whole campaign has become.

: Going After Palin IS Going After McCain (none / 0) (#69)
by daring grace on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:52:44 AM EST

Questioning her record on the issues and highlighting the places she isn't what the Repubs are saying she is, and the places where her leadership was questionable reminds people that McCain's judgment was off in selecting someone for their photo op image strength on the campaign trail rather than their depth and breadth as a potential commander in chief.
There were other Repubs--even repub women--who would bring more and better work to the table.

[ Parent ]

Dems in Alaska have scathing 63-page (none / 0) (#5)
by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:05:34 PM EST

document on Palin, all documented with cites. This was compiled when she was running for Governor and is a virtual treasure trove, providing her positions, actions, alliances etc. This woman does not belong on the ticket.

e.g., As to death penalty, Sarah says, "Hang 'em up."

If Obama et al cannot find fodder to bury her, they need only talk to Dems in Alaska. Here is the link:

http://tinyurl.com/6kklsv

If the Dems had this report (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Manuel on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:12:14 AM EST

how was she able to win? Was Knowles a weak candidate? Are her high approval rating a result of the rebates the state sends residents?

[ Parent ]

Yes, yes, yes (none / 0) (#48)
by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:53:00 AM EST

Alaska is definitely a Republican state; she ran against a very unpopular opponent; I have read she had national backing from pro-lifers; the rebates did the trick.

[ Parent ]

: Rebates have been going on (none / 0) (#51)
by tree on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:51:59 AM EST

in Alaska for years, way before Palin was Governor.

[ Parent ]

Read the report!!!!! (none / 0) (#16)
by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:20:14 PM EST

Every issue you can imagine is documented. By the way, I don't know another politician who says, "Hang 'em up."

Don't feed the trolls (none / 0) (#27)
by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:29:10 PM EST

several are banned commenters coming back under another name. I've vaporized a few. Another posted 83 comments in the last few days, many offensive. I vaporized that person as well.

New readers need to familiarize themselves with the comment rules if they want to comment here.

Who's stupid enough... (none / 0) (#31)
by NealB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:35:18 PM EST

...not to be frightened at the prospect of either McCain or Palin? It's not just that they're stupid; anyone supporting McCain/Palin is numb. Whether sedated by their wealth or battered by the economy, they no longer participate in the community except to use or be abused by it. I don't know how Obama makes that challenge to voters. "Wake up. Come out of your stupor. You have erred to sleep so long," is a hard line to sell. It depends on Obama's rapport with voters. All of us.

I like that our candidate appears to be willing to take on the fight himself. To tell it like it is, like Jackson. He's not bad at it, given it's not his instinct. It would be exciting to see him get bolder and bolder as the campaign goes on. He's got nothing to lose.

I like the strategy of the moment (none / 0) (#32)
by Maggie on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:39:33 PM EST

I'd call her out on the lies. Obama has a deft touch on this stuff. Other than that, I'd ignore her. Her inexperience speaks for itself. People know what she brings to the table and can judge for themselves. Moreover, I've seen some of her debate tapes (from Alaska) and she's very, very savvy and absolutely ruthless. There's no percentage in pointing out what people already know -- and it serves to lower expectations which is no good at all. Better to point out that she's GOOD at playing politics -- and that she's GOOD at lying. Raise the bar for her.

As for positions, she's not running for president. Obama needs to keep engaging McSame hard on the issues.

We'll see if the Republican strategy of letting her hide out in Alaska for the next few weeks will work. But she'll fade from view in a hurry. And although I think the initial frenzy about her gave her more political cover than I'd like -- my sense is that seeds of doubt have been planted. The mismatch between her words and her deeds are out there. Beyond the true believers, I've seen them taking their toll -- even with people who want to like her. The longer she gets stashed away, the more people will wonder what she's hiding. But best to just let the optics of the situation speak for themselves. To point to it gives room for them to hit back and there's no need to give them that kind of space.

: Hiding in Alaska? (none / 0) (#39)
by WakeLtd on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:47:55 PM EST

Sarah Palin will be compaigning in two states on Sunday. One of them is New Mexico. I forget what the other state is. Meanwhile, Joe Biden is taking the day off. No events planned.

[ Parent ]
: Right (none / 0) (#41)
by NealB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:58:07 PM EST

...but they'll probably hit back anyway. You're saying, I think, let them beat the hell out of our defense and save the offensive for later. That's relying too much on Senator Biden. For all his knowledge and skill, I don't think he has it in him to avoid complimenting Palin early in the debate. That compliment will signal weakness.
The offensive in our campaign is already late. Obama knows it, guessing from his direct hits in Indiana today. I think they're on the the right track and need to pursue. If simple immediate pursuit doesn't restore a reasonable poll lead of 5-6%, then Obama will need to hit harder and harder. He has to show he's got the endurance that McCain had as a POW in Viet Nam. Whatever now, after all, he's got to destroy McCain or he won't win.

[ Parent ]

I Think W has lowered the standards for being (none / 0) (#36)
by Richjo on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:40:49 PM EST

President to a point that even someone like Palin can be taken seriously. He hasn't been a great President by any stretch of the imagination, but the country didn't fall apart after 9/11. We have major problems and most are his fault, but many people at least believe he has kept us safe since that terrible day. The country can survive even a terrible President like Bush, or God forbid Palin. That is the problem with the argument people are currently making against Palin. It is too extreme and too easy to dismiss. Palin would not make a good President, she isn't going to be able to solve our problems; but the country is not going to implode if she becomes President. We need to stop overplaying our hand against Palin and focus on the fact that the ideas she offers will not work, that her attacks on Democratic ideas are the same lies that have failed the country for the last eight years. The problem with Palin is the R by her name- plain and simple, nothing more. Focusing on the experience issue only distracts from the issues that are so vitally important at this point and time and does the Democrats no good.

The W effect has been (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by mg7505 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 11:43:55 PM EST

the downfall of rational thought in politics. You're right about needing to emphasize Palin's wrong stance on the issues. But unfortunately you're also right on the "country won't implode" argument. W's legacy will be exactly that: the criterion for choosing a leader is whether the country will implode in their hands. At the point where that doesn't happen, vote for personality and not issues. Actually just vote Republican.

[ Parent ]

: The Obama Effect (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by BrianJ on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:09:49 AM EST

Sadly has been to take the W Effect to its logical conclusion: One four-year-old speech is sufficient.
Obama's entire campaign has been personality- and story-based, but McCain's story is better, and Obama seems to lack a Plan B.

[ Parent ]

Tell the story (none / 0) (#61)
by ruffian on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:42:51 AM EST

If every campaign is about narrative, Biden should tell the story of how big oil and the religious right created Sarah Palin. He is good at explanations. He has the chance now to talk as long as he needs to, every single day. He should use it

While he is at it, tell the story of how Phil Gramm deregulated the energy securities and mortgage industries.

Plenty of stories to tell, all of them true.

You are only preaching (none / 0) (#63)
by standingup on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:15:48 AM EST

to the choir. And to make matters worse, you add this?

Who's stupid enough to think Sarah Palin could lead in a crisis if something happens to McCain? And who's stupid enough not to worry about it?

How many ways can you find to alienate those you want to see the light about McCain and Palin? Do you not understand how much your demeaning comments toward Palin and now those who do not share your intense dislike is helping to galvanize support for her? Maybe you are asking the wrong questions of the wrong people. Introspection can be your friend.

: Let me rephrase this (none / 0) (#65)
by standingup on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:20:25 AM EST

Would you use this tactic in a closing argument for a defense trial? How would it work if you asked the jury if they are stupid enough to believe the prosecutor's case against your client?

[ Parent ]

Hockey moms asnd dads (none / 0) (#64)
by Cornman on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:19:58 AM EST

I'm tired of Sarah Palins Hockey Mom and Pitbull analogy. Our son played hockey from age 5 to 16 and we had plenty of hockey moms and dads. Screeming, ranting, raving "adults. However, we and across the country instituted a "No Tolerance Policy" when it came to that type of behavior. The game is about the kids not some self-gratifying feeling that the parent gets by living through their child. Anyway the kids usually ignored the parents just like we should ignore Sarah Palin.
Let's move on a get to the facts
Cornman
Des Moines, IA

Let's get off the futlie Palin loop! (none / 0) (#70)
by sallywally on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:52:26 PM EST

and on to policies. We can't keep being hamsters running on the Repub wheels.

How are the Dems going to change America? Specifically, what do we offer the middle and working classes???? How are we going to enter the 21st century in energy independence and advancement, creating jobs, saving pensions, giving SS the slight fix it needs, saving people's homes, stabilizing the economy, stabilizing the world with the help of our allies, and so much more?

This is where the real differences are, where the election needs to take place if we're going to win.

I saw Obama on Stephanopoulos this morning, and while he said good things, there was no "floor" to his voice. He needs to have a strong, fluent delivery. He sounded like a wimp.

Someone needst to coach him. I think those who put him in the status of nominee and then forced him to take Biden (why did Biden not think he was supposed to be an attack dog? Jeez o Pete, would Hillary be talking about not ruining her brand if she came out and spoke frankly about these differences - not an attack dog, but a voice of reason? Get her out there!!!!)...those people who forced Obama to put a little meat on the bones of his generalized and therefore essentially meaningless statements - those people need to force him to do the things that can let the Dems win. Real solutions, real meat and potatoes on every issue, which will blow the Repubs out of the water. And will shut Palin out as a real force, will show her for the phony she is.

It is critical that this happen VERY SOON or the election is lost.

I keep harping on this. I hope this doesn't make me not OK here.

AMEN (none / 0) (#72)
by allimom99 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:32:44 PM EST

Funny Political shirts... (none / 0) (#73)
by georgemopay on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:10:20 PM EST

I love the whole political process! I actually found some hilarious Obama/McCain shirts and stuff at PantherTees.com. They're really cheap and if you enter the promo code pts10 you get an extra 10% off. Check it out!