Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama.

Now that the shock--SHOCK--of McCain's running mate selection has worn off, I'd like to share my thoughts on how this stunning move changes the race for Democrats.  Palin can be both good and bad for Democrats, depending on how Obama decides to take her on.

First, the good news.  This probably takes the experience issue off the table for Republicans.  Senator McCain cannot hit Obama after adding a first term Alaska governor to his ticket.  That said, were McCain to run another "Is he ready to lead?" ad, the Obama campaign could not hit back without stipulating that experience is important.  So it's possible that we haven't seen the end of the experience attack, but I doubt that either campaign wants to go there right now.

The other piece of good news is that many Clinton voters feel as though McCain is pandering to them.  From The New York Times:

Some Clinton stalwarts took offense, saying they felt as if Mr. McCain had decided that, for women disappointed that they could not vote for Mrs. Clinton, any woman would do. "It's an insult," said Jan Roller, a Clinton delegate from Cleveland, as she arrived home from the convention. "You have to be qualified for the job."

Gail Collins has a good piece on this, as does Taylor Marsh.  The best commentary, of course, comes from Jon Stewart.  

Now, the bad news.  McCain has seriously bolstered his "change" message.  He now has a history-making running mate and both candidates can point to specific acts of breaking with the party and standing up to the establishment.  Obama's change message might now have some serious competition.

The other piece of bad news is that Palin's selection has seriously energized the Republican base.  Today's tracking poll report from Rasmussen talked about how adding Palin has given McCain a boost:

There have been significant changes in perception of John McCain in the two days of polling since he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Since then, 49% of Republicans voice a Very Favorable opinion of McCain. That's up six percentage points from 43% just before the announcement. Also, 64% of unaffiliated voters now give positive reviews to McCain, up ten points since naming his running mate.

Democrats still have the advantage in voter identification, so as long as we are able to unite our party, Obama should still win this election.  What concerns me, however, is the effect on down ballot races and ballot initiatives.  Were evangelicals to stay home on Election Day, and Obama to attract enough new, younger, liberal voters to the polls, Democrats would have a chance to win elections in places where we haven't won before.  Senate races in Alabama and North Carolina are within reach, according to recent polls.  But an energized evangelical race might put those contests out of reach for Democrats.

In my own state of Florida, where an anti-gay marriage amendment is on the November ballot, evangelicals energized about the top of the ticket are now more likely to come to the polls and vote for the amendment.  Just a few days ago, gay rights advocates were encouraged by a poll that put the amendment within defeat.  The poll found that support for the amendment was at 57% with a 4% margin of error.  It must have the support of at least 60% of voters to pass.

If the media spends some time talking about how much she appeals to the evangelicals, that might actually help Democrats among independents who believe that human activities are harming the environment, that intelligent design is not real science, and that women who are raped should be allowed to have an abortion.  However, the focus thus far has been about her gender and her (lack of) experience.  Unfortunately, we cannot count on the media to spend much time on the issues.

Now, a warning.  We have to be careful about how exactly we criticize Sarah Palin.  There are still some very hard feelings about the sexism that pervaded the Democratic primary.  I know that because I myself had them.  (But I'm not allowing them to cloud my judgment about who to vote for in November.)  Democrats should criticize Palin for her actions as a public official and her stands on the issues (drill, drill, drill, bomb, bomb, bomb and science schmience).  Joking around about her beauty pageant background, belittling her as a token (especially when our own historic candidate has a thin resume), and using terms that demean women--such as bimbo--will only bring up bad memories and force some progressives to defend a candidate whom we do not like.

I don't relish the idea of being told (again) that I'm bitter and need to get over the primaries (the former, but not the latter, is accurate), but I won't avoid calling out sexism when I see it.  I cannot, in good conscience, sit silently as another woman is demeaned the way Hillary was just because she is a Republican who hates me and things I am a threat to "family values."

We'll have to wait another week for McCain's post-convention bounce in the polls to recede to see exactly where we are, but I'm not worried.  This election is still Obama's to lose.  We just need to do our part.

Tags: presidential election, Sarah Palin, sexism (all tags)

Comments

148 Comments

Tips/flames

It's still our race to lose.

by psychodrew 2008-08-31 11:45AM | 0 recs
Excellent!

One line of attack,  in addition to ISSUES should capitalize on what you brought up----the fact that Democrats have a stronger brand this year.  Remind voters that she is a GOP, through and through,  on every issue.  In fact, she's not just a GOP- she's a zealot GOP, cut from the same cloth that was rooted out of Washington in 2006 like Rick Santorum.  

Putting a zealot GOP in the number two spot would just be more of GWB.  Part of McCain's appeal is that he is PERCEIVED as a moderate.  Palin's no moderate.  Therefore, neither is the GOP ticket right now.  

It also would be helpful for Hillary Clinton to give high profile speeches and ads regarding women's rights,  and how wrong Sarah Palin is in that area.  

by Sandy1938 2008-08-31 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent!

Sandy,with all the negatives about the war in Iraq before the 2004 election, why do you think Sen. Kerry lost?

In light of the comment that Sen. McCain's base is back in support of the McCain/Palin ticket and the results of the 2004 election, why do you think that Sen. Obama will win this election?

I'd really like to hear your opinion.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 01:15PM | 0 recs
Its going to be a close race..........

and I never claimed to "know" who is going to win.  But Democrats do have more advantages this year than they did in 2004.  For example:

1.  History----after 8 years of any party controlling anything,  Americans usually decide they have had enough.  

2. The economy- Everyone is hurting economically, and the party to blame is the incumbant one.

3. The Democratic brand is stronger this year than it was in 2004.  

4. I dont care for Obama as a candidate.  But I do realize that he generates a lot more enthusiasm than Kerry did.  Plus Obama has a better team, which will be more responsive to attacks.  

That being said, I always thought Obama's projections of "50 state strategy" were a pipe-dream.  Obama needs to win the states Kerry did plus Ohio.  Hillary realized thats how it was going to pan out.  And it looks like Obama realizes that now too.  

by Sandy1938 2008-08-31 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Its going to be a close race..........

So your counting on the following:

Republicans will stay at home because of the reported dislike for McCain in the Republican base. Sen. McCain's pick of VP will further incourage this trend.

Or

"Americans usually decide they have had enough..." and will cross over vote.

To change the second comment?

Republicans would have to decide that they had enough and cross over vote.

One of the biggest problems that Sen. McCain had was not that Democrats didn't like him. It was that Republicans didn't like him.

From what I've heard these Republicans are pretty durn happy right about now. These were the voters who turned out for President Bush  in 2004. This turnout was inspite of the negatives about the Iraq War.

That's why I asked about the 2004 election.

Even Republicans weren't happy with Pres Bush, but it seems to take alot before they'll jump ship and vote Democrat.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Its going to be a close race..........

I can't speak for Sandy, and I hate to interrupt, but I think the more realistic (and perhaps optimistic) scenario is not that they jump ship and vote Democrat, but that they're so ambivalent about McCain that they just stay home.

I think that's somewhat less likely now that Palin is on the ticket.

by Jaxon 2008-08-31 03:20PM | 0 recs
MORE TO THE POINT.

The risk to McCain is not that evangelicals won't vote for him.  It's that they won't TURN OUT THE VOTE FOR HIM.  He needs their party activism even more than he needs their votes.

In 2004, the evangelicals worked their fingers to the bone getting out the vote for Bush.  They did so because many of them truly believed they were fulfilling end of days prophecies.  I am NOT being hyperbolic or snarky when I say that.  The rapture blogs were full of it.  My own renters believed it.  And George Bush's ads played on that, for instance with the Ashley ad.  Rove operatives were distributing campaign materials through dvd's at churches.

They don't have that.

For all the rights and wrongs of the Kerry campaign of 2004, it was still very close.  Without that huge GOTV operation, we might have had a President Kerry.

by Dumbo 2008-08-31 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: MORE TO THE POINT.

This is why Pallin doesn't change the fundamentals. The fundamentals the last time favored Bush. They favor Obama this time. McCain has no additional evangelicals to squeeze and even if he did they simply aren't a match for where the Democrats are right now with party id, registration and Obama's own 3-1 organization advantage. That's not include the issues, how people aren't viewing Palin well, McCain's own issues, etc. Its close because the structure of the voting public makes it close, but it aint as close as it seems.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Its going to be a close race..........
Actually the 50 state strategy, originated by Dean, is about organizing in all 50 states- to register voters and get people out to vote Democratic.
Spending money on candidates for seats normally held by republicans in red states.
It's not really about winning all 50 states in the GE.
by skohayes 2008-08-31 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Its going to be a close race..........

Yeah- I said the same things over at Talk LEft. that it's not as is now being spun by anti Obama people. For example, Obama is still organizing in all state but has said he will concentrate resources in certain key state. This was met with "oh he's doing the Clinton route or the Democratic route with battle ground states." My point is no- the point was never about wasting resources- it was about not giving up before you began.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:02PM | 0 recs
I guess you're erring...

On the side of caution, and that's OK. Since Democrats have often f--ked up in the past, I guess there's always a possibility the Palin pick will revive the "McMentum". But seriously, I think we're handling it well. The Obama campaign isn't being distracted by the much ado about nothing, as they are keeping the focus on "McCain = Bush".

And honestly, I think this Palin pick is on course to backfire BIG TIME on McCain. Women are offended by their anti-woman stances on the issues. Jewish-Americans are reviled over the "Pat Buchanan connection". Environmentalists are screaming bloody murder on their rejection of the real science on climate change. If there's any gain for McCain among fundie wingnuts, we can bring about an even larger loss among everyone to the left of Dick Cheney. ;-)

by atdleft 2008-08-31 12:09PM | 0 recs
Exactly...

And what its going to take to get the word out to "low information voters" about this woman are ads, and stump speeches comparing Obama's positions on issues important to women like healthcare, child leave,  equal pay, and of course reproductive rights.  The fact that Sarah is anti-abortion is something the country can usually handle (ie., Bush).  Its yet another story to be in a group so radical that they are against Birth Control and HPV vaccinations.  

And another thing,  the diariast pointed out how Palin's pick "energizes the evangelical base."  I believe that Palin's pick could also energize the lukewarm feminists of the Democratic party,  who were voting for Obama but were not feeling great about it.  Now we have something to vote against-----Sarah Palin!!!!!  

It energizes me anyway.

by Sandy1938 2008-08-31 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly...

The feminists of the Democratic party that you refer to could be energized by this pick.  But when someone makes a sexist remark toward Palin - these feminists will quickly DE-ENERGIZE and stick up for her -- because that's what feminism is all about women standing up for women.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-08-31 12:35PM | 0 recs
That's true, as well.

Somebody needs to send Keith Olbermann on a nice 64 day vacation to Antartica.

by psychodrew 2008-08-31 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: That's true, as well.

Would that be the Summer Fun Tour or the Winter Nights Tour?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 01:19PM | 0 recs
Maybe we should send him on a tour

with Geraldine Ferraro.

by Dumbo 2008-08-31 05:43PM | 0 recs
True-----

thats why as Democrats we have to make sure that we dont engage in sexist attacks on Palin.........at all!  

by Sandy1938 2008-08-31 01:33PM | 0 recs
Excellent point!

Perhaps Clinton voters struggling with Obama (they're not only women) can organize around the goal of stopping Palin.  A "Feminists Against Palin," if you will.

by psychodrew 2008-08-31 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips/flames

Right on.  

We need to Attack her politics THAT's ALL.  

Everytime someone says she: eh sounds like a PTA president or ditzy pageant queen - it makes our work all that much harder to shore up Hillary supporters.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-08-31 12:09PM | 0 recs
Issue # 1: She's a liar

Remember that part of her speech where she claimed to have "just said no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere? Well, as it turns out, not so much. She is on record for supporting it. So here's the ad:

Play tape of her saying the "no thanks" thing. Then these quotes (from the Ketchikan Daily News):

"People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they've been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,' said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area's potential for expansion and growth.

Palin said Alaska's congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge and that she `would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge'.
    8-8-06

`We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative,' Palin said."
    Ketchikan Daily News 9-28-06 [...snip...]

After federal funding had been slashed, Palin was asked if she was still in support of funding the project.  She said:

   Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now-while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

(hat tip to Mudflats for the find. There's much more, too, so give that blog a good look-over. It's a treasure trove!)

In her very first address to the nation she lied through her teeth as she smiled into the cameras.

by Swedie 2008-08-31 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Really excellent and realistic analysis of all sides of this story. Thanks.

by LakersFan 2008-08-31 11:49AM | 0 recs
agreed 100%

Nailed it Drew, this was a hail mary, but sometimes that works (Doug Flutie, anyone.)

I knew when I heard Figere on the radio, this pick would be YAWOZA with the Evangelical base.

And, the media IS fawning over her.

Would they have fawned over Kay Bailey or Oly Snow?

There's a moment of Sexism right there IMHO.

She is young pretty, and totally unqualified.

Which, of course, we CAN'T rant about too much, because clearly, Obama DID carry some weight due to image.

But, his was backed up by great oratory skill and running a masterful campaign.

Palin is on the ticket for ONE reason.

McCain HAD to change the conversation, the pundits went wild over his speech and the close of the convention.

You're take on this is dead on, we need to look at this as a danger AND as something we can overcome.

BTW, I am very happy to see that MOST (only a few who were voting for McCain anyway) of the Clinton folks have reacted in a manner even stronger then I did.

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-31 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

I agree. I think the more people find out about her the less favorable she will be found by the mainstream. People who believe extreme things like the world is only 6000 yrs old make most people nervous.

Does everybody in Florida know she campaigned for Buchanan?

by epiphany 2008-08-31 11:59AM | 0 recs
True...

And that's what we need to keep emphasizing. The Palin pick only proves that McBush is no "maverick". He's now siding with anti-science, anti-environment, anti-choice, anti-civil rights, right-wing extremism.  Again, we can use this to strengthen the "McCain = Bush" case. And when we do that, we win. :-)

by atdleft 2008-08-31 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

I don't know if they know that, but hopefully Floridian Obamabots such as myself can spread the word!

by psychodrew 2008-08-31 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

I apologize to everyone for going off topic.

Psychodrew, I didn't realize that you actually  lived in Florida. Good luck during the hurricane season. I'm hoping that it won't be as bad as in the past.

Same to eveyone else living in the Gulf Coast/Atlantic coast areas.

Politics maybe important but let's face it there are some things bigger than us all.

Hurricaines for instance.

Hugs Psychodrew

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Agree with the sexism thing... perhaps someone can write up a list of "rules" so that we know what we can and cannot talk about...

The line is very blurry...  For example, you say we can't mention that she was a beauty queen, yet, her participating in such a pageant promotes sexism...  You say we can't mention her as a token pick, yet she is the least qualified woman that could have been chosen, but just so happened to be very pretty and appealing to male republicans...  Don't criticize her for being "easy on the eyes", yet McCain couldn't keep his eyes off of her backside, yesterday...  He's the sexist! He thinks that women can be patronized and easily fooled!

A lot of the criticism that is perceived as sexist, really isn't... it's meant to highlight McCain's and the GOP's sexism in making this pick!

So, can we have a list of rules, please, that we should follow?  We don't want to rehash the primary wars, and we do not want to antagonize Hillary supporters that certainly must be offended by this pick...

But, quite frankly, we don't know the rules... During the primary season, the sexism definition was incredibly broad and accusations of sexism were leveled at almost any criticism, legitimate or not.

We do need to come together on this issue, for all of us realize what a disaster this ticket would be to women's rights... and human rights as a whole...  

Now, let's fight together!

by LordMike 2008-08-31 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

I see your point.  What is sexist to some is not to others.

What we need to do is criticize Palin without sexualizing her.  Turning her into an object of attraction detracts from her skills.  And it should be irrelevant.  Her character, her positions, her ideas.  All relevant.

by psychodrew 2008-08-31 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

But even pointing out that McCain choose her for sexists reasons is met by some as sexism. Criticizing her record is met with sexism. When you say don't sexualize her, that was the reason she was choosen. It's a catch 22 that someone trying to point out the game McCain is playing with people's head can't win.

Look, I am a double minority- gay and black. I've seen this kind of game played before. It's deeply cynical and manipulative of people's emotions.

I am not blaming you for that. I am just pointing it out for what it is. For example, recently there was this controversey because NBC failed to cover Matthew Mitcham's partner sitting there in the stands cheering him on in his upset victory over the Chinese in Olympic diving.

Almost every retort was that by pointing out the omision of Mitcham's boyfriend while other straight couples had been covered was along the lines of "you are wanting to talk about him being gay." It was a no win situation. By us pointing out that his being gay was being denied by NBC, and that it was a criticism of the continued invisibility of gay people- the reaction was that we were the ones causing the problem.

I see a similar catch 22 here. by pointing out the inherit sexism involved in McCain's actions, we are at fault for pointing it out. This country is truly fucked up if we can' have discussions in which we point out crass manipulation such as those that mccain is pushing on to us.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

By "sexualize," I mean don't reduce her to an object of sexual attraction.  Words like "bimbo" and jokes about her beauty pageant background reduce her to sexual object.  That's what we need to stay away from.  She's a freaking lunatic.  She believes in teaching creationism.  There are plenty of other lines of attack.  And she is bound to stick her foot in her mouth sooner or later.

by psychodrew 2008-08-31 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Women are going to attack her for her beauty queen background, not men. I think you need to understand who is doing what in your characterization. Men aren't the ones attacking her for this. women are.

And again, your response doesn't address what has been the issue all weaken. which is not as you describe - to reduce her to a sexualize object. Unless you think Andrew Sullivan, a gay man is reducing her to a sexualized object. or myself, another gay man is doing so.

The point is that McCain choose her for the crass reason of manipulating gender politics. But others are saying noe one can speak abou tthe 800 lb gorilla in the room.

Do I think Obama should speak of this? No. Do I think it should come up- absolutely. It will come up anyhow. How many independent/conservative women do you know? Because to me the more open one's are already having this conversation.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Something tells me that a woman didn't create this website.  But I could be wrong.

by psychodrew 2008-08-31 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

I aam not even going to waste my time clicking on some random site you thin proves your point. Its a silly way to debate with the position that I am amking about the typical reasons why the beauty queen comment will come up. The first person i heard mention it was an indepdent (a woman) who was annoyed at the comparison to clinton. you may not understand this, but women are more critical of other women than men ever will be. she cut me to the chase by saying what does this beauty queen hve to do with hillary clinton as she was reading palin's bio. i certainly as a gay person don't understand fully the ins and outs of how women view each other, but what i am writing here is something that clearly is a dynamic. mccain essentially said to these inpendent/Clinton women- any woman will do. that's why her bio willhurt her in someway. my guess is they will down play parts of her bio

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:37PM | 0 recs
blah blah blah

Go swim in the kiddie pool.

by psychodrew 2008-09-01 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: blah blah blah

and thus why I said what said. You seem offended that someone is questiong your thinking process

by bruh3 2008-09-01 04:16PM | 0 recs
We all probably have been accused unfairly

One of my favorite descriptors of George W was that
he came off to me as an "arrogant frat boy."  I never understood the word "arrogant" as being racist.
I don't get how calling someone inexperienced and chancy as racist.

There are all kinds of way people have guilted and manipulated others into believing they were racist, homophobic sexist.  But when those guys had placards at a Hillary event saying "Iron my shirts..." the men of the MSM snickered; (some) liberal blogs insisted we should get over it as it was just a joke to get attention from some radio jocks.  I asked if some radio jocks at an Obama event had placards saying "Shine my shoes" would the MSM get away with snickering????
Would liberal bloggers see it as harmless humor.

I do not deny racism and sexism and homophobic behavior are ALL BAD.  But I believe that sexism remains more acceptable  .......

Have you read Aravosis' blog? Americablog.  He has  a whole diary on Palin's slutty, outdated earrings and 90% of the responses go along with the obnoxious insults.  They're hoop earrings.  What the hell do they have to do with her qualifications?

Anyway I just don't think some people get it.....
for the record I am a straight "caucasian" Italian American woman who my entire teens and twenties (back in the sixties and seventies) heard references about "mafia" whenever my last name was revealed....hearing rumors when Ferraro was VP candidate of her "mafia" connections. I grew to believe that insulting my ethnicity was much worse than insulting my gender because people in my own ethnic who were insulted by ethnic insults found humor in gender insults.  

No doubt about it.....blacks, and gays have probably been targeted longer and worse than anyone. But the fact is women belong to all the groups that are targeted....gay women, black women, latino women, caucasian women all know to some extent what it means.   But many of us have been told our gender is secondary to our other identity and that insulting our gender is not as bad as insulting our race, our sexual preference or any other identifier.

by Jjc2008 2008-09-01 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

LordMike,

Serious question for you.  Are you a member of any disadvantaged group.  Either racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, creed, cultural group etc?

If you are, it would be quite easy to give you a "list".  

This entire campaign season has proven that Sexism is the only "ism" that is fair game for not only our party but the entire country, MSM etc...

We have no tolerance for Racism, Homo-phobia, Class but Sexism is ok.

Please answer my question and I'll give you a list.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-08-31 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Apropos example is the term "Eskimo" is viewed as derogatorily to the Inuit as is the n-word to blacks and most Americans.

We throw around the term Eskimo thinking nothing of it not upsetting any of us non-Eskimos but it only upsets the group that Counts with respect to that term.

Sensitivity takes effort to overcome the ignorance that we all have.  It's not a naturally occuring trait - sensitivity.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-08-31 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

I am in a group that is probably the most discriminated against in all of American society... I am an intellectual! ;-)

But, seriously, no... I'm a white dude, but, not insensitive to women's rights... After all, I married two feminists (don't worry, not at the same time ;-)

A lot of the "sexist" arguments during the primary made little sense to me OR my wife, so I really want to try and bridge the gap so that we can work together and not against each other...

If I am being ignorant, then please show me the way... I will listen and do my best to bridge the gap!  OK?

by LordMike 2008-08-31 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

You have a point.

Republicans do hate intellectuals.

by psychodrew 2008-08-31 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

So we're in the same group then, I'm an intellectual too.

But seriously, I'm an atheist Latino married to a white woman, half-Latino kids, have a brother-in-law that's Chinese, plenty of close gay friends.  Not boasting I've cornered the market on diversity, in fact society historically would probably say I've got a weak hand as compared to the majority group: make less money than whites, country club memberships, job discrimination etc . . .

Association with so-called minority status groups allows a certain amount of extra empathy, so I try to give you a what if that you might be able to understand.

What If you're an atheist like me.  

Some proselytizing Christian approaches your kid and tries to tell him the wonderful news of Jesus - he's not  hurting anybody - why are you offended? Some kids are praying at a school function - why are you offended?
Someone refers to atheists as "you people".  How could anybody possibly be upset about the term "you people"?

All very nuanced scenarios but if you could place yourself in traditionally disadvantaged group you might be able to empathize.

Hope that helps.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-08-31 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

I feel a south park moment coming on

sorry but intellectuals aren't the most hated. being gay is. the answer is gay.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

EXACTLY! Do tell me when an openly gay person could run for POTUS??? We don't have a glass ceiling keeping us down we have a MARBLE ceiling preventing us from seeking the Oval Office.

by venician 2008-08-31 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

well in fairness neither could a non-Christian run. But the true test to me is whether people still feel they can opennly be hostile toward gays as a class rather than doing the modern conservative thing of going underground with their contempt. gays are still the only group that peopl eget to hate openly without any rational argument at all other than I don't l ike your group.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Not convinced that hostility toward gays in any manner is tolerated in the least on progressive blogs.  You are BANNED immediately if you do - which is eminently the correct action.

Sexism however, this season, was not only tolerated it makes the front pages and headlines.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-08-31 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

That's bs. Homophobia is regularly justified as political expedient. Any hint of sexism even where there is none is treated as grounds for multiple flame wars. I remind you that the laws of this c ountry still prevent me from marry or visiting my partner, say that I can't serve int he military, allow people fire me based on my status as being gay and multitude of other things. This isn't even getting into how so many so called progressives are more than willing nto throw me and mine under the bus to win elections, and that's of both parties, and that includes all of the candidates. We are improving in circumstances, but to pretend women aren't further along in their rights and how they are treated than gays is just false. This is one of those reasons why I think people can only see their own discrimination until it's pointed out to them as I am doing with you now. Do you honestly think gays are more acceptalbe than women? Seriously?

by bruh3 2008-08-31 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

You didn't read what I wrote.  I'm in agreement with you on your argument on gays and society as a whole.  

But on supposed democratic progressive sites like this one and kos's you are absolutely wrong.  Homo-phobia is NOT tolerated on progressive blogsites - period.

Maybe this is actually a function of how far women have come as compared to gays that everyone could so nonchalantly belittle someone simply because they are a woman.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-08-31 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Have you ever read anything written my yellowdogdem?  He is openly homophobic.  Everytime he posts anything, we just talk about the weather.

by psychodrew 2008-08-31 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

I read what you wrote,a nd if you think these blogs are anyless homophobic or have less of a problem with gays then you didn't read the Daily Kos diary on Mitcham  and the reception by the anti gay forces there.

You didn't read the diaries blaming gays for the loss in 2004.

You haven't bothered to read the usual writing about how we need to set aside gay rights isues for the sake of winning. When people tell you that women's right should be set aside rather than just your feelings being hurt, then we can compare who is on the same level with whom.

The reality is far different what you are describing regardless of where you are. I am begining to think you just don't see it because its not your group.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Oh,a nd by the way, I am not even touching on the cultural bias against gays. The Mitcham story during the olympics isn't even the tip of the iceberg. Whenever time you mention yoru existence the conversation turns into a moral one of your very existence being a sin against God- then in present society we can talk equivalency.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 05:18PM | 0 recs
I dont think there is an all inclusive

list of rules that we can give you to cover every situation.   But if you keep the following in mind,  its a safe bet that you will not be treading into sexist territory:

-----If you wouldnt criticize a man for it,  you shouldn't criticize Sarah Palin for it.  

----If its something that mocks women as a whole, or reinforces sexist stereotypes,  its probably a bad idea.  

by Sandy1938 2008-08-31 01:57PM | 0 recs
It's stunning that experience

is now pretty much off the table as an issue; I thought that was McCain's best argument.  The thing is he could have gone for a history and not surrendered the experience argument by going with KBH or Snowe.  What the hell would his base had done, vote for a ticket with two pro-choice dems?  I would have taken the gamble with the base and gone with the more experienced female senators.

With that said, Palin was a better pick than anyone with testicles in my opinion.  McCain needed to shake up the race and he appears to have done in terms of the media attention that his pick received compared to Biden.  However, more media exposure is not necessarily a good thing.

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-31 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

Mccain feels he has won the experience argument , the trip didn't help Obama and his pick of Biden seems like an acknowledgement of defeat on that score .

Most voters who are concerned about experience are probably already Mccain voters and his camp probably realized that it won't carry him over the top , it would bring him close but not over the finish line.

The Palin pick is a play to win the change argument based on a reform message...

Mccain's pick of Palin in my view couldn't be more game changing..

If we just stick to her impact among women , she is capable of rallying women despite her stance on abortion especially among independent women for which the right to choose is not the end all and blue collar women who would see the historic nature of her candidacy .

I believe she would help Mccain out in the west where the election would be won or lost and her conservative position are actually in sync with the heartland , rural america and small towns  , it is not going to be much of a disadvantage especially in VA and OH.

Chances are the historic nature of her candidacy would earn her more votes as the election rolls by regardless of whatever the skepticism is now . ( i.e. inexperience , chosen to placate women etc ).

This all depends on her performance . If she performs well she would be a force...

by lori 2008-08-31 01:00PM | 0 recs
I don't know

Do you think Obama will run a "passed over" ad about Mitt Romney to go gin-up anger among Mormons in NV and CO as to how McCain treated him (apparently, Romney is claiming that McCain did mislead him whereas there is no evidence that Obama misled HRC as to the VP possibility)?  I hope Obama has better sense than that.

I see Florida as potentially in play; my sense is that a lot of the older women who lean Democratic in terms of values who were skeptical of Obama have the same skepticism of Palin.  The polls are closer there than they are for McCain in Penn, which is a comparison that you have made before and one that I previously agreed with.  If Obama sticks HRC and Biden in there for the remaining sixty-plus days, I can see the race down there becoming a toss-up.

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-31 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know

Florida is going to be tough to win for Obama , he has poured millions in there , Mccain has put zip in that state and the numbers are going south .

Thats a state that would vote like the rest of dixie...

Granted its moving away from the old south , its still more of red than purple.

The place where the impact of the Palin pick would be felt is in the battleground states of OH , CO , VA and PA .  Maybe Nevada .

I would be curious to see what the polls show in those states in the coming weeks.

If Hillary Clinton campaigns hard in OH , FL and PA , she might hold a substantial number of her supporters but not enough in Florida and Ohio in my opinion.

PA is a state Obama would win in a close finish.

by lori 2008-08-31 01:23PM | 0 recs
Mason-Dixon

does show Obama up one for what that's worth; I don't agree that the numbers have gone south.  It is just that his numbers seemed to have reached a plateau despite McCain not having to spend a dime on ads.  Florida is closer than Penn despite Obama having made his first personal visit to the state since the primaries concluded this weekend while McCain has made I think around eight visits.

However, McCain seems to have succumbed to the pressure of North Carolina.  He will buy ad time there.  I look at NC for Obama as to what MN is to McCain; neither guy will win there but I suspect Obama has a much better chance in NC given McCain's admission of some weakness with his ad purchase.

It sounds like you are still in the 50/50 mindset.  I'm still at the 60/40 Obama advantage as long as the polls show NV, OH, VA, and CO to be absolute toss-ups.  

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-31 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Mason-Dixon

Yeah its still a 50/50 election in my view.

Nothing much has changed my opinion on that score.

A lot of the states Obama is supposed to win to put him over the top are somewhat red states .

CO, NV , VA , OH , Fl ...

Thats one of the reasons its still a 50 / 50 in my view.
 

by lori 2008-08-31 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Mason-Dixon

pollster.com, real clear politics and 538. check them out.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 02:01PM | 0 recs
I think this is wildly overestimating

the number of people likely to vote differently simply based on Palin.  VPs very rarely make a difference.

by JJE 2008-08-31 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I think this is wildly overestimating

polling data backs you up.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:11PM | 0 recs
Don't you think the pick

kind of diminishes McCain?  Who do you think the media will focus on the remaining sixty+ days, Palin or McCain?  The way the media has covered the story makes me think that the media exposure difference between Biden and Palin will mirror the difference between Obama and McCain.

It almost feels like the media wants this to be Obama v. Palin and Biden v. McCain as the window dressing to the much more charismatic and entertaining battle.  Do you think McCain would have gone with Palin if HRC was the veep?  Now that would be one fascinating debate.

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-31 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't you think the pick

They will focus on Mccain and obama. This is a momentary new prize out of the crackerjack box moment. There is some history to these things. Go back to see how Ferraro was viewed in 1984. The similarity between Pallin and Ferraro is to me striking. Much more so than Clinton.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't you think the pick

Mccain clearly made a political pick , notwithstanding a lot of the commentary is making her out to be someone in over her head . If she gives a commanding performance she might be a rallying force for a lot of people...

She does bring a lot of excitement and energy and Mccain definitely needs that .

I have been watching his rallies for a while now and  if he got a 1000 people to come out to see him at a rally , it was a good day , but in the last day or two , he has been getting up to 10000 at his rallies.

So she obviously might overshadow him but I bet he takes it..

by lori 2008-08-31 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

McCain lost the argument. If he were winning it, he would be in the lead. He's not. Now, he's neutered his ability to continue to hammer the point to even come into the lead.

The polling data disagrees with his assessment and yours about Pallin. Here's the data:

"On the critical question, "With Palin As Vice-Presidential Nominee, Are You More Or Less Likely To Vote For McCain," there's a striking result. Among those already for McCain, 68 percent say it makes them more likely to vote for him; only 6 percent say less; and 23 percent said no impact. Among those already for Obama, Palin made only 9 percent of them more likely to switch to McCain, 59 percent less likely, and 30 percent said it would make no difference.

But among the critical undecideds, the Palin pick made only 6 percent more likely to vote for McCain; and it made 31 percent less likely to vote for him. 49 percent said it would have no impact, and 15 percent remained unsure. More to the point: among undecideds, 59 percent said Palin was unready to be president. Only 6 percent said she was. If the first criterion for any job is whether you're ready for it, this is a pretty major indictment of the first act of McCain's presidential leadership.
One other striking finding. If McCain thought he could present Palin as a moderate, he was wrong. A whopping 69 percent view her as conservative (37 percent as very conservative), and only 13 percent see her as moderate.

From this first snap-shot (and unsettled) impression, Palin has helped McCain among Republicans, left Democrats unfazed, but moved the undecideds against him quite sharply."

As I said to you before, you really need to stop being so biased that it blinds you.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

Those numbers would rise or fall depending on her performance like I said .

I do not expect her to falter because she is a capable and competent women.

So I expect views to change about her , once she is seen in critical settings.

Like I said in my initial post depending on her performance she has a lot of upsides.

Underestimating her would not be productive.

by lori 2008-08-31 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

She has no upsides in the actual numbers, on the issues or in good government concerns which is what I base my views on. To whom does she appeal amongst moderate and liberal women? How exactly does her position on abortion appeal to moderate or liberal women? How does it appeal to independents? How does her biography, which as my friend an inpendent woman describes as insulting? These are quesitons I was asking myself when the announcement was made.

You can certainly say well that one speech she will give at the convention will do it, but that's a lot to base a chance of not hurting (since the race will be decided by Obama and McCain not Pallin and Biden).  But thats short term convention bounce think, not 60 days of being vetted sense.

This is a hail mary precisely because I am looking at the long term, and was willing to conceed the short term week or two bump to you and Armstrong who made the argument on friday.

The shocking thing is that even the short term prediction is wrong.  That the hail mary just stopped the bleeding, and has the real chance of causing new damange.

The questions that I 've asked above are the keys to why your long term prediction is also wrong.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

by the way - the reason i keep harping on to whom does she appeal is that it comes down again for me to the fundamentals of this race.  mccain has energized his base, but what he needed was to energize moderates and liberal women and other groups who may be willing to give him a second look. Pallin doesn't do that for him. He's in the same place he was a week ago. A strong base that won't be enough to win this time. Obma is rightly ignoring this pick as irrelevant to the likelihood of who will win office.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

I cannot put together "capable" and "competent" with a set of beliefs verging on fanaticism.  You have to be capable and competent to do something that itself has worth. How are you competent to run a country if you cannot get behind public schools, the teaching of science, etc.  Her lack of knowledge as witnessed by some of the interviews I've seen is staggering.  

There is a larger picture here than whether she can manage tasks efficiently.  There is a constitution to adhere to, there is separation of church and state, there are a whole host of issues that, judging from what I've heard from her, she may not be capable of adapting to or understanding, in terms of representing this whole country and not just those who believe as she does.

by mady 2008-08-31 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

she nearly bankrupted her hometown. so even on the level of strict manager-she's not all that competent. What Lori means is she doesn't fumble her words and she seems or is perceived of as credible, not that she actually is.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

the funny thing is tht lori is the same person who argues Obama has never shown to be competent on foreign policy even while being absolutely right about the timetable issue that the GOP soon after signed on to and other issues. but here, palin is competent because of perception and no actual opinion ont he subjects of foreign polciy even up to a month or so ago when asked her views. to me this is telling of bias.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

By the way- that data I am providng you will only get worse for McCain/Pallin for a few reasons:

a) the ticking time bomb of ethics violations she faces

b) people don't know her positions yet

c) the debates are coming up

d) she's not been vetted through a national campaign. candidates inevitably make mistakes. whether mccain, clinton or obama. they all did. the difference is- pallin hasn't been vetted. and nor will she receive a pass given the fact she's not from DC.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

"...d) she's not been vetted through a national campaign. candidates inevitably make mistakes. whether mccain, clinton or obama. they all did. the difference is- pallin hasn't been vetted. and nor will she receive a pass given the fact she's not from DC..."  bruh3 Aug31,2008

Neither had Gov. Sebelius and it didn't seem to matter to Sen. Obama's VP head hunters. Especially when there was a highly qualified candidate who won "...18 million votes..." As for Sen. Biden, if you went on performance in the primaries, he'd loose the argument as well. Sen. Biden dropped out of the primaries before Jan 5th with only 1% of the vote in the Iowa caucus.

Why should this be a successful argument against Gov. Palin but not Gov Sebelius.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

Well, now we've heard from the post rational faction. Short answer: Sebelius isn't the Democratic VP nominee. Thus endth the comparision.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

No. But Sen. Biden is.

He dropped out of the primaries before Jan 5 with only 1% of the Iowa caucus voting for him. This issue came up during a discussion on the merits of Gov. Sebelius vs Sen. Clinton.

Sen. Biden didn't get votes in the primaries. Sen. Clinton got millions of votes in the primaries from folks who thought she'd be a great pick as president. From Democrats. Vetted in the heat of the primaries.

Sen.Biden didn't.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience
Senator Biden has been in the Senate for 30 years. He's been vetted by the American public for years.
After he was picked for VP the worst thing the press could say about him was that he was the second poorest Senator.
I might also add that many people are looking at the choices made by both presidential candidates and Obama comes up very favorably on that score.
Obama's choice was about governing and McCain's choice was about playing politics.
by skohayes 2008-08-31 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

Nope it was political.

Sen. Biden has ties to Scranton, PA. which hopefully will get him votes in PA.

I was just told that was one of the main reasons that he was picked.

And the American public didn't vet him. The folks of Delaware voted for him as their US Senator. He didn't even make it through the Iowa caucus (only 1% of the Iowa caucus votes)

If there hadn't been another candidate that got
millions of votes besides Sen Obama this would be an interesting argument but there was.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience
Actually, even if it was political, Joe Biden still has an unmatched record of foreign policy experience and has served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as well.
The person who told you he was picked because of his ties to Scranton obviously doesn't know anything about him.
As has been said before, the VP slot isn't a consolation prize, although I would have liked to have seen Hillary chosen, I understand why she didn't want it and I understand why Biden was the next best pick.
by skohayes 2008-09-01 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

Well, again more post rational. I am sorry, I am not going to argue with loony online posters anymore. I am sure there is audience amongsgt the American people for this, Afterall they elected George Bush on similar screwy thinking, but I am not the guy you are going to even get to debate you.  I simply think you are bit irrational by throwing out non sequiturs like this post.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

LOL Well will you answer a question.

What part of the country are you from?

I'm from the Deep South. Red State. I was just wondering if your political experiences were different than mine? And if so how?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

I grew up on the north carolina border. My hometown voted for Bush in 2004 by about 70 percent as i remember. I have variously lived in the west, tx, and in the ne. I have an undergrad degree from a conservative school in politics. I worked on political issues in my 20s in a purple area of my state. My political experience is based on talking to a wide range of folks. if you want to argue actual points that's fine.  my beliefs aren't just based on me. they are also based on numbers that i follow from blogs such as pollster.com and also when i occasionally pick up from various blogs, news media etc. i also have been following the fundamentals of this race- key things like voter registration, the economy, the war in iraq, the 3 to 1 obama advantage in organization, and several other factors. there is more, but I think you get the point of with whom hyou are talking.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:20PM | 0 recs
More post rational rantings

Well, again more post rational. I am sorry, I am not going to argue with loony online posters anymore. I am sure there is audience amongsgt the American people for this, Afterall they elected George Bush on similar screwy thinking, but I am not the guy you are going to even get to debate you.  I simply think you are bit irrational by throwing out non sequiturs like this post.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

Sorry, but exchanging one Regug for another is NOT change. Everything the Repugs touch has turned to shit. Putting a regug women on the ticket isn't anything more then putting frosting on that shit. IT'S STILL SHIT. And that shit ain't change.

by venician 2008-08-31 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

This is where we get to the heart of the matter. To accept the argument that Palin is accept its to make the argument that women are stupid. That one woman is the same as another.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

And to look over a woman with 18 million presidential primary votes in favor of a woman  who got nuthin? Is what?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

In favor of a woman who got nothing? To whom are you referring?

by skohayes 2008-08-31 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

I had to re-read several times but I think the point is that equating Pallin to Clinton is offensive because Pallin is no Clinton.  Everyone making these arguments about Pallin wooing those types of moderate./liberal wmen voters is essentially arguing that those women aren't smart enough to tell the difference.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience
Well, I think the commenter is actually saying that because Hillary had 18 million votes, she shouldn't have been passed over, but as JJE said just below, the VP slot isn't a consolation prize.
I don't understand the people (allegedly "Democrats") that insist on giving credit to republicans for appointing a woman to the ticket 24 years after the Democrats.
by skohayes 2008-08-31 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: It's stunning that experience

They aren't Democrats. You have to realize you are on a blog. Just  because someone says they are x y or z doesn't mean thats what theya re. Their behavior tells you who they are. if they are going to argue they are going to vote for Pallin as far from Clinton as you can get- then that tellsyou that its never really been about women's issues.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep I was stunned alright.


I've just seen a highly qualified woman with 18 million votes passed over for a lesser qualified male with less than 5000 votes.

That is a feminist issue.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep I was stunned alright.

I think you maybe confused. don't confuse me for the average democrat who will listen to your b.s. if you gve a shit about women's issues at all there is no way in hell you would be trying to spin palin- someone who may have boobs but is as anti woman as clarence thomas is anti black- as the next coming of hillary clinton. it's first and foremost insulting the the 18 million voters you wear as a cross on everyone's back, and second its insulting to hillary clinton. shame on your for disrepecting her this way.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep I was stunned alright.

I grew up on the north carolina border. My hometown voted for Bush in 2004 by about 70 percent as i remember. I have variously lived in the west, tx, and in the ne. I have an undergrad degree from a conservative school in politics. I worked on political issues in my 20s in a purple area of my state. My political experience is based on talking to a wide range of folks. if you want to argue actual points that's fine.  my beliefs aren't just based on me. they are also based on numbers that i follow from blogs such as pollster.com and also when i occasionally pick up from various blogs, news media etc. i also have been following the fundamentals of this race- key things like voter registration, the economy, the war in iraq, the 3 to 1 obama advantage in organization, and several other factors. there is more, but I think you get the point of with whom hyou are talking.

by bruh3 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:20:24 AM EST

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Yep I was stunned alright.
Don't be ridiculous, Biden is not less qualified to be VP because he got less votes than Hillary.
The argument can easily be made that he has more foreign policy experience than Hillary, and has authored and sponsored a lot more legislation than she has, which makes him a better pick.
This resentment about Hillary not being picked isn't doing you any good, so why do you continue to complain about it?
by skohayes 2008-09-01 05:26AM | 0 recs
Not relevant?

The VP isn't a consolation prize for the primary runner-up.  

Have you ever considered that it may be better for all involved for Hillary to over Ted Kennedy's role in the senate, which is what appears to be happening?  She could be influential there for at least 15 more years instead of being a sidekick for 8.

by JJE 2008-08-31 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Not relevant?

I know some of you fear that these people ranting on the blogs represent some signifant number of women, but my guess is based on the numbers they don't. That is to say- don't wagte your breath with someone who is equating Palin to Clinton.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Not relevant?

No. I'm just beginning to think that there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that the Dems will put a woman, President or Vice President, in the White House.

I also think that her running for the office of president took the space of another qualified woman. Take Gov Sebelius. If Sen. Clinton was so important to the US Senate, she could have stayed there and Gov. Sebelius would have had an opportunity to run for president.

It was an expensive waste of opportunity.

Sen. Clinton was already in the US Senate, she doesn't strike me as being stupid. If she'd wanted to stay there she could have kept her money and done so.

She wanted to be president.

By the way, when did being Sen.Ted Kennedy's successor become the first runner up consolation prize?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 05:52PM | 0 recs
I didn't claim that it was

None of this makes a whole lot of sense.  Hillary took a spot from Sebelius?  Hillary not on the ticket now means the Dems will never have a female candidate?

by JJE 2008-08-31 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't claim that it was

I am starting to think this poster to whom you are and I are talking is al ittle bit nuts.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't claim that it was

LOL Nope you just don't like being disagreed with.

Oh and don't worry, I have nothing else to say to you Bruh3. Other than you are frankly a waste of my time.

Good day.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't claim that it was

Well I'll tell you what didn't make sense to me.  It was passing over a highly qualified candidate with 18 million primary votes for somone who couldn't even get more than 5000.

That didn't make sense at all.

Then saying she belonged in the US Senate and not as VP.

That didn't make sense either. I mean why did she go through the process of running in the primaries if she didn't want to?. Why not just stay in the Senate.

And think of all the energy and resource that could have been sent Gov. Sebelius' way.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 08:53PM | 0 recs
alrighty then

you think the VP should have been Clinton based on the primaries and aren't really interested in hearing otherwise.  Got it.

by JJE 2008-08-31 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Drew great post.

And I whole heartedly agree we all need to be careful on how we criticize Palin. However while some in the media maybe fawning others are seriously questioning.

I think we can leave her sex totally out of it. I think her record, her fiscal irresponsibility as a mayor. Her positions on choice and creationism plus other positions we just don't know about yet will be quite enough.

Treat her s a person who is not ready not a woman who is not ready.

I think the Democratic and Independent women are realizing this isn't a breakthrough it's a pander. And a selection that cannot hold a candle to any number of highly qualified women on both the Democratic and Republican side.

by jsfox 2008-08-31 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Didn't help Sen. Clinton (18 million presidential primary votes )

I'm not trolling either. I'm just saying while your in here at choir practice the rest of the world may have a problem with this

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning
12 dogs, you're really not making sense here.
What didn't help Senator Clinton?
What does the rest of the world have a problem with?
The fact that the Republicans put a woman on the ticket 24 years after the Democrats did? Is that something the repubs should be proud of?
by skohayes 2008-08-31 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Sorry skohayes.

I've spent this evening distracted. Not my best logic tonight. Within the last three days there have been 2 deaths in our family and now we wait to see what happens with Gustav.

I hope you don't take this wrong but as important as politics is in the world, arguing on this blog just isn't as important as family and friends.

Political blogs are not the best way to try to get your mind off your troubles.

For those folks who have family in the path of the storm, especially in the Louisianna/Mississippi area, my heart and good wishes are with you. Hopefully it will move through quickly and not do alot of damage.

I hear that Sen. Obama has offered to help. That's good. It really is.

12 dogs.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 10:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Sorry, if I'm slow but I don't understand your response.

by jsfox 2008-08-31 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Sorry JSfox,
It's not been the best of weekends.

Not my best logic tonight either.
Within the last three days there have been 2 deaths in our family. Now like alot of other folks, we wait to see what happens with Gustav. Maybe even Hurricane Hanna too. We'll see.

I hope you don't take this wrong but as important as politics is in the world, arguing on this blog just isn't as important as family and friends. This weekend our family has had a time of it. I'm afraid that myDD, as interesting as it can be, isn't the best distraction.

For those folks who might read this and have family in the path of the storm, especially in the Louisianna/Mississippi area, my heart and good wishes are with you. Hopefully it will move through quickly and not do alot of damage.

I hear that Sen. Obama has offered to help in the aftermath of these storms. Some of our family lost their homes in Katrina.
Now there is a posibility of happening again.

I'm delighted that Sen. Obama has offered assistance. I can say for a fact that help is welcome.

12 dogs.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-31 10:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

The DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS UNITED - don't believe the media/PUMA hype.  "...In both parties, 79 percent of voters supported their respective nominees.''' 79% is higher than either Gore or Kerry received from the Democratic base.  Now the poll was done by NYT/CBS which tends to lean towards Obama http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MRs_Nt465oE/SL HIxiiuBjI/AAAAAAAADAM/FWLKcTVUql0/s1600- h/HouseEfx.png

However, this wasn't a national GE poll - so I don't know how the above study applies.  Nevertheless, if we shave off a few points for biased we still have him with an = amount of the base + stronger support from Republicans, African Americans, Latinos, and I believe Indies; though i haven't seen recent indie numbers.

by DawnHussein 2008-08-31 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

i think your right. this was mentioned this morning in passing on one of the morning shows, (maybe MTP or Chris Matthews) but right now he is performing just as well or better with the base than kerry or gore with a large margin among women.

by epiphany 2008-08-31 12:22PM | 0 recs
Good analysis

But identity politics won't win it for McCain - even evangelical identity politics. McCain's only chance was to make Obama dangerously unprepared in the eyes of the middle of the electorate. He can no longer do that.

Non-right wing women are already annoyed by this pick, and as more people discover just how little time McCain put into choosing her, and how extreme her positions are, the more women will be repulsed by her.

The change and reform mantle is a joke. Her reform cred is paper thin and much of her statements touting reform are outright lies (Bridge to Nowehere, for example). Being under investigation for abuse of power does not make her a reformer either. The trooper involved may be a scumbag, but she has clearly lied about her role in it and has used her public office for private crises. That seriously undermines the "reformer" image.

Then there is the issue that only the tabloids can address now, but has already turned a lot of women off: the circumstances around her baby Trig's birth. The 8-hour flight after Sarah Palin's water broke raises lots of red flags about judgment; and for some people suggests that the baby was her daughter's. At this point these stories are confined to blogs and soon tabloids. But if there is truth to these rumors, she will be the next Thomas Eagleton.

by elrod 2008-08-31 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

She doesn't bring enough to McCain's ticket to alter the race fundamentally, especially as news coverage moves from the glowing to the more critical.

Some people also seem to be freaking out over the apparent attempt by the GOP to exploit Hurrican Gustav.  Again, I don't think this is a "game-changer," as Jerome might say.  The Republicans have had to completely abandon the theme of their convention ("Not Ready '08") due to the Palin pick; now they are canceling at least one night of the convention itself.  Conventions are necessary to build a narrative; speeches by Palin and McCain alone aren't going to do it for them, no matter how much wreckage they're standing on.

by rfahey22 2008-08-31 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Gettin' pretty tired of the "gotta be careful" nonsense.

Obama doesn't plan to hit McPalin below the belt and neither do I. But whatever anyone else wants to do is fine by me. You can bet the GOP isn't going to play nice with our candidates -- and they won't fret over it in public.

by Obama44 2008-08-31 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

agree 100 percent. it's like they have never heard of disavowing surrogates

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:28PM | 0 recs
thanks drew.

isn't it comical that progressives such as yourself and giordano need to give pointers on how to NOT be sexist?

well done and rec'd.

by canadian gal 2008-08-31 01:49PM | 0 recs
CG, your opinion on this

riff from Joe Biden at a campaign stop today. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/08/oh-that-joe-n-2.html

"From our perspective the whole deal is how does the government help you get back up without getting in the way? There's a gigantic - gigantic -- difference between John McCain and Barack Obama, and between me and I suspect my vice presidential opponent. And that is that - "

The crowd laughed.

"Well there's obvious differences. She's good looking. You know there's obvious differences. But there's a whole lot.."

A woman shouted: "you're gorgeous!" to Biden.

"Where's that person?" Who said that? Who said that? Would you say that again for my wife?"

"You're gorgeous!" the woman yelled.

"Oh, I tell you what, would you make sure Jill hears that? You know what I mean? I just want to make sure she hears that. I haven't heard that in a long, long, long time. And hanging out with this lean, young-looking guy is making me feel pretty old, you know what I mean? I thought I was in pretty good shape til I hung out with this guy, you know what I mean?"

"Joe's looking good," said Obama.

"Yeah, I'm looking good alright, I tell you what. But look, folks, let me end with, on a serious note here. On a serious note -- I was a pretty good football player, man," he said to Obama "We oughta talk a little bit after this. Okay? --But look, on a very serious note ..."

I know Biden is being self-deprecating here and he's slightly inoculating himself against the sexism charge by noting that Obama too is "good-looking."  But his comments can be distorted too easily; these comments are what concerned me about Biden, even when the intent is fine, the comments can be distorted in a way that makes them seem wrong.

by Blazers Edge 2008-08-31 02:36PM | 0 recs
foot meet mouth.

BE - you and i have discussed this before.  i thought (and still do) that this ticket was/is the only ticket that can beat the dems this cycle.

already i see disgusting sexist spew-age being brought out of the left.  yes - the left!  this is all guised of course in "oh - we need to attack" or "oh - she participated in pageants so that makes talking about her looks fair game."

its revolting when the right is accusing the left of being sexist and they are actually right.

my head feels like its going to explode.

by canadian gal 2008-08-31 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: foot meet mouth.
The sexism angle "from the left" is overblown, IMO.
  You can go on any blog, and find quotes that show what you want them to show (like the quotes and links you used yesterday), but if you look at the diaires and comments overall over at Dkos for example, it's very much discussing her shortcomings without being sexist.
As I've found on most all the blogs I've been on today. But we can't control everyone that makes comments on blogs or post ignorant diaries.
You'll see more sexism from the media (but they're ignorant, so what do you expect?) than anything and we don't control that.
by skohayes 2008-08-31 05:26PM | 0 recs
i disagree.

and for reference go to that diary i wrote and read a whole bunch of the comments there.  i also saw some surrogates out there saying some things that were highly questionable.  but i do agree about the media...  

seriously the last couple of days has done a real number on my brain.

by canadian gal 2008-08-31 05:38PM | 0 recs
That was the plan,

both "pander to the Clinton voter" and "make the Dems eat each other alive".

Palin brings other things (extreme-right Christianity) that McCain lacks, and like any political team they will be happy to promote all of these things to the hilt.

If for no other reason, give your fellow progressives a little extra slack over the next two months because the GOP is trying to control you.  Don't let them.

rfahey22's excellent diary from the 25th is more apropo now than it was then.  The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street, is about turning people inward against each other and standing back to watch them destroy themselves.

I posted the entire Twilight Zone episode in the original diary, but here's the last segment with the punchline.  Watch the whole thing or just watch this, and think about what you would do to avoid letting some bastards play you like a violin:

-best

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-08-31 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: i disagree.
I did read the comments, there are some that question whether it was right for the mother of a 5 month old to hit the campaign trail, which is a Republican held view as well, especially among fundies, who  believe a woman's place is not in the VP slot, not in the workplace at all.
Those I find somehwat sexist, but that's something women have been fighting against for decades and it will never go away.
I think we can certainly question her experience (or lack thereof), whether she's a woman or not- the fact is, she's a small player on a state scale and in the 19 short months she's been in office, she's passed 2 pieces of legislation. She left the town she was mayor of $20 million in debt, so yes, her experience is relevant.
Frankly the reason she was picked was sexist, passing over more qualified VP candidates in favor of a young woman with no national experience is extremely sexist, but I didn't see any diaries about that.
What surrogates are you talking about, by the way?
by skohayes 2008-09-01 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Palin is one of the worst candidates either party has ever fielded for anything.

All it takes is to read her positions on, well, everything.  

There is no reason to find anything to praise here, she is a threat, McCain has lost his marbles and they both need to lose.  Badly if possible.  

I'm not worried about gender wars over her.  I'm ashamed she shares my gender.  

by mady 2008-08-31 01:54PM | 0 recs
it's time to go on the attack
We have learned a few things from the last few days. While Obama is playing for post-unity schtick, McCain and the Republicans are playing for keeps. Republicans don't want to lose, the conservatives do not want to hand over the white house even if Obama prostrated in front of them repeatedly. It is mammoth waste of time to court the christian right or even assume that Alaska or South Carolina or Georgia will be a swing state. NO. Obama needs to energize his base.
The Democrats under Obama played nice. We dismantled the 527s and third parties while the Republicans have newer versions springing up everyday like mushrooms. We tried to follow the post-partisan unity meme so much that when Obama comes out swinging against the Republicans the old dotard David Broder says he is disappointed in Obama.
It is time we stopped playing nice. It is time we started defining the republicans with multiple negative attacks. The seven houses was the beginning. We have to link McCain to the failure of the last 8 years, we have to paint him as the unprincipled crass opportunist that he is, we have to paint him as the misogynist who with his protege revels in the politics of personal destruction.
Already we see the advantage slipping away. This latest McCain gimmick (yes Sarah Palin is a gimmick) has sucked out the oxygen and is dominating the news cycles within 12 hours of Obama's convention speech. If we sit back on our hands we will let a gimmick become a game-changer (already we have difficulty defining Palin).
So what now? Obama has to go on the attack in defining McCain, his judgment, his egocentric narcissism and his Republicanism. He has to attack now and attack hard, otherwise we will lose. Obama forgets that he is not in the primary anymore. He is running against McCain, the media favorite who will whistle POW all the way to the white house. There are no more free-rides. He has to fight for the Democratic party and the people of the US who are looking up to him to deliver them from our current mess.
by tarheel74 2008-08-31 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: it's time to go on the attack
Well, I think what we're seeing is because Palin is new and there's lots of things that people don't know about her (can you imagine the reporters swarming around Wasilla these days?), so she's going to be in the news cycle a lot over the next week.
She may be energizing some of McCain's base, while drawing in more evangelicals, but there are a lot of Republicans who are disgusted at the choice and feel McCain is pandering to the evangelicals and taking a "hail mary" pass instead of choosing someone who would be ready on Day 1.
She does nothing to draw in independents and a lot to push them away (creationism and rabidly anti-choice).
But I certainly think we'll be seeing more aggressive tactics by the Obama campaign and the Democrats, they talked about it a lot suring the convention.
by skohayes 2008-08-31 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: it's time to go on the attack
Before we work on the assumption that there are some Republicans who are wary of her we have to remind ourselves one thing: the Republican party is a doctrinaire party. In the end however bad her appointment looks like, however incompetent she might be, however many enemies she might have in the Alaskan Republican party, in the end they will rally around her because they want to win. They do not believe in reaching across or post-partisan unity, theirs is a take-no-prisoners attitude.
Obama has already been labeled as an out-of-touch egocentric celebrity (some of it his fault) but this is too important an election to lose by playing nice. Thus we need to attack and attack hard. Unity can be attained from a position of power till then you have nothing.
p.s. We cannot count on the media because they like the American war hero and the home-town beauty queen/huntress to the scruffy democrats talking about poor people and economic woes.
by tarheel74 2008-08-31 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: it's time to go on the attack
You're describing the base of the Republican party who will always vote Republican, Obama is never going to attract that demographic of white men and women. Never.
We need to attract independents and moderate republicans, not the ones who held their noses and voted for George Bush and against their own self interests in 2004.
And we've never been able to count on the media before, why would we start now?
by skohayes 2008-08-31 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: it's time to go on the attack

firstly I don't believe in an entity called moderate Republicans. There are Republicans and there are Democrats and in the middle is the so called Independents. My point is this instead of focusing to attract elusive voter blocs Obama should energize his base. He has 85% support now, he needs to increase that, he needs to define his opponent because till now the Republicans have done a far better job at defining him by relentless negative personal ads. Why should we not hit them in kind. We should hit them more and hit them harder. This election should be decided on party lines. The Republican party bankrupt of any economic or social agenda other than same old gay-bashing culture war dog and pony show led by a hypocritical and egocentric politician versus the Democratic party that has an agenda and policy platform to meet the challenges of everyday Americans led by a candidate who inspires hope and willing to listen. That is what the election is and should be about. If the "independents" decide to vote for a change so be it but we should not deviate from our message or play safe just so we offend this elusive class by deviating from the "unity" shtick. If we do that we will forever be playing defense and like 2004 we will lose.

by tarheel74 2008-08-31 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Great diary, rec'ced. But I have one caveat:

I still think the whole debate is too framed by the identity politics of the 80s and 90s, an identity politics Republicans would often cynically turn on its head with appointments like Clarence Thomas. What matters in terms of feminism and other equal rights are the policies that a candidate supports and implements. (I lived for 11 years under Margaret Thatcher...)

Until the convention, a large amount of the criticism I heard about Obama's campaign is that he wasn't being hard enough on the republicans. The danger that the democrats will be further impeded by some of the admonitory self awareness you suggest (and I support) is already evidenced in the comments. Is it sexist to bring up the Republican party's sexism in the appointment? Is it sexist to say that Palin has little foreign policy experience?

For me, the biggest issue about the Palin nomination is that it shows the utter cynicism that infects Republican party politics, and the ne plus ultra of Rove Morris spin. That McCain would appoint someone of this caliber, clearly unvetted and untested in campaign and stump, to be within a heartbeat of the Presidency, defies belief.

I think the electorate know that instinctively, and McCain has lost a whole load of credibility by playing a gender card game.

Gaming the system is not changing the system. In fact they couldn't be further apart

by duende 2008-08-31 02:58PM | 0 recs
well

accept for the fact that she as about as much experience as Obama.  Plus- she has executive experience as a governor.  You see where I'm going with this?  The experience issue is a serious loser for Democrats- on every level.  I say stop reminding people that Obama is less experienced than most- hit Palin on her stances (which are atrocious).

At least McCain had what it takes to choose a woman.  That's all I'm saying.  Any of his choices would've been bad- so she no worse.  Obama couldn't let go of his own ego enough to pick Hillary.   I'm sorry- but it's true.  They would have been unstoppable- the polls showed it and he knew it.  He just didn't want to be upstaged- and I'm having a hard time forgiving him.....

by easyE 2008-08-31 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: well

Accept for a fact that Palin has had a much experience as Obama? No. She hasn't by a long shot: Obama has had two terms as a state senator in Illinois and a term in the senate, sponsoring important national legislation. He also went through 18 gruelling months of campaigning and media attention.

But there's no point arguing with someone who then follows some non-facts with this pure trouble-making:

At least McCain had what it takes to choose a woman.  That's all I'm saying... Obama couldn't let go of his own ego enough to pick Hillary..

If McCain has what it takes in your opinion, compared to Obama's 'ego' then there's nothing further to discuss.  

by duende 2008-08-31 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: well

I agree that "experience" is not the way to attack her, but this talking point that she has the same amount of experience, or that "executive experience" is superior, are ridiculous.  McCain has no "executive experience," yet that doesn't stop him from headlining the ticket.  And, are you counting her time spent as mayor as "executive experience"?  "Experience" continues to be a vague term that a lot of people throw around but have a lot of trouble defining.

The fact is that "experience" was McCain's attack against Obama, now the debate shifts to "judgment," which is Obama's strength.

by rfahey22 2008-08-31 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: well
Of course we can hit on her experience- Obama has two degrees, was the president of the Harvard Law review, and taught Constitutional Law at a well respected university. He was a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago, and also worked for a civil rights law firm.
He entered the political world in 1997 and spent 7 years as a state senator before being elected to the US Senate in 2004.
She has a bachelor's degree in journalism and worked as a sportscaster. She was mayor of a town of about 8700 before being elected as governor against the hated Frank Murkowski in an "anyone but Murkowski" year.
The state legislature meets two times a year. In the last 19 months as governor, she has passed the highest budget in the state's history and signed two pieces of legislation into office.
By the way, the republicans waited 24 years after the Democrats to put a woman on the ticket, and you want to praise them for it?
by skohayes 2008-08-31 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: well

Obama couldn't let go of his own ego enough to pick Hillary.   I'm sorry- but it's true.

What an absurd remark. You have no idea if it is true or not. Are you Obama's friend has he told you this? Are you a shrink who has examined him? NO.  So this is an opinion not a truth.

by jsfox 2008-08-31 05:01PM | 0 recs
It's Trollware

Fun, friends, and flavors.

That's the Trollware Party experience. This unique, interactive party is your opportunity to smear, taunt, and experience the new Trollware lifestyle - amazing bullshit, GOP talking points, and stupid, simple solutions to destroy your country. Plus what a great opportunity to thwart ideas and lose new friends. Whether you're a Republican, a PUMA, or teh engels, there's a lot to enjoy at a Trollware Party! It's party time!

by chrisblask 2008-08-31 05:26PM | 0 recs
She thinks the Pledge of Allegiance...

...was written by the Founding Fathers.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/31/ 174153/834/246/581480

by Bush Bites 2008-08-31 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: She thinks the Pledge of Allegiance...

Worth embedding for the link-shy:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892.

"Indivisible" was the original word where "under God" is today.

"Under God" was added by the Knights of Columbus in the early 1950s, and adopted by Eisenhower in 1954.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-08-31 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: She thinks the Pledge of Allegiance...

Thus showing that the Knights of Columbus and Eisenhower not only didn't understand seperation of Church and State, but that they were also bad poets. It screws up the whole meter--One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all... works soooo much better.

by Mystylplx 2008-08-31 05:07PM | 0 recs
Oh, I forgot:

"Good grief"

by chrisblask 2008-08-31 03:42PM | 0 recs
Any criticism

of her will be seen as and declared as sexist by some. She is a token--does anyone think McCain would have chosen a male with her resume? As for her being a 'beauty queen,' while there are few male 'beauty queens' a male candidates background has always been fair game. Reagan was made fun of for having been an actor; Schwarzenegger gets joked about both for his acting career as well as his body building, etc. etc.

But in politics perception is reality. Understanding that critiques on her WILL be seen as sexist is just part of the game. And there's little reason to go after her too hard, anyway--she's the VP. McCain should be the target. Let the media question her experience and readiness to be President while we focus on McCain. It's just the smarter way to play this.

by Mystylplx 2008-08-31 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Any criticism

sexism as the basis of defense against all arguments against her was indeed the emotional button that mccain hoped to push

by bruh3 2008-08-31 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Any criticism

Exactly. So the trick is not to fall for it. If we have to be extra gentle with her because she's a woman then so be it. McCain is still fair game.

Too bad though. I'm picturing the skits that SNL would have about a man with her same resume. He's in the oval office with his 12 guage under his arm and...

by Mystylplx 2008-08-31 06:05PM | 0 recs
That's why we should attack

McCain for choosing her, rather than attack Palin for being who she is.  This is a question of his competency to pick a veep in a rational way.  Palin's credibility and qualifications are implicitly questioned when we question McCain's competency in making this decision.  

by Dumbo 2008-08-31 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: That's why we should attack

I don't think there is anyway to separate this out. People aren't supid. Just emotionally lazy. Therefore it's prbably easier to just make the point rather tahn sidelining it.

by bruh3 2008-08-31 06:20PM | 0 recs
I said yesterday,

that I can see how the next two months are going to play out on Mydd, if not in the campaign itself.  Still true.

I totally agree with the premise that we need to avoid attacks on Palin that might be perceived as sexist by the Republicans, even knowing that they will manufacture such complaints if they can, and that they are hypocrites on the subject.  There are more effective strategies available to us than that.

But back to MyDD.  I guess for the next two months, some users here with lingering resentments may inundate us with sanctimonious diaries criticizing the Obama campaign and/or Obama supporters on absolutist principles.  And their friends will recommend it, and that's 70% of all we'll talk about.

HOW WE SHOULD HANDLE PALIN (and, of course, nobody can tell us all how to do that, but here's my take):

Palin's choice reflects badly on John McCain.  How did he choose her?  Why?  What was the process and what went wrong?  We know enough about that to know that something did go wrong.  His own staff express surprise.  Is John McCain losing it?  Did he have a temper tantrum and choose her impulsively?

I don't think we need to further legitimize Palin by attacking her on the issues.  It is better to ignore her, as much as possible, except in so far as it is useful to point out how she is such a bad veep choice that we wonder how she was chosen.

Expecting anything more dignified for Palin is a form of reverse-sexism.  I see no reason she should get a better treatment than Democratic candidates would receive in such a situation, nor better treatment than Dan Quayle (a much more qualified candidate) received in such circumstances.

I also think it's not useful to repeat this crap about how attacking Palin for being unqualified somehow will boomerang on Obama.  It won't.  That kind of argument only resonates with people who already want to believe the unqualified argument for reasons of their own.  Bill Clinton said Obama was qualified at the DNC convention.  If that's not good enough for you, well, maybe we should just agree to disagree on that privately.

Also, further comparisons between treatment of Palin and treatment of Hillary don't serve well to unify the party, something I had hoped we would all get behind us by this point.  I know, it's coming in the form of "concerned warnings," but the net effect is the same.

Obama is the candidate.  The summer is over.  The convention is over.  Please, it's over.  Get on board or just get out of the way.

by Dumbo 2008-08-31 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I said yesterday,

So how's the view up there on your high horse?

by psychodrew 2008-08-31 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I said yesterday,

I dont understand your repsonse at all. These questions are exactly the questions that need to be asked rather than going from fear, and then saying "well it can't happen." if there are any high horses its the idea that one should never fight over these issues with the GOP because they are always so much more brilliant than us (the implicit part of this lets give up approach). I had a friend at work on friday when this was announced- the first thing he did ws to go over to fox news for validation that this was a great pick that would hurt the democrats. not because he isn't a democrat, but because he measures all actions according to what the GOP is thinking it will do for them. This view was impervious to any facts to the contrary that I offered to him all day. Why? Because it was the narrative that dems have had for several decades

by bruh3 2008-08-31 08:33PM | 0 recs
You don't know what you're talking about.

Dumbo is a purity troll.

by psychodrew 2008-09-01 06:27AM | 0 recs
Drew, don't project.

by Dumbo 2008-09-01 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I said yesterday,

Here's an idea... maybe we should just not be sexist that way we wouldn't have to risk the danger that our criticisms be "perceived as sexist" by anyone.

by carrieboberry 2008-09-01 03:24AM | 0 recs
Your analysis of what is out of bounds

needs to be rethought.  There is definitely some stuff that is redolent of sexism, like the business about her youngest child.  But she obviously is a token, and to say that that somehow reminds people of sexism from the primary is absurd.  Clinton got 18 people to vote for her.  Earning your way is the opposite of a tokenism.  Palin was picked by one guy in large part because her gender would help his campaign's public image.  Not only is there nothing wrong with pointing it out, it is in fact necessary since it shows that McCain is a cynical pol rather than a principled maverick.

by JJE 2008-08-31 11:28PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads